# Are we a nation of laws?



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

I have heard many times that we are a Nation of laws, but are we? How about Presidential Executive Orders? The original concept of the Executive Orders was that they were directives to the Executive branch of the Government, such as DOJ, Dept of AG, Dept of Def etc. Various Presidents have stepped over the line, for example FDR ordering by Executive Order that all citizens turn in their gold bullion, with those refusing facing jail time. In that case the court system decided that he didn't have the authority under Presidential Executive Order to do that, although a Democrat controlled Congress later passed it as law.

What concerns me is what has been happening recently. Under Executive Order many illegal aliens are no longer detained and deported from the Country by ICE, even though under the present laws they are supposed to. Another area is Obamacare. It is a law, yet Mr. Obama has on 15-20 occasions has either changed it or granted exemptions to various groups of people, something that under that law, is not authorized.

Finally we different Departments that make rules that if people violate those laws not only can be fined but sent to jail. In particular the EPA can do this. These aren't laws, they weren't voted on or enacted by Congress, our elected officials, you you can do prison time if you violate these rules. 

I sometimes feel like the old story in a frying pan. First things are just a little warm and the next thing you know you are neck deep in boiling water.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

As long as he makes decisions that enhance the re-election prospects of the Senate and HOR, . . . they will not interfere.

As long as he does not make waves against the supreme court, . . . they will not interfere.

As long as he proposes (successfully) programs like Obamaphones, . . . free medical care (the greatest increase in % of Obamacare is the number being switched to Medicare or Medicaid, . . . from a paying program), . . . increases in unemployment dole out, . . . increases in welfare, . . . free gasoline (already one in Detroit, . . . your welfare card gets you free gas), . . . : there will be no groundswell from the unwashed masses, . . . who unfortunately put that narcissistic idiot in office to begin with.

Now other than the remaining half dozen of us who are footing all these bills, . . . who is going to challenge his "laws"?

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

I don't think Obama invented the (ab)use of the executive order.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

roy said:


> I don't think Obama invented the (ab)use of the executive order.


He didn't say Obama invented it. He said that Obama is taking it farther than his predecessors. He seems to be pushing it to the limit, to see how far he can go.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

Notsoyoung said:


> I have heard many times that we are a Nation of laws, but are we? How about Presidential Executive Orders? The original concept of the Executive Orders was that they were directives to the Executive branch of the Government, such as DOJ, Dept of AG, Dept of Def etc. Various Presidents have stepped over the line, for example FDR ordering by Executive Order that all citizens turn in their gold bullion, with those refusing facing jail time. In that case the court system decided that he didn't have the authority under Presidential Executive Order to do that, although a Democrat controlled Congress later passed it as law.
> 
> What concerns me is what has been happening recently. Under Executive Order many illegal aliens are no longer detained and deported from the Country by ICE, even though under the present laws they are supposed to. Another area is Obamacare. It is a law, yet Mr. Obama has on 15-20 occasions has either changed it or granted exemptions to various groups of people, something that under that law, is not authorized.
> 
> ...


We are a nation of laws and those laws will be applied unless you're an elected official or appointed official in DC. Then you're above the laws, which are only meant for the "little people" The Washington elite are above such nonsense as obeying the law. Haven't we all figured this out by now?


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

I wonder why the Republicans didn't fix all this crap when they controlled the three branches of government?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

We are no longer a nation of laws when the DOJ, which is charged with upholding ALL federal laws, decides on a whim from Eric Holder which laws it will or will not enforce.
We are no longer a nation of laws when the DOJ not only picks and chooses which laws it will enforce, but actually BREAKS laws when it suits them (providing firearms to Mexican drug cartels, for exampe).
We are no longer a nation of laws when the President arbitrarily changes laws (legally passed and signed laws) to suit his own political purposes (Obamacare).
We are no longer a nation of laws when various alphabet agencies routinely disregard the Bill Of Rights.

One could go on for pages of examples. In my own opinion Obama is as close to being a tyrannical dictator as this country has ever seen.
Our Forefathers would have been in open rebellion by now.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

Are we a nation of laws? Yes. Absolutely.
Have we made, created, passed laws that make no sense or have no real way of functioning as they were originally dreamed up? Yes. Absolutely.
Do we now subjectively decide which laws to enforce and when on the basis of convenience to the elected official rather than the fairness of the law? Yes. Absolutely.
Will this eventually lead to confusion and then to apathy for the legal system? Yes. Absolutely.
And what follows confusion and apathy? Revolt - peaceful or otherwise. Yes. Absolutely.

If there is one thing I've learned in life be it in Math, Geology, Science, Mother Nature, or Faith it is this - Everything eventually balances out, Yin and Yang, Up and Down, Cold and Hot, Pressure and Release.

