Posted on 12/03/2022 4:59:47 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Edited on 12/03/2022 7:07:49 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
So what would be a remedy?
The constitution is a law - the 1st A says government can’t limit speech.
The government did limit speech and thus broke the law.
The perps need to be arrested and charged.
Some (many) will plead guilty - they are proving the case.
Then the courts (Maybe SJC) can order remedy, which could be a new election Trump v Biden with Biden under impeachment while running.
I think there is really only one meaning for “step in”. 😉
Well, let’s start off w/ the baker and the store owner. The argument is that when they open a business to provide goods/services to the general public, then any member of the general public is allowed to patronize their store/business. If the business decides not to provide the service to someone, then the potential customer files a civil complaint against the business owner. And yeah, people have won civil cases for that stuff.
But it’s not a government action.
In the case of social platforms, most (if not all) have a “Terms of Service” agreement that everyone has to agree to before being allowed to use the platform. Most of those Agreements include phrasing that says (in effect) that the owners/moderators of the platform are the sole arbiters of what does and what doesn’t fall under “Acceptable Use” under the terms of the Agreement.
Those that agree to the Terms of Service are effectively surrendering their “rights” to anything when it comes to use of that platform.
Again, if someone feels that a platform like Twitter or Facebook has violated their First Amendment rights, they’re going to run up against the Terms of Service Agreement that they “agreed” to. (Most people never read them.)
Perhaps. It’s just not allowed in the US Constitution.
The Constitution does not have clear rules set forth on fraudulent elections. The best you can interpret is that it’s left to the electoral college. But a massive fraud of this type ALLOWS for ignoring all rules, whether any exist in the Constitution or not, and we cannot allow this. I think that’s what he meant. The leftist scum was just looking for something to hold on to after getting whacked by Elon and their cozy relationship with Twitter before an election. The Constitution didn’t take into account the pure scum one party would become and the fact people who are supposed to enforce laws look the other way.
It will give you something to be concerned about because concern trolls need to be concerned. 😉
LOL! Not concerned, as you've been jackassin' for almost two years about President Trump being returned to office via the military, etc. and your batting average is... not too good! ;)
Well its getting boring listening to you concern yourself to death over my posts. 😆
Ridiculous. The constitution assumes elections are not fraudulent. If fraud in uncovered that election is void. That’s precisely what the president said.
That all of the processes regarding that election, even constitutional ones, are void.
If you’re going to use FR to post about the military overthrowing the US government to install President Trump back into office , you’re going to get attention.
Amen
The only legal remedies are public protests, and for Congress to impeach and remove a President who cheated. There’s no other remedy, certainly not one which includes “terminating” of “all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution”.
There was massive and widespread vote fraud, especially in the several contested states.
There was massive and widespread deception propagated by tech and the media.
It all lead to a stolen presidential election and control of the Congress by the (increasing numbers of) communists in our country.
And, since it was unprecedented in scale and outcome, he was also right to posit several questions. Namely, what now? How is the wrong, righted?
He was also absolutely correct to state that our great founders would never condone such a blatant, in our faces evil attack on our Republic.
The legacy media, which arguable includes Breitbart writer(s) now, is always going to spin something Trump says because they hate him and what he stands for, with an unbridled evil passion.
Indeed! Our founding document.
Okay, then the terms of service are as follows.
No Black, no Hispanics, and no Conservatives shall be served
at our enterprise.
“You’re going to get attention”
Well there’s attention and then there’s concern. 😆
I said, early on, that THIS KIND OF FRAUD HAS NEVER HAPPENED.
There would have to be MAJOR CHANGES...IN THE LAW, IN THE CONGRESS’ TREATMENT OF THE FRAUD, IN THE THOUGHTFUL AND CAREFULLY CRAFTED SOLUTIONS TO THE FRAUD AND YES,
Call me foolish, but I even said the Constitution will have to be amended someway in order to prevent this kind of thing happening again.
And rxsid, YOU ARE CORRECT.
I hadn’t read all the posts, but I signed on FR and saw the headline and could not wait to post SOMETHING.
This goes beyond just breaking the LAW.
That makes at least three of us on board with the opposition dumping the Constitution. Not former President Trump. The number of Trump dislikes on here has made a quantum jump lately and you have to ask yourself what are they using for evidence?
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.