Is a Curfew Constitutional?

[Gunny]

If so, on what grounds?

[Kathianne]

Strictly speaking:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5925/Curfew-Adult-Curfews-Strict-Scrutiny.html


Curfews directed at adults touch upon fundamental constitutional rights and thus are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that "[t]he right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all—and to do so whenever one pleases—is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 US 156, 164, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110, 92 S. Ct 839 (1972).

To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective. Court's are loath to find that an interest advanced by the government is compelling. The more justifications that courts find to uphold a curfew on adults, the more watered-down becomes the fundamental right to travel and to associate with others in public places at all times of the day.


The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and <small>WELFARE (http://law.jrank.org/pages/11271/Welfare.html)</small> are otherwise threatened. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965). The California Court of Appeals cited this ruling in a case that reviewed an order issued by the city of Long Beach, California, which declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews on all adults (and minors) within the city's confines after widespread civil disorder broke out following the Rodney G. King beating trial, in which four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of using excessive force in subduing an African-American motorist following a high-speed traffic chase. In re Juan C., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (Cal. App. 1994).


"Rioting, looting and burning," the California court wrote, "pose a similar threat to the safety and welfare of a community, and provide a compelling reason to impose a curfew." "The right to travel is a hollow promise when members of the community face the possibility of being beaten or shot by an unruly mob if they attempt to exercise this right," the court continued, and "[t]emporary restrictions on the right… are a reasonable means of reclaiming order from <small>ANARCHY</small> so that all might exercise their constitutional rights freely and safely."


Read more: Curfew - Adult Curfews Strict Scrutiny - Court, Adults, Cal, and Compelling - JRank Articles (http://law.jrank.org/pages/5925/Curfew-Adult-Curfews-Strict-Scrutiny.html#ixzz3Yedu9l00) http://law.jrank.org/pages/5925/Curfew-Adult-Curfews-Strict-Scrutiny.html#ixzz3Yedu9l00

[aboutime]

Let's answer the question of this thread with a simple question. Okay?

You decide whether a curfew is, or isn't constitutional IF....You live in that Baltimore neighborhood where the Local CVS drugstore burned down...last night.

Does anyone think the people who did all that rioting had the constitution in mind?

[Jeff]

In a perfect world I would say no it isn't, but when you have animals doing as they are in Baltimore I don't see much other choice they have then to have a curfew.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If so, on what grounds?



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Curfew



Adult Curfews & Strict Scrutiny
Curfews directed at adults touch upon fundamental constitutional rights and thus are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that "[t]he right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all—and to do so whenever one pleases—is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 US 156, 164, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110, 92 S. Ct 839 (1972).
To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective. Court's are loath to find that an interest advanced by the government is compelling. The more justifications that courts find to uphold a curfew on adults, the more watered-down becomes the fundamental right to travel and to associate with others in public places at all times of the day.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and Welfare are otherwise threatened. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965). The California Court of Appeals cited this ruling in a case that reviewed an order issued by the city of Long Beach, California, which declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews on all adults (and minors) within the city's confines after widespread civil disorder broke out following the Rodney G. King beating trial, in which four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of using excessive force in subduing an African-American motorist following a high-speed traffic chase. In re Juan C., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (Cal. App. 1994).
"Rioting, looting and burning," the California court wrote, "pose a similar threat to the safety and welfare of a community, and provide a compelling reason to impose a curfew." "The right to travel is a hollow promise when members of the community face the possibility of being beaten or shot by an unruly mob if they attempt to exercise this right," the court continued, and "[t]emporary restrictions on the right… are a reasonable means of reclaiming order from anarchy so that all might exercise their constitutional rights freely and safely."
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
CURFEW. The name of a law, established during the reign of the English king, William, the conqueror, by which the people were commanded to dispense with fire and candle at eight o'clock at night.
It was abolished in the reign of Henry I., but afterwards it signified the time at which the curfew formerly took place. The word curfew is derived, probably, from couvre few, or cover fire. 4 Bl. Com. 419, 420.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

[revelarts]

Is a Curfew Constitutional?
No.

[red state]

NO....but I do appreciate and support such action regarding minors. I also don't agree with service men and women being barred from drinking YET they are welcomed to DIE. There's much wrong (FREAKY) with our system, way of doing things and acceptance of any given "norms" and it is always the BAD APPLES who ruin it for all of us.

[Noir]

If so, on what grounds?

No. But people are quick to negate the idea of such rights when they are not the ones having them taken away.

[Jeff]

Well it may not be Constitutional but it does work. Even while the curfew was in effect some of these animals decided to still protest ( or rob and loot ) but it seems after the cops deployed tear gas ( that was thrown back at them ) and other means they finally got the city under control. It may not be Constitutional but like I said earlier in this thread, in some cases you have no choice.



BALTIMORE (AP) — Baltimore streets previously rocked by riots were quiet Wednesday morning at the lifting of a nighttime curfew that was enforced by 3,000 police and National Guardsmen.

The curfew ended at 5 a.m. with no reports of disturbances in the early morning hours. The morning rush was getting underway with traffic flowing on most streets downtown.
The curfew, which went into effect at 10 p.m. Tuesday, got off to a not-so-promising start, however, as about 200 protesters initially ignored the warnings of police officers and the pleas of community activists to disperse.



http://news.yahoo.com/baltimore-streets-once-rocked-riots-quiet-under-curfew-083304224.html

[Noir]

Well it may not be Constitutional but it does work.

Quote the rioter 'Well it may not be legal, but it does work.'

[Jeff]

Quote the rioter 'Well it may not be legal, but it does work.'

As I said early on in this thread Noir I am not sure about it being Constitutional but then again the Constitution wasn't written with animals like this in mind either.

Remember under the Constitution we all have rights, such rights as we ought to be able to lock up our businesses at night and go home and not worry about thugs burning them down, we ought to be able to do our jobs without animals pulling us out of a truck and smashing your skull with a cinder block. I would say our Forefathers if asked about these animals at the time of signing the Constitution would of said to put them out of their misery.

[Noir]

As I said early on in this thread Noir I am not sure about it being Constitutional but then again the Constitution wasn't written with animals like this in mind either

...at the time of the writing of the constitution, the writers didn't have rioters/rebellion in mind, are you sure that's your answer?

[Jeff]

...at the time of the writing of the constitution, the writers didn't have rioters/rebellion in mind, are you sure that's your answer?

OK ya little Pri** I know you have a got ya answer but yes it is. :laugh:

But let me clarify. I am talking about riots of this magnitude, with animals acting like criminals for no other reason than they see others getting away with it, I am not talking about protesting of those days.

[darin]

It's a mistake - our courts and legislators and leaders curtail the free movement of 'free' people. I hate seeing it. Hated when entire states restricted free movement due to weather last winter. The problem is NOT people being out at night. The problem is this, and only this: A government who tolerates criminals MORE than the law-abiding.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

...at the time of the writing of the constitution, the writers didn't have rioters/rebellion in mind, are you sure that's your answer?

Actually, they set up a government based upon the Rule of Law. Guess what rioting is speedy?
Its destruction of property, stealing, looting and arson..
The Constitution covered it already in the laws of the land.
The rioters engaging in violent , illegal actions are to be summarily arrested--all of them regardless of the ginned up cause they supposedly care so damn much about.
These ffing animals only care to loot, steal , attack people, and destroy.
In extreme cases like this when they are burning down businesses they should be shot on sight!

ALL this is engineered and advanced by the obama admin.. Another one of the free ride scum.

That SOB never did a hard days work in his ffing miserable stinking life! -Tyr

[jimnyc]

It works, but still wrong. BUT.....

I would love to see the reverse. No curfews. Everyone will do their thing. The police and guard are out in force. I don't think they should hold back a single bit if the criminals return to what we saw. And then what complaining would we have had?

Leave the rights intact and FULLY enforce the law and allow the police and guard to FULLY do their jobs and FULLY protect themselves when threatened. No rights infringed, and hopefully we'll see more criminals subdued, or better yet, shot if they are threatening.

[Kathianne]

It works, but still wrong. BUT.....

I would love to see the reverse. No curfews. Everyone will do their thing. The police and guard are out in force. I don't think they should hold back a single bit if the criminals return to what we saw. And then what complaining would we have had?

Leave the rights intact and FULLY enforce the law and allow the police and guard to FULLY do their jobs and FULLY protect themselves when threatened. No rights infringed, and hopefully we'll see more criminals subdued, or better yet, shot if they are threatening.

I really don't like imposing curfews, obviously it's unfair to those doing 'the right thing.' However, I do believe that the images of the South doing what you suggested, along with much that wasn't 'law', began the riots of 68-71 in the North and West.

Last evening we saw those that had no intention of 'following the curfew,' but not wanting to be killed. We saw the police, aided by community leaders from the churches, able to get the 'good people' to go home. What was left the police were able to deal with. Not dramatic, but effective.

There seems little doubt that outside agitators are manipulating these shootings: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/04/28/social-media-analysis-suggests-links-between-baltimore-and-ferguson-violence/


Obama also went on to say the situation in Baltimore is indicative of “a slow rolling crisis” that’s “been going on a long time,” only coming to light because of social media campaigns and alert observers with cameras who shed light on police behaviors.
“We have to pay attention and respond to it,” he said, speaking to the “new challenges [in] how police apply” their actions to civilians.
Lastly, most of those being manipulated ARE angry, frustrated, and easily set off, most as has been seen are young, uneducated, and poor. I really don't want to see those already at the bottom, ground down further.

[aboutime]

...at the time of the writing of the constitution, the writers didn't have rioters/rebellion in mind, are you sure that's your answer?


Noir. You really need to brush up on World/American History. Our Constitution was written because of something called the AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Ever hear about that?

Try again, and THINK before typing.

[Gunny]

...at the time of the writing of the constitution, the writers didn't have rioters/rebellion in mind, are you sure that's your answer?

Are you THIS dumb? The Constitution was written amid rioting and rebellion.

