“This . . . should deeply trouble us all.” Those words from President Joe Biden were his response to the Supreme Court reaffirming the individual rights under the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. Now, according to the New York Times, Hunter Biden is preparing a possible Second Amendment defense to gun charges under that very case. The idea of the Bidens going Bruen is only the latest glaring contradiction for the First Family as it struggles to contain the scandals surrounding the son of the President. It appears that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a [Second Amendment claim] is a good guy with a [Second Amendment claim].”
When the Supreme Court handed down Bruen, it was heralded as a great civil liberties victory for gun owners and a great tragedy by gun control advocates. One of the loudest critics was President Biden who expressed his “deep disappointment” and denounced a ruling that he insisted “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.”
Those nonexistent rights, however, may now benefit his son who is facing clearly false statements contained on a gun form.
Form 4473 is required for gun purchases like the one of Hunter in 2018. It asks:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
Hunter reportedly lied and said “no.” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms maintains this ban applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs in the 12 months before buying a gun. Hunter Biden was using drugs before, during, and after that period.
We previously discussed the issue which became even greater news when it was learned that the gun was tossed into a trash bin in Wilmington by Hallie Biden, widow of the deceased brother of Hunter. After the death of his brother Beau, Hunter began a sexual relationship with Hallie and she apparently became concerned about what he might do with the gun.
President Biden has demanded “red flag” enforcement that would also appear to target the conduct of his own son.
Now, Hunter Biden could be arguing against some of these laws as unconstitutional under a more expansive view of the Second Amendment. While most courts have upheld the ban on drug users, Hunter’s lawyers reportedly told the Justice Department that they will challenge the law under Bruen where a six-justice majority declared that such limitations must be consistent with the practices during the founding period.
This is not the first glaring contradiction to arise under the Hunter Biden scandals. President Biden has long campaigned against “deadbeat Dads,” but did not utter a word of concern when his son spent years resisting recognizing (or supporting) his daughter until a settlement was raised with the help of a court. He is now trying to reduce those payments. The President and First Lady continue to refuse to acknowledge their granddaughter, Navy, as Hunter opposes her use of the family name.
Biden’s arguments in Arkansas, to paraphrase his new found allegiance, appears to be that “I’ll give you my [more child support] when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands.”
Given his father’s call for greater enforcement of red flag laws and gun controls (including permitting requirements), it will be interesting to see how the Justice Department deals with what appears a knowing violation of the federal gun laws. While this is not the charge that most concerns the White House, it is still a charge that can come with a sentence of up to 15 years in prison.
Ironically, when he committed the alleged violation, the penalty was 10 years. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act raised the maximum penalty for that offense to 15 years. The president who enthusiastically signed that law was Joe Biden.
The Fix is in…..and once again there is no doubt there is a double standard of justice at Biden’s DOJ.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/20/hunter-biden-to-plead-guilty-2-tax-counts-1-gun-charge-deal/
I believe any law-abiding US citizen should be able to own and carry any firearm that the US Government can use against its own citizens.
But lying on the 4473 would be a disqualifying felony.
Which is what Hunter did.
Bruen never addressed this and to be clear, Hunter, a self confessed drug abused is not a law abiding citizen.
-G
This is not about drugs and the second amendment, really. It is about lying on a Federal statement in writing to illegally obtain a weapon. Hiding behind 2A is hypocrisy.
Exactly!
That’s why it won’t fly, except as a way to give Hunter cover.
Anyone else tries this… they will get charged and go to jail.
-G
Wait a minute…he said all I needed was a double barrel shotgun of my back porch? Is he debugging on that promise? Shirley there must be a miscom! You are all worried about a pistol that could be history his with cash ….for drug deals! It has already been established that ppl get weapons for self defense at home! Including what Biden said a double barrel shot gun….is all they need. That isn’t tied to the form….because Biden himself already un tied it. So this is really just about a pistol! Most fun owners don’t do worthless pistols! Pistols are for murders and pussies!
