" The Constitution authorizes NO federal police force. He wants to effect a gross abuse of power. IMO this will become his personal army and thought police. "

It is much like slavery and segregation: if you want to preserve the concept of "states' rights", then you have to get it through your skull that states and towns have NO RIGHT TO ABUSE PEOPLE.

"States Rights" and "federalism" are NOT a shield behind which "we can do whatever we want to whomever we want because it's our right".

Cops don't have the right to walk around raging and shooting people at the drop of a hat. They've been doing that more and more, and the states and cities are not controlling it, will not discipline them. And therefore, just exactly as with slavery and segregation before, the federal government must step in and impose order.

One can whine and scream about "The Constitution" all one likes, but "the Constitution" IS NOT an excuse for authorities at the state and local level to do whatever the hell they like. And because they have treated it as though it were, and have abused it - with slavery, with segregation, and now with excessively aggressive and abusive police, the state and local rights must, and shall, be taken away further by the federal government, to stop the abuse.

It is always going to be that way. So, if you want to keep power localized, then you damn well have to control your local authorities and impose limits on them. Because people do not, the federal government must step in and do it. That is what happened with slavery. It's what happened with segregation. And is now what is GOING to happen because of excessive police violence and killings.

The ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS, is for states and cities to start giving cops hard time when they kill people, start executing cops as murderers when they murder people - take away the excessive protection and deference shown to cops when they commit acts of violence.

Thus far, the states and cities have refused to do so. And therefore the federal government WILL step in to do it. And no amount of whining in favor of some abstract ideas about the "right" of states and locals to let their officials do whatever the fuck they like to people locally is going to stand.

This lesson will keep being repeated again and again. If you think that "states' rights" and federalism means the right to oppress people locally through government, and the right of localities to decide that certain people can be badly abused if that's what the people of that state want to do, well, then you haven't learned a thing since 1865, or 1964.

Obama is stepping and supplanting the states because the states refuse to police themselves in an acceptable way. Since they won't do it, the feds now will. Federal prosecutions will bring local police and prosecutors to heel. It's a shame they HAVE TO BE brought to heel, but they do. It's their own failure to control their people that has resulted in the feds having to do it. But the feds have to do it.

Want to stop it? Then order the cops to be less aggressive, and punish them when they shoot unarmed people, just as you would anybody else. The state and towns won't do that, so now the Feds will.

This will expand greatly under Hillary and the new Democrat majority Supreme Court, which will reverse volumes of pro-police decisions issued over the last 40 years.

The police have abused their power. They've gone too far. People are shooting back. The states won't discipline their police, and the people won't put up with it anymore. Enter the federal government to restore order. The states could have, still could, but they are moving, instead, to further insulate the police, which is exactly the wrong direction.

States rights are lost when states act unreasonably in things concerning the violent oppression of others. Like slavery. Like segregation. And like now, with the police gunning down unarmed, unthreatening people all over the place. States rights were lost in all of these case because the states abused the right. Abuse a right, and you eventually lose it.

And no, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. The Constitution will be made, by the courts, to say what it needs to say in order to intervene to stop the abuse.

That's the way it is. It isn't going to change.

That steaming pile of shit is not going to be happy until all LEO's, local, county, and state are federalized, and under his direct control. I guess that ties in with him wanting to bring in UN troops to police the nation.

Many of us here saw this coming after Ferguson.

And you're right about the U.N. - it's just a matter of time now.

Of course anyone who thinks that Obama (or the next president) will use this a their own private police force will be called a kook.

When the riots at the conventions this summer are in full force, I won't be surprised to see martial law declared. This has been what the globalists have been planning all along - Jade Helm was just part of the plan.

Local law enforcement is shooting people all over the place. The states and cities COULD control this, discipline better, stop it. But they don't. And THEREFORE the Federal government must, of necessity, step in. And will.

So by your thoughts because a few black men act out federal government should step in and punish all black men because of a few?

I would say almost 80-90% of all police killings are justified. 5-10% are questionable and maybe 5% are not justified or accidental.