Did you miss us whupping your King's ass?

[jimnyc]

Noir. You really need to brush up on World/American History. Our Constitution was written because of something called the AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Ever hear about that?

Try again, and THINK before typing.


Are you THIS dumb? The Constitution was written amid rioting and rebellion.

Did you miss us whupping your King's ass?

I believe Noir's post was oozing with sarcasm, and that was exactly his point. Well, maybe not in those words! LOL

[aboutime]

I believe Noir's post was oozing with sarcasm, and that was exactly his point. Well, maybe not in those words! LOL


Jim, and others. That may be, in reference to the sarcasm. However. Sarcasm...as most of us have learned to recognize it these days is...another way for liberals to EXCUSE their intentional Lies, and Quotes. Most liberals use the GUISE of sarcasm/comedy, as a means of defending their REAL INTENT to use name calling, and repeating their lies. Then bowing out, calling it sarcasm when someone confronts them with TRUTH.

[Gunny]

I believe Noir's post was oozing with sarcasm, and that was exactly his point. Well, maybe not in those words! LOL

It's hard to separate his being a naive, uneducated leftwinger with his trying to be sarcastic. ;)

[jimnyc]

Jim, and others. That may be, in reference to the sarcasm. However. Sarcasm...as most of us have learned to recognize it these days is...another way for liberals to EXCUSE their intentional Lies, and Quotes. Most liberals use the GUISE of sarcasm/comedy, as a means of defending their REAL INTENT to use name calling, and repeating their lies. Then bowing out, calling it sarcasm when someone confronts them with TRUTH.

I don't agree with almost anything with Noir, politically speaking. Noir knows his shit, and knows more about American history and politics than many voting Americans, sadly. He gets sarcastic, as I do, but he's not the type to intentionally lie about anything. I guess I just mean he was being sarcastic about the rebellion stuff, as I've seen him discuss our history, and I don't think he was being ignorant with his statement, is all.

Other than that, eff 'em, he's a Penguins fan, and now a bandwagoner with the Caps!

[jimnyc]

It's hard to separate his being a naive, uneducated leftwinger with his trying to be sarcastic. ;)

That's how I see a lot of the political differences I have with him. I wish he would visit here. I'd take him to a Yankees game, maybe show him a few good pubs in the city - then I'm back to the south Bronx at about 3am and just making him get out. See if the bastard feels any differently about the right to bear arms then! :)

[aboutime]

I don't agree with almost anything with Noir, politically speaking. Noir knows his shit, and knows more about American history and politics than many voting Americans, sadly. He gets sarcastic, as I do, but he's not the type to intentionally lie about anything. I guess I just mean he was being sarcastic about the rebellion stuff, as I've seen him discuss our history, and I don't think he was being ignorant with his statement, is all.

Other than that, eff 'em, he's a Penguins fan, and now a bandwagoner with the Caps!


Jim. Read what I said again, please, about sarcasm, and how it is used as an excuse. Which I believe, in this case, was the case. Not really sarcasm. Can't disagree with you about voting Americans being Uninformed, and Uneducated. That seems to permeate the entire nation these days...JUST TEXT INSTEAD OF SPEAK!:laugh:

[Noir]

I believe Noir's post was oozing with sarcasm, and that was exactly his point. Well, maybe not in those words! LOL

:salute:
(They just don't get me like you get me Jim-bro)

[Gunny]

:salute:
(They just don't get me like you get me Jim-bro)

I don't want to get you. You're an uneducated leftwing moron. And a pansy.

[Voted4Reagan]

is it Legal to impose a Curfew? Yes

is it the right thing to do? Yes, when the safety of innocent people and the safety of the community is under threat.

[Jeff]

OK ya little Pri** I know you have a got ya answer but yes it is. :laugh:

But let me clarify. I am talking about riots of this magnitude, with animals acting like criminals for no other reason than they see others getting away with it, I am not talking about protesting of those days.


I believe Noir's post was oozing with sarcasm, and that was exactly his point. Well, maybe not in those words! LOL

I believe I caught his try at sarcasm and I feel I answered it with the above statement, Back in the day when we whopped the Kings ass it wasn't the same as a bunch of criminals acting as such. You may argue it was but we went on to build a Country the worlds greatest country at that, today's thugs couldn't even tie their own shoes much less run a country. big Difference.

[Kathianne]

I believe I caught his try at sarcasm and I feel I answered it with the above statement, Back in the day when we whopped the Kings ass it wasn't the same as a bunch of criminals acting as such. You may argue it was but we went on to build a Country the worlds greatest country at that, today's thugs couldn't even tie their own shoes much less run a country. big Difference.

I got Noir from the get go too. However your post brought to mind the Boston Tea Party, those 'thugs' proved they were 'protesting' and not being 'thugs':


...Lendall Pitts, the commander of the group that boarded the brig Beaver, "sent a man to the mate, who was on board, in his cabin, with a message, politely requesting the use of a few lights, and the brig's keys—so that as little damage as possible might be done to the vessel;—and such was the case. The mate acted the part of a gentleman altogether. He handed over the keys without hesitation, and without saying a single word, and sent his cabin-boy for a bunch of candles, to be immediately put in use." (Thatcher, 181–2).

The moon shone brightly too, so their work was well lit. The night was very quiet and neither the crowd on the wharf nor the raiding party spoke much. Onlookers at the wharf, as well as the men on some of the closer British ships, however, quite distinctly heard the sounds of the chests being staved in.
The party quickly brought the 342 chests of tea (a total of 90,000 lbs.) onto the deck. They split them open and threw the tea and the chests overboard into the harbor. The party took care that no other property on board the ships was harmed, and that none of the raiders took away any of the tea. They even swept the decks clean of loose tea when they were done. They worked quickly, apprehensive of a possible attack from Admiral Montagu's squadron, part of which was only a quarter of a mile away.
...


Less anyone think this is 'legend,' it was covered in the Committee of Correspondence.

I think it also worth keeping in mind who acted as Defense Attorney for the British Soldiers after the Boston Massacre: John Adams. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bostonmassacre/keyfigures.html


...John Adams, in his old age, called his defense of British soldiers in 1770 "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country." That's quite a statement, coming as it does from perhaps the most underappreciated great man in American history.

The day after British soldiers mortally wounded five Americans on a cobbled square in Boston, thirty-four-year-old Adams was visted in his office near the stairs of the Town Office by a Boston merchant , James Forest. "With tears streaming from his eyes" (according to the recollection of Adams), Forest asked Adams to defend the soldiers and their captain, Thomas Preston. Adams understood that taking the case would not only subject him to criticism, but might jeopardize his legal practice or even risk the safety of himself and his family. But Adams believed deeply that every person deserved a defense, and he took on the case without hesitation. For his efforts, he would receive the modest sum of eighteen guineas.


The Preston case came to trial in the Queen Street courthouse in October. Adams, and his young assistant, Josiah Quincy, defended Preston against a prosecution team comprised of Josiah's brother Samuel and Robert Paine. Adams succeeded in casting grave doubt as to whether Preston ever gave orders to shoot, and the Boston jury acquitted the captain.


More detailed records exist for the Soldiers' trial, which commenced on December 3. Adams presented evidence that blame for the tragedy lay both with the "mob" that gathered that March night and with England's highly unpopular policy of quartering troops in a city. Adams told the jury: "Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one." He argued that the soldier who fired first acted only as one might expect anyone to act in such confused and potentially life-threatening conditions. "Do you expect that he should act like a stoic philosopher, lost in apathy?", Adams asked the jury. "Facts are stubborn things," he concluded, "and whatever may be our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."


The jury acquitted six of the eight soldiers, while two (Montgomery and Killroy) were convicted of manslaughter and branded on their thumbs.


Initial reaction to Adams role in the case was hostile. His law practice dropped by over half. In the long run, however, the courageous actions of Adams only enhanced his growing reputation.

...

There certainly were many 'thugs' that wanted to 'kick the lobsterbacks asses,' hence the tarring and feathering of many, including Americans that were hired to collect taxes.

Yet there were leaders, that kept up the pressure by writings, speeches, and actions that were models for change. Much in the manner would follow men like Lincoln, those of the Underground Rail Road, MLK, etc.

[revelarts]

the question was is it constitutional.
the answer is simply NO.

Many here are in the NO.. BUT.... camp.

Jim and I have gone over this ground before. If i've read him and some others right you're on the side of the gov't breaking the law from time to time,
OR gov't lawyers claiming "it's always been legal" and if there's no winning legal opposition then it's A-OK.
OR the gov't quickly CHANGING the law to make was illegal for the gov't to do "legal" if it's for a purpose you support.
ALL based on the idea that it's a pragmatic solution to some form of threat and for the sake of public "safety". ( Jim if i've misrepresented you in anyway here i apologize ahead of time but This is my honest impression fof your general position. if you'd like I'll find quotes to specific issues where you've applied the PRINCIPALS i've outlined above.).

But I've promoted the position that our freedoms are worth more than the imagined safety derived from an INCREASINGLY authoritarian gov't.. And that legal freedoms lost are hard to win back. Especially since the authoritarian position becomes the new "normal". The founders knew this.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." James Madison


the left and the right chip away at the constitution all for "good" pragmatic reasons.
But the constitution IS THE LAW.
But people don't really care about that law when they are afraid. We can't seem to think outside of the "gov't help me" box. And politicians and the media push the fear and people beg the gov't for protections. Non-governmental solutions, community solutions are not reassuring enough for people in fear.

