The Constitution won’t save America- It has lost touch: open

Gems aren't generally used as a currency. Neither is real estate.
They are used as currency every time they are exchanged for something of value, which is nowhere near the frequency that any designated currency is, so it's easy to not "consider" them as such ... and they don't qualify as legal tender.
 
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Violating it is definitely a crime.

That's not the way it works. For example, government can pass a law violating a person's free speech and that law is declared unconstitutional. Nobody committed a crime.

Give me an example for somebody who was charged/convicted of a crime for violating a constitutional provision.

The Constitution does not contain laws. It gives the government the power to pass laws.
 
The WOKE Death Cult revolution is further along than almost anyone knows, Americans now being in the main uneducated and not observant...plus as Peter Hitchens says many simply dont know how to think...they thus cant do it.
 
That's not the way it works. For example, government can pass a law violating a person's free speech and that law is declared unconstitutional. Nobody committed a crime.
In that case, the 1st Amendment wasn't violated. The law was merely unconstitutional.

Try actually violating the 1st Amendment and see what happens when you get sued.

Give me an example for somebody who was charged/convicted of a crime for violating a constitutional provision.
One can only be charged where the crime exists in the penal code. Outside of that, a lawsuit is how that plays out. The City of South Pasadena, for example, settled out of court for $500,000 rather than go to court and potentially lose $millions.
 
You are completely confusing discussions of threats and censorship.
You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems on me or anybody else.
A prosecution for not paying taxes is not a threat.
Yes it is, Sock.
A bill collector is not usually threatening you in an illegal manner.
I didn't mention illegality here, Sock. Pay attention.
Legal provisions in a contract are not a threat but a legal condition.
Yes they are, Sock.
 
They are used as currency every time they are exchanged for something of value, which is nowhere near the frequency that any designated currency is, so it's easy to not "consider" them as such ... and they don't qualify as legal tender.

As far as 'legal tender', the Constitution specifies gold and silver. FDR violated the Constitution.
 
As far as 'legal tender', the Constitution specifies gold and silver.
Nope. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Constitution limits the States to only gold and silver coin, whereas the Federal government is authorized to make its own "coin" (currency). This is to prevent 50 different currencies (well, thirteen back at the time)
 

THIS IS SCARY

Yesterday, a group of people in Scotland protested a new hate speech law. "The irony of this hateful, spiteful law coming into play on April's Fools Day..." said one of the protesters. "Criminalizing free speech in this country is absolutely disgraceful."

While I was happy to see the protest, I am deeply alarmed that the Scottish government passed the law in the first place.
@JK_Rowling
rightly wrote on X that the law gives the government the power to arrest people who refuse to call male rapists and murderers “women” and “she” and “her” if that’s what those men demand.

The Hate Crime and Public Order Act of 2021 creates a new crime for "stirring up hatred," including related to trans identity. People can be arrested for things they say in the privacy of their own home. They can be arrested for simply being "insulting." And prosecutors need only prove your stirring up of hatred was "likely" not "intended."

You might think this all has nothing to do with you. You don’t live in Scotland. But it has everything to do with you. What you say online could be held as criminal hate speech in Scotland, simply by somebody reading it there.

And it’s not just Scotland. In the US, pro-censorship forces hope a Supreme Court victory will let them once again ramp up censorship demands by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.

EU officials are putting in place a sweeping online censorship system that far exceeds in power and scope anything attempted under Communism or fascism.

And last week, European political leaders weaponized their intelligence and security agencies in order to smear everyone from German farmers to conservative politicians as “Russia-linked.”

And yet the United States and EU governments pump far more money than Russia into “non-governmental” organizations like the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the Aspen Institute, and the Atlantic Council to wage influence campaigns aimed at smearing ordinary farmers and truckers as “Russian-linked” and “far-right,” and influencing elections.

To understand how ridiculous and totalitarian the EU’s focus on “foreign manipulation” is, consider the fact that, during the Cold War, the US government’s Central Intelligence Agency not only allowed Americans to read Soviet newspapers but actually translated them into English and sent them to thousands of libraries across the United States.

Just think about it: do Europeans really need Russians, “Russia-linked” individuals, or “individuals echoing Moscow” to be angry about high energy prices and uncontrolled immigration? The entire “Russia influence” narrative coming from European politicians and intelligence agencies rests upon the monstrous insult that Europeans would be compliant were it not for Russians sowing discontent.

