Dear plainol...: Ah! So, was "the man" then made a Secret Service agent? Such rituals, unless taken seriously by everyone, may tend to be ho-hum. It is crucial that those in government take their jobs very seriously. — J. A. A. — > On Jun 9, 10:47 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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.