More Police, More Military, More govt regulations, more taxes on the rich, more gov't is THE answer on the left and right... in an emergency.. then it we'll go back to normal... sorta... maybe... but we (the gov't) has this new "legal" tool (precedent) in our pocket now.

the only parts of the constitution that seem matter are gun rights, free speech and religion but the gov't needs to take those away too. it's to dangerous for those right wing animals to have guns, the founders never foresaw ak47s etc. in the hands of motorcycle thugs and PTS addled vets so it doesn't seriously apply anymore. it's scary. And freedom of speech and religion hurts people feelings and is scary too. soooo. I'm all for the Constitution 100% (TeaParty YEAH!) ...BUT....

but it's only to control those other scary people.. the constitutions not for them... it's for us. whoever us is today.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I got Noir from the get go too. However your post brought to mind the Boston Tea Party, those 'thugs' proved they were 'protesting' and not being 'thugs':



Less anyone think this is 'legend,' it was covered in the Committee of Correspondence.

I think it also worth keeping in mind who acted as Defense Attorney for the British Soldiers after the Boston Massacre: John Adams. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bostonmassacre/keyfigures.html



There certainly were many 'thugs' that wanted to 'kick the lobsterbacks asses,' hence the tarring and feathering of many, including Americans that were hired to collect taxes.

Yet there were leaders, that kept up the pressure by writings, speeches, and actions that were models for change. Much in the manner would follow men like Lincoln, those of the Underground Rail Road, MLK, etc.

Great info, so much to think about from that and your comments. :clap:

Where I see the difference is those thugs in Baltimore are not fighting for a cause-a just cause , but rather are looting to line their own pockets.
Thusly, on the comparison made of using the term "thugs" in both cases does not really equate IMHO.
And not that I am saying that you advocate any of the actions of the Baltimore mob.
Where in that Baltimore mob is/was an Adams, Lincoln or MLK ?
My judgment is nowhere was it. Thus we come to the conclusion most of this is a ginned up excuse to steal and get by with it!
As so many past incidents by blacks clearly reveal IMHO. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

the question was is it constitutional.
the answer is simply NO.

Many here are in the NO.. BUT.... camp.

Jim and I have gone over this ground before. If i've read him and some others right you're on the side of the gov't breaking the law from time to time,
OR gov't lawyers claiming "it's always been legal" and if there's no winning legal opposition then it's A-OK.
OR the gov't quickly CHANGING the law to make was illegal for the gov't to do "legal" if it's for a purpose you support.
ALL based on the idea that it's a pragmatic solution to some form of threat and for the sake of public "safety". ( Jim if i've misrepresented you in anyway here i apologize ahead of time but This is my honest impression fof your general position. if you'd like I'll find quotes to specific issues where you've applied the PRINCIPALS i've outlined above.).

But I've promoted the position that our freedoms are worth more than the imagined safety derived from an INCREASINGLY authoritarian gov't.. And that legal freedoms lost are hard to win back. Especially since the authoritarian position becomes the new "normal". The founders knew this.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." James Madison


the left and the right chip away at the constitution all for "good" pragmatic reasons.
But the constitution IS THE LAW.
But people don't really care about that law when they are afraid. We can't seem to think outside of the "gov't help me" box. And politicians and the media push the fear and people beg the gov't for protections. Non-governmental solutions, community solutions are not reassuring enough for people in fear.

More Police, More Military, More govt regulations, more taxes on the rich, more gov't is THE answer on the left and right... in an emergency.. then it we'll go back to normal... sorta... maybe... but we (the gov't) has this new "legal" tool (precedent) in our pocket now.

the only parts of the constitution that seem matter are gun rights, free speech and religion but the gov't needs to take those away too. it's to dangerous for those right wing animals to have guns, the founders never foresaw ak47s etc. in the hands of motorcycle thugs and PTS addled vets so it doesn't seriously apply anymore. it's scary. And freedom of speech and religion hurts people feelings and is scary too. soooo. I'm all for the Constitution 100% (TeaParty YEAH!) ...BUT....

but it's only to control those other scary people.. the constitutions not for them... it's for us. whoever us is today.


"the only parts of the constitution that seem matter are gun rights, free speech and religion but the gov't needs to take those away too. it's to dangerous for those right wing animals to have guns, the founders never foresaw ak47s etc. in the hands of motorcycle thugs and PTS addled vets so it doesn't seriously apply anymore. it's scary. And freedom of speech and religion hurts people feelings and is scary too. soooo. I'm all for the Constitution 100% (TeaParty YEAH!) ...BUT....

but it's only to control those other scary people.. the constitutions not for them... it's for us. whoever us is today"

^^^Sarcasm is both ill advised and very ill placed with this part.
You seem to forget the actions taken by the black mob were deliberate acts of stealing, arson and property destruction--ALL OF WHICH ARE CRIMES!
Look that word up if you must as it makes a difference in both the punishment and the attempted justification for those severe actions made .
Those actions themselves point to the real reason they are engaged in and its the desire to loot(take/steal) and get by with doing so without being arrested and punished!
Save the "holy cause" crap for the gullible and stupid as hell libs my friend.
This true American, responsible citizen and real man, " ain't buying a damn lick of it"..
As my dad didn't raise me to be a damn dumbass fool like the libs, dems and other asshats infesting(destroying) this great nation!-Tyr

[jimnyc]

It works, but still wrong.


the question was is it constitutional.
the answer is simply NO.

Many here are in the NO.. BUT.... camp.

Jim and I have gone over this ground before. If i've read him and some others right you're on the side of the gov't breaking the law from time to time,
OR gov't lawyers claiming "it's always been legal" and if there's no winning legal opposition then it's A-OK.

That's all that was needed from my reply and yours - concerning my stance in THIS thread. I'll of course defend my stances on other subjects as I feel each scenario is different. It was asked if it was constitutional, I answered that they were wrong. I can see WHY they made the decision, even if it is wrong. I further explained what I thought they should do, which would be constitutional.

So I really don't know if you're reading my post right or not, as it seems like you're bringing in my varied stances over time and not speaking of THIS issue in this thread.

[jimnyc]

^^^Sarcasm is both ill advised and very ill placed with this part.
You seem to forget the actions taken by the black mob were deliberate acts of stealing, arson and property destruction--ALL OF WHICH ARE CRIMES!

Been forgotten by far too many leaders this week. They ARE criminals and they ARE thugs.

[revelarts]

Tyr, who said i was defending Crime. Pleease quote me anywhere where i said crimes or criminals OF ANY color shouldn't be arrested or be ignored.
Tyr I haven't forgotten crap.
the question here is about curfew.
not scary blacks, or thugs, or crimes or whatever but curfew.

is it constitutional? NO.
not "No BUT..."
you seemed to have forgotten that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[revelarts]

That's all that was needed from my reply and yours - concerning my stance in THIS thread. I'll of course defend my stances on other subjects as I feel each scenario is different. It was asked if it was constitutional, I answered that they were wrong. I can see WHY they made the decision, even if it is wrong. I further explained what I thought they should do, which would be constitutional.

So I really don't know if you're reading my post right or not, as it seems like you're bringing in my varied stances over time and not speaking of THIS issue in this thread.

Jim as i said sorry if it misrepresents you specifically here but I pointed out clearly that i've read it as your GENERAL position from our many discussions. I think that's a fair assessment. Your position in this case is in fact very close to mine. With an added nod to give law enforcement their "full"(?) powers.
You've nuance your views in several ways on different specific issues but GENERALLY you often end up where i mentioned. I'm not trying to misrepresent you Jim Just using the GENERAL past as a springboard for my present comments. I'd like to think that that's not a crime to frame our comments like that or that that should be to personally offensive to you or anyone else.
At the least it seems others have made comments that are far more generally and personally offensive in nature.

[jimnyc]

Jim as i said sorry if it misrepresents you specifically here but I pointed out clearly that i've read it as your GENERAL position from our many discussions. I think that's a fair assessment. Your position in this case is in fact very close to mine. With an added nod to give law enforcement their "full"(?) powers.
You've nuance your views in several ways on different specific issues but GENERALLY you often end up where i mentioned. I'm not trying to misrepresent you Jim Just using the GENERAL past as a springboard for my present comments. I'd like to think that that's not a crime to frame our comments like that or that that should be to personally offensive to you or anyone else.
At the least it seems others have made comments that are far more generally and personally offensive in nature.

I think law enforcement should ALWAYS have full powers to uphold the law, protect themselves, and protect the citizens.

I don't believe I'm one who goes around stating that it's ok that the government breaks the law. I think perhaps there are times that we have disagreed as to whether or not certain things HAVE been broken, or whether they are constitutional or not. Perhaps there was a time or 2 where I stated stuff like "they should just do this...". But to imply that I generally am for the government breaking the law from time to time, or that this is where many of my arguments end up, I disagree with that.

I'm not offended by your post/words.

[jimnyc]

not "No BUT..."

You seem to think that my opinion that simply it worked is somehow me calling for unconstitutional actions. I basically said what you wrote above, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with things being constitutional or not. So in my case, based on what I wrote, NOTHING was forgotten by me, and certainly not the COTUS. This is why I prefer the quote system instead of general quotes about whoever, as readers are left to guess who you may be talking about. I include myself here as it sounds like you're speaking of many here, as you stated.

[Gunny]

Is a Curfew Constitutional?
No.


No. But people are quick to negate the idea of such rights when they are not the ones having them taken away.

Obviously the legal precedent posted above says you're both incorrect.

[Gunny]

You seem to think that my opinion that simply it worked is somehow me calling for unconstitutional actions. I basically said what you wrote above, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with things being constitutional or not. So in my case, based on what I wrote, NOTHING was forgotten by me, and certainly not the COTUS. This is why I prefer the quote system instead of general quotes about whoever, as readers are left to guess who you may be talking about. I include myself here as it sounds like you're speaking of many here, as you stated.

I don't like it. Neither do I like the fact that judges legislate from the bench. But they do. That being said, the welfare of the community as a whole trumps individual rights. That precedent has been set time and again. Hell, if they want to build a highway over your house, you have to take what they offer, no choice in the matter.

I was just curious about the curfew thing.

I DID notice it was a selective curfew. The media could stay. If you had to go to work or whatever you could. You just have to be on business.

