Continental Congress 2009 Intro - Warning-

[TriumPhil]

I get confused all the time!

 

[HeR3tic]

An interesting read and certainly part of a movement that I have been calling for for years. Our country needs an enema - a "Revolution of the Mind" if you will, one that is grass roots driven and aimed at taking the form and excersise of central government in our nation back much closer to what our Founding Fathers initially conceptualized and partially implemented.

I am not certain that this particular organization is for me as its progenesis appears to be distinctly to the right of center and I consider myself very much a centrist. In particular, I looked at my state's delegates to this so-called "Continental Congress" and I found that their credentials, backgrounds and personal position statements were lacking... generally lightweight, underqualified or vague.

I do applaud the organization's effort to attempt to right a ship of state that is clearly foundering and I will continue to research the issue from both sides of the fence so that I, in my own way, can continue to help to wake people up to the political realities of our times, i.e., that our system of govt is broken and it no longer substantiall or appropriately serves the credo "of, by and for the people."

Good, provocative post, HeR3tic!

Good luck with that request. Although it would be nice to confine the chatter on a forum for and about motorcycles and motorcyclists to subjects for and about cyclists and cycling, I believe that, human nature being as it is, it is virtually impossible to do so. I came from a forum that has been all but ruined by political diatribes, politicizing and catfighting amongst and between those with opposing political views. I'd hate to see the same happen here! Maybe the admins could direct any and all political ramblings here to a sub-forum?

Things of this nature are usually put on the "Final Drive". When I first saw the title, it didn't take to long to figure out that it was going to be political. At that point I had an option. Look at it, or not. If you don't like the station, change the channel. I like talking politics. You can be the biggest liberal on the planet and after all's said and done, I'd be proud to share the open breeze with ya, have a beer and talk religion, lol. I don't consider these subjects taboo, just part of life. If on the other hand you don't want to talk about these things, I can respect that to. So if I ever have the pleasure of meeting more of you on this forum in person, we can skip these topics if you like. But while on the forum.... just change the channel. My two cents, and worth every bit of that

My utmost apologies! It was suppose to be a final drive post. Must have been a fat-fingered-magruder And I defer to the janitor to put it where it belongs. I make no apologies for waking you up .

 

[HeR3tic]

Let's keep politics in the taverns and jail cells, where it belongs.

And if the Congressional, Executive, and Judicial perpetrators of these treasonous acts were in fact in jail cells I wouldn't have to bring this to your attention.

 

[TriumPhil]

Honestly, it wasn't really that much of a concern on my part. If you don't want to engage in a thread so-entitled, don't!

I just would hate to see another apolitical motorcycle site shot to hell because folks can't confine the more inflammatory or controversial extraneous subjects to a place that is relegated for those types of topics specifically. It's still a free country, I think.

 

[HeR3tic]

Warning - Apology retracted

I was browsing around and see I may have posted something inappropriate. At a first glance it seemed so. But, if we havent realized that we are confronted by the darkside of government and you havent realized it...the appology should be yours.

Bump..

But, my 225 Cooper Zeon has been a real blessing for my wallet. And peace of mind and a diminished need for Viagra. That "joker-like" grin is brought on by torque...and these daze Im mighty torqued.

If the populace doesnt freaking know by now, I have little faith for a Republic. A collapse in the fraudulent financial oligarchy is by knowledgeable accounts, imminent. Paul Craig Roberts, Matthias Chang, Michel Chossudovsky, Ellen Brown, and many many others tell me we are in for the riot of our American lives.

I make no present or later apology. I have a right to speak and you have a right to change the channel. the "warning" label was meant for you.

In a Constitutional Congress I will advocate a repeal of the 14th Amendment in its entirety. The need for it at the time was good and just. There was never an original intention to give corporations, with satanist judgments, the same status as real breathing and heart beating people.

Ive gotten about 16k from by Darkside Zeon tire...twice that of a Metz

 

[ksquared]

In a Constitutional Congress I will advocate a repeal of the 14th Amendment in its entirety. The need for it at the time was good and just. There was never an original intention to give corporations, with satanist judgments, the same status as real breathing and heart beating people.

You might want to be careful what you wish for. In your zeal to bring abuses of corporate America under control, your proposed abolition of the 14th Amendment will result in the non-incorporation of the Constitutional safeguards of the Bill of Rights as against the states.

As you are certainly aware, the protections of the Bill of Rights apply only to the Federal Government, "congress shall make no law . . . " etc. It is incorporation of those safeguards against the states through the 14th Amendment that prevents the states from, for example, depriving you of your property without due process of law. The states cannot make a law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, etc., because those Bill of Rights safeguards have been made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment. A list of cases where specific safeguards of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment include the following:

Amendment I

Guarantee against establishment of religion
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).[16]

Guarantee of free exercise of religion
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

Guarantee of freedom of speech
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(dicta).

Guarantee of freedom of the press
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

Guarantee of freedom of assembly
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).

Right to petition for redress of grievances
It appears that no one case incorporates this right individually. However, dicta in Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) suggests that this right is incorporated along with all the other First Amendment guarantees.

Guarantee of freedom of expressive association
This right, though not in the words of the first amendment, was first mentioned in the case NAACP v. Alabama, and was at that time applied to the states.

Amendment II

Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Amendment III

Freedom from quartering of soldiers
This provision has been incorporated against the states within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and has not been held to be incorporated against the states elsewhere.

