Dear plainol...: Are you supposing that the Secret Service isn't bound to support our Constitution? --- no I think they are
On Jun 7, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear plainol...: Are you supposing that the Secret Service isn't > bound to support our Constitution? Then, they shouldn't be entitled > to any of the Constitution's protections of civil liberties. You > speak with authority for someone who has, in most likelihood, never > attended the swearing-in of a new Secret Service agent. The "ad" for > agents might read: "Anarchists sought to protect the President of the > USA and to root-out fraud wherever that is found. Love of America > isn't required, only disdain for doing what is in the best interest of > the majority of Americans." The latter are the apparent job > qualifications of all who give aid and comfort to the socialist- > communist TRAITOR, Barack Obama, who is squatting in the White House. > — J. A. Armistead — Patriot > > > > On Jun 6, 5:53 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> 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, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
