Dear plainol...: Please define the antecedent of "it". Though I appreciate your general approval of my New Constitution, why do you wish to let the Secret Service off-the-hook for aiding-and-abetting a socialist-communist? Everyone in government must support the Supreme Law of the Land! And the most basic premise of the latter is that this country's government is "supposed to be" a Representative Republic —where the PEOPLE tell government what to do, NEVER the government telling the people what to do! — John A. Armistead — Patriot
On Jun 8, 12:59 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > it does not show any oath of office taking place > --- > do you always refuse to admit it when you are wrong? > > On Jun 7, 12:24 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sorry, the press conference you linked to may be labeled "Swearing-In" > > by C-SPAN, but it does not show any oath of office taking place. It's an > > acceptance speech. Nothing more. > > > On 06/07/2011 07:50 AM, plainolamerican wrote: > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
