Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: OneWingedShark

It seems doubtful that US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 241 would apply to a violation of a state law or constitution.

It also seems unlikely that the 14th ammendment would change that, since the standard SCOTUS interprtation of it is “it means whatever the hell we want it to mean at any given time”** and I doubt they will want it to mean what you want it to mean.

** - Same as the rest of the Constitution


14 posted on 04/28/2011 10:00:43 PM PDT by Gil4 (Sometimes it's not low self-esteem - it's just accurate self-assessment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Gil4

You hit on something that REALLY disturbs me; the USSC is the head of the most lawless of the three branches: the Judiciary.

I do not say this lightly; but consider how many judges think of themselves as god-kings and wrap themselves up in precedence, rather than what the law ACTUALLY says, expecting all lesser beings [mere mortals] to bow and swoon and revere their pronouncements as utterly infallible! {Which is laughable on its face considering how many overturnings of rulings there are...}

One of the best/worst examples is the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision. In this case the city (New London) argued that the *projected* tax-revenue [increase] of using eminent domain to seize Kelo’s property and turn it over to a private developer... and they won!

Consider the ramifications of this: the IMAGINARY “we think” is valid & satisfactory justification for the taking of someone’s property. THERE ARE NOW NO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!


15 posted on 04/29/2011 4:22:21 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson