Even though I am but one man.
I am ready and will stand in the breach as needed.
Posted on 11/29/2023 7:16:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Did they violate the Constitution. Certainly.
That’s why they had to have a fake ‘insurrection’ by bird-dogging antifa democrats and police violence in a protest area.
We are just getting more confirmation that on Jan 6th this nation ceased being a Republic and became a Fascist state. Try to remember to thank Pence for letting that happen when you see him.
“John Stuart Mill
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
To be fair it wasn’t just Pence. The SCOTUS refused to hear a State to State lawsuit filed by Texas, that would have also forced the issue and allowed the Republic to survive.
"The SCOTUS refused to hear a State to State lawsuit filed by Texas, that would have also forced the issue and allowed the Republic to survive."
I'm glad that you mentioned SCOTUS!
Regarding the anti-Trump (imo) SCOTUS applying “no standing” to Texas suing Pennsylvania, et al., after 2020 elections, Justice Joseph Story had clarified that the states had inherited from the confederation the power for a state to take other states to the highest court "for any other cause whatsoever."
"Article III, Secion 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
"§ 1674. Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [emphasis added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1659--75, 1684--90, 1692--94
"§ 1675. Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1659--75, 1684--90, 1692--94
It was a preemptive strike against the Americans who were thinking about maybe standing up against their government.
When are the REAL insurrectionists going to be charged with treason.
Yeah, I won’t hold my breath.
On Nov. 4th 2020 I knew the election had been rigged and stolen.
On Jan. 7th 2021 I knew the events at the Capitol Building the day before were an orchestrated setup by Pelozi and other Dems.
They committed an insurrection and achieved a coup on the Republic.
This isn’t the United States of America anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.