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

[Into the Night]

Agreed, because you are the other person in the conversation.

You can't project YOUR problems on me or anybody else, Sock.

You resort to an unrelated charge about the other persons "problems," citing some fallacy, non-sequiturs, or RQAA.

Not unrelated, Sock. They are YOUR problems.

Try to avoid insults to others or name calling, stick to the topic, and stop repeating the same inane lies.

Take your own advice, Sock.

A lot of posters will probably take you off Ignore and we can engage in higher level discussions.

You don't get to speak for everyone, Sock. You are not engaging in any discussion either.
People who want to stay in the Kiddie Pool have their own problems.

 

[Flash]

LIF. Grow up.

Off topic.

 

[Flash]

You don't get to speak for everyone, Sock. You are not engaging in any discussion either. People who want to stay in the Kiddie Pool have their own problems.

I'm not speaking for anybody else. I am just repeating what they have said in their posts.

 

[IBDaMann]

The 1st Amendment was violated by the government when they passed a law restricting free speech.

There is no crime until there is a victim, which can only come about when an unconstitutional law is enforced.

A person cannot violate the 1st Amendment.

Now you're playing word games. One's 1st Amendment rights can certainly be violated.

 

[Flash]

There is no crime until there is a victim, which can only come about when an unconstitutional law is enforced.

In my example the government passed a law putting restrictions on free speech. A person violated that law and was convicted. He appealed on the basis that the law was unconstitutional. The court agreed and the man's conviction was overturned. There was no real victim in this case unless you claim violating the law harmed someone.

The unconstitutional law was enforced when they prosecuted the man for violating the law.

Now you're playing word games. One's 1st Amendment rights can certainly be violated.

No word games. You have it backwards. A person's 1st amendment rights can be violated. The man in my example had his rights violated by an unconstitutional law.

However, the government, not the person, violated the 1st by passing the law. So, my statement holds. A person cannot violate the 1st amendment. The Bill of Rights only applies to government action.

 

[Into the Night]

Off topic.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not speaking for anybody else.

Blatant lie.

I am just repeating what they have said in their posts.

What posts, Sock?

 

[Into the Night]

In my example the government passed a law putting restrictions on free speech. A person violated that law and was convicted. He appealed on the basis that the law was unconstitutional. The court agreed and the man's conviction was overturned. There was no real victim in this case unless you claim violating the law harmed someone.

The unconstitutional law was enforced when they prosecuted the man for violating the law.



No word games. You have it backwards. A person's 1st amendment rights can be violated. The man in my example had his rights violated by an unconstitutional law.

However, the government, not the person, violated the 1st by passing the law. So, my statement holds. A person cannot violate the 1st amendment. The Bill of Rights only applies to government action.

Pivot fallacy. I am not talking about any law Congress passed, Sock.
Attempted proof by contrivance.
A person can violate the 1st amendment, Sock. You even agree to it. Which is it, dude.?

 

[Flash]

Pivot fallacy. I am not talking about any law Congress passed, Sock.
Attempted proof by contrivance.
A person can violate the 1st amendment, Sock. You even agree to it. Which is it, dude.?

I never agreed to a lie. A person cannot violate the Constitution--only the government can. You obviously misread my post, again.

Give us an example of a person violating the Constitution. --I'll wait.

 

[Into the Night]

I never agreed to a lie.

You never called your post a lie until now. Don't try to deny your own posts, Sock.

A person cannot violate the Constitution--only the government can. You obviously misread my post, again.

A person can violate the Constitution.

Give us an example of a person violating the Constitution. --I'll wait.

RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating the question, Sock. It's already been answered.

 

[Flash]

RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating the question, Sock. It's already been answered.

As usual, RQAA means you do not know what you are talking about but pretend you have already given us an answer. I will repeat the question until you give us one example where a person violated the Constitution.

You can't because you know I am right but you can't admit the truth.

We are still waiting for the name of one county with more votes than registered voters but you pretend you have already provided that information.