[revelarts]

You seem to think that my opinion that simply it worked is somehow me calling for unconstitutional actions. I basically said what you wrote above, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with things being constitutional or not. So in my case, based on what I wrote, NOTHING was forgotten by me, and certainly not the COTUS. This is why I prefer the quote system instead of general quotes about whoever, as readers are left to guess who you may be talking about. I include myself here as it sounds like you're speaking of many here, as you stated.

I think i'm more honest about it than most.
for instance in a post above Tyr just assumed i "Forgot" about crimes and the like assuming an opinion i never came close to stating. maybe an honest mistake.
others have edited my long post and built "my" opinion on JUST that edited comment.
I try to paraphrase the real content of what people have said. even if it's not the exact words.

But we seem to be mainly on the same page here.
Just to give you an idea of where i'm coming from though. on on more than one occasion you've expressed the idea that you don't care what they do to or what they do the catch or stop terrorist. Assassinations, tortures, kidnapping and any other means. in various way unconstitutional. sometime you try to say it's legal but finally you've said you don't care.

that's one place where I'd say you don't mind if the Constitution is ignored or laws are broken... from time to time.

If i remember correctly in a few, not all, police stories i've sometimes argued that the police didn't have a right to enter a home, or stop at a check points, or stop and frisk or do a certain action and you didn't mind it so much if the outcome was favorable or other options weren't available.
I call this the police breaking the law. because well, ...they aren't following the law.

And i'm pretty sure you've defended the ideas that various president's can invade/fire upon countries without congressional approval. Over stepping the clear constitutional bounds. You and other's have defended the action because so many Presidents have done it so many times NOT because it's constitutional.
Just like a curfew law. worse in fact because war powers are spelled out clearly in the constitution.
so to me, as i said, seems you don't mind BREAKING THE LAW from time to time.

[Gunny]

I think i'm more honest about it than most.
for instance in a post above Tyr just assumed i "Forgot" about crimes and the like assuming an opinion i never came close to stating. maybe an honest mistake.
others have edited my long post and built "my" opinion on JUST that edited comment.
I try to paraphrase the real content of what people have said. even if it's not the exact words.

But we seem to be mainly on the same page here.
Just to give you an idea of where i'm coming from though. on on more than one occasion you've expressed the idea that you don't care what they do to or what they do the catch or stop terrorist. Assassinations, tortures, kidnapping and any other means. in various way unconstitutional. sometime you try to say it's legal but finally you've said you don't care.

that's one place where I'd say you don't mind if the Constitution is ignored or laws are broken... from time to time.

If i remember correctly in a few, not all, police stories i've sometimes argued that the police didn't have a right to enter a home, or stop at a check points, or stop and frisk or do a certain action and you didn't mind it so much if the outcome was favorable or other options weren't available.
I call this the police breaking the law. because well, ...they aren't following the law.

And i'm pretty sure you've defended the ideas that various president's can invade/fire upon countries without congressional approval. Over stepping the clear constitutional bounds. You and other's have defended the action because so many Presidents have done it so many times NOT because it's constitutional.
Just like a curfew law. worse in fact because war powers are spelled out clearly in the constitution.
so to me, as i said, seems you don't mind BREAKING THE LAW from time to time.

The Constitution does not dictate the Laws of War; therefore, irrelevant to the conduct of war. The Geneva Convention dictates the Law of War and rules of engagement.

As previously stated, if there is a judicial ruling setting legal precedence, then the curfew is, in fact, Constitutional.

[jimnyc]

If i remember correctly in a few, not all, police stories i've sometimes argued that the police didn't have a right to enter a home, or stop at a check points, or stop and frisk or do a certain action and you didn't mind it so much if the outcome was favorable or other options weren't available.

I call this the police breaking the law. because well, ...they aren't following the law.

The only time I've argued with you pertaining to entering homes was Boston, where I stated I didn't believe they broke the law, nor was it unconstitutional - as I believe when chasing a suspect, a terrorist, those emergency circumstances allowed them to do a quick search. Courts have upheld them doing similar before. Legal analysts agree with me. You disagree with me as did a few others. That is NOT me saying that I think they should be able to generally break the law.


And i'm pretty sure you've defended the ideas that various president's can invade/fire upon countries without congressional approval. Over stepping the clear constitutional bounds. You and other's have defended the action because so many Presidents have done it so many times NOT because it's constitutional.

I recall stating they do not need a declaration of war. I recall stating they could use drones to target terrorists. I recall stating they had limited powers to strike targets within a certain timeframe, but then must need congressional approval. I believe all of these things are within the constitution and they have authority. You would need to be MUCH more specific here though, as no way I simply stated the president could simply invade any country he pleases without congress involved.


Just like a curfew law. worse in fact because war powers are spelled out clearly in the constitution.
so to me, as i said, seems you don't mind BREAKING THE LAW from time to time.

And I still believe certain limited powers, without approval, are very well constitutional. Hell, we even have a resolution allowing for certain things prior to approval.

As for the curfew. I already stated it was wrong. And you really haven't pointed out anything yet that states me outright allowing the government to break the law from time to time. You THINK so, based on your beliefs. Folks have disagreements over "what is constitutional" and what is not every day. Me expressing my beliefs doesn't equate to me stating I think the government should generally be allowed to break the law, from time to time.

[jimnyc]

The Constitution does not dictate the Laws of War; therefore, irrelevant to the conduct of war. The Geneva Convention dictates the Law of War and rules of engagement.

As previously stated, if there is a judicial ruling setting legal precedence, then the curfew is, in fact, Constitutional.

And don't forget the "War Powers Act", which is likely what he recalls, which legally gives the president authority with only notification to congress. Then of course there must be full approval after something like 60 or 90 days?

[Gunny]

And don't forget the "War Powers Act", which is likely what he recalls, which legally gives the president authority with only notification to congress. Then of course there must be full approval after something like 60 or 90 days?

90 days. My take on what he said is that you were willing to break the Law of War -- which he stated incorrectly as Constitutional -- in order to conduct war. The Geneva Convention is an outdated ideal based on conventional warfare. I was merely pointing out the Constitution has nothing to do with the rules of war. It merely delegates responsibility for conducting the war.

I mixed on the curfew action. It DOES restrict freedom of movement which IS covered by the Constitution. At the same time, using the same premise as you that it is limited in scope, we can't just let thugs run amok destroying people's lives and livelihoods.

The curfew is for a week. At least for now. The police and National Guard so far have been very tolerant. They're letting the line pushers gaggle about past 10 then leave or slowly shooing them away. The few that have been arrested the past 2 nights deserved it.

[jimnyc]

Or maybe he's speaking of "declaration of war" as I stated, where the US has been in like 200 wars/battles over the years and I think 3 times we have declared war - and Rev believes that all 200 wars/battles that we were in were unconstitutional and breaking the law.

Regardless of our storied history... That's STILL not me stating I think our government should generally, or from time to time, should be able to break the law.

[jimnyc]

Had to do a quick search, the number was 193 - 193 battles/wars - 5 formally declared though:

War of 1812
Mexican American war
Spanish American war
Both World wars

[revelarts]

The Constitution does not dictate the Laws of War; therefore, irrelevant to the conduct of war. The Geneva Convention dictates the Law of War and rules of engagement.
As previously stated, if there is a judicial ruling setting legal precedence, then the curfew is, in fact, Constitutional.
like so many others now who think the constitution is irrelevant, ok sure, maybe your right in practice, today the constitution's been gutted.
but if people did take the law seriously the "supreme law of the land" says


Constitution Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;...
Constitution Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,..."

I suspect you still think the presidential powers above still apply, unless now the generals are really in charge.
People are very selective in where they think the constitution applies.

[revelarts]

Or maybe he's speaking of "declaration of war" as I stated, where the US has been in like 200 wars/battles over the years and I think 3 times we have declared war - and Rev believes that all 200 wars/battles that we were in were unconstitutional and breaking the law.

Regardless of our storied history... That's STILL not me stating I think our government should generally, or from time to time, should be able to break the law.

Well I'm just simple folk Jim.
If the law says the country can't go to war unless the congress declares it and
then any president who does command the military to go to war without congressional approval,
well that president has BROKEN the law.
Even if it's done 100 times... a 1000 times. I'd just call that repeat offense.

Maybe you've got another word for it but I can't honestly call it ANYTHING else.
You and others are so sophisticated and nuanced on this issue.
Maybe you can explain the same to me on gun regs, those "assault" weapons OBVIOUSLY don't count and free speech and religion, hurt feeling are real... Its maybe it's NOT REALLY unconstitutional to confiscate weapons as long as they do it over and over a few hundred times... and no one charges them.
right?

[Gunny]

Or maybe he's speaking of "declaration of war" as I stated, where the US has been in like 200 wars/battles over the years and I think 3 times we have declared war - and Rev believes that all 200 wars/battles that we were in were unconstitutional and breaking the law.

Regardless of our storied history... That's STILL not me stating I think our government should generally, or from time to time, should be able to break the law.

I would have to look, but rev would be wrong again. IIRC, Woodrow Wilson was the first President to stand before Congress and ask for a declaration of war. He ran on a platform that he would keep America out of WWI. He was just making sure he covered his ass. Roosevelt did the same.

The idea that a President must stand before Congress and ask permission is a 20th century notion.

[Gunny]

like so many other that now who think the constitution is irrelevant, ok sure, maybe your right in practice, today the constitutions been gutted.
but if people did take the law seriously the "supreme law of the land" says


Constitution Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;...
Constitution Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,..."

I suspect you still think the presidential powers above still apply, unless now the generals are really in charge.
People are very selective in where they think the constitution applies.

You're WAY to hung up on yourself. The Geneva Convention is the basis for international rules of war. Don't blame ME for Congress giving away its power to an international body. I'm just stating how it is in reality, not your idealism.

You you should spend more time understanding that which you cut and paste. The militia is the National Guard, btw, and your cut n paste job concerns invasion of the US, and was written LONG before the Geneva Convention convened.

