[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership?
Source: The Shooters Log
URL Source: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/jeb ... snonationalrighttogunownership
Published: Nov 15, 2015
Author: Dave Dolbee
Post Date: 2015-11-15 17:52:30 by Don
Keywords: None
Views: 24856
Comments: 205

Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership?

By Dave Dolbee published on November 10, 2015 in News

Jeb Bush recently made an appearance on the The Late Show with Stephen Colbert when the subject of whether there is a national right to gun ownership came up. Bush’s answer may be concerning to many, but let’s reserve judgment until we look at the entire story. However, whether his answer was his true opinion or a gaff, is concerning.

During the interview, Colbert asked a written-in question regarding the Constitution and whether it implied a national right to gun ownership. Jeb Bush, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, veered a bit off course when his answer drifted to the Tenth Amendment and a state’s right to legislate gun ownership.

The question was a bit of a gotcha and certainly anti-Second Amendment in its nature. Jeb handled it well talking about how Florida was a pro-Second Amendment state under his leadership and to keep the guns out of hands of criminals or the mentally ill, they had background checks. He went on to say the common root of mass shootings was almost always proven to be mental illness. However, it was in the follow-up question that Jeb might have taken a left turn.

Second Amendment

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t the way that is also be applied be national?

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily… There’s a Tenth Amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a Tenth Amendment that powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

On the face, that is pretty damning to the argument of whether the Second Amendment is a right or privilege. Jeb’s campaign quickly got out in front of the issue with a clarification. The clarification reiterated that Jeb is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Jeb’s argument was that states should be able to use the Tenth Amendment to pass laws that expand gun rights—but that is double-edged sword.

Governor Bush is a strong Second Amendment advocate and reiterated his view that the federal government should not be passing new gun control laws. He believes in states rights and as Governor of Florida, he used the Tenth Amendment to expand gun rights with a “Six Pack of Freedom” bill and received an A+ rating from the NRA.

A Double-Edged Sword…

While I like the federal government not being able to limit my rights, I do not favor a state being able to limit my rights. One of my degrees is in political science and I have taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law. That being said, I am far from a Constitutional scholar.

However, I believe I understand a bit of where Jeb was trying to get to. The states are supposed to have as much power as the federal government—this is the heart of the federal system. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

So, how can using the Tenth Amendment to give states’ rights allow those same states to regulate the Second Amendment? Isn’t that the purpose of the Bill of Rights? Doesn’t the Bill of Rights grant you and me specific rights that shall not be infringed? Do states have the power to expand or limit freedom of speech or unlawful search or seizure? Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights.

In hindsight, like I have already stated, I can see where he was trying to go with his argument. The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms. At that point, the common belief that the Second Amendment is an absolute right is moot. Perhaps the best way to expand our Second Amendment rights is through the states. It is not perfect, but there is less risk of an all out gun ban that way.

You’ll have to decide for yourself what Jeb really meant. In the end, we all wish Jeb had said the Second Amendment is a Constitutional right and neither a federal nor a state government has the power to limit that right. Whether or not he could have backed that up in front of the Supreme Court, is the attitude most, if not all, of us would like him to have taken.

I am sure most of you have already picked out your preferred candidate. I am not trying to sway your opinion toward or against any particular candidate or party. However, on the subject of the Second Amendment and gun rights, where does the state under the Tenth Amendment or the federal government’s authority end? Where should it end?

Share your answers or opinions regarding Jeb’s answer of the Tenth Amendment in the comment section.

Share This!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-130) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#131. To: buckeroo (#129)

Really? How do your figure your own "awesomeness" to even attempt playing mind games mr. chan?

I evaluate the awesomeness of your posts. I evaluate the awesomeness of mine. And I just go, damn, I'm awesome.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   22:54:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: nolu chan (#131)

And I just go, damn, I'm awesome.