If I was the POTUS, I'd be steady handing the power back to the people and states as fast as possible. Balancing the power threshold well before anything can come of it.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

laws, you're dreaming right?? with enough money you can get away with murder....

the saying is, money talks, bull shit walks, ever wonder why only the privileged get into power... not like they don't already own multi million doller houses, sometimes. working man may get into the lower house (don't know what you yanks call it) it's a token role with no real power


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

I have heard it said that anarchy is not just a state of having no laws. It can also be a state of having too many laws, selectively enforced.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

Inor said:


> I have heard it said that anarchy is not just a state of having no laws. It can also be a state of having too many laws, selectively enforced.


Technically speaking, Anarchy isn't a form of government. It is a method of change between two forms of government (like Democracy to Oligarchy) but sometimes the method of Anarchy lasts for several generations so it feels like a form of government.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

pheniox17 said:


> laws, you're dreaming right?? *with enough money you can get away with murder....*
> 
> the saying is, money talks, bull shit walks, ever wonder why only the privileged get into power... not like they don't already own.multi million roller houses, sometimes. working man may get into the lower house (don't know what you yanks call it) it's a token role with no real power


This is more true than you think. A 16 year old boy was driving drunk. Well past the legal limit. He killed a couple of people. He was given probation. Why? Get ready for it............ here it comes.............. he is a victim of affluenza. Yup, we now have a new defense. His parents had so much money, they ignored him and just gave him everything he wanted.

The judge felt sorry for him, gave him probation and told him he had to go into rehab.

The saddest part is this happened in Texas.

Affluenza Defense: Rich Texas Teen Gets Probation For Killing 4 Pedestrians While Driving Drunk (VIDEO)


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

inceptor said:


> This is more true than you think. A 16 year old boy was driving drunk. Well past the legal limit. He killed a couple of people. He was given probation. Why? Get ready for it............ here it comes.............. he is a victim of affluenza. Yup, we now have a new defense. His parents had so much money, they ignored him and just gave him everything he wanted.
> 
> The judge felt sorry for him, gave him probation and told him he had to go into rehab.
> 
> ...


it's funny that it's not the only example.....


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

pheniox17 said:


> it's funny that it's not the only example.....


That was the 1st I had ever heard of it.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

inceptor said:


> That was the 1st I had ever heard of it.


happens here more often, and punishment is ... don't laugh, a $300 fine... (it's the starting rate) highest I have seen for upper class in my feeds is $1200.... joke right...

what's worse, if you own a harly... instant 15 years jail..... (in my lovely police state of Queensland) we are fighting it tho....


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

anarchy is simple a state where there is no power or authority over.
Obama is not a president he has appointed him self KING.
Kings make up the laws as they go. He is good at being a king


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Nation of laws? This is a discussion that is decades late to the party.

We _were_ a nation of laws, once. That meant our laws were firmly anchored in a core set of truths (laws of nature and of nature's God, as the founders put it). Legislation passed that were in accordance with this were viewed as being constitutional, those contrary to this standard was ruled as being unconstitutional and struck down. Regardless of the fickle heart of public opinion or the treacherous ways of politicians, the balance of political power was supposed to keep all things in check and insure we were ruled by law; constitutional law.

How long has that not been the case? True law has been replaced by statutes that are used as tools to destroy a free and good society and not protect it. Codes and regulations restrict and tax your every move. Public opinion is warped by brainwashing propaganda tools and then used to elect ever-worsening political puppets while rejecting the lone voices in the wilderness, chanting all the while, "I like him, but he is a bit nuts and has no chance to win. Therefore, I will vote for the lesser of two evils."

No, we are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of whims, anchored to nothing and drifting toward the rocks.

Merry Christmas!


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

There has always been two levels of law in this country, one for the rich and one for the rest of us.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Our " rule of law" has eroded for decades if not longer. What we now have is a failure of the three branches to keep each other in check and the rise of the 4th branch. Obama has just moved the ball forward a bit farther.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Piratesailor said:


> Our " rule of law" has eroded for decades if not longer. What we now have is a failure of the three branches to keep each other in check and the rise of the 4th branch. Obama has just moved the ball forward a bit farther.


Yup. This is what happens when you destroy a constitutional republic and replace it with a democracy. We know where a democracy leads us. According to the founders, the trip is relatively fast, too.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

I remember when Nixon was forced from office this was done specifically with the statement "We are a nation of laws." I don't see the forces that brought Nixon down aligned against Obama. A case can easily be made that the media a major factor in Nixon's removal is now an organ of the party.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

I just saw on the news that Obama's approval rating is 41%. Creative journalism does wonders!


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

retired guard said:


> I just saw on the news that Obama's approval rating is 41%. Creative journalism does wonders!


The amazing part is it's that high. I wonder how many people said they approved of his job performance because they did not wish to be perceived as racist.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

jimb1972 said:


> The amazing part is it's that high. I wonder how many people said they approved of his job performance because they did not wish to be perceived as racist.


You know, that was one aspect of our cultural decline I thought would come out in the open - false assertions of racism. They still find a way to declare all opposed to His Highness as racists, and declare White America bigots.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Denton said:


> You know, that was one aspect of our cultural decline I thought would come out in the open - false assertions of racism. They still find a way to declare all opposed to His Highness as racists, and declare White America bigots.


That's why they ignore it when Ben Carson or Herman Cain speak out against his mightiness, they can hardly assert racism.


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

jimb1972 said:


> The amazing part is it's that high. I wonder how many people said they approved of his job performance because they did not wish to be perceived as racist.


Pretty sure those polls are anonymous. Not saying I disagree with your politics, I just don't think that people would care that much about how they are perceived in an anonymous poll.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

sparkyprep said:


> Pretty sure those polls are anonymous. Not saying I disagree with your politics, I just don't think that people would care that much about how they are perceived in an anonymous poll.


It is an anonymous poll, but there is still a person on the other end of the phone line and people care about what complete strangers think of them, especially if the person on the line sounds like they may be black themselves.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> I have heard many times that we are a Nation of laws, but are we? How about Presidential Executive Orders? The original concept of the Executive Orders was that they were directives to the Executive branch of the Government, such as DOJ, Dept of AG, Dept of Def etc. Various Presidents have stepped over the line, for example FDR ordering by Executive Order that all citizens turn in their gold bullion, with those refusing facing jail time. In that case the court system decided that he didn't have the authority under Presidential Executive Order to do that, although a Democrat controlled Congress later passed it as law.
> 
> What concerns me is what has been happening recently. Under Executive Order many illegal aliens are no longer detained and deported from the Country by ICE, even though under the present laws they are supposed to. Another area is Obamacare. It is a law, yet Mr. Obama has on 15-20 occasions has either changed it or granted exemptions to various groups of people, something that under that law, is not authorized.
> 
> ...


I just received this book today, I'll start it very soon

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century: Thomas E. Woods: 9781596981492: Amazon.com: Books

Check out this guy at Tom Woods | The Libertarian View

Very interesting to combat our current rule without law


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

The federal government supplies little funding for public education. In Texas it amounts to about 10%.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Old SF Guy said:


> Well...apparently I make more sense to my self while drinking than I do to the masses


Welcome to my World!


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

What I am seeing is some states are fighting the feds. In many states, including the liberal state of Vermont, are looking to secede. The outcry is increasing. 

Sent from the Republic of Texas


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

roy said:


> I wonder why the Republicans didn't fix all this crap when they controlled the three branches of government?


I really don't give a crap if it is the Dems or the Reps. Who's in power now? Trying to divert any criticism of who is in power now because they belong to your party by attacking what the other party did when thy were in power is juvenile, intellectually dishonest, and just another example of "my party over all". The abuses are not only expanding, but exploding, and a large part of the problem are those from both parties who try to excuse anything that those from THEIR party does, no matter what. When my kids were young occasionally when they got in trouble their excuse was "but Johnny next door did it". I didn't accept that excuse from a kid, I won't accept it from a so-called adult.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

I guess that is why I ain't a Republican no more. 

Don't vote for an incumbent, ever!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> Guys...gals...I'm sorry....I stopped reading early on...because the moment we gave up States rights for federal dollars we lost the whole nation of laws thing. ...States keep the federal government in line....not individuals. Think about it...it's levels. 2/3rds controls the government. California splitting is great and will be opposed by liberals because many parts of cali are conservative The fact that Arizona stood alone in the fight against illegal immigration told me we are not fighting at the right level. F obama and the senate and the congress....get them at the states. States that do not want their Education dollars. States that don't want their medicare programs. If you take their money then you owe them alms....render unto caesar.....The moment you want to learn about the real cause for the civil war I will discuss or debate it with you.


Very good points.

Rather than states electing those who go to D.C., the citizens elect them directly. Not only do those who have a stake in this country vote, but all those who are wanting to get something from the other crowd and want to use the government to get it.

Rather than being funded by the states, the federal government goes right to the individuals' pocket books. Rather than the states having control, the federal government now dictate to the states.

The death of the constitutional republic and the birth of the death of the nation - democracy.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

We are a nation of laws - only so long as we, the people, enforce them. If you are blaming just one of the "ruling" parties for the decline in America you are part of the problem.