What is happening is that black people have a huge chip on their shoulders and look for confrontation. If the president would stop trying to be the "cool" president and stop blaming all cops for doing their job of stopping criminals then people would not be freaking out. I have only seen 1 or 2 stories that actually turned out to be bad cops but by the way people act it happens every stinking day. In fact more innocent officers were murdered in Dallas than innocent black people have been murdered by cops for the last year!

Obama said. “If my voice has been true and positive

WTF? When has it ever been? He is the most racially divisive POTUS we ever had and one of the most in the country racially divisive actors on the scene today. His last two AGs are tools to implement his Obama racism and hatred for whites. The shooter told the Dallas Chief of Police that he wanted to kill whites, particularly white cops. When asked at yesterday's press conference if this was a hate crime Obama said it is too difficult to judge to motive of the shooter. Watch, Obama will have his racially biased DOJ proclaim that the Dallas cop killings by a black racist is nothing but work place violence.

That steaming pile of shit is not going to be happy until all LEO's, local, county, and state are federalized, and under his direct control. I guess that ties in with him wanting to bring in UN troops to police the nation.

They won't be under his control. They will be put under Hillary's control. Hillary is so culturally antagonistic she'll make Obama look like the John Birch Society.

The ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS, is for states and cities to start giving cops hard time when they kill people, start executing cops as murderers when they murder people - take away the excessive protection and deference shown to cops when they commit acts of violence.

Yup!

However, if you think Obama getting control of all law enforcement is going to be beneficial, I think you are sadly mistaken.

If Obunghole, Shitlery, or anyone takes over all law enforcement, we will be living a nightmare.

---- "the Constitution" IS NOT an excuse for authorities at the state local level to do whatever the hell they like. And because they have treated it as though it were, and have abused it - with slavery, with segregation, and now with excessively aggressive and abusive police, the state and local rights must, and shall, be taken away further by the federal government, to stop the abuse.

We agree that the Constitution IS NOT an excuse for authorities at the state and local level to do whatever the hell they like. --- And I've been trying for years to get that fact into the heads of people like the canary clan.

And because they have treated it as though it were, and have abused it - with slavery, with segregation, and now with excessively aggressive and abusive police, the state and local rights must, and shall, be taken away further by the federal government, to stop the abuse.

Nope, the federal government has no such constitutional power, and if they try, civil war II would be the result.

---- it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. The Constitution will be made, by the courts, to say what it needs to say in order to intervene to stop the abuse.

Nor does SCOTUS have the constitutional power to stop the abuse by ALL LEVELS of governments in the USA.

This is one of the powers reserved to the people, imo.

They will do it using either the ballot box, or a box full of bullets. -- And the tipping point may be near...

says
equal
justice

income

rights

despite
people's
decisions
effort
behavior
life
style

doesn't
results
vary

oh
yeah

... dieversity

one
size
fits
all

affirmative
... action

from
each
according
to
their
abilities

to
... each
according
to
their
needs

the
mother
hubbard
cupbard
is
bare

Make
America
fair
great
again

love
boris

He is the most racially divisive POTUS we ever had and one of the most in the country racially divisive actors on the scene today.

Only because the GOP has negrophobia.

I didn't vote for O'Bummer.. but in retrospect, he's been a helluva lot better than friggin' George Dubya Bush

I didn't vote for O'Bummer.. but in retrospect, he's been a helluva lot better than friggin' George Dubya Bush

Not a chance. Obama has driven this nation into what may be an irrevocable racial divide. He is a racist pure and simple. His policies are racist. His DoJ is racist. He is a self professed activist for reparations. He publicly proclaimed that he didn't believe that reparations can be achieved through the courts so he would accomplish it in other ways - and he has gone a long way down that road to achieve his goal.

He has also aided and abetted the rise of Islamic terrorism, especially against the West. He may not be a professed Muslim but he is a Muslim at heart.

He has done more to weaken the U.S. middle class than any POTUS alive or dead.

He has abused the power of the President's Office more than anyone in my life time, which includes FDR.

He is an evil man with a black heart and black soul (not negro, black as sin). He is a liar, a deceiver, a cheat and a criminal.

Local law enforcement is shooting people all over the place. The states and cities COULD control this, discipline better, stop it. But they don't. And THEREFORE the Federal government must, of necessity, step in. And will.