Why don't you actually provide us some accurate information or responses instead of avoiding everything? Writing RQAA, some silly fallacy, or something that is clearly false ("there was no 2020 election") wastes our time and makes you appear foolish.

 

[IBDaMann]

The man in my example had his rights violated by an unconstitutional law.

No (on a technicality). The man's rights were violated by the enforcement of an unconstitutional law. The mere passage of an unconstitutional law is not a violation of rights. The separation of powers doctrine requires the Supreme Court to declare as "unconstitutional" all passed unconstitutional laws, or to find that someone's rights were violated by the Executive branch's enforcement of an unconstitutional law. In the case of the former, the Supreme Court follows your original wording in declaring that a law "violates the 1st Amendment" before anyone's 1st Amendment rights are ever violated.

The unconstitutional law was enforced when they prosecuted the man for violating the law.

Exactly, or worded another way, the enforcement of the unconstitutional law violated his rights, not the passage of the law in the first place.

In my example the government passed a law putting restrictions on free speech. A person violated that law and was convicted. He appealed on the basis that the law was unconstitutional. The court agreed and the man's conviction was overturned. There was no real victim in this case unless you claim violating the law harmed someone.

The man was definitely a victim, i.e. his 1st Amendment rights were infringed. The court so declared this and the government was ordered to make restitution.

However, the government, not the person, violated the 1st by passing the law.

By enforcing the law, not by passing the law.

So, my statement holds. A person cannot violate the 1st amendment. The Bill of Rights only applies to government action.

OK, I can agree with this wording.

 

[IBDaMann]

I will repeat the question until you give us one example where a person violated the Constitution.

Thirteen people have been convicted of treason.

 

[Flash]

No (on a technicality). The man was definitely a victim, i.e. his 1st Amendment rights were infringed.

I understand. However, it is hard to reconcile that the man who was convicted for violating the law is also the victim.

 

[Flash]

Thirteen people have been convicted of treason.

They were convicted under federal statutes against treason which sets the punishments for the crime.

18 U.S.C. § 2381[FONT=&quot] says, [/FONT]“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or imprisoned and fined, and incapable of holding any U.S. office.”

Court decisions have set several elements/conditions about treason. For example, the Rosenbergs gave atomic secrets to the Soviet Union and were executed; however, they were convicted of espionage rather than treason because the U. S. was not at war.

 

[IBDaMann]

They were convicted under federal statutes against treason which sets the punishments for the crime.

Nope. For the crime of treason, the Constitution serves as the statute. The founders didn't want the government to have the power to define it or to contrive convictions thereof.

US Constitution - Article III, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[IBDaMann]

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.

That's not what the Constitution reads. Any State may use gold and silver as legal tender, but there is no requirement for it to do so. Additionally, the Federal government can coin money (which means "create a fiat currency") that it declares as legal tender, which the States are required to accept for all debts, public and private.

I realize your aversion to any fiat currency being mandated as legal tender, but Congress is given that power by the Constitution; therefore that power is not reserved for the States or the People.

 

[Flash]

Nope. For the crime of treason, the Constitution serves as the statute. The founders didn't want the government to have the power to define it or to contrive convictions thereof.

Federal treason statutes are in

18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES:
[h=3]§2381. Treason[/h][h=3]§2382. Misprision of treason[/h]
Congress must set the punishment for treason. It is not specified in the Constitution

 

[Into the Night]

That's not what the Constitution reads.

It is what the Constitution reads. I already have shown you the passage.

Any State may use gold and silver as legal tender, but there is no requirement for it to do so.

They are REQUIRED to do so.

Additionally, the Federal government can coin money (which means "create a fiat currency") that it declares as legal tender, which the States are required to accept for all debts, public and private.

Unconstitutional.

I realize your aversion to any fiat currency being mandated as legal tender, but Congress is given that power by the Constitution; therefore that power is not reserved for the States or the People.

Congress was NOT given any authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Federal treason statutes are in

18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES:
[h=3]§2381. Treason[/h][h=3]§2382. Misprision of treason[/h]
Congress must set the punishment for treason. It is not specified in the Constitution

That IS specified in the Constitution, Sock.