That is to say Hunter has nothing in this case except as to pistols. And most pole in self defense the Supremes h as ve an surportive…don’t use pistols….he’s a huge red herring! Not a second and stawlworth! He’s a crack head who shouldn’t have a mobile pistol……totally different from the housewife with a double barrel off her back porch…whether she’s high or not! And There in lies the rub…..this isn’t about crack head hunter….it’s about you….they know….half america smokes wacky weed….disarm them for a innocent toke. This is all to disarm the people. Bc by state law some get high. Are they dangerous? Let later science judge. For now the mission is to disarm! It’s safe enough to conduct normal life….without self defense. That’s wierd. Who wants the pole disarmed and simultaneously high? Who?
Maybe at skin walker ranch? I suspect the entity they deal with constantly that communicates by shifting their compasses 180…..might just be trying to tell them there will be a pole shift? Elementary dear watson! If and when that happens most us can only ask….that God is real…and gives us each ever lasting life. We are certainly all dead in a pole shift. But like ice cores we have earth cores. And pole shifts happen. Get right with your god. Because it’s happening. And nothing climate warriors sue over can stop it. It is what it is. We get to choose our religion though! And not have it chosen by some woke agenda! These things are self evident. If we care to look into the cycles and not worship their God …who claims to save us…. but see the bigger picture for what it is. Another cycle man has no control over! And so all our ancestry came up with religion….and we don’t know if that’s real or not? Except all them believe in a greater god…a science of the soul or cosmos we haven’t figured out yet….but these perverts want us to stop at them getting their rocks off….because to them it’s truth? Kiss my ass!
And don’t call me Shirley!
Good catch. Airplane! was one of the best comedic films ever.
It’s just to rich. It’s just to rich. A guy who thinks that the Second Amendment shouldn’t be a right of the people wants to use the Second Amendment as a defense. Rights for he but not for ye. You just don’t understand that Hunter gets to declare his Second Amendment rights but those in the basket of deplorables need to have their guns taken away. Yet there are some who say that aristocracy no longer exists. Hardy har har.
Why must you blather over this ridiculously dysfunctional Family, Yes the Biden’s are “dysfunctional”.
The peculiarities of Their dysfunction run the gamut from; corruption, hypocrisy, blasphemy, and dishonesty.
Along with the, habits, substances, and possessions that perpetuate it.
They are not the only Washington D.C. Family to have these problems, and certainly not the only American Family to have them.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬. – ☢️ 𝐖𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐔𝐏 !
Lukashenko: Russia transferring nukes to Belarus
Updated: 2023-05-27
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202305/27/WS6471376ca310b6054fad5561.html
Russia is deploying nuclear weapons in Belarus. NATO shouldn’t take the bait
By Nikolai N. Sokov | April 24, 2023
https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/russia-is-deploying-nuclear-weapons-in-belarus-nato-shouldnt-take-the-bait/
𝐓𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐍𝐮𝐤𝐞𝐬: 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐋𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐢𝐧 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐖𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐲
https://atthebrink.org/tactical-nukes-one-little-nuclear-weapon-can-ruin-your-whole-day/
Number of Nuclear Warheads by Country – TIMELAPSE (1945-2022)
Tea Leaves – are you ever timely. I had a nuclear-bomb nightmare last night, my first in many years. I had just settled in my mind that it was a one-off, and now you have to go making me think it was prophetic. Dang!
I can promise you all…putin will never nuke! Because he himself is a Christian who cares about his soul! And his sos lavrath will never nuke. Because he is a christian…..the only people who would nuke….are the americans…who did it already before. But they would have zilch support. Already look at their stupid agreement…..they signed to stop so called climate change…looks like they are handing russia the beef industry! Heretofore we only had 500 thousand head of beef…..but we got tons of pasture….you idoits want to do xyz…we can raise cows…you fools! And you do this bc some info told you so? Duck you…..your if i is youselves! And you know it It’s all about your control! If it wasn’t your be buying geese! That’s how your kids are discerned. Geese eat grass witg h zero methane! But you don’t want people to even eat geese? What gives….masters?