There is no constitutional grant of authority by the people to the Federal government to assume local law enforcement on a Federal plea of necessity.

Article 4, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false....

Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866)

There is no constitutional grant of authority by the people to the Federal government to assume local law enforcement on a Federal plea of necessity.

So what?

So what?

So if a usurping Federal government chooses to oppress the people by ignoring the constitutional restraints placed upon it, the states and/or the people are fully justified in revolutionizing and taking up arms in resistance to the unlawful government.

As a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court found, the theory of necessity on which the doctrine of extra-constitutional powers is based is false.

--- state and local rights must, and shall, be taken away further by the federal government, to stop the abuse.

Nope, the federal government has no such constitutional power, and if they try, civil war II would be the result.

--- it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. The Constitution will be made, by the courts, to say what it needs to say in order to intervene to stop the abuse.

Nor does SCOTUS have the constitutional power to stop the abuse by ANY or ALL LEVELS of governments in the USA.

This is one of the powers reserved to the people, imo.

They will do it using either the ballot box, or a box full of bullets. -- And the tipping point may be near...

Vicomte13 ---- So what?

Nolu --- So if a usurping Federal government chooses to oppress the people by ignoring the constitutional restraints placed upon it, the states and/or the people are fully justified in revolutionizing and taking up arms in resistance to the unlawful government. ---- As a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court found, the theory of necessity on which the doctrine of extra-constitutional powers is based is false.

Such SCOTUS opinions, -- while not binding, - serve to verify the original intent of our Constitution.

I'm glad to see we have roughly the same view on this issue, Nolu.

So if a usurping Federal government chooses to oppress the people by ignoring the constitutional restraints placed upon it, the states and/or the people are fully justified in revolutionizing and taking up arms in resistance to the unlawful government.

As a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court found, the theory of necessity on which the doctrine of extra-constitutional powers is based is false.

Bring it.

When they did that in 1861, it allowed military force to be brought to bear to slaughter enough of the political supporters of slavery that they were a spent force in American politics after that.

A past Supreme Court found an answer. Hillary's Supreme Court will find a different answer. They won't base their theory on "necessity". They will couch it in other terms. But she will get everything she wants, just as FDR did.

Lincoln didn't get what he wanted, so he simply nullified the Supreme Court whenever he felt the need.

If state and local governments do not rein in their police forces, the federal government will do so, the courts will back the federal government, they will not base their argument on "necessity", but will base it on whatever they decide to write down, and the federal government will have all of the power it needs to proceed to enforce its will.

And if people actually take up arms against the federal government, they will be shot down, thinning the herd of potential rebels both through liquidation and intimidation.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If the Right wants to win, it has to learn to compromise. The language of threat is old, and nobody on the left or the center is afraid of the military threats of the Right. The Civil War demonstrated that the Federal government will crush out any armed rebellion, with mass casualties, and exercise victor's justice. And the modern military is far stronger than the single shot weapons of 1863.

Your legal constructs are based on 50 years of a Republican Supreme Court. If Hillary wins, those years are over, she will appoint a liberal justice, several of the octagenarians will be replaced, and by the time she leaves office a Left wing Supreme Court will rubber-stamp Left wing government.

The only way the Right is going to stop that is by compromising on some of its insane and offensive ideas with centrists and moderates like me.

I am willing to work with the Right. But the Right has exhausted its welcome with its endless maximalization and batshit crazy cranky ideas.

For starters, the Right has to get real about race, in a hurry. We are equal, we're going to be equal, and we're not going to play footsie with the Right wing racists anymore. They are going to shut the fuck up, and go to the back of the bus forever, and be silent. It's over. They were always wrong. They lost. They will no longer have a foothold in government. And when they show their heads, they will be erased.

Right now, they're pretending to play states rights while cops go berserk and shoot blacks and other minorities in ridiculous circumstances. Either the Right will understand that this is a direct link back in history with the racist past, and move to stop it OR the Right will be politically erased as the Center - that's ME - sides with the Left and wipes you out.

And if you really do carry out that threat to REBEL in arms, you will give us the excuse to shoot you down and be done with you for good.