Vote Libertarian at the federal level to get back to the constitution.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Open borders is part of the offical platform of the Libertarian Party.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I am a Constitution Party member.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

roy said:


> Open borders is part of the offical platform of the Libertarian Party.


"Open borders" with a lawful immigration system is well defined in our laws. It is not in the feds power to "close" the borders but it is in their power to control them. The Libertarian stand is the constitution, as it should be for the federal government. The states are free to assist in "protection" of their borders to other countries.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

PaulS said:


> "Open borders" with a lawful immigration system is well defined in our laws. It is not in the feds power to "close" the borders but it is in their power to control them. The Libertarian stand is the constitution, as it should be for the federal government. The states are free to assist in "protection" of their borders to other countries.


This is from the official Libertarian Party Platform:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> I have heard many times that we are a Nation of laws, but are we? How about Presidential Executive Orders? The original concept of the Executive Orders was that they were directives to the Executive branch of the Government, such as DOJ, Dept of AG, Dept of Def etc. Various Presidents have stepped over the line, for example FDR ordering by Executive Order that all citizens turn in their gold bullion, with those refusing facing jail time. In that case the court system decided that he didn't have the authority under Presidential Executive Order to do that, although a Democrat controlled Congress later passed it as law.
> 
> What concerns me is what has been happening recently. Under Executive Order many illegal aliens are no longer detained and deported from the Country by ICE, even though under the present laws they are supposed to. Another area is Obamacare. It is a law, yet Mr. Obama has on 15-20 occasions has either changed it or granted exemptions to various groups of people, something that under that law, is not authorized.
> 
> ...


Here are some key points to remember:

The lawful (de jure) government is a constitutional Republic guaranteed under Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. The current de facto (illegal) government operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is a Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. The reason that we are under de facto rule is due to the simple fact that most (virtually all) Americans aren't well versed in how things become law.

We all know the standard line about how America is *supposed* to work: three branches of government (legislative, executive and judicial) are supposedly all equal and Congress passes the laws and the president signs them into law, blah, blah, blah.

What is really happening is that every branch of government delegates their authority to non-elected tyrants that conjure up rules and regulations which are as much "_law_" as anything Congress does. It's always someone else fault... or so we reason, but everybody is in on the sell out.

For example, you mention immigration law. Immigration is civil law, not criminal law. The laws in place, if understood, are unconstitutional, immoral, ridiculous and unenforceable. Yet we continue to have people beating the drums to "_enforce_" a set of laws they've never read. Since those laws cannot be enforced via the criminal statutes, the Social Conservatives have empowered private entities to manufacture rules and regulations so as to create the equivalent of criminal laws.

In the case of immigration, the blade cuts both ways. Furthermore, once you interpret those rules to give the government this extraordinary power, the precedent is then used against those who were beating the drums, demanding that we enforce unconstitutional laws in the first place. That deals with stare decisis or precedent law... and virtually NOBODY wants to hear about that. No sireee. They'd rather wait until Uncle Scam employs the precedent against them and then cry about it.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The KEY word in that policy is "unreasonably" constrained.

Here is the entire platform:

LIBERTARIAN PARTY

PLATFORM


As adopted in Convention, May 2012, Las Vegas, Nevada

PREAMBLE

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. 

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.


STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right." We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.

3.6 Representative Government

We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

There is not a single item that contradicts the constitution of the United States of america. (unlike other party platforms)
You either support the constitution or you are for it's destruction which is now in progress. I choose to vote for the constitution - I vote Libertarian.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

We've already been down the open borders road, and I think everyone knows I stand with the notion that nations have always had the right and responsibility to protect their borders and control or entirely stop immigration at the needs of the nation.


----------



## GlueParkEnigma (Sep 24, 2013)

Selective enforcement, through a monopoly of force, creates a situation where no one can actually depend on the law anymore.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Please name one country in the ENTIRE world that has open borders where anyone can enter it whenever they want. Perhaps the EU now does for other EU countries, but when I was stationed in Germany they checked your passport at every border crossing. Believe it or not, not everyone wanting to enter your country is a nice law abiding person, nor are they entering to be a productive member of society.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Denton said:


> We've already been down the open borders road, and I think everyone knows I stand with the notion that nations have always had the right and responsibility to protect their borders and control or entirely stop immigration at the needs of the nation.


If nations have rights to close their borders then they also have the right to exclude you from the nation. I would rather not give any nation that kind of power over the people who live there. Peopke have rights but not nations.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

PaulS said:


> If nations have rights to close their borders then they also have the right to exclude you from the nation. I would rather not give any nation that kind of power over the people who live there. Peopke have rights but not nations.