Jonathan: I have noticed some of your loyal followers on this blog believe there is a conspiracy by a few of us who are critical of the positions you take in your column. They are big on conspiracies. “James” opines: “It’s easy to align the writing styles. Likely they are paid to do this every day”. He goes on: “I have noticed, and I don’t think its coincidence, that their comments appear in clusters”.
So I will be the first to reveal, James, that ,yes, Svelaz, Gigi, Anonymous and me–we are a group that some time ago decided we would join forces and point out all the illogic, partisan and factual problems in your columns. It’s not an easy job for which none of us are paid. We are dedicated to our enterprise. So we get together every week at our local watering hole to exchange ideas about how to get under the skin of your followers who actually believe every one of your columns is like the “Sermon on the Mount”. Gigi likes her Martinis. I prefer vodka and soda with a lime twist. The others just go with the artisan draft beer. As you can imagine we have a lot of laughs over the inane comments on your blog.
P.S.: Just for the record. I don’t first read Svelaz or Gigi before I compose my comment. It’s simply that great minds think alike!
Dennis – “none of us are paid”. Sorry, that is not a believable statement.
Edward: If you think I am paid to do this provide the proof. I understand why you might think so. I am erudite and my comments are based on research and facts. I am not a gadfly who just repeats the worn out conspiracy theories of Prof. Turley. If you want proof I am uncompensated just ask my wife. She often complains: “You spend so much time on that Turley blog you should get paid for it!”
Dennis McIntyre lectures us on conspiracy theories after he defended the greatest conspiracy theory in American History. Dennis stuck with the RussiaGate conspiracy theory to the bitter end. Laughing tell my sides ache. It’s to bad that the joke is so sad.
Somebody please get the President and his Family into a Therapy Program.
Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACoA) & Dysfunctional Families
https://adultchildren.org/
Please, before He launches a Tactical Nuclear War.
https://youtu.be/QYkoEu2ir2Y
A Tactical Nuke is just a Bigger Gun
He will ! None us re safe! Except folon on that! We ‘re 100% secure. God bless the nvy!
If a little damage from Ukrainian-made weapons is good, and if damage is the goal, then should more damage from Western weapons be even better? Damage is damage. This restriction is irrational.
AIN’T AMERICA GREAT?
_____________________
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a [Second Amendment claim] is a good guy with a [Second Amendment claim].”
“I’ll give you my [more child support] when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands.”
– Professor Turley
______________
Oh, my God! This is hilarious!
Stop it! Yer killin’ me, man!
Hunter Biden, an adult private citizen, should be able to take whatever political stands and legal positions he wants to. He is not bound by what his father does or thinks on any topic, nor am I bound by what my father thinks or Turley is bound by what his father thinks. That is called free speech in America and unfortunately Turley does not believe in the concept when it comes to people related to Biden.
That is called free speech in America and unfortunately Turley does not believe in the concept when it comes to people related to Biden.
Rubbish. Turley has never even remotely suggested Biden or his son be censored. He’s pointing out hypocrisy.
Now . . . whether to spend a whole column to point out hypocrisy in someone everyone already knows is hypocritical and generally immoral and corrupt, well that’s a separate question. I suspect your answer would be “no” and on that I would agree with you.
You are right about the hypocrisy. I don’t know why you care how Turley spends his time.
I don’t know why you care how Turley spends his time.
I’d rather read and comment on a story raising new and interesting issues than one which is kind of boring.
Then don’t read it. Do you know how many million other things you don’t read each day?
True, but I like many of his articles. And as a lawyer I find it fun to comment on this blog.
You are absolutely right, and yet you miss the point.
