flercemel0n

So the Supreme Court has decided recently that Global Corporations can put unlimited amounts of money towards getting politicians they want elected....

And now

The have decided that politicians can tell Americans that they HAVE to buy goods and services from any Corporation they choose, as long as when they impose a penalty on you for not buying it, they call it a tax and use the IRS to collect your FINE.

No one sees a problem with this? Or is this just paranoia?

God those Occupy Wall street "goons" had no clue what they were doing protesting big business...

How many people see this decision as "GOOD FOR AMERICA?" and How many see it as "ONE OF THE WORST THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN?"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvDeZ...

Why do people think it is important to enforce vitimless crimes, or rather "vice" crimes that harm no other person than the person who is partiking in the act? I do not understand, nor have I ever understood this mentality. Read this link, then tell me

how "these laws are important" as the person who posted stated. Because I do not get it...

I need 322,600+ signatures from Michigan to put it on the ballot for a popular vote. Can anyone help? Also I would like to know your thoughts on the matter. Though I know there will be some people who have this morally deficient desire to control others who will have a problem with this, though it makes no sense to feel that way. But a lot of people are narcissists, it is not my desire to appease them, just to simply stop them from believing they have the ability to control anything but themselves.

The people of the State of Michigan reserve the right to Freedom of Choice. Nothing in this Constitution is to be construed as the People granting the legislative, executive, or judicial branch as having the ability to prohibit, punish, deter by harassment, or regulate in any way, any acts or actions by an individual, or possession of any personal property, concealed on their person or otherwise. With the only exception being that the acts, actions or use of property can be proven to have caused direct injury to a flesh and blood human being or property not belonging to the Individual. In all cases in which there is a victim who received an injury to themselves or property, the accused has the right to a jury which may not be waved under any circumstance. Also with the exception of an injury resulting in death, the accused has the right to cross-examine the victim in a court of law. If there is no victim, or victim willing to come forward, there can be no criminal or civil procedure resulting. All statutes, ordinances, by-laws and regulations by any Government on any level currently standing which are in violation of this Amendment are hereby null and void. The role of the Legislature is not to decide which "Vices" the People are allowed to partake in. The People are free and sovereign citizens, and if the People are only free to make the "Morally correct" Choices, then they are not free. This Amendment is not subject to being repealed, altered, or infringed upon by any part of the Legislative branch and must be instated in all future versions of the Michigan Constitution. This Amendment is to be construed as an Inalienable Individual right not subject to any judicial rule making which would abrogate it, by all State and Local courts and by the United States Supreme Court under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. An Individual is only subject to having this right temporarily suspended or regulated for a period not exceeding 5 years as a punishment for being found guilty by a jury of their peers in a court of law, or guilty plea, for any violent felony. Any action in violation of this Amendment by any Government Official is a felony, punishable by one year in prison and a $5000 fine, this is not discretionary.

over the internet on say facebook. And what is the statute in Michigan?

Reworded from a previous question I asked...

The power to repeal laws was given to no branch of the government in the Constitution. Judicial power was given to the supreme courts and the other various courts. But the power to repeal laws is a right reserved to the people according to the tenth Amendment.

So why don't we just create a website where registered voters can get on and repeal laws that the government creates which we do not wish imposed upon us? We make it easier to get a law repealed than it is to get a law created, since it is a direct vote.

We can use the Secretary of State voter registry as verification of account holders rather then the "click this link in your email" verification that businesses use to ensure that it's a one vote per person system. As well as when a law has reached the required amount of votes for repeal (a number that would be voted upon) the electronic signatures would be reverified by the SOS registry.

No vote on a particular law would count as a no, so it wouldn't run like a general election where it is a majority of those who choose to vote.

The way a law would come up for a vote is someone submits it, 15,000 electronic signatures would allow it to be ready for a vote. One law is voted on at a time.

The way it stands right now, the only way to get a law repealed is if a person gets charged with a crime challenges it in court. Then it is left up to the discretion of 9 people (picked by the government, not the people) whether or not the millions of people in the US continue to be subject to this law. Also this group of 9 cherry picks which cases it "cares" to hear about, and only hears 75-150 cases per year. Last year there were over 8000 pleas to hear cases by the US supreme court.

As it is said, what is not illegal, must therefore be legal. If the government ever got the bright idea to make this action illegal, which would be proof that the government is not on the side of the people. We Amend the Constitution to constrict them from doing this.

Does this sound like a good idea?

And

What issues are foreseen that I have not addressed, so that I may further fine tune this idea?

The power to repeal laws was given to no branch of the government in the Constitution. Judicial power was given to the supreme courts and the other various courts. But the power to repeal laws is a right reserved to the people according to the tenth Amendment.

So why don't we just create a website where registered voters can get on and repeal laws that the government creates that we do not wish imposed upon us? We make it easier to get a law repealed than it is to get a law created. The way it stands right now, the only way to get a law repealed is if a person gets charged with a crime challenges it in court. Then it is left up to the discretion of 9 people (picked by the government, not the people) whether or not the millions of people in the US continue to be subject to this law.

As it is said, what is not illegal, must therefore be legal. If the government ever got the bright idea to make this action illegal, which would be proof that the government is not on the side of the people. We Amend the Constitution to constrict them from doing this.