I'm sorry, but WHAT?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> I'm sorry, but WHAT?


Nations do not have rights - they may have powers granted to them by the people but only people have rights.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PaulS said:


> If nations have rights to close their borders then they also have the right to exclude you from the nation. I would rather not give any nation that kind of power over the people who live there. Peopke have rights but not nations.


Again, I'm going to stand on history, and the notion of controlling immigration is not a violation of laws of nations. This has nothing to do with excluding a citizen to be in his own nation. A government does have rights, and it has responsibilities, and one of its responsibilities is to regulate immigration to the benefit of the nation.

This is not anywhere near a new concept, and one that nations have done as long as there have been viable governments. There is a difference between keeping people in and keeping people out. As far as keeping people in, our government is already doing that. Not so much as worrying about your body, but your assets.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

PaulS said:


> The KEY word in that policy is "unreasonably" constrained.
> 
> Here is the entire platform:
> 
> ...


Word for word what I posted as it applies to open borders.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

All the powers given to the United States of america are listed in the constitution. The nation has no rights. It is historically accurate to say that nations have taken power over their territory, their populations and the populations and territories of other nations but it is a lie that any nation has rights.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

PaulS said:


> All the powers given to the United States of america are listed in the constitution. The nation has no rights. It is historically accurate to say that nations have taken power over their territory, their populations and the populations and territories of other nations but it is a lie that any nation has rights.


Tell that to the cop/soldier when he comes to your door. You will find no mention of education in the U.S. Constitution yet we have a Department of Education which the Republicans promised to dismantle.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Any cop or soldier that comes to my door had better have a warrant. They need a waarant to get within a hundred yards of my front door!


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Are you serious? We will read about you someday.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

This nation as we knew it is gone.

There are no political parties anymore, they are all the same talking head spewing whatever people want to hear. They are about power and money. That's it.

We have gone from We The People to ME. Our children and their children are taught, look out for yourself. If you want the government will provide your every need.

This was published here in the US in 1948. Many have been using this as a road map.
The 
Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx | 9781940177243 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

This was produced in 1948. Nobody paid attention.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> Please name one country in the ENTIRE world that has open borders where anyone can enter it whenever they want. Perhaps the EU now does for other EU countries, but when I was stationed in Germany they checked your passport at every border crossing. Believe it or not, not everyone wanting to enter your country is a nice law abiding person, nor are they entering to be a productive member of society.


The United States is not any other country. Not long ago, we were a beacon to all the nations on earth.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

inceptor said:


> This nation as we knew it is gone.
> 
> There are no political parties anymore, they are all the same talking head spewing whatever people want to hear. They are about power and money. That's it.
> 
> ...


I forgot about makin' that old short. Guess which one is me. Of course the U.S. ain't the economic power we used to be after we shipped our manufacturing jobs to China.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

roy said:


> Tell that to the cop/soldier when he comes to your door. You will find no mention of education in the U.S. Constitution yet we have a Department of Education which the Republicans promised to dismantle.


I don't understand your post. Yes, tell most cops and soldiers about the Constitution and they will kick the Hell out of you, spit on your Constitution and haul you before a de facto (illegal) body to further humiliate you before taking your freedom and your money. So, because that's a reality, is that what you want?

At what point do you begin exhausting all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary measures? OR, do you even bother to try and defend your Liberties? When do you tell an illegitimate government that they have no *authority* to violate your God given, *unalienable* Rights?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

There is always a way back... through the people - all the people.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

roy said:


> I forgot about makin' that old short. Guess which one is me. Of course the U.S. ain't the economic power we used to be after we shipped our manufacturing jobs to China.


You actually did quite well as a salesman. That other guy did kill your sale though.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

The Resister said:


> I don't understand your post. Yes, tell most cops and soldiers about the Constitution and they will kick the Hell out of you, spit on your Constitution and haul you before a de facto (illegal) body to further humiliate you before taking your freedom and your money. So, because that's a reality, is that what you want?
> 
> At what point do you begin exhausting all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary measures? OR, do you even bother to try and defend your Liberties? When do you tell an illegitimate government that they have no *authority* to violate your God given, *unalienable* Rights?


i said this was reality. If you answer the door with a firearm in your hand you won't have to worry about anything else.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I have done it before and the sheriff was quite easy to get along with. I don't want to live where you live!

No cop is going to trespass on personal property or walk into your home uninvited. They aren't going to arrest me for being in possession of a firearm on my own property. The cops i know around here still believe in the constitution and personal rights. If that is not true where you live then shame on you!