Ouch. The article was about the Second Amendment not the First. Also, Turley is pointing out the irony
The majority opinion in Bruen as it was in Heller left it clear that “nothing in it should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” As the prodigal son’s defense team tries to use a decision gun control advocates universally deplore as a get out of jail card tailored for one of their own, not only will the boy’s unlawful use of controlled substances be a far bridge to cross, but one likely made too far by virtue of his having so deliberately lied about his having been an unlawful user.
If the Biden Administration’s DOJ sides with the intent and purpose of Hunter’s legal team and does not prosecute the Form 4473 violation, it will be seen as having abrogated its duty to enforce federal law as well as sending a message that further emboldens the gun rights lobby and further deflates the gun control lobby. The attempt to intimidate the DOJ investigation will fail in a must prosecution and the case will and should inevitably head to the judiciary branch. That court will have the unenviable task of being the first to have to interpret Bruen. Given the strengths and popular support of the anti-gun and gun control lobbies, the court will have to weigh whether or not Hunter Biden is worth it.
The Left….always shooting themselves in the foot….and do so having been warned of the mistake they are making…..but onward they march.
Then…when the warnings come true….they blame everyone and everything but themselves.
The Democrats changed the Filibuster Rule for Judicial Appointments under Pinky Reid in the US Senate and despite McConnell and others telling the Democrats not to do it….they did.
Then….Trump gets elected and not the Democrat….and we saw Constructionists nominated and confirmed by the Senate….and the Left cried foul…..and ignored the fact they themselves had set up the new Rules used by McConnell.
Pick any topic…..Sanctuary Cities, Open Borders, Unlimited Federal Spending, politicizing the DOJ and IRS, cutting Defense Spending, Global Warming, Covid…..every time they over reach it comes back to bit them in their collective Behinds.
“The Left….always shooting themselves in the foot”
If the left is always shooting themselves in the foot, one wonders how they walk. They don’t.They crawl on their bellies in the dirt and filth.
I didn’t say it didn’t, but most of the crawling in dirt and filth is from the left. You understand that, right?
The comment I referred to seems to have disappeared. It must have been from one of those belly crawlers. They breed like vermin.
Ralph writes, “Yeah, Meyer, it disappeared. So much for ‘free speech’ on Turley’s blog.”
Free speech doesn’t mean that those continuously violating rules of decent behavior can’t be silenced. We have seen you in action and to be honest, no one wants to see you whether under this new name or the other. Likely this post of yours will disappear but mine will stay.
Sayonara.
Gibson writes and like the other vermin is likely soon to disappear since our slithering slimy friends use many anonymous names. ” the Bl*g St**ge would be the first one gone. But he’s a blog employee.”
You libel Turley’s reputation with that quote, so provide proof. You can’t. Go slither away. I would name you, but you have gone under so many different aliases, it won’t mean anything. Instead I will thank you for showing the world what low creatures you are
They slither!!!
Great word Wen and not only that but Slither and Svelaz start with the same letter.
“It’s the [law], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
“My bologna has a first name, it’s O-s-c-a-r.”
“My bologna has a second name, it’s M-e-y-e-r.”
______________________________________
Oh, I’d love to be an Oscar Meyer wiener.
That is what I’d truly like to be.
‘Cause if I were an Oscar Meyer wiener,
Everyone would be in love with me.
Oh, I’m glad I’m not an Oscar Meyer wiener.
That is what I’d never want to be.
Cause if I were an Oscar Meyer wiener.
There would soon be nothing left of me!
________________________________
Hey, Oscar, please forgive my intrusion, but it just dawned on me that “S”ecession starts with the same letter and is not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, and is, therefore, reserved to the States as referenced in the 10th Amendment.
Secession was constitutional.
Lincoln was comprehensively unconstitutional and must have been nullified then and must be nullified now.
Texas v. White, 1869, must be overturned and the entire Lincoln “effect” (i.e. “Reconstruction Amendments) must be abrogated, as Roe v. Wade was recently voided and vacated by Dobbs v. Jackson.
