Reasonable to assume? ---- yes How about some factual evidence? --- http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/86467-1 start listening at 6:50
On Jun 6, 5:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > Reasonable to assume? How about some factual evidence? > > John made a claim which he has as yet been unable to back up with > evidence. (This happens regularly, I might add.) > > Choose sides carefully.<g> > > On 06/06/2011 02:53 PM, plainolamerican wrote: > > > > > you contention > > that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support > > the > > Constitution is incorrect. > > ---- > > a naturalized citizen is required to swear an oath to protect and > > defend the constitution ... thus, it is reasonable to assume that a SS > > applicant, who is required to be a citizen, would be bound to support > > and defend the constitution > > > On Jun 6, 2:34 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> John, > > >> It is obvious you want to fight the good fight. It is also obvious you > >> are not equipped to do so. You continually infer that which does not exist. > > >> Secret Service agents are not "executive or judicial officers" of either > >> "the United States or of the several states." Therefore, you contention > >> that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the > >> Constitution is incorrect. > > >> By the way, Article VI, paragraph three (properly quoted) states, "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; but no religious Test > >> shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust > >> under the United States." > > >> On 06/06/2011 11:32 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Dear J. Ashley: I don't have the "existing Constitution" committed to > >>> memory. So, I had to scan such to locate Article VI. "... all > >>> executive and judicial officers, both of the USA and the several > >>> states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this > >>> constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a > >>> qualification for any office or public trust under the United > >>> States." That OATH requires supporting that the USA is a REPUBLIC. > >>> As soon as Barack Obama started appointing czars and making executive > >>> orders pushing the USA toward socialism and communism, all officers, > >>> such as the Secret Service, are bound by the Constitution to ARREST > >>> his skinny ass for treason! Tens of thousands in our military have > >>> died fighting socialist and communist nations. So, why won't any one > >>> fight the grave enemy bastard who is in our midst? It's because > >>> people in government value their identity with... power. Doing WRONG > >>> makes one seem more powerful than doing right, "because the glory in > >>> doing right must always be shared with its unspoken moral > >>> imperative." > >>> Jonathan, for a shallow anarchist like you, you seem incapable of > >>> understanding that the spirit of the overall Constitution has > >>> deference over any "authorization". The Founding Fathers erred, big > >>> time, when they just assumed the laws and procedures passed and > >>> approved wouldn't run counter to this most simple premise: "Fair play > >>> and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!� Think about the > >>> simple premise, guy. So far, you can't see the forest for the trees! > >>> � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > >>> On Jun 4, 7:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> John, > >>>> You have certainly lived up to your moniker this time. > >>>> Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall > >>>> be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the > >>>> Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." > >>>> How can something specifically enumerated in the Constitution be > >>>> unconstitutional? > >>>> On 06/04/2011 03:37 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>> > Dear plainol...: The Federal Government, especially the court > >>>> system, > >>>>> has been disregarding the Constitution for over a century. If there > >>>>> is a disagreement, the only thing the Supreme Court is authorized to > >>>>> do is to send things back to CONGRESS to be resolved. Nothing in the > >>>>> Constitution grants one justice more total power than Congress! > >>>>> Therefore the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional... by RITUAL. � J. A. > >>>>> Armistead � Patriot > >>>>> On Jun 3, 3:11 pm, plainolamerican<[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Does the federal government's > >>>>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers > >>>>>> granted to the states clause rule? > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> what states rights? > >>>>>> that was resolved in 1865 ... sorta > >>>>>> it's time for another showdown since it's obvious that the feds pick > >>>>>> and choose their responsibilities and powers > >>>>>> On Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> No, MJ! Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations > >>>>>>> that will allow this, but not "that". Does the federal government's > >>>>>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers > >>>>>>> granted to the states clause rule? That, supposedly, will determine > >>>>>>> the constitutionality of Obama Care. As I've explained: The Senate > >>>>>>> was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail). > >>>>>>> A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US > >>>>>>> Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Like our > >>>>>>> Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama�s being in the > >>>>>>> White > >>>>>>> House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard! If you want 100 senile, > >>>>>>> career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution > >>>>>>> without a House of Representatives? For running a government, I'll > >>>>>>> take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US > >>>>>>> Senate every time! Harry Reid should be out of a job! � J. A. > >>>>>>> Armistead � Patriot > >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your > >>>>>>>> difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is > >>>>>>>> difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way. > >>>>>>>> Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. > >>>>>>>> The Senate is constitutional -- by definition. > >>>>>>>> Regard$, > >>>>>>>> --MJ > >>>>>>>> "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons > >>>>>>>> but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous > >>>>>>>> mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of > >>>>>>>> personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them > >>>>>>>> offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and > >>>>>>>> '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ: What "definition" is > >>>>>>>> that? That an anti-democracy and anti- > >>>>>>>> Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two? The US senate > >>>>>>>> is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth! We > >>>>>>>> could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to > >>>>>>>> cross Main Street! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>>>>> On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution. > >>>>>>>>> The Senate is constitutional -- by definition. > >>>>>>>>> Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly > >>>>>>>>> ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the > >>>>>>>>> States -- those entities forming the United States (plural). > >>>>>>>>> Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this > >>>>>>>>> idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will > >>>>>>>>> *magically* correct ills. > >>>>>>>>> Regard$, > >>>>>>>>> --MJ > >>>>>>>>> Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through > >>>>>>>>> mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in > >>>>>>>>> mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude > >>>>>>>>> toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether > >>>>>>>>> it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or > >>>>>>>>> impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is > >>>>>>>>> demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. > >>>>>>>>> -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ: The > >>>>>>>>> Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a > >>>>>>>>> senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger > >>>>>>>>> states. > >>>>>>>>> The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative > >>>>>>>>> Republic. Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the > >>>>>>>>> senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that > >>>>>>>>> constitutional! Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those > >>>>>>>>> constitutional, either. The US Senate has been a drag of fair play > >>>>>>>>> and democracy from day one! For the record, the US Supreme Court, > >>>>>>>>> wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the > >>>>>>>>> People, > >>>>>>>>> is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Learn, if you can, MJ. So far you seem > >>>>>>>>> committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> think. � J. A. A. � > >>>>>>>>> On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of > >>>>>>>>>> the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY. Since there > >>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>> never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that > >>>>>>>>>> means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the > >>>>>>>>>> oligarchy > >>>>>>>>>> is the one which isn't FAIR. Giving undue power to smaller > >>>>>>>>>> population > >>>>>>>>>> states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face. So, the US Senate is and > >>>>>>>>>> always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- > >>>>>>>>>> cannot be unconstitutional. > >>>>>>>>>> What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was > >>>>>>>>>> an agreement > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