Check the threats. The North was always stronger than the South, and the Left and the Center are stronger than the nuts, and if you actually resort to arms, we will slaughter you just as dead and Lincoln and the Union Army slaughtered the Confederates. And we will be just as certain of our rectitude ever after as the North was - and still is - about the war to crush slavery in the South.

If you really WANT a Civil War - then BRING IT. And die.

Otherwise, don't raise the specter again.

A Civil War would solve a lot of issues. Like it did in Russia and China and Cuba. The Right loses modern civil wars. You don't have enough men.

Bring it.

When they did that in 1861, it allowed military force to be brought to bear to slaughter enough of the political supporters of slavery that they were a spent force in American politics after that.

A past Supreme Court found an answer. Hillary's Supreme Court will find a different answer. They won't base their theory on "necessity". They will couch it in other terms. But she will get everything she wants, just as FDR did.

Lincoln didn't get what he wanted, so he simply nullified the Supreme Court whenever he felt the need.

The 1861 Court did not find an answer to two sides fighting, each of which possessed nuclear weapons, among other advanced weaponry. If a state such as Texas left the Union and took up arms, and the military in Texas went with them, they would have the power to reduce Washington, D.C. to lifeless rubble.

It would be better if you do not advocate the Federal government to bring that. I am not advocating for an uprising, but you have actively advocated for the Federal government to go where it is explicitly prohibited from going. You cannot possibly be blind to the possibility of a serious reaction.

Lincoln did not nullify the Supreme Court, he stacked it with 10 justices, 5 appointed by himself. And first Secretary of War Stanton, and then Lincoln, unlawfully suspended habeas corpus throughout the free states which did not have warfare within them. He kept political prisoners in prison with no legal process to challenge their imprisonment without charge. Military tribunals were held for civilians.

Slavery is not the all purpose argument to justify everything any more than 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.

Hillary does not even have an answer for what (C) means when it prefaces a paragraph.

A Civil War would solve a lot of issues. Like it did in Russia and China and Cuba. The Right loses modern civil wars. You don't have enough men.

You don't have enough LGBT and pyjama boy liberals in the service to take over the military. You will experience a very big problem.

--- So if a usurping Federal government chooses to oppress the people by ignoring the constitutional restraints placed upon it, the states and/or the people are fully justified in revolutionizing and taking up arms in resistance to the unlawful government. ---- As a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court found, the theory of necessity on which the doctrine of extra- constitutional powers is based is false.

Such SCOTUS opinions, -- while not binding, - serve to verify the original intent of our Constitution.

I'm glad to see we have roughly the same view on this issue, Nolu.

Vicomte responds: ---

---- Right now, they're pretending to play states rights while cops go berserk and shoot blacks and other minorities in ridiculous circumstances. Either the Right will understand that this is a direct link back in history with the racist past, and move to stop it OR the Right will be politically erased as the Center - that's ME - sides with the Left and wipes you out. --- And if you really do carry out that threat to REBEL in arms, you will give us the excuse to shoot you down and be done with you for good.

You're stark raving mad, vicomte, as you seem to think it's a given that our military (and for that matter, our police forces) would support a federal war against the States and the People of the USA.

If such a war started, a left/center/federal coalition would rapidly dissolve, as soon as it's fascistic elements took over.

Socialistic fascists do not win wars.

I'm glad to see we have roughly the same view on this issue, Nolu.

You may appreciate a few quotes from Abraham Lincoln before he became President and got a God complex.

The words "coercion'' and "invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words — not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them — what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is "coercion''? What is "invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit."

— President-Elect Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861, CW 4:195, Speech from the Balcony of the Bates House at Indianapolis, Indiana

Washington, Feb. 15. 1848

To William H. Herndon

Dear William:

Your letter of the 29th. Jany. was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the teritory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge.

Before going further, consider well whether this is, or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are first, that the soil was ours where hostilities commenced, and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President, for that reason was bound to defend it, both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact, as you can prove that your house is not mine. That soil was not ours; and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us'' but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you dont.''

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

Write soon again.
Yours truly, A. LINCOLN

— Congressman Abraham Lincoln, CW 1:451-52, February 15, 1848, Letter to William Herndon

Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose this movement.

— Congressman Abraham Lincoln, CW 1:438-39, January 12, 1848, Speech in the House of Representatives