________________________
The Constitution was written to allow secession. James Madison rejected a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government the specific power to suppress a seceding state.
_________________________________________________
“A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
– James Madison
______________
“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
________________
“Where powers are assumed [by Lincoln] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act [of Lincoln’s assumption] is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
________________
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
George,
“it just dawned on me that “S”ecession starts with the same letter”
Yes, Slither, Svelaz, Secession, and Stupid all start with the same letter.”
“The Constitution was written to allow secession. James Madison rejected a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention”
Recently, I corrected your Lincoln quotes with the relevant passages from his speech to provide context to help you understand that you were wrong. I know it takes you time to absorb that material, but do I also have to repeat what Madison said later, correcting his earlier error? Your statement on Madison was also incomplete and wrong.
Digest your Oscar Mayer Weiner while you digest what Meyer told you.
“It’s the [application of the 10th], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
Ignorance is bliss, right?
Pay attention.
“S”ecession is not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, and is, therefore, reserved to the States, as referenced in the 10th Amendment.
George, based on your misquotes and misunderstanding of what Lincoln and Madison said, I understand your comment, “Ignorance is bliss, right?” You must be quite blissful.
OMG, Oscar! You left out the only quoted document that bears directly and definitively, the U.S. Constitution.
“The [freedoms] not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,….”
Secession is not “…delegated to the United States by the Constitution,…” nor “…prohibited by it to the States,…,” therefore, secession is “…reserved to the States respectively,….”
So your position is that the U.S. Constitution is invalid and illegitimate, do I have that right?
_________________________________________________________________________
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
.
King George III,
You have many problems quoting things correctly, which is what confuses you. For your theories to be correct, you knowingly change the words of the Constitution. That is a characteristic of the left. Are you a commie?
Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
You have things backward. Secession is an action by the states. The question is whether the federal government has a right to permit secession without state approval.
I’ll consider your ad hominem and lack of refutation as concession on the issue.
Thank you so much.
The Framers DID NOT PROHIBIT secession.
The rule, sense and intent of the 10th Amendment may be transposed and applied to the question of secession in order to facilitate understanding that secession is constitutional.
A power, right or freedom that is not delegated to the U.S., nor prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States respectively.
“I’ll consider your ad hominem and lack of refutation as concession on the issue.”
What ad hom? You misrepresented the Tenth Amendment by misquoting it. Then you misrepresented which party was taking the action.
“The Framers DID NOT PROHIBIT secession.”
The framers didn’t give the federal government the right to let them go. Did you forget their actions affected the other states? Further, one might better call secession, insurrection, or revolution.
Oscar, thank you for the favorable attempt at promotion, but I must respectfully decline.
“Oscar, thank you for the favorable attempt at promotion, but I must respectfully decline. ”
George, I thought you were playing dress-up. You called me Oscar, and I promoted you to George III. I guess you would prefer to be named Karl.
Your entire missive is ad hominem in that you provide no argument against the constitutionality of secession, other than the fact that it is your fondest whimsy.
You excel at escape and evasion from the facts.
Now you’re writing a new section in the Constitution, “The framers didn’t give the federal government the right to let them go,” Meyer – they didn’t need to as logic tells us and as the Framers stated in the 10th.
In the absence of a prohibition, the power, right or freedom of session exists, per the 10th Amendment – and certainly as an exercise in logic – and per Madison’s rejection of the inclusion of a prohibition against secession in the Constitution.
______________________________________________________________
“A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
– James Madison
______________
Secession is not prohibited.
Rights and freedoms may be considered “powers” which, if “…not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,….”
“Your entire missive is ad hominem in that you provide no argument against the constitutionality of secession”
That is not ad hom. Moreover, I can’t help it if you do not understand the Constitution and the rights of all states, not just those you are interested in.
“You excel at escape and evasion from the facts. ”
You give me too much credit for all I did was correct your errors, and your misquotes while siding with the law.