Mr. chan ... you masturbate wayy too much at your old age; you could die of a heart attack seeing your reflection in the mirror.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-11-17   22:57:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: nolu chan (#128)

SCOTUS makes a lot of stupid opinions. Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand that...

Even the dumbest SCOTUS opinion counts.

Of course it does, -- to the case at issue, and to pendants like you; --- which I've noted above, remember?

Too bad you are not smart enough to understand that.

Everyone here is starting to 'understand' you nolu. And it ain't a pretty picture, believe me..

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-17   23:03:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: buckeroo (#132)

Chan thinks Trump is the answer. Watch what happens.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-11-17   23:05:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: sneakypete (#123)

Lemme know when you find the clause in the Second Amendment stating that agents of state and local governments "are NOT protected by the Second Amendment" against federal infringements. Did you read that in your copy of Constimutushunal Law for Tards?

Your infatuation with centralized government is pretty creepy there, Sneaky.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   0:18:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: nolu chan (#131)

And I just go, damn, I'm awesome.

Against his low bar, we all are. Except maybe for pstain.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   0:20:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: nolu chan (#130)

Do you think the FBI will finish their investigation before 2017?

I caught some rumblings watching Fox yesterday the real damning data from the server will take 4 years to sort out. So it's going to take some time. Don't know why.

Well of course we do. If she is elected President she can slow the process more. So basically she is running for her life now.

"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6

redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-18   0:40:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#138. To: Roscoe (#135)

Lemme know when you find the clause in the Second Amendment stating that agents of state and local governments "are NOT protected by the Second Amendment"

They ARE the government,you dumbass.

The Bill of Rights exists to protect the PEOPLE,NOT the government.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   5:32:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: sneakypete (#138)

They ARE the government

You big government lovers ALWAYS lie and claim that state and local governments are THE government. That's dead a giveaway for spotting your kind. You hate the legacy of multiple distinct governments and dual sovereignty created for us by our framers and founders.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   6:28:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: nolu chan (#124)

It sounds like Jeff Probst recently reading votes on Survivor for Kelley who had just played her immunity idol.

Brown v. Board of Education. Does not count. Roe v. Wade. Does not court. D.C. v Heller. Does not count. McDonald v. Chicago. Does not count. Obergefell v. Hodges. Does not count.

Funny. (And what a great move by Kelley.)

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-18   8:50:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: Roscoe (#139)

You big government lovers ALWAYS lie and claim that state and local governments are THE government. That's dead a giveaway for spotting your kind. You hate the legacy of multiple distinct governments and dual sovereignty created for us by our framers and founders.

You are not only an idiot,but proud of it.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   8:58:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: sneakypete (#141)

You count on big government to spread your perversion.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-18   9:07:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: nolu chan (#124)

So you watch survivor. I wouldn't have guessed that.

I watch too on occasion.

In fact I saw that episode. First one this year.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-18   9:08:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: A K A Stone (#142)

You count on big government to spread your perversion.

Which one of us promotes a religious government?

Which one of us promotes a government with the authority to control people's thoughts and sex lives?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   9:27:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: sneakypete (#141)

You count on big government to spread your perversion.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   9:57:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: Roscoe (#145) (Edited)

You count on big government to spread your perversion.

Is that you,Yu-Tard?

Out of rehab again?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   10:08:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: sneakypete (#146)

You worship THE government.

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   10:11:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: Roscoe (#147)

You worship THE government.

You just have to keep insisting over and over that you are a world-class fool,don't you?

YOU are the one saying cops can't be disarmed,*I* am the one saying they CAN be disarmed BECAUSE they are agents of the government,and the government is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights,yet you keep insisting *I* am the one that loves Big Government.

You make Goober Gore and Barry Obomber look intelligent by comparison.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   13:14:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: misterwhite (#140)

Funny. (And what a great move by Kelley.)