Does this sound like a great idea or what?

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-25/justice/comic.c...

If a pen can be used to stab someone, it can be considered dangerous. Should it be made illegal to carry in your pocket without a ccw permit?

A gun and a pen are sitting on a table. Which one is the most dangerous sitting there without human intervention?

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Attorney General Eric Holder today provided the most detailed terms to date on the legal principals behind the U.S. drone campaign and the U.S. government's legal authority to target and kill U.S. citizens...

"Some have called such operations 'assassinations.' They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings," Holder continued in his prepared remarks. "The U.S. government's use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful -- and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes."

"Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law," Holder said today. "The Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense. None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war."

http://news.yahoo.com/holder-speak-targeted-killin...

I thought it meant that the government could not do this for any reason, with the exception being military personel in time of war, which we are not and haven't been since world war II, or it would be acting outside of the laws of our government... Silly me...

Douglas Kennedy, should he be charged or not?

Let's state some things real quick.

Hospital policy - policy created to limit liability for being sued. Not a law.

Supreme court on parental rights - Quilloin v. Walcott (We have recognized on many occasions that the relationship between parent and child is Constitutionally protected)

And many other cases that say that until a person is #1 informed of a charge, #2 had a chance to prove his innocence, #3 judgment issued to remove parental rights. That it is the right of the parent to make any and all decisions relating to the "destiny of their children."

So I guess my question is, that regardless of the logical reasoning of the hospital policy, does it trump the rights of the parents? (P.S. I know the answer to this question is a huge resounding NO. The charges will be dropped against Kennedy, and if he so chooses to sue the nurses they will settle out of court because they'll probably, and rightfully so, lose. But I want to see what you have to say.)

Let's state some things real quick.

Hospital policy - policy created to limit liability for being sued. Not a law.

Supreme court on parental rights - Quilloin v. Walcott (We have recognized on many occasions that the relationship between parent and child is Constitutionally protected)

And many other cases that say that until a person is #1 informed of a charge, #2 had a chance to prove his innocence, #3 judgment issued to remove parental rights. That it is the right of the parent to make any and all decisions relating to the "destiny of their children."

So I guess my question is, that regardless of the logical reasoning of the hospital policy, does it trump the rights of the parents? (P.S. I know the answer to this question is a huge resounding NO. The charges will be dropped against Kennedy, and if he so chooses to sue the nurses they will settle out of court because they'll probably, and rightfully so, lose. But I want to see what you have to say.)

That a right can be violated if the government has a "compelling interest"?

I can't find it. Is that something they made up after in order to pass laws and enforce them that are in violation of the Constitution?

The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate.

currently at war with?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvKvB...

Thank you. :-)

I realize that the 14th Amendment was written to force the State courts and legislatures to not violate the rights to life Liberty and property to the slaves that were freed by Lincoln. But my question is this. Was it necessary since:

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 3 -- Judges bound: and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 5 -- Oath of Office: 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;"

Don't these parts of the Constitution:

#1 already say that State legislatures are bound by the Constitution?

#2 that even if they aren't the judges are bound by it, so they cannot violate it even if the 14th Amendment wasn't there?

#3 is the section of that Amendment that says States cannot violate the Constitution a redundant Statement?

Article 6 Section 1 Clause 2

Supremacy Clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

(no law can be made which violates the Constitution)

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 3 -- Judges bound: and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(judges are bound to follow the Constitution regardless of state or federal legislation that may contradict it)

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 5 -- Oath of Office: 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

(everyone who makes laws, or executes them is bound by the Constitution to follow it above all other laws which might contradict it)

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5, Clause 7 -- Due Process Clause: nor be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due Process of Law

(a person cannot be denied the right to live, be free to do what one chooses, own, use, sell and dispose of whatever property they so wish to choose without first being informed of a charge for violating another persons rights or damaging another persons property and being able to defend themselves in court before receiving punishment)

Maybe I'm just not reading the Constitution right, but I'm not seeing where the State can deny you Liberty and Property "if they have an interest in doing so" or because "public policy dictates it" or it's "against the moral character of society."

What do you think? Are drug laws Unconstitutional then?

If the Supreme court says that a woman is exercising her right to privacy to get an abortion, and that the states cannot enact restrictions upon a persons rights.

Doing so would make it a privilege.

With the new abortion law that says a woman can not get an abortion unless ____(fill in the blank)___ being an obvious restriction upon the exercising of a woman's right to privacy.

Isn't this fraud by those who wrote the law and also took an oath to uphold the Constitution since they are obviously violating it and receiving a paycheck under false pretenses?

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Rowe vs. Wade

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.

"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70.

Basically the courts have said that a woman is exercising her right to privacy by getting an abortion and that it is unconstitutional to make a law, act, statute, or regulation that requires you to meet certain specifications to exercise those rights. Basically a state CANNOT make a law that says in order to exercise your rights you have to jump through these hoops first.

If that is the case then a woman in Texas can sue the legislatures for fraud. Since they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then make a law going against it. That would mean they are receiving a paycheck under false pretenses. True or false?

Keep in mind that your personal opinion on abortions is not relevant since what I stated is the law as it stands today.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201006...