“Now you’re writing a new section in the Constitution, “The framers didn’t give the federal government the right to let them go,”
According to you, NY can occupy DE. Can you find a spot in the Constitution that says they can’t? I can’t help it if your argument doesn’t hold water.
“Meyer – they didn’t need to as logic tells us and as the Framers stated in the 10th.
In the absence of a prohibition, the power, right or freedom of session exists, per the 10th Amendment ”
Instead of rewriting the 10th Amendment, perhaps you should try to read the original wording.
” and per Madison’s rejection of the inclusion of a prohibition against secession in the Constitution.”
Is that the history? You abridge and misquote so frequently that anyone reading your writings would think you are talking about a different Constitution and country.
Early on, Madison, for many reasons, considered secession, but in the end, it wasn’t included in the Constitution for obvious reasons, some of which he mentioned. Later, Madison rejected the idea of secession.
I quoted you, Lincoln, to prove your statements wrong. Then I quoted Madison, but you seem to have memory loss. Try to respond with the complete history, not your abridgments that leave out the all-important details.
Change the subject; escape and evade.
Thank you for your gracious concession.
Secession is fully and irrefutably constitutional by omission and default.
Lincoln was nothing more than a corrupt, high criminal with communist tendencies.
“Change the subject; escape and evade.”
George, you are not a graceful loser.
I provided the full quote from Lincoln, proving your quotation invalid and you wrong. Then I showed your faulty understanding of what Madison said and demonstrated your lack of knowledge that his views changed. Finally, I corrected your erroneous 10th Amendment quote by providing the real one with commentary. Yet you thank me for my “gracious concession.” Are you daft?
There is no quote from Lincoln that has any power to amend the Constitution.
Nothing Lincoln said or did was constitutional or otherwise worthy.
You prove absolutely nothing by presenting a quote from Lincoln.
Lincoln lied and misrepresented not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession to obtain a false and illegitimate rationale to start an illegal war with a sovereign foreign nation – Lincoln illegally forced all of his inferiors to conform with his illicit acts and war.
Simply put, you fail to cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession.
You make up your own meandering sections of a Constitution; the Constitution of Oscar Meyer.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson stated that they did not put a prohibition of secession in the Constitution for good reason.
The American Founders knew secession, they seceded from Great Britain.
There is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.
Finally, please cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession.
You cannot and you never will.
Secession is not prohibited in the Constitution and is, therefore, constitutional by omission and default.
I have waited a long time for you to make an irrefutable, cogent and profound argument in support the denial of secession.
You quite simply have not done so.
Prohibition of secession does not exist in the Constitution.
“There is no quote from Lincoln that has any power to amend the Constitution.”
No quote from Lincon ever tried to.
“Nothing Lincoln said or did was constitutional or otherwise worthy.”
Even by accident, Lincoln had to have done something Constitutional. Therefore, we can dismiss your words as they are erroneous.
“Simply put, you fail to cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession.”
Simply put, you don’t understand that the other states needed to agree. You fail in your understanding of the Constitution.
“You make up your own meandering sections of a Constitution; the Constitution of Oscar Meyer.”
Karl, I make up nothing as the Confederate States did not follow the Constitution.
“James Madison and Thomas Jefferson stated that they did not put a prohibition of secession in the Constitution for good reason.”
They didn’t have to. It was moot, so there was no reason to add problems to ratification.
“The American Founders knew secession, they seceded from Great Britain.”
That was the American Revolution. Get it? Revolution, not secession.
“I have waited a long time for you…”
Yes, you have Karl, and while doing so, you have quoted things that did not exist, quoted out of context, were not scholarly in your search for the truth, and mostly you failed in your attempts to prove your case.
Do you know who else failed? Karl Marx. Perhaps that is why Engles finished Das Capital, not Marx.
Absolutely.
The Founders knew secession and the Founders wrote the Constitution.
