why do you wish to let the Secret Service off-the-hook for aiding-and-abetting a socialist-communist? --- I don't wish to. The man raised his hand and swore to uphold the constitution.
On Jun 8, 5:29 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > ... > > 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.