I liked the faces Ciera was making. If the nine had organized and split their vote 6-3 or 5-4, they could have succeeded in taking out one of the target three, despite the idol.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   13:25:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: tpaine (#133)

SCOTUS makes a lot of stupid opinions. Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand that...

I'm smart enough to understand that their "stupid" opinions count and your stupid opinions do not.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   13:27:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: nolu chan (#149)

"If the nine had organized and split their vote 6-3 or 5-4"

I couldn't believe they didn't split the vote. What were they thinking?

I don't think Ciera is long for this world. Abi got smart and shut up.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-18   14:11:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: sneakypete, Roscoe (#148)

YOU are the one saying cops can't be disarmed,*I* am the one saying they CAN be disarmed BECAUSE they are agents of the government,and the government is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights,yet you keep insisting *I* am the one that loves Big Government.

Roscoe is right, you are wrong. The Second Amendment applies to government employees and active duty military. The entire Bill of Rights applies to government agents and employees. The First Amendment right to free speech. The Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The First Amentment starts, "Congress shall make no law...." It explicitly applies to the government and its agents.

Heck, a better example of an RKBA exception is prison inmates. We would not want them packing heat.

The RKBA may not be infringed.

The RKBA is not a right to keep and bear arms under any and all circumstances. It was not such a right under English common law for the colonists, and it was not such a right when brought into the states by the former colonists.

The RKBA has exceptions as provided by law since before there was a United States. It has never protected a right for prison inmates to keep and bear arms.

If you are an employee, your employer can prohibit the bearing of arms while acting as an employee. If Wal*Mart prohibits its employees from carrying at work, it would not infer the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. It would mean that the RKBA does not provide the right under the circumstances. It is not an infringement of the RKBA, when the right does not exist under the circumstances.

The RKBA in Federal facilities is restricted by Federal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 930

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

[snip]

During the administration of G.H.W. Bush:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

DOD Directive 5210-56 (25 Feb 1992) Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement and Security Duties

D. POLICY

It is DoD Policy:

1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of firearms are in enclosure 1.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   14:24:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: nolu chan (#150)

SCOTUS makes a lot of stupid opinions. Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand that...

I'm smart enough to understand that their "stupid" opinions count and your stupid opinions do not.

Below is an opinion that I agree with, --- do you?

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that; ----

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

- See more at: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- court/5/137.html#sthash.xshj4p5F.dpuf

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-18   14:29:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: sneakypete (#148)

YOU are the one saying cops can't be disarmed,*I* am the one saying they CAN be disarmed BECAUSE they are agents of the government

There you go with that "the government" tell again.

In Federalist No. 45, Madison wrote: "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Why are you so obsessed with wanting to abolish our nation's system of multiple governments? Is it that you hate the framers? Is it that nobody ever took the time to explain the United States' Constitution to you and now you're too embarrassed to admit it? Please, explain yourself.

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   15:48:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: nolu chan (#152)

Roscoe is right, you are wrong. The Second Amendment applies to government employees and active duty military.

You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.

Government employees,including cops and military members only have rights when they are off-duty and out of uniform.

I PERSONALLY know of a senior NCO at Fort Bragg that had his company commander (a LTC) confiscate his privately-owned guns from his off-base house after he was arrested for drunk driving off base.

This same company commander put the word out that he would court-martial any man in his company that was caught on Bragg with a privately owned weapon in his possession,even if it was in a car,and even if they had a NC CCW permit.

Piece of shit reserve SF Colonel from Mass that used his political connections to get on AD. Last I heard he got transferred from Bragg to Thailand to avoid the stink of him breaking and entering the MSG's house off base to seize his privately-owned weapons and ammunition,and them dump them all in Lott Lake.

I heard later that the MSG got a civilian lawyer to represent him because the LTC was trying to get him reduced in rank,and the MSG's lawyer was trying to get the Fayetteville PD to arrest the LTC for felony theft and breaking and entering.

