The Hypocrisy within the Black Community

[ELOrocks17]

Yeah.. it was murder in cold blood.

You can't draw guns on people and stalk them for what you imagine they MIGHT do.

That is insane..

And you know this as fact?

[dairyair]

Really?

Nothing racial? "He's wearing a hoodie" Hes black and he looks suspicious.

Why has Z allegedly exclusively harassed ONLY blacks during his time as neighborhood bully?

Why did Z call Trayvon a "COON" while chasing and initiating the first contact with him?

Sorry, I haven't seen those reports.
But what I meant, was for me, it's not racial. It was in response to someone else who says to them, it's purely racial.

I see it more as a legal issue with the "stand your ground" defense.

[jthorp24]

If Zimmerman was racist... why did he tutor minority children on Saturdays? Many of whom were black children.

You liberals are so ignorant and full of lies it's unbelievable.

[jthorp24]

Sorry, I haven't seen those reports.
But what I meant, was for me, it's not racial. It was in response to someone else who says to them, it's purely racial.

I see it more as a legal issue with the "stand your ground" defense.

It's not racial to ME... It's racial to the left who only cares about murder when it involves white on black crime.

I'm going to call a spade, a spade.

[thediplomat2.0]

[
Total BS from a little yappy dog.

Please be specific
about Republicans disregarding the Constitution for their convenience.

What is poor in this case is the media twisting of the events. The law seems to have been applied properly.


The law is very clear and Zimmerman stayed within the law so all the race baiting is totally uncalled for.
If you want to know why it is "us vs. them" you need to look at the money raised by the race baiters after they whip one of these events into a national crises.

Well, lets start with military action. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans. There are only two Constitutional ways for the government to engage in military action. They are letters of marque and reprisal, and a declaration of war.

In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we entered without legitimate authorization. While Congress authorized action in both nations, they did not do so through formal declaration nor through the granting of letters of marque and reprisal. Consequently, Bush's wars were authorized through unconstitutional means.

Now, you can bring up the War Powers Resolution. You can state that the necessary and proper clause allows a President to utilize this law to take such action. The problem is this argument has no Judicial precedence. The only relevant case to the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution was INS vs. Chadha, which was not germane to the provisions of this matter.

Granted, Democrats do not deserve to be exonerated. I strongly disagree with President Obama's overt usage of the War Powers Resolution and the breach of Constitution powers in which he authorized military action for the conflict in Libya.

Republicans have also disregarded the Constitution through the Defense of Marriage Act. There are about four constitutional arguments that I can use to refute the constitutionality of such a law. I will use three.

First, the full faith and credit clause provides the United States Congress with the right to utilize it in the way that it sees fit. The Supremacy clause establishes this right above all other statutory measures. However, such a clause cannot be rendered null and void in any regard. Consequently, through Section 2 of the bill, the full faith and credit clause is rendered null and void in regards to its ability to be applied to marriage requirements. That cannot happen.

Second, the equal protection clause provides that states cannot deny the equal protection of laws within their jurisdiction. Under the equal protection clause, gays must be guaranteed from engaging in the same activities as heterosexuals. In that regard, the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, and this argument has been backed by a recent district court decision, where the court not only shot down DOMA and subsequent state laws manifesting from it via the equal protection clause, but also the due process clause:

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/onl...riage-equality

Third, the tenth amendment still upholds one of the few reserved powers left, marriage requirements. Therefore, using the most straightforward provision of the Constitution, DOMA is unconstitutional.

In both military action and gay marriage, Republicans believe in the Constitution until they do not.

Getting to the "stand your ground" law, maybe from your perspective it was properly written and enforced, but any law that leads to negative repercussions of this magnitude, no matter how blown out of proportion is one that is poorly written and poorly enforced. There obviously are not enough provisions distinguishing when a person has the right to use deadly force as self defense and when they do not. The fact that such a tragic event even happened means that the law requires elaboration and clarification.

In regards to the "us vs. them" argument you are forwarding, you may be right about who started this media fiasco. To be honest, I do not care who started the media frenzy. The fact that we as a nation have the gall to debate on what I call the inconsequential rather than the consequential means that like a Senate minority filibusters a Senate majority bill, the nation as a whole is filibustering substantive action that can prevent such an event from happening again.