[Gunny]

Well I'm just simple folk Jim.
If the law says the country can't go to war unless the congress declares it and
then any president who does command the military to go to war without congressional approval,
well that president has BROKEN the law.
Even if it's done 100 times... a 1000 times. I'd just call that repeat offense.

Maybe you've got another word for it but I can't honestly call it ANYTHING else.
You and others are so sophisticated and nuanced on this issue.
Maybe you can explain the same to me on gun regs, those "assault" weapons OBVIOUSLY don't count and free speech and religion, hurt feeling are real... Its maybe it's NOT REALLY unconstitutional to confiscate weapons as long as they do it over and over a few hundred times... and no one charges them.
right?

I call it you being out of touch with the present.

[jimnyc]

Well I'm just simple folk Jim.
If the law says the country can't go to war unless the congress declares it and
then any president does go to war without congressional approval
then that's BREAKING the law.
Even if it's done 100 times... a 1000 times.

Maybe you've got another word for it but I can't honestly call it ANYTHING else.
You and others are so sophisticated and nuanced on this issue.
Maybe you can explain the same to me on gun regs, those "assault" weapons OBVIOUSLY don't count and free speech and religion, hurt feeling are real... Its maybe it's NOT REALLY unconstitutional to confiscate weapons as long as they do it over and over a few hundred times... and no one charges them.
right?

We did this already. I'm not doing it again. You can dig up and link to an old thread for others if you like. And if you believe this means I somehow believe the government should be allowed to run around breaking the law, so be it then.

[Gunny]

We did this already. I'm not doing it again. You can dig up and link to an old thread for others if you like. And if you believe this means I somehow believe the government should be allowed to run around breaking the law, so be it then.

He's trying to play literalist over his head. If, in fact, each and every law was taken verbatim and executed verbatim, he'd be the first one to bitch.

[revelarts]

You're WAY to hung up on yourself. The Geneva Convention is the basis for international rules of war. Don't blame ME for Congress giving away its power to an international body. can you specifically site where in the law that it does this gunny or does law for you mean whatever they DO now, never mind what's written down.



I'm just stating how it is in reality, not your idealism. your stating how the LAW is NOT followed. fine.
All I've been saying is the gov't is not following the law the whole thread ---WHICH YOU STARTED by asking the question "Is a Curfew Constitutional?"
so is it just an academic question for you? we all agree already that they DO use curfews. they just DID IT.
IS it really legal/constitutional? NO!
most folk agree the answer is NO.
they just add a "but..." as an excuse to BREAK the law.

you 2 are playing games with yourselves taking the constitution seriously on Wednesdays and not on Thursdays.
call it Idealism and literalism when you don't like it and then cry bloody murder when Obama and the democrats don't abide by it.

frankly I'd rather be an "idealist" than a self deluded political hypocrite.



You you should spend more time understanding that which you cut and paste. The militia is the National Guard, btw, and your cut n paste job concerns invasion of the US, and was written LONG before the Geneva Convention convened.....I call it you being out of touch with the present.
:rolleyes: are you being a literalist here Gunny? ONLY "invasions"? Only "National guard"? are you sure? you might be out of touch.
but "land and naval forces" are what to you?



We did this already. I'm not doing it again. You can dig up and link to an old thread for others if you like. And if you believe this means I somehow believe the government should be allowed to run around breaking the law, so be it then.
Yes I 1st mentioned GENERALLY that we've had many discussion on issues like this. You balked at my assessment so i brought up some specifics. You tried to defend your positions AGIAN here and deny what the constitution says is the LAW no matter who breaks it or How many times.
And you still want to say you really don't think it's OK for the gov't to break the law from time to time. You think that i'm not realistic blah blah, whatever.

It's the law. they broke it. you agree.from time to time. end of story man.

I'm not misrepresenting you. You think it's OK from time to time for the gov't NOT to follow the constitution as written. period.
that's ALL was trying to say.
and concerning the former conversation over War Powers it's here
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34511-International-Permission%92-Trumps-Congressional-Permission-For-Military-Actions


He's trying to play literalist over his head. If, in fact, each and every law was taken verbatim and executed verbatim, he'd be the first one to bitch.
You and Jim seem to be saying that the Constitution is NOT literally the law when you don't like it so it's NOT really breaking it. OK
whatever fellas, however you guys want to paint it. fine. the democrats do the same on Guns and Religion.

as far as taking laws literally, and being the 1st one to b*tch.
Heck you guys can't even discuss the concept of applying the constitution literally without b*cthing, so it looks like you've beat me to it by a loooong way Gunny.

[aboutime]

He's trying to play literalist over his head. If, in fact, each and every law was taken verbatim and executed verbatim, he'd be the first one to bitch.

Seems like NOW is the perfect time to ask Rev WHY he has been so quiet about Holder, and Obama NOT following, or obeying the very same laws Rev doesn't seem to like...from the much hated Constitution???

How bout it Rev. Were you this concerned when HOLDER was literally in charge of Running Guns across the border, or when Lerner ignored the laws that APPLY TO YOU TOO?

[Gunny]

can you specifically site where in the law that it does this gunny or does law for you mean whatever they DO now, never mind what's written down.


your stating how the LAW is NOT followed. fine.
All I've been saying is the gov't is not following the law the whole thread ---WHICH YOU STARTED by asking the question "Is a Curfew Constitutional?"
so is it just an academic question for you? we all agree already that they DO use curfews. they just DID IT.
IS it really legal/constitutional? NO!
most folk agree the answer is NO.
they just add a "but..." as an excuse to BREAK the law.

you 2 are playing games with yourselves taking the constitution seriously on Wednesdays and not on Thursdays.
call it Idealism and literalism when you don't like it and then cry bloody murder when Obama and the democrats don't abide by it.

frankly I'd rather be an "idealist" than a self deluded political hypocrite.


:rolleyes: are you being a literalist here Gunny? ONLY "invasions"? Only "National guard"? are you sure? you might be out of touch.
but "land and naval forces" are what to you?



Yes I 1st mentioned GENERALLY that we've had many discussion on issues like this. You balked at my assessment so i brought up some specifics. You tried to defend your positions AGIAN here and deny what the constitution says is the LAW no matter who breaks it or How many times.
And you still want to say you really don't think it's OK for the gov't to break the law from time to time. You think that i'm not realistic blah blah, whatever.

It's the law. they broke it. you agree.from time to time. end of story man.

I'm not misrepresenting you. You think it's OK from time to time for the gov't NOT to follow the constitution as written. period.
that's ALL was trying to say.
and concerning the former conversation over War Powers it's here
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34511-International-Permission%92-Trumps-Congressional-Permission-For-Military-Actions


You and Jim seem to be saying that the Constitution is NOT literally the law when you don't like it so it's NOT really breaking it. OK
whatever fellas, however you guys want to paint it. fine. the democrats do the same on Guns and Religion.

as far as taking laws literally, and being the 1st one to b*tch.
Heck you guys can't even discuss the concept of applying the constitution literally without b*cthing, so it looks like you've beat me to it by a loooong way Gunny.

I forgot. You're one of those line by line, try to take things out of context, expand-a-post types.

1. I was in the Marine Corps for 21 years. I know exactly what the laws of war are and what they're based on because I was REQUIRED to know. Since I didn't bother to keep 21 years worth of class notes and/or reference material, feel free to use Google. You usually do.

2. Kathianne posted the legal precedent that makes a curfew Constitutional on page one. Yet you keep arguing all over the place.

What the law states literally and how it is applied depends on interpretation of the law, does it not? That's why we have a judicial branch. Your own previous post trying to tell me about the military SHOULD tell YOU that it states right in your cut n paste who has the authority to keep good order and discipline within the United States.

3. Yep. Land and Naval forces. At the time of the writing, I believe we had one ship. While I AM literalist, I also can keep things in context. Especially with the times. Our ship and our militia was for the defense of the US.

4. I don't speak for Jim. I'm a Constitutionalist to the max. You're just a fixated literalist trying to play semantics with your betters. Why would I have even asked the question if I wasn't?

If you don't like the way the law is interpreted and/or carried out, write your Congressman. The point I'm trying to make is while you want to be literal about each and every word, laws have to be adapted to situations whether or not you like it. The world isn't static and no law can cover completely each and every incident. That's one of the biggest problems with our Nation now. Knee jerk reacting with more legislation cover each and very specific incident people like you decide there needs to be a specific law for.

[revelarts]

Seems like NOW is the perfect time to ask Rev WHY he has been so quiet about Holder, and Obama NOT following, or obeying the very same laws Rev doesn't seem to like...from the much hated Constitution??? How bout it Rev. Were you this concerned when HOLDER was literally in charge of Running Guns across the border, or when Lerner ignored the laws that APPLY TO YOU TOO?

Obama has defied the constitution as much as or more than others, I've said so on plenty of occasions. Often created threads with ZERO replies.
You show me the threads where a constitutional issue's been pointed out I'll add my voice to it AT.

good enough for you?
probably not.

But I think technically Gun Running isn't unconstitutional. that was just Illegal, tragic, stupid and completely counter productive.
Concerning Lener, it's obviously WRONG what she did, but nailing her in the law is another matter. look here if you real want to talk about it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/12/19/exactly-what-kind-of-a-criminal-might-lois-lerner-be/
But it's technically not a constitutional matter either.

Libyan war is constitutional matter, wire tapping is a constitutional matter, Drone strikes are a constitutional matter, executive orders overriding congressional law is a constitutional matter, health care is a constitutional matter... there's more... if you really want to talk about it.

[Gunny]

Obama has defied the constitution as much as or more than others, I've said so on plenty of occasions. Often created threads with ZERO replies.
You show me the threads where a constitutional issue's been pointed out I'll add my voice to it AT.

good enough for you?
probably not.

But I think technically Gun Running isn't unconstitutional. that was just Illegal, tragic, stupid and completely counter productive.
Concerning Lener, it's obviously WRONG what she did, but nailing her in the law is another matter. look here if you real want to talk about it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/12/19/exactly-what-kind-of-a-criminal-might-lois-lerner-be/
But it's technically not a constitutional matter either.