The Founders deliberately did not include any prohibition of secession in the Constitution.
That is why there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.
Secession is not prohibited.
Secession is fully constitutional.
You and Lincoln need to fraudulently present something immutably erroneous as true in order to feebly attempt to justify an illegal war against a sovereign foreign nation.
Every act of Lincoln was illegal and unconstitutional as every act of Lincoln was based on the lie and the falsehood that secession was unconstitutional.
Please do just one simple thing; please do let me know when you are able to cite a prohibition of secession in the Constitution.
“Absolutely. The Founders knew secession and the Founders wrote the Constitution.”
Correlation is not causation.
We are dealing with a contract. Everything points to secession not being valid, as I discussed before. If states want such a right, they need permission from the other states. It wasn’t granted and doesn’t exist in the Constitution. In short, the only options left were rebellion and insurrection.
“The Founders deliberately did not include any prohibition of secession in the Constitution. ”
We have plenty of literature from the founding fathers, including the debates. Show us where the founders said the right to secession exists in the Constitution. Your prior quotes didn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The rest of your discussion adds nothing new, nor does it correct your previous errors.
SM,
So the States are the Original Signatories of the completely Restrictive Contract to Form the US Govt & spelled out in US Con., that ends up with the 10th Amd. that grants States & Citizens all of Rights not Annotated, but is it your position that States & Citizens now have no recourse when the Fed Govt’ is in complete Breach of Contract, The Bargain?
Is that basically your position?
No.
They have recourse to rebellion or insurrection.
Secession would require an agreement with the remaining states.
Like an abused spouse, just lat back & enjoy it sugar?
In the 2020 Election fraud against US States & Citizen, now proven in public a fact that We all Suffer From Today, AG Ken Paxton of Tx, with 20-24 other States filed suit against other States over the Fraud with the SCOTUS, the Court came back & said the States Had No Standing!
Maybe it was filed wrong, but the Court didn’t even hear this & most of those cases on the Merits!
BTW: Standing, is that not a Made Up Construct or What! I have seen Standing anywhere in the USC, it just showed up one day about a 100 yrs back. (Ph’k Commie/Fascist no doubt again 🙂 )
“Like an abused spouse, just lat back & enjoy it sugar?”
OKY, that is not a good analogy. An abused wife can walk out the door, but the property within is governed by contract and the law.
Secession requires agreement among the parties to the secession; that is all.
Secession does not require any agreement with opposing and contrary States.
Please cite the Constitution for anything you present on secession.
You can’t because it is not there.
You are partial, biased, desirous of a specific outcome and driven by a personal goal, not the truth and the facts.
You simply engage in irrelevant ideation.
George, you are starting to act like a crybaby with your accusations.
I can’t help it if you don’t know how to draw a good contract and lack an understanding of the elements that need to be covered.
In business, I drew up a lot of contracts. The most important part, often given little attention, is the exit plan. This contract between the states didn’t have an exit plan for good reason. Did you ever try scrambling 13 eggs to discover you can’t cook them? Did you ever put those thirteen eggs back into their original form? When you can do that, come back to me.
Go with the additional ad hominem; you have nothing of substance.
Please cite the Constitution for any form of prohibition of secession – the Founders deliberately did not prohibit secession in the Constitution.
SECESSION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT SECESSION.
.Right, Oscar?
From you, that makes perfect sense.
“Go with the additional ad hominem….Right, Oscar?”
Wrong, Karl, but at least you have nothing more to say. That is good. It means you aren’t misquoting and you are limiting your errors.
“They have recourse to rebellion or insurrection.”
“Secession would require an agreement with the remaining states.”
– Oscar Meyer
____________
When you conclude your bizarre and incoherent tantrum, please cite the Constitution wherein “recourse” and “agreement” are provided or required.
Please cite any code or body of law.
The Constitution does not prohibit secession.
You continue to fail to provide any citation of fundamental law.