The compromise they reached was the MSG was allowed to retire with his rank and was paid damages for the financial losses he had suffered,and the LTC went to Thailand,where he was promoted to Full Colonel.

Last I heard a few years ago was he had been transferred to the Pentagram and was going to be promoted to General.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   18:17:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: Roscoe (#154)

What the HELL are you ranting about? You make no sense because you have no sense.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   18:19:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: sneakypete (#155)

Government employees,including cops and military members only have rights when they are off-duty and out of uniform.

No right to life? Only you and BLM think so.

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   18:20:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: Roscoe (#157)

No right to life?

No.

How well do you think the US invasion of Europe in 1944 would have gone if soldiers had refused to get on the ships because "I might lose my life or be injured!"?

Cops swear a oath to defend the citizens,which means they are also obligated to run into gunfire if necessary to protect the public.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   18:48:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: sneakypete (#158)

No.

You and BLM.

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   18:56:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: redleghunter (#137)

So basically she is running for her life now.

It appears Clinton fatigue may be setting in.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/politics/colorado-quinnipiac-poll-clinton-trails-rubio-carson/

Poll: Clinton trails GOP rivals in Colorado

By Eric Bradner, CNN
Updated 3:56 PM ET,
Wed November 18, 2015

Washington (CNN)

Colorado could be big trouble for Hillary Clinton.

The Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential race trails all the leading Republican contenders by 11 percentage points or more in the key swing state, a new Quinnipiac University poll shows.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio bests Clinton 52% to 36%, the biggest gap. Ben Carson wins a potential head-to-head matchup as well, with a 52% to 38% advantage. And Donald Trump leads 48% to 37%.

Tim Malloy, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, described it as a "chilly if not frigid reception" in Colorado for Clinton.

[snip]

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   20:35:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: sneakypete (#155)

You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.

Government employees,including cops and military members only have rights when they are off-duty and out of uniform.

I pity the subordinates who relied on you to counsel them about their rights.

David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice, Fifth Edition, 1999, page 7:

The Constitution, which sets in motion a system of military criminal justice, also contains specified limitations on government infrincement of individual rights. Military due process, as it is applied today, recognizes that the protections of the Constitution generally apply with equal force to servicemembers and that the U.C.M.J., the Manual for Courts-Martial, and service regulations may provide greater protection than the Constitution.

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) 2012 Ed.,

Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)

Military Rules of Evidence (R.M.E.)

M.C.M. page II-55:

R.C.M. 604(B):

(b) Referral of withdrawn charges. Charges which have been withdrawn from a court-martial may be referred to another court-martial unless the withdrawal was for an improper reason. Charges withdrawn after the introduction of evidence on the general issue of guilt may be referred to another court-martial only if the withdrawal was necessitated by urgent and unforeseen military necessity.

Discussion

See also R.C.M. 915 (Mistrial).

When charges which have been withdrawn from a courtmartial are referred to another court-martial, the reasons for the withdrawal and later referral should be included in the record of the later court-martial, if the later referral is more onerous to the accused. Therefore, if further prosecution is contemplated at the time of the withdrawal, the reasons for the withdrawal should be included in or attached to the record of the earlier proceeding. Improper reasons for withdrawal include an intent to interfere with the free exercise by the accused of constitutional rights or rights provided under the code, or with the impartiality of a court-martial. A withdrawal is improper if it was not directed personally and independently by the convening authority or by a superior competent authority.

Those are constitutional rights you claim do not exist.

M.C.M. page II-81:

R.C.M. 806(d)

The military judge is responsible for protecting both the accused’s right to, and the public’s interest in, a public trial. A court-martial session is “closed” when no member of the public is permitted to attend. A court-martial is not “closed” merely because the exclusion of certain individuals results in there being no spectators present, as long as the exclusion is not so broad as to effectively bar everyone who might attend the sessions and is put into place for a proper purpose.