Libyan war is constitutional matter, wire tapping is a constitutional matter, Drone strikes are a constitutional matter, executive orders overriding congressional law is a constitutional matter, health care is a constitutional matter... there's more... if you really want to talk about it.

Well, you got two right. Executive orders and mandatory healthcare. The rest is you dreaming.

[revelarts]

I forgot. You're one of those line by line, try to take things out of context, expand-a-post types.

1. I was in the Marine Corps for 21 years. I know exactly what the laws of war are and what they're based on because I was REQUIRED to know. Since I didn't bother to keep 21 years worth of class notes and/or reference material, feel free to use Google. You usually do.
.

My betters can't find one reference to back up what their whole argument is based on?
I'm suppose to find it for you?:rolleyes:
no, um, You prove your own case Gunny. I'm not just going to take your word for it. go cut and paste some law for me bro.
So far your just trying to buffalo me with with "21 years a marine" "took 21 notes..." sorry "21 years of notes" "I was required to know blah blah" sorry, show me oh Better one.
I suspect it's literally written down somewhere and means what it says and even though it was 20+ years ago it still somehow applies... unless it doesn't because this is the real world... and things change.

[jimnyc]

Yes I 1st mentioned GENERALLY that we've had many discussion on issues like this. You balked at my assessment so i brought up some specifics. You tried to defend your positions AGIAN here and deny what the constitution says is the LAW no matter who breaks it or How many times.
And you still want to say you really don't think it's OK for the gov't to break the law from time to time. You think that i'm not realistic blah blah, whatever.

It's the law. they broke it. you agree.from time to time. end of story man.

I'm not misrepresenting you. You think it's OK from time to time for the gov't NOT to follow the constitution as written. period.
that's ALL was trying to say.
and concerning the former conversation over War Powers it's here
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?34511-International-Permission%92-Trumps-Congressional-Permission-For-Military-Actions

Oh please, period and end of story my ass. YOU don't get to dictate what is determined illegal and unconstitutional just because you believe differently. You believe 193 conflicts and endless congresses went by and ignored reckless abandonment of the COTUS - and I find that fucking laughable!!! But go ahead, go ahead with your lame Ron Pauls and Kucinich's of the world declaring war crimes.

James Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Monroe
Buchanan
Wilson
Eisenhower
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, GWB 1 & 2

That's quite a list of people that Revelarts thinks should be in prison.

[revelarts]

Well, you got two right. Executive orders and mandatory healthcare. The rest is you dreaming.
Selective use of the constitution again i see.
that's the whole problem right there.

[revelarts]

Oh please, period and end of story my ass. YOU don't get to dictate what is determined illegal and unconstitutional just because you believe differently. You believe 193 conflicts and endless congresses went by and ignored reckless abandonment of the COTUS - and I find that fucking laughable!!! But go ahead, go ahead with your lame Ron Pauls and Kucinich's of the world declaring war crimes.

James Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Monroe
Buchanan
Wilson
Eisenhower
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, GWB 1 & 2

That's quite a list of people that Revelarts thinks should be in prison.
there are plenty of people who gotten away with crimes.
Got any LAW or constitution to back that up Jim?
Or are you just going say AGAIN that ...it was done a lot... by some people i like... they got away with it... so that makes it legal.

[jimnyc]

Selective use of the constitution again i see.
that's the whole problem right there.

Selective only because you disagree. You haven't proven jack shit, and a few hundred years of history disagrees with you.

[Gunny]

My betters can't find one reference to back up what their whole argument is based on?
I'm suppose to find it for you:rolleyes:.
no, um, You prove your own case Gunny. I'm not just going to take your word for it. go cut and paste some law for me bro.
So far your just trying to buffalo me with with "21 years a marine" "took 21 notes" "I was required to know blah blah" sorry, show me oh Better one.
I suspect it's literally written down somewhere and means what it says and even though it was 20+ years ago it still somehow applies... unless it doesn't because this is the real world... and things change.

It's real simple rev. Your brain is literal and static. I'm not trying to buffalo shit. I'm telling you. You're uneducated on the topic because your tunnel vision keeps your head glued to one document you want to play semantics with.

Yeah, I was a Marine for 21 years. I fought in a war. I didn't have time to whip out of my left cargo pocket my copy of the Constitution, its Amendments, and all the legal jurisprudence attached to both each and every time an incident occurred. I COULD however rely on my and my Marine's training to know the rules.

Every military person that steps foot on foreign soil, especially under arms, knows the rules. They're drummed into our heads. And guess what? They don't apply to all situations.

I got nothing to show you. More of your literal bullshit. "Find me a link". Find your own. Google is your friend. I know what I know from experience AND training. Want proof? Ask any vet here, But we don't go around with a library to suit your goofiness when we could be carrying ammo, food and water instead. You know what you know from attempting to literalize a document, and go so far as to try to speak out of context if you think no one else knows what you assume you do.

You don't know shit except words on a piece of paper and your interpretation of them. You live in a dreamworld.

You've already deflected from the OP since legal jurisprudence proved you wrong.

[Gunny]

there are plenty of people who gotten away with crimes.
Got any LAW or constitution to back that up Jim?
Or are you just going say AGAIN that ...it was done a lot... by some people i like... they got away with it... so that makes it legal.

Is this where the thread goes into Conspiracy Theories?

[jimnyc]

there are plenty of people who gotten away with crimes.
Got any LAW or constitution to back that up Jim?
Or are you just going say AGAIN that ...it was done a lot... by some people i like... they got away with it... so that makes it legal.

Yes, the law and COTUS you posted yourself. You just have issues comprehending what others say. AND PLEASE, fucking stop with the "are are you saying". EVERY debate with you ends up with weird fucking quotes and you changing and twisting what I say.

Are you saying, revelarts, that the USA is nothing but a criminal country that was filled with felonious presidents who had no regard for international law, and filled with a congress that is useless and complicit in war crimes? I had no idea of your true lack of respect for so many past presidents and collections of congress, and that you held your country in such low regard as a whole. Personally, still a proud American here!

[Gunny]

Selective use of the constitution again i see.
that's the whole problem right there.

Nope. Proper use of the Constitution instead of seeing a ghost behind every door.

[jimnyc]

Is this where the thread goes into Conspiracy Theories?

Yep. You've been sucked into the twilight zone of "I know the law and constitution better than 14 US presidents and everyone involved" :lol:

[Gunny]

Yep. You've been sucked into the twilight zone of "I know the law and constitution better than 14 US presidents and everyone involved" :lol:

Thing is, he's out of context. Before WIlson, if the President declared war, Congress followed suit. The nation was always as polarized politically as it is now. Even pre-Civil War the polarization was different.

A lot of the problem has become people like rev who want to literalize everything and want a specific law for each specific incident. They can't think outside the box. He's applying his literal interpretation today, to a document more than 200 hundred years old, and allowing for no deviance. So what does that give us?

Criminals who are always deviating and getting around the rules/laws while rev ties the government and law enforcement's hands behind their backs with his literal interpretations.

[revelarts]

Selective only because you disagree. You haven't proven jack shit, and a few hundred years of history disagrees with you.
Jim all have to do is READ the text. it's not written in greek or deep legalize. the war powers are as clear as the sun. CLEARER than the 2nd amendment.
hundreds of years of flaunting it doesn't make it legal.

And Jim am i wrong when i say that you think it's OK to do whatever to a terrorist despite what the constitution says about cruel and unusual punishment, or trails, or due process, geneva conventions, military code of conduct, etc.?
We have 100s of years of history where all that torture-assainations etc was illegal. ACTUALLY in the law and tied CASES with people going to to jail for not following the law.
Does that law apply to "terrorist" or do you think that from time to time it's ok to IGNORE IT?
i suspect you're going to claim it's just my opinion again. OK If so we'll then we just have a difference of opinion on how to read.

Jim if you find an online forum where the mods of the board a have written rules you'd expect that anyone would be able to get the gist of what they meant. But if the mods say "LOOK JIM the words don't mean what you think, stop being so literal. They mean nothing but what we've DONE of the past few years. THAT'S what really counts" I suspect that wouldn't go over to well with you. Or if they claimed that "the rules only mean what they think and their bud's say it means. dictionaries be hanged." That wouldn't go over to well either i'd guess. Especially if one of the main reason you joined the board and stayed with it was because of the rules.
As a member reading and understanding the written rules wouldn't give you any real powers, but would be right for you to say that "the rules say one thing BUT the mods act CONTRARY to the rules."
All the denials, faux lawyer like obfuscations and name calling they sent your way would honestly be considered BS.

[revelarts]

It's real simple rev. Your brain is literal and static. I'm not trying to buffalo shit. I'm telling you. You're uneducated on the topic because your tunnel vision keeps your head glued to one document you want to play semantics with.

Yeah, I was a Marine for 21 years. I fought in a war. I didn't have time to whip out of my left cargo pocket my copy of the Constitution, its Amendments, and all the legal jurisprudence attached to both each and every time an incident occurred. I COULD however rely on my and my Marine's training to know the rules.

Every military person that steps foot on foreign soil, especially under arms, knows the rules. They're drummed into our heads. And guess what? They don't apply to all situations.

I got nothing to show you. More of your literal bullshit. "Find me a link". Find your own. Google is your friend. I know what I know from experience AND training. Want proof? Ask any vet here, But we don't go around with a library to suit your goofiness when we could be carrying ammo, food and water instead. You know what you know from attempting to literalize a document, and go so far as to try to speak out of context if you think no one else knows what you assume you do.

You don't know shit except words on a piece of paper and your interpretation of them. You live in a dreamworld.

You've already deflected from the OP since legal jurisprudence proved you wrong.

Gunny until you can show me something form your "training" manuals which i assume came from CONGRESS.
You got nothing.
you say it was drummed into you but you can't site it. hows that work?
and you give me more of this I'm a marine i know it all you don't jack, crap
I call BS on you Gunny. I've lived and worked around and with to many military to buy the I'm in the military your not, crap.