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

PaulS said:


> I have done it before and the sheriff was quite easy to get along with. I don't want to live where you live!
> 
> No cop is going to trespass on personal property or walk into your home uninvited. They aren't going to arrest me for being in possession of a firearm on my own property. The cops i know around here still believe in the constitution and personal rights. If that is not true where you live then shame on you!


This is just the first of hundredes of similar stories I came across:
LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA - Lake County Sheriff's Office deputies shot and killed a man they assumed was an attempted murder suspect on Sunday, but they now know they shot the wrong man.

In the early-morning hours, deputies knocked on 26-year-old Andrew Lee Scott's door without identifying themselves as law enforcement officers. Scott answered the door with a gun in his hand.

"When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies, and that's when we opened fire and killed him," Lt. John Herrell said. "Even though this subject is not the one we were looking for when he opened the door. He was pointing the gun at the deputy and if you put yourselves in the deputy's shoes. They were there to pick up someone who was wanted for an attempted homicide."

Officials said the deputies did not identify themselves because of safety reasons.

Deputies thought they were confronting Jonathan Brown, a man accused of attempted murder. Brown was spotted at the Blueberry Hills Apartment complex and his motorcycle was parked across from Andrew Scott's front door.

"It's just a bizarre set of circumstances. The bottom line is, you point a gun at a deputy sheriff or police office, you're going to get shot," Herrell said.

Residents said the unannounced knock at the door at 1:30 a.m. may be the reason why the tragedy happened.

"He was the wrong guy and he got shot and killed anyway. There's fault on both sides. I think more so on the county," Ryan Perry said. "I can understand why he [the deputy] did it, but it should have never gone down like that," Perry said.

Scott's friend, LeMac Blount said he thinks law enforcement acted too quickly.

"I think because his motorcycle was parked in front of Andrew's door, it wasn't safe to assume that that was where he was at. I think they should of took other precautions," said Blout.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Do you have a link to that story?

Sometimes things like that do happen but it is criminal when it does. The police are culpable under the circumstances. The mistake the man made was not asking for identification before opening his door. As a last tidbit - the fact that the cops were there to make an arrest means that they had a warrant. They shot an innocent man instead of announcing who they were.


----------



## BamaBoy101 (Dec 9, 2013)

PaulS said:


> I have done it before and the sheriff was quite easy to get along with. I don't want to live where you live!
> 
> No cop is going to trespass on personal property or walk into your home uninvited. They aren't going to arrest me for being in possession of a firearm on my own property. The cops i know around here still believe in the constitution and personal rights. If that is not true where you live then shame on you!


I gotta say I wish we had cops like that, but here they trample your rights as a matter of coarse...


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

PaulS said:


> Do you have a link to that story?
> 
> Sometimes things like that do happen but it is criminal when it does. The police are culpable under the circumstances. The mistake the man made was not asking for identification before opening his door. As a last tidbit - the fact that the cops were there to make an arrest means that they had a warrant. They shot an innocent man instead of announcing who they were.


You are right. The cops were wrong. Mr Scott is dead.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PaulS said:


> I have done it before and the sheriff was quite easy to get along with. I don't want to live where you live!
> 
> No cop is going to trespass on personal property or walk into your home uninvited. They aren't going to arrest me for being in possession of a firearm on my own property. The cops i know around here still believe in the constitution and personal rights. If that is not true where you live then shame on you!


I was arrested on my own property for asking the cops, who was there uninvited, what he was doing. The charge was "interfering the with government operation." Sure, it was tossed out. Sure, I explained to the cop shop why they'd be facing a Title 42, next time. Sure, I have a job, which means it wouldn't be any more practical for me to pursue it next time as it was the last time.

I used to think such things happened in other places, too. I'll bet they happen in your town.

Cops are taught just what they need to know to do what they are expected to do. Some want to abide by and even uphold the constitution, but most of their work doesn't involve it.

Sorry to be a downer, especially during the Christmas season.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PaulS said:


> All the powers given to the United States of america are listed in the constitution. The nation has no rights. It is historically accurate to say that nations have taken power over their territory, their populations and the populations and territories of other nations but it is a lie that any nation has rights.


You have sidestepped what I said, and I will claim that your declaration of my assertion as being a lie to be a lie.

A nation is defined by its jurisdictional borders, its government and its society (people). We, the People, being the Society, are one of the elements of a nation.

Our government's primary duty is to protect our society's rights which were endowed us by our Creator. How does it do this, but protect our borders and protect our culture by not allowing us to be swarmed by countering cultures? Immigration control. This is an inherent incident of sovereignty under the laws of nations, and this is not some sort of usurpation of the citizen's individual rights.

I am aware of what you are trying to say, but it doesn't take a lawyer or a sociologist to understand what you suggest is nothing short of national suicide. The marginally astute also realize this is why the government is doing next to nothing to protect our society from countering cultures flowing into the nation by land and by air.