In 1982, the Second Circuit applied the Third Amendment to the states in Engblom v. Carey. This is a binding authority over Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, but is only a persuasive authority over the remainder of the United States.

The Tenth Circuit has suggested that the right is incorporated because the Bill of Rights explicitly codifies the "fee ownership system developed in English law" through the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the Fourteenth Amendment likewise forbids the states from depriving citizens of their property without due process of law. See United States v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485, 1510 n.1 (10th Cir. 1988).

Amendment IV

Unreasonable search and seizure
This right has been incorporated against the states, along with the remedy of exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence, by the Supreme Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). In Mapp, the Court overruled Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), in which the Court had ruled that while the Fourth Amendment applied to the states (meaning that they were bound not to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures), the exclusionary rule did not (meaning that they were free to fashion other remedies for criminal defendants whose possessions had been illegally seized by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment).

Warrant requirements
The various warrant requirements have been incorporated against the states. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).

The standards for judging whether a search or seizure undertaken without a warrant was "unreasonable" also have been incorporated against the states. See Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963).

Amendment V

Right to indictment by a grand jury

This right has been held not to be incorporated against the states. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). Because many state constitutions provide for indictment by grand jury, at least in the case of serious crimes, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will revisit the decision not to incorporate this right against the states.

Protection against double jeopardy
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).

Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).

A note about the Miranda warnings: The text of the Fifth Amendment does not require that the police, before interrogating a suspect whom they have in custody, give him or her the now-famous Miranda warnings. Nevertheless, the Court has held that these warnings are a necessary prophylactic device, and thus required by the Fifth Amendment by police who interrogate any criminal suspect in custody, regardless of whether he or she is ultimately prosecuted in state or federal court.

Protection against taking of private property without just compensation
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).

Amendment VI

Right to a speedy trial
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967).

Right to a public trial
This right has been incorporated against the states. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).

Right to trial by impartial jury
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968). However, the size of the jury, as well as the requirement that it unanimously reach its verdict, vary between federal and state courts. Even so, the Supreme Court has ruled that a jury in a criminal case may have as few as six members. If there are twelve, only nine jurors need agree on a verdict. Furthermore, there is no right to a jury trial in juvenile delinquency proceedings held in state court. See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971).

Right to notice of accusations
This right has been incorporated against the states. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).

Right to confront adverse witnesses
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965).

Right to compulsory process (subpoenas) to obtain witness testimony
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967).

Right to assistance of counsel
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). In subsequent decisions, the Court extended the right to counsel to any case in which a jail sentence is imposed.


Amendment VII

Right to jury trial in civil cases
This right has not been held to be incorporated against the states. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916).

Amendment VIII

Protections against "excessive" bail and "excessive" fines
These provisions have not been held to be incorporated against the states. In Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982), the Court held that a pretrial detainee's suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that he was being unconstitutionally denied bail, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, was rendered moot when he was convicted in a Nebraska court. The conclusion that the § 1983 case had been moot from the moment of the defendant's conviction allowed the Court to avoid deciding whether the Eighth Amendment protection against "excessive" bail applied to prosecutions in state court. In any event, all state constitutions provide for a similar right, and so the most frequent mechanism for challenging the amount of bail, or the complete denial of bail, remains state law.

Protection against "cruel and unusual punishments"
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). This holding has led the Court to suggest, in dicta, that the excessive bail and excessive fines protections have also been incorporated. See Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 1529 (2008).

 

[Hellwalker]

Amen

Things of this nature are usually put on the "Final Drive". When I first saw the title, it didn't take to long to figure out that it was going to be political. At that point I had an option. Look at it, or not. If you don't like the station, change the channel. I like talking politics. You can be the biggest liberal on the planet and after all's said and done, I'd be proud to share the open breeze with ya, have a beer and talk religion, lol. I don't consider these subjects taboo, just part of life. If on the other hand you don't want to talk about these things, I can respect that to. So if I ever have the pleasure of meeting more of you on this forum in person, we can skip these topics if you like. But while on the forum.... just change the channel. My two cents, and worth every bit of that

I agree with you 110% and I am to the right of right, but run with people of all political persuasions, religions and opinions. I have to, I am an Expat and its part of the job, and it's fun. I find every-time we do get into discussions of this nature, sometimes heated, I walk away a little more educated, a little more convicted and a lot more sure of were I stand. I am counting the days to the mid-terms just because of the statement it will make. But I agree we need a purge on both sides.

 

[JoseyR3Wales]

Plus one. United we stand, devided we fall. And Roll Tide, beat Penn State, where does that post belong?

 

[HeR3tic]

Ozzman3R, from the moniker I assume you are located down-under? I had no idea there were Copperheads down-under.

Did you hear of the 28+ foot alligator, in Florida? This may have been that which is known to have taken a full grown whitetail buck in its mouth and swum across a lake, somewhere in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana or was it truly in Florida. Apparently this 28 footer was intruding onto landowners' property and had to be dispatched with. The picture of this huge creature lifted up by a front end loader, suggests a huge gator tail Bar-B-Q was in order Gator tail - tastes like chlorinated chicken but as rubbery as conch.

 

[JoseyR3Wales]

A derivitive of the last name and subsequent nickname as in "The Ozzman Cometh" aka Ozzy. Born Montgomery, Alabama 1956 and well versed in BBQ, Crimson Tide football, and did I mention BBQ? Red neck, right wing, conservative Christian, Rocket ridin', master of many things, did I mention BBQ? The moniker I use on another site is indicative of my preferences and attitude.