You repeatedly cite that august code, Inverse Law According to Oscar Meyer:
SECESSION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT SECESSION.
Karl: Secession is an action. The federal government had no part in that action. The consent of other states, a necessity, is lacking. To make that more palatable for you, the South knew this would lead to hostility. That means there was either a rebellion or insurrection. The proof is Southern actions led to a Civil War, and secession never happened. Instead, the rebellion was defeated.
I joined this blog about 10 years ago to better understand the arguments around how the force of law functions to secure our natural and unalienable right to life, liberty and property. What I’ve learned however is that force is not an instrument for equal justice, but rather a weapon to shield a protected class from justice, while punishing those that the protected class perceive as a threat to their status.
Professor Turley provides us a forum to debate a multitude of current events that have legal implications. I’ve never been to law school, but I suspect this is what occurs in class. I’m curious to know if law school teaches that facts and evidence of violations of existing law are irrelevant if prosecutors choose not to indict? Because on this blog, it is routinely argued that because no indictments are made, that that is evidence no crime has been committed. Essentially, it’s like the old philosophical question: If a tree fell in the woods, did it make a sound? The Leftists on this blog are here to distract attention away from facts and evidence (the tree fell), by focusing on the lack of indictments or successful prosecutions (no sound). The other gaslighting technique they argue is that the absence of an investigation is proof no crime has been committed. In essence, because no one is investigating the allegation that trees are falling, not only is the question of making a sound moot, the allegation is moot as well.
I’d say an AI algorithm could solve this, but then we still have the nature of man involved in the programming.
Olly, you hit the nail on the head regarding how democrat operatives like Svelaz pooh pooh all of the corruption by saying there are no investigations or there are no indictments. The irony is that Svelaz makes your point that the lack of indictments or even investigations is PROOF of corruption.
As the great Sherlock Holmes said, it is the dog not barking that is the evidence. The Curious Incident of the Dig in the Night-time.
The irony is that Svelaz makes your point that the lack of indictments or even investigations is PROOF of corruption.
Hullbobby, that is absolutely correct. The important point, especially as it relates to how our system of justice is supposed to operate, is how the element of evidence that proves the allegation that violations of the law have been committed, is not a measure which Svelaz and the other agitators consider relevant. The only measure that is important to them is the target of the allegation. Facts and evidence have relevance only if it is the right target. If it’s the wrong target, no amount of facts or evidence will make any difference in a debate with them. All our system of justice is to them is a weapon for persecuting their ideological enemies. This is exactly what Bastiat called The Complete Perversion of the Law.
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
HullBobby and OLLY,
Great comments.
You both use common sense and logic to prove your points.
Two things the woke leftists sorely lack.
THE DISASTROUS RISE OF MISPLACED POWER
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
– Farewell Address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961
_________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
👍
I find it interesting listening to orators like such as Prof Turley, Viva Barnes law ,which pieces can be found on Rumble.
Not the Trolls
The leftists overreached and gave us Bruen and of course they went too far and gave us Heller as well. The leftists became sanctuary cities and now they scream for help. The left created zones of freedom for thieves and sit by as their cities empty and crumble. The leftists demanded abortion up to the 9th month and they lost Roe. Now we will laugh at them as their greatest leftist tool, Joe Biden, has his closest criminal cohort (he has more than a few) invent a new case arguing that having or using drugs should not make you ineligible to own a gun.
Oh the irony of a further loosening of gun restrictions due to the selfish actions of a Biden.
Remember little people, “you don’t mess with a Biden”. Why else would we see an election campaign by a man that can’t walk, talk or think without one serious challenger coming forward. What invisible hand stymies the greed and opportunism of a Newsome, a Warren, a Bernie, a Whitmore et al. What does the evil Biden and/or the CCP have on everyone that even despite the urges of human nature and the desire to protect our country from an enfeebled corrupt moron nobody is coming forward to rid us of this poison.