We've been down this road. The ruts are still muddy.

Rebut as you like, I'm driving out of the mud and heading for bed. Good night!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> Denton...we are all teachers...sometimes talking to the cop on the ground can pay dividends...sometimes being outspoken for the election of a county sheriff, which is an elected position in many sates and getting the right person in office to educate beyond the academy is the better way to effect change. I practice the art of hearts and minds...that is discussing potential issues with folks and then discussing the laws associated. Many officers are hyper concerned with folks carrying open...but once you discuss it to its finality it seems less severe to a young officer who has heard nothing but bad war stories from his/her over eager mentors. If you approach governement as our kids learning to police after us and less of some nameless soul attempting to dominate us you will see less hostility...sure it won;t happen in Chicago over night...if ever...but it can happen in Mayberry tomorrow or downtownville in a few months...point is...understand that the cop you see is someone's kid, brother, cousin, or husband. Not a Nazi storm trooper. If he turns out to be one..the best way to affect change is through the sheriff or constable you elect. Be involved or stop bitching. Not saying thats all you do...


Sir, I understand what you are saying. Give you an insight, I am not unfamiliar with the uniform, academy, even the college degree thing. I also understand that not every cop can be persuaded, and not every cop even wants to hear your courteous and civil discussion. I also know that, in the case of my community, the cop shop leadership has an excuse for every single thing they do, and respond only to the city attorney's admonish not to get the city renamed due to cops stepping off their constitutional flagstones when dealing in matters beyond the uniformed commercial code.

In other words, I agree with what you suggest, but know what is taught in class (here) doesn't always fit what happens in the field (Home Town Street, U.S.A.).


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> Thanks for the post Denton....I think your one of the good guys.


Thank you, sir. I try to be.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

I have a good friend that was a Detective with the Cincinnati police (until he retired at 53 - the bastard!). Anyway, this guy is like the ultimate Boy Scout. He always seems happy. He always seems like he is looking for the best in people. In short when you first meet him, he seems like one of these naive dopey guys that were so popular in the 1960's TV shows.

About 15 years ago, I was riding with him and his wife going out for supper while I was in Cincinnati on business. We ended up stopped at an intersection in a not so nice part of town. I was sitting in the back seat scoping out who was standing around and trying to figure out who was going to be a threat. Before I knew it, he was handing me a pistol and pointing out who the threats were and who was harmless. Obviously nothing happened, but it was a bit tense for a few minutes.

Later that same night, I asked him how he could keep such a good attitude dealing with the BS that he deals with everyday. His response was that only about 10% of the population are dirtbags. Since cops are just made up of everyday guys from the neighborhood, I expect it is about 10% of cops that are power-mad dickheads, the rest are just trying their best to keep the peace.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> I have heard many times that we are a Nation of laws, but are we? How about Presidential Executive Orders? The original concept of the Executive Orders was that they were directives to the Executive branch of the Government, such as DOJ, Dept of AG, Dept of Def etc. Various Presidents have stepped over the line, for example FDR ordering by Executive Order that all citizens turn in their gold bullion, with those refusing facing jail time. In that case the court system decided that he didn't have the authority under Presidential Executive Order to do that, although a Democrat controlled Congress later passed it as law.
> 
> What concerns me is what has been happening recently. Under Executive Order many illegal aliens are no longer detained and deported from the Country by ICE, even though under the present laws they are supposed to. Another area is Obamacare. It is a law, yet Mr. Obama has on 15-20 occasions has either changed it or granted exemptions to various groups of people, something that under that law, is not authorized.
> 
> ...


Sorry I didn't read all the posts,

My answer is "NO"


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century: Thomas E. Woods: 9781596981492: Amazon.com: Books

Resource Page, Articles, Book Reviews | Tom Woods

Get informed


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Old SF Guy said:


> You know that is the same vile lumping of individuals that I hear from the Left when they say all republican's think this or all Tea Party think that. Soldiers, Sailers, Marines, Policemen, and yes even the Federal Law enforcement (especially the several Deputy US Marshals I know and admire) are not to be lumped into categories. Most soldiers (about 85%) vote republican. MOst soldeirs I have ever known understand that we volunteered to defend the constitution...not a party or any belief other than that in the constitution. Soldiers are our son's, our daughters, our uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces... I refuse to put them into some anonymous class that is my enemy. I have known many cops and soldiers....and they as a group have distinguished themselves above all other groups as willing to sacrifice for the people.
> 
> Maybe I misread your intent...if so I am sorry...but thats my two cents and then some.....also got a quarter more to throw in if it comes to that.