A session may be closed over the objection of the accused or the public upon meeting the constitutional standard set forth in this Rule. See also Mil. R. Evid. 412(c), 505(i), and 513(e)(2).

Those are constitutional rights you claim do not exist.

M.C.M. page III-1:

M.R.E. 103

Once the military judge makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. The standard provided in this subdivision does not apply to errors involving requirements imposed by the Constitution of the United States as applied to members of the armed forces except insofar as the error arises under these rules and this subdivision provides a standard that is more advantageous to the accused than the constitutional standard.

Whatever is that talking about with regard to "requirements imposed by the Constitution of the United States as applied to members of the armed forces?"

M.C.M. page III-3:

M.R.E. 301:

Rule 301. Privilege concerning compulsory self-incrimination

(a) General rule. The privileges against self-incrimination provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 31 are applicable only to evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature. The privilege most beneficial to the individual asserting the privilege shall be applied.

Damn, the 5th Amendment too.

M.C.M. page III-4:

M.R.E. 301(g)

(3) Pretrial. The fact that the accused during official questioning and in exercise of rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or Article 31, remained silent, refused to answer a certain question, requested counsel, or requested that the questioning be terminated is inadmissible against the accused.

And the list goes on and on and on.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   21:18:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#162. To: tpaine (#153)

By your wingnut proclamation, Marbury v. Madison only applies to William Marbury.

I believe in the Supremacy Clause, not in your bullshit.

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, The Supremacy Clause

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Also U.S. Constitution, Article 6,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution....

Read a law book. See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Second Edition, 2000, page 33:

Read narrowly, the supremacy clause binds only state judges. But other provisions of the Constitution, most notably the fourteenth amendment, directly constrain the action of all state officials, often without regard to whether state courts have ruled on the validity of officials' acts; moreover, article VI declares that "the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. . . ." Accordingly, the Court has not limited to state judges its demand for compliance with the federal Constitution. In Cooper v. Aaron, a school desegregation case decided against the background of Governor Faubus's resistance to the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Supreme Court asserted what is probably its broadest definition of its power: "Marbury v. Madison . . . declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciat­ed by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land. . . . Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath . . . 'to support this Constitution.'"

The Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land.

Laws or treaties which have been judicially determined to be repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Laws and treaties which have not been so found are of equal status, with the one most recently adopted taking precedent over the other in case of conflict.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   21:49:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#162)

I believe in the Supremacy Clause, not in your bullshit.

What Supremacy Clause? The one that clearly shows the blackrobed cretins selected to make an opinion are simple politically, charged charlatins that lie to the American People?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-11-18   21:57:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: nolu chan (#161)

Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.

Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   22:06:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#164)

Mr. chan seems to have crossed dressed with some of the more government loving crowd while showing his ass in publick.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-11-18   22:10:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: sneakypete (#164)

Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?

Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   22:36:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: sneakypete (#164)

Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.

You lack of argument on the merits is noteworthy but understandable.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   22:37:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: buckeroo (#163)

What Supremacy Clause?

There is only one.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   22:37:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: nolu chan (#162)

Below is an opinion that I agree with, --- do you?

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that; ----

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

- See more at: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- court/5/137.html#sthash.xshj4p5F.dpuf

As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

You can't agree because you're convinced that ANY laws upheld by a SCOTUS opinion are valid.. ---- This position is held by socialists and prohibitionists who support the war on drugs, guns, and the individual freedoms outlined in our Constitution.

You've been outed.. Learn to live with your anti-constitutionalism..

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-18   22:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: nolu chan, harrowup, Y'ALL, sneakypete (#166)

sneakypete (#164) --- Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?

Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve. --- nolu chan

It's impossible for me to believe that an individual as anti-constitutional as nolu served with honor.

I smell a harrowup.

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-18   22:54:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: sneakypete (#164)

Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.

"Quoted bullshit is still bullshit."

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   23:15:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (172 - 205) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com