If it's soooo clear and EVERY vet knows it show me. I have NO CLUE what your referring to so there's not even a way for me to search. (since i don't think it exist) but for you, It's got to be right at your finger tips.
Until then --with all due respect to your service-- you can recite the number of kills, show me your purple heart and your wounds.
Whatever you did honorably but it doesn't make you an authority on the constitution or law sorry. maybe in your mind it does. Linedie England probably thought she knew the laws better than me to.
Seems what they drummed into your head is that you know better and are better than any civilian. and that's to bad really, because frankly to me your just another human being.
you may be right, but being a marine doesn't make you right, never will. And in this case i suspect your flat wrong.

Last i checked the constitution is it's own authority, and the scotus interprets (for better or worse). Not what some veteran CLAIMS he knows it "REALY MEANS" "today" because you know how it works in the "real world" "in combat".

please come off of it Gunny.

[jimnyc]

I know this will be mostly ignored, but this is a good read. It's in reference to terrorists abroad and the presidents authority to do things, but the arguments are extremely similar. Don't really care if he is supposedly wrong too. Has citations and precedent and all that fun stuff included. 24 pages. The same deputy assistant attorney general who wrote up the torture memos. Go argue with him if you disagree.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Memorandum-from-John-C-Yoo-Sept-25-2001.pdf

[Little-Acorn]

Curfews directed at adults touch upon fundamental constitutional rights and thus are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that "[t]he right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all—and to do so whenever one pleases—is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 US 156, 164, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110, 92 S. Ct 839 (1972).

To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective.

The permission for a curfew to be imposed on the general populace if it passes a "strict scrutiny" test, is based on the 5th amendment to the Constitution, which as we all know says:

No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, unless the government decides there is a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve their objective....

So, yes, a curfew is completely constitutional.

[jimnyc]

The permission for a curfew to be imposed on the general populace if it passes a "strict scrutiny" test, is based on the 5th amendment to the Constitution, which as we all know says:

No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, unless the government decides there is a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve their objective....

So, yes, a curfew is completely constitutional.

Well stated, and supported. I honestly didn't think it pasted the test, until I just read the "compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective". And no doubt this fit the bill. Based on that US decision, I officially change my stance. And a quick review tells me that they have already done similar, during the Rodney King riots, with more citations.

---

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and Welfare are otherwise threatened. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965). The California Court of Appeals cited this ruling in a case that reviewed an order issued by the city of Long Beach, California, which declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews on all adults (and minors) within the city's confines after widespread civil disorder broke out following the Rodney G. King beating trial, in which four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of using excessive force in subduing an African-American motorist following a high-speed traffic chase. In re Juan C., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (Cal. App. 1994).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Curfew

[Gunny]

Gunny until you can show me something form your "training" manuals which i assume came from CONGRESS.
You got nothing.
you say it was drummed into you but you can't site it. hows that work?
and you give me more of this I'm a marine i know it all you don't jack, crap
I call BS on you Gunny. I've lived and worked around and with to many military to buy the I'm in the military your not, crap.

If it's soooo clear and EVERY vet knows it show me. I have NO CLUE what your referring to so there's not even a way for me to search. (since i don't think it exist) but for you, It's got to be right at your finger tips.
Until then --with all due respect to your service-- you can recite the number of kills, show me your purple heart and your wounds.
Whatever you did honorably but it doesn't make you an authority on the constitution or law sorry. maybe in your mind it does. Linedie England probably thought she knew the laws better than me to.
Seems what they drummed into your head is that you know better and are better than any civilian. and that's to bad really, because frankly to me your just another human being.
you may be right, but being a marine doesn't make you right, never will. And in this case i suspect your flat wrong.

Last i checked the constitution is it's own authority, and the scotus interprets (for better or worse). Not what some veteran CLAIMS he knows it "REALY MEANS" "today" because you know how it works in the "real world" "in combat".

please come off of it Gunny.

Right. Try playing semantics with your Sesame Street crew. There's nothing to show you. We had manual stuff on paper. Remember that world? Or are you too young and dumb? Even if I still had it, I wouldn't bother scanning page after page into a computer just to prove you wrong when I already have. This is just a deflection on your part because your ass was handed to you.

I ain't playing your dumbass game. Find it yourself. You're the one trying to prove it wrong. The onus is on YOU, not me. If you want to go by who has presented the most reasonable argument, the onus is STILL on you because you've presented nothing but a kindergarten attempt at playing word games.

[jimnyc]

Right. Try playing semantics with your Sesame Street crew. There's nothing to show you. We had manual stuff on paper. Remember that world? Or are you too young and dumb? Even if I still had it, I wouldn't bother scanning page after page into a computer just to prove you wrong when I already have. This is just a deflection on your part because your ass was handed to you.

I ain't playing your dumbass game. Find it yourself. You're the one trying to prove it wrong. The onus is on YOU, not me. If you want to go by who has presented the most reasonable argument, the onus is STILL on you because you've presented nothing but a kindergarten attempt at playing word games.

One simply need look at 200 years of presidential statements, congressional votes & any legal challenges against any of the presidents decisions during those 200 years. I'm fairly confident that if the courts ruled so many of our past presidents as international war criminals, we'd have heard about it by now. I'm pretty sure the attorney generals and other legal counsels over these 200 years have had a little bit to say as well. Of course when it IS produced that one does so, and gives supporting precedent and citations - and mark my words - he'll either be told he is not a good attorney, only doing so for politics, doesn't know what he's talking about, being paid off or blah blah blah.

[revelarts]

Yes, the law and COTUS you posted yourself. You just have issues comprehending what others say. AND PLEASE, fucking stop with the "are are you saying". EVERY debate with you ends up with weird fucking quotes and you changing and twisting what I say.

Are you saying, revelarts, that the USA is nothing but a criminal country that was filled with felonious presidents who had no regard for international law, and filled with a congress that is useless and complicit in war crimes? I had no idea of your true lack of respect for so many past presidents and collections of congress, and that you held your country in such low regard as a whole. Personally, still a proud American here!

stop telling me to "please stop" doing this or that, unless i've broken a rule.
Please stop being so sensitive. If i ask if you mean something then you can say YES or NO. done deal.
thanks

and please remember this about my opinions. or facts i point out.
I may think/find that a person has committed crimes but may think they've done many other noble things. i don't have to put them OR the country in ONE basket and pretend that America is ALL virtue, apple pie and sunshine. I have no problem saying America is Great and has also done some VILE corrupt Sh!t.
both are true, often true of individuals as well.

Police are often great but some are or have been vile and corrupt.
U.S. Military is great but some are or have been vile and corrupt.
Some U.S. Presidents have been great and done amazing things but some of the SAME people have also been vile and corrupt.

we clear on that?
the ONLY person I know of without faults is Jesus Christ.

[Gunny]

One simply need look at 200 years of presidential statements, congressional votes & any legal challenges against any of the presidents decisions during those 200 years. I'm fairly confident that if the courts ruled so many of our past presidents as international war criminals, we'd have heard about it by now. I'm pretty sure the attorney generals and other legal counsels over these 200 years have had a little bit to say as well. Of course when it IS produced that one does so, and gives supporting precedent and citations - and mark my words - he'll either be told he is not a good attorney, only doing so for politics, doesn't know what he's talking about, being paid off or blah blah blah.

He's cherrypicking facts.

[revelarts]

I know this will be mostly ignored, but this is a good read. It's in reference to terrorists abroad and the presidents authority to do things, but the arguments are extremely similar. Don't really care if he is supposedly wrong too. Has citations and precedent and all that fun stuff included. 24 pages. The same deputy assistant attorney general who wrote up the torture memos. Go argue with him if you disagree.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Memorandum-from-John-C-Yoo-Sept-25-2001.pdf

John Yoo, HA! yeah right.
Obama is a "constitutional scholar" too! go argue with him on Health Care, executive orders, indefinite detentions, and the like.
He's the president he must be right. Or congress or the scotus would have done something to stop him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYdJqSG3K6c

[Gunny]

stop telling me to "please stop" doing this or that, unless i've broken a rule.
Please stop being so sensitive. If i ask if you mean something then you can say YES or NO. done deal.
thanks

and please remember this about my opions. I may think a person has committed a crime but may think they've done many other noble things. i don't have to put them OR the country in ONE basket and pretend that America is ALL virtue, apple pie and sunshine. I have no problem saying America is Great and has also done some VILE corrupt Sh!t.
both are true, often true of individuals as well.

Police are often great but some are or have been vile and corrupt.
U.S. Military is great but some are or have been vile and corrupt.
Some U.S. Presidents have been great and done amazing things but some of the SAME people have also been vile and corrupt.

we clear on that?
the ONLY person I know of without faults is Jesus Christ.

SUre it's about your opinions. You're entitled to as many wrong opinions as you want. And when you want to argue military with me, your opinions don't stack against facts.

[revelarts]

Right. Try playing semantics with your Sesame Street crew. There's nothing to show you. We had manual stuff on paper. Remember that world? Or are you too young and dumb? Even if I still had it, I wouldn't bother scanning page after page into a computer just to prove you wrong when I already have. ..

You haven't proven a thing Gunny.
You've just tried to buffalo a lot of hot air.

[Gunny]

You haven't proven a thing Gunny.
You've just tried to buffalo a lot of hot air.

Lame deflection that didn't work before. I've got nothing to prove. I've got more sea time than you do reading your version of the Constitution. Before you deploy for 6 months, the unit "works up " for 6 months. Nothing but training. Rules of engagement. SOFA agreements. Law of War. Code of Conduct. General Orders.

All you've proven is that YOU have never served in the military but think you're an expert on the law.

