The Governor of New Mexico has just declared the 1st & 2nd Amendment “does not exist” due to an “emergency.” Under this legal theory *all* of the US rights” are essentially eliminated. Watch the most …More
The Governor of New Mexico has just declared the 1st & 2nd Amendment “does not exist” due to an “emergency.” Under this legal theory *all* of the US rights” are essentially eliminated. Watch the most evil & tyrannical 60 seconds you’ve ever heard from a politician:
"Since the Constitution is the limiting document upon the government. The government CANNOT become greater than the granting power. That is, the servant CANNOT become greater than its master. Therefore, should the chief executive or other branch of government or all branches act to suspend the Constitution under a rule of martial law. All power granted to government would be canceled and defer back …More
"Since the Constitution is the limiting document upon the government. The government CANNOT become greater than the granting power. That is, the servant CANNOT become greater than its master. Therefore, should the chief executive or other branch of government or all branches act to suspend the Constitution under a rule of martial law. All power granted to government would be canceled and defer back to the granting power. That is the people."
"MARTIAL LAW SHALL NOT BE POSSIBLE IN THIS COUNTRY [United States of America] AS LONG AS THE PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THE BILL OF RIGHT AS INALIENABLE." - Norman Olson, 15 June 1995
Inalienable Rights: Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life. To explore this concept, consider the following inalienable rights definition.(edited)
What are Inalienable Rights?:
The Declaration of Independence gives three examples of inalienable rights, in the well-known phrase, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These fundamental rights are endowed on every human being by his or her Creator [God], and are often referred to as “natural rights.” Only under carefully limited circumstances can such natural rights be taken away as people have the freedom to exercise them as they choose.
If "you [the federal government] suspend the Constitution, then for that reason I do not have to recognize anyone in federal law enforcement." - James Johnson, 16 June 1995
"MARTIAL LAW SHALL NOT BE POSSIBLE IN THIS COUNTRY [United States of America] AS LONG AS THE PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THE BILL OF RIGHT AS INALIENABLE." - Norman Olson, 15 June 1995
Inalienable Rights: Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life. To explore this concept, consider the following inalienable rights definition.(edited)
What are Inalienable Rights?:
The Declaration of Independence gives three examples of inalienable rights, in the well-known phrase, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” These fundamental rights are endowed on every human being by his or her Creator [God], and are often referred to as “natural rights.” Only under carefully limited circumstances can such natural rights be taken away as people have the freedom to exercise them as they choose.
If "you [the federal government] suspend the Constitution, then for that reason I do not have to recognize anyone in federal law enforcement." - James Johnson, 16 June 1995
John A Cassani
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The Bruen decision goes explicitly against her on the gun issue, as it states that while there can be well defined no carry zones, an entire city can not be designated as such. As far as the emergency powers claim goes, I don’t see that she could possibly win, but it’s very bad that she is even trying. At this point, the executive branch has no respect for rights; the legislative branch has neutered …More
The Bruen decision goes explicitly against her on the gun issue, as it states that while there can be well defined no carry zones, an entire city can not be designated as such. As far as the emergency powers claim goes, I don’t see that she could possibly win, but it’s very bad that she is even trying. At this point, the executive branch has no respect for rights; the legislative branch has neutered its authority, and only treats important issues to as to win votes in midterm elections, and a portion of the judicial branch is trying to uphold rights. But, their authority requires the adherence of the executive branch, which is minimal.
Malki Tzedek
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
What a load of 'you know what' ! The constitution was created to avert emergencies not vice versa. The laws stem from the constitution, they are beholden to it, once again, not the other way around.