Most people that know me would not call me a leftist... not to my face. That being said, I'm the only person you will probably ever meet that has won a court case against Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC.) As far as I will ever be concerned that is the only qualification I will ever need to show my worthiness to be a true American.

Being a Republican is NOT the same thing as being a constitutionalist. The Republicans gave you the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the so - called _"Patriot Act_" which nullified the Bill of Rights and the National ID / REAL ID Act. It was Republicans that bailed out GM and created such federal intrusions as "No Child Left Behind."

The Republican Party has joined the Democrats in trading Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety; they have attacked *unalienable* Rights. Today, not one in ten thousand Americans can tell you the difference between a Right and a privilege. BTW, it was the Republicans that illegally forced the 14th Amendment into law. The 14th Amendment quietly took away your Rights, piecemeal, and today what you have are mostly privileges.

Old SF Guy, know this: I have never voted for nor supported a Democrat in my life. It's a sad day when repeating the words of the founding fathers causes a person to be vilified and accused of being on the left. That kind of proves that most Americans don't even understand the Constitution.

With cops and soldiers: soldiers take orders. I still recall instances like Ruby Ridge and Waco. I can still recall the murder of people like Scott Woodring and Kathyrn Johnson. Oh yeah, there was that time that LEOs plotted to kill me and claim I resisted arrest. That one ended up in the books with a court room win on... on.... on.. my side. FWIW.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Old SF Guy said:


> You know that is the same vile lumping of individuals that I hear from the Left when they say all republican's think this or all Tea Party think that. Soldiers, Sailers, Marines, Policemen, and yes even the Federal Law enforcement (especially the several Deputy US Marshals I know and admire) are not to be lumped into categories. Most soldiers (about 85%) vote republican. MOst soldeirs I have ever known understand that we volunteered to defend the constitution...not a party or any belief other than that in the constitution. Soldiers are our son's, our daughters, our uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces... I refuse to put them into some anonymous class that is my enemy. I have known many cops and soldiers....and they as a group have distinguished themselves above all other groups as willing to sacrifice for the people.
> 
> Maybe I misread your intent...if so I am sorry...but thats my two cents and then some.....also got a quarter more to throw in if it comes to that.


You are right, and no, you didn't misread their intent. Take isolated events of misconduct by police and say that ALL police conduct themselves like that. Like you, when I took the oath to Defend the U.S. Constitution when I enlisted and every time I re-enlisted, I took the oath seriously, and still do. I do not believe that you and I are the only ones.


----------



## BamaBoy101 (Dec 9, 2013)

Denton said:


> I was arrested on my own property for asking the cops, who was there uninvited, what he was doing. The charge was "interfering the with government operation." Sure, it was tossed out. Sure, I explained to the cop shop why they'd be facing a Title 42, next time. Sure, I have a job, which means it wouldn't be any more practical for me to pursue it next time as it was the last time.
> 
> I used to think such things happened in other places, too. I'll bet they happen in your town.
> 
> ...


Well I had an officer on my property. He had the wrong address but demanded entry to my home anyway. I refused and it turned ugly. He did not gain entry and gave up and left. A few days later he pulled me over a mile down the road. Asked that I step out of the vehicle and when I did I was tased, mased and handcuffed. Charged with resisting and it was claimed I assaulted the officer. All charges were later dropped but not until I had lost a job and a vehicle while I was in jail. Cops today are not the same cops I knew growing up!


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> You are right, and no, you didn't misread their intent. Take isolated events of misconduct by police and say that ALL police conduct themselves like that. Like you, when I took the oath to Defend the U.S. Constitution when I enlisted and every time I re-enlisted, I took the oath seriously, and still do. I do not believe that you and I are the only ones.


Since this was directed at me, I'll play along once more.

The law enforcement of today has a major credibility problem. While they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, they have to be very liberal in applying that promise to uphold the Constitution. Since we live under a de facto (illegal) form of government, the credibility of LEOs suffers since they cannot uphold the Constitution as originally written and intended. James Madison, the fourth President of the United States warned:

"_Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government_."

Today, the Constitution in no way resembles the one our founding fathers intended. To accuse me of being a leftist is a straight up cop out.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> Since this was directed at me, I'll play along once more.
> 
> The law enforcement of today has a major credibility problem. While they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, they have to be very liberal in applying that promise to uphold the Constitution. Since we live under a de facto (illegal) form of government, the credibility of LEOs suffers since they cannot uphold the Constitution as originally written and intended. James Madison, the fourth President of the United States warned:
> 
> ...


It wasn't directed at you, frankly I just skipped over your posts.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Notsoyoung said:


> It wasn't directed at you, frankly I just skipped over your posts.


Okay then, my bad. Sorry.


----------