This is an old political trick: characterize your enemies as foreigners. It’s also a trick of totalitarians.

What’s driving all of this? Part of it is that EU politicians are trying to influence the June elections by demonizing their political opponents as puppets of Russia.

But another part of it appears to be driven by genuine hatred. Just listen to Scotland First Minister
@HumzaYousaf
condemning the Scottish government on racial terms. “Why are we so surprised by the most senior positions in Scotland filled by those who are white?" he said. "Lord President — white. Every high court judge — white!”

Humza suggests that the reason for all of this is because Scottish people are racist. But the real reason is that 95% of Scottish people are white. The fact that Humza, a nonwhite Muslim, is the highest-ranking Scottish politician is a sign of how non-racist the Scottish people are. For Humza to reach the top political job in Scotland and insist that the reason he’s so rare is because the Scottish people are racist is itself hateful, and pathological.

The bad news is that the censors are on the offensive and we are on the defensive. In the US, Europe, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Canada, and Brazil, an alliance of government agencies, government-funded think tanks, and corporate media are demanding more censorship, whether through laws like the one enacted in Scotland or through executive actions by agencies like the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and FBI.

The good news is we are starting to find our footing. We have been proud to publish investigations that have uncovered government disinformation and censorship demands in Germany, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Canada, and Brazil.

These investigations reveal the same cast of characters, including intelligence and security agencies, mainstream news media, and ostensibly “non-governmental” organizations that happen to be heavily funded by governments.

As importantly, we can expose the hatred behind the hate speech policies, and continue to point out that the solution to hate speech is free speech, not censorship. The way to counter hate is to do what Darryl Davis did, which was persuade KKK members to see him as a human being, and to give up their white robes.

Davis will be the first person to tell you that he couldn’t have done his work with censorship, only with freedom of speech.

There’s much we need to do...
 
Nope. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Constitution limits the States to only gold and silver coin, whereas the Federal government is authorized to make its own "coin" (currency). This is to prevent 50 different currencies (well, thirteen back at the time)

Article I said:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State may coin money, and all States must use gold or silver as legal tender. That means the federal government must provide that coin, and cannot require any State to use fiat currency.
 
according to your analysis, the problem is the supreme court.

people are flawed. maybe they will still get it right later on.

nice try, libertarian constitution hater, who has implied that the problem is either the constitution or the people who wont RISE UP.

have faith in the system and stop speaking against both the constitution and the people.

your shit talking everything wont work, nihilist corporatist.

I didn't say that.

You did, Sock. Don't try to deny your own posts.
 
Nope. If military men don't follow orders they can be shot. If government requests a social media company to help reduce misinformation from Russian sources the company does not have to follow those requests.

The company might actually believe Hillary had a child sex ring in a pizza/ping-pong shop.

have you been drinking? you are usually not that stupid.
 
It HAS been a problem, usually when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution.

He is not a libertarian.

Take your own advice.

Your shit talking won't work. Redefinition fallacy. Corporations aren't necessarily nihilist.

please take corporate dick out of your mouth.

this whole thread is libertarian (illuminati fascist) trash.
 
No, they aren't. There is no law that says a corporation can't censor.

No such law, dummy.

Now you're just getting stupid. It is legal for government to interfere in certain ways with corporate activities.

Corporations don't interfere with government activities.

a 21 year old can buy alcohol too, but if they do it for someone who cannot they're complicit in a crime.

same thing.

why do you hate freedom and suck corporate dick all day?
 
In that case, the 1st Amendment wasn't violated. The law was merely unconstitutional.

Try actually violating the 1st Amendment and see what happens when you get sued.


One can only be charged where the crime exists in the penal code. Outside of that, a lawsuit is how that plays out. The City of South Pasadena, for example, settled out of court for $500,000 rather than go to court and potentially lose $millions.


The 1st Amendment was violated by the government when they passed a law restricting free speech. A person who violated that law was convicted and appealed on the basis the law was unconstitutional (and would be repealed or altered). A person cannot violate the 1st Amendment. His conviction for violating the law would be overturned after the law was declared unconstitutional.
 
That's not the way it works.
It is the way it works, Sock.
For example, government can pass a law violating a person's free speech and that law is declared unconstitutional. Nobody committed a crime.
The law does not need to be 'declared' unconstitutional. It already is.
The Constitution does not contain laws.
Yes it does. It is the law.
It gives the government the power to pass laws.
Which is part of the law.
 
Back
Top