I'll reiterate ... we didn't have computers until my last deployment. The classes aren't on computer. They're on white boards and handouts. Sorry I didn't save hem just for you. And most military personnel know a Hell of lot more about the Constitution than you do. We don't swear to support and defend a person, an office, nor an administration. We swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

We're well versed on our shit. I don't have to prove the obvious. YOU are the one trying to say it's wrong and you don't know what the f- you're talking about.

[Little-Acorn]

The permission for a curfew to be imposed on the general populace if it passes a "strict scrutiny" test, is based on the 5th amendment to the Constitution, which as we all know says:

No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, unless the government decides there is a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve their objective....

So, yes, a curfew is completely constitutional.
Well stated, and supported. I honestly didn't think it pasted the test, until I just read the "compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective". And no doubt this fit the bill. Based on that US decision, I officially change my stance. And a quick review tells me that they have already done similar, during the Rodney King riots, with more citations.

Ditto.

And since the Constitution DOES permit the exception of "a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective", to permit government to take away the liberty of a person without benefit of trial, such a curfew is constitutional.

The Supreme Court even cited that language in the Constitution in their ruling. (Right?)

How could they not, and still rule the way they did?

Their primary duty is to preserve and protect the Constitution, after all. NOT to permit Congress to make laws that the Constitution expressly forbids.

So I'm glad the Constitution makes an exception for curfews.

[Gunny]

John Yoo, HA! yeah right.
Obama is a "constitutional scholar" too! go argue with him on Health Care, executive orders, indefinite detentions, and the like.
He's the president he must be right. Or congress or the scotus would have done something to stop him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYdJqSG3K6c

Grasping at straws with another deflection now?

[aboutime]

Obama has defied the constitution as much as or more than others, I've said so on plenty of occasions. Often created threads with ZERO replies.
You show me the threads where a constitutional issue's been pointed out I'll add my voice to it AT.

good enough for you?
probably not.

But I think technically Gun Running isn't unconstitutional. that was just Illegal, tragic, stupid and completely counter productive.
Concerning Lener, it's obviously WRONG what she did, but nailing her in the law is another matter. look here if you real want to talk about it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/12/19/exactly-what-kind-of-a-criminal-might-lois-lerner-be/
But it's technically not a constitutional matter either.

Libyan war is constitutional matter, wire tapping is a constitutional matter, Drone strikes are a constitutional matter, executive orders overriding congressional law is a constitutional matter, health care is a constitutional matter... there's more... if you really want to talk about it.



Rather than argue any more with you Rev. I'll simply accept you have been programmed to speak out of your ass, and you probably spent too much time, out with the gang the other night..on the streets of Baltimore. Performing as your Illiterate, Unqualified, So-called Constitutional ABUSER convinced all of you to believe.

Breaking any U.S. Law is Unconstitutional, no matter how you claim otherwise. And Obama, Holder, Lerner, and probably...even you do not follow the laws if you deny they are constitutional. PERIOD. Now. I feel sorry for you. Showing the rest of us what the Obama/Liberal brainwashing techniques really look like...from you.

[jimnyc]

Grasping at straws with another deflection now?

This is why he's better ignored on certain subjects. He won't accept anything you provide him with anyway, even if they are court decision, attorney generals, committee approved. Unless he sees that a founding father literally wrote and gave approval, then it's to be ignored. Only he is right and 200 years of presidents, congresses, attorney generals and courts are incorrect. You're speaking to someone who thinks 9/11 is an inside job and his hero is a man that was in the government who stated and believed the same.

Amazing, 14 past presidents of ours who are highly noted, actually were international war criminal, aided and abetted by 200 years of vice presidents, attorneys & congresses. :lol:

[jimnyc]

Ditto.

And since the Constitution DOES permit the exception of "a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective", to permit government to take away the liberty of a person without benefit of trial, such a curfew is constitutional.

The Supreme Court even cited that language in the Constitution in their ruling. (Right?)

How could they not, and still rule the way they did?

Their primary duty is to preserve and protect the Constitution, after all. NOT to permit Congress to make laws that the Constitution expressly forbids.

So I'm glad the Constitution makes an exception for curfews.

Thing is though - IS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION? CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE? Otherwise you're blowing hot air and this remains unconstitutional. Some idiots in the supreme court say something and you think it gets to just ignore the constitution? The supremes don't get to pick and choose when to follow the constitution. Lawyers don't know more than congress, since they are crooks, and lawyers are honest. What do you mean laws? Who do you think enforces laws - that's right, the cops - and we know they are corrupt. You don't know the constitution like I do, at least until you think you want to. 9/11 was a false flag operation solely so that the big companies could make $$$ and that includes the international war criminals who don't follow the constitution!

Sorry, was on a rant, just ignore me. :coffee:

[Gunny]

This is why he's better ignored on certain subjects. He won't accept anything you provide him with anyway, even if they are court decision, attorney generals, committee approved. Unless he sees that a founding father literally wrote and gave approval, then it's to be ignored. Only he is right and 200 years of presidents, congresses, attorney generals and courts are incorrect. You're speaking to someone who thinks 9/11 is an inside job and his hero is a man that was in the government who stated and believed the same.

Amazing, 14 past presidents of ours who are highly noted, actually were international war criminal, aided and abetted by 200 years of vice presidents, attorneys & congresses. :lol:

I am both literalist and Constitutionalist. He claims to be but isn't. He's a literalist that likes to play semantics. So, by his strict definition from the founding fathers and the original bill of rights, we can still own slaves, right?

I've got a solution for Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Milwaukee. :laugh:

[revelarts]

Lame deflection that didn't work before. I've got nothing to prove. I've got more sea time than you do reading your version of the Constitution. Before you deploy for 6 months, the unit "works up " for 6 months. Nothing but training. Rules of engagement. SOFA agreements. Law of War. Code of Conduct. General Orders.

All you've proven is that YOU have never served in the military but think you're an expert on the law.

I'll reiterate ... we didn't have computers until my last deployment. The classes aren't on computer. They're on white boards and handouts. Sorry I didn't save hem just for you. And most military personnel know a Hell of lot more about the Constitution than you do. We don't swear to support and defend a person, an office, nor an administration. We swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

We're well versed on our shit. I don't have to prove the obvious. YOU are the one trying to say it's wrong and you don't know what the f- you're talking about.
I never claimed i was in the military Gunny.

But the only thing that's obvious here are the words of the constitution.
Where the war powers are very clearly vested in the Congress. Absolutely no need for months of training to get that.
and war powers is all we were talking about (your rules of engagement etc is not relevant to the question Jim was defending and got us on this )

the Congress is the ONLY branch of gov't that has authority to declare war.
the only other Law that comes into play was the congress giving up some authority in the War Powers act.

In this thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31463-War-Powers-And-Disobeying-Illegal-Orders&p=473324#post473324) I quote a congressman legal/constitional assessment of Obama's adventure into Libya.


...It's seems that Obama doesn't even have the War powers Act to back him up on the Libyan invasion.
I'd assumed that he did based on the chatter in the Media but ...Once again... If you read the Law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html) for yourself you'll find it doesn't mean what many assume it does.
The CATO institute posted Republicans Tom McClintock's Break down of the fact that Obama has Zero legal authorization to invade Libya. (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/libya-war-power-impeachment)
Basically he outlines how
War Powers Acts doesn't apply. It clearly state 3 ways for a prez to use military force.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by War Powers resolution
Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces

So he Does Not have even the "60 days". Which, BTW, has past. Day 1 was illegal.
The constitution clearly states that the Prez cannot attack anyone without congress.

McClintock goes on to point out.
NATO is a defensive treaty. AND Any Military Actions Must have Congressional approval as well.
NATO Treaty states that troops are to be deployed "In accordance with" a member's country's Constitution.
U.N. Military Actions. the U.N Participation acts "Requires" Congressional approval for any military actions.But Back to the War Powers Act.
It Also says the Prez must give the constitutional reason for any military action.
so Obama has failed there as well

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by War Powers resolution
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement...


And Even if Libya did fit the War Powers rule. which obviously it does not.
Congress would STILL have to approve continued military action or the action must STOP.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by War powers resolution
(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

So here we are.
Obama Is CLEARLY outside the scope of his powers by every legal standard....
seems that Jim even may have agreed with me ..then.

But the congressmen didn't mention he got his info from his time on deployment just from reading the law and the constitution. so i guess it's suspect to you.

[jimnyc]

I am both literalist and Constitutionalist. He claims to be but isn't. He's a literalist that likes to play semantics. So, by his strict definition from the founding fathers and the original bill of rights, we can still own slaves, right?

I've got a solution for Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Milwaukee. :laugh:

Oh man, that's rough!

But if he was an expert on the constitution, then this very thread doesn't exist, as precedent has already answered the question extremely clearly.

[Gunny]

I never claimed i was in the military Gunny.

the only thing that's obvious here are the words of the constitution.
Where the war powers are very clearly vested in the Congress. Absolutely no need for months of training to get that.
and war powers is all we were talking about (your rules of engagement etc is not relevant to the question Jim was defending and got us on this )

the Congress is the ONLY branch of gov't that has authority to declare war.
the only other Law that comes into play was the congress giving up some authority in the War Powers act.

In this thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31463-War-Powers-And-Disobeying-Illegal-Orders&p=473324#post473324) I quote a congressman legal/constitional assessment of Obama's adventure into Libya.


seems that Jim even may have agreed with me ..then.

But the congressmen didn't mention he got his info from his time on deployment just from reading the law and the constitution. so i guess it's suspect to you.

Wrong. The US signed up to the Geneva Convention. They gave away their Constitutional right to make our own laws regarding warfare.

[jimnyc]

Oh man, that's rough!

But if he was an expert on the constitution, then this very thread doesn't exist, as precedent has already answered the question extremely clearly.

Hell, it's your thread. Change that to when he first answered the question then, as it would have been answered correctly then.

[jimnyc]

Tom McClintock? HA! Yeah right.

[revelarts]

I am both literalist and Constitutionalist. He claims to be but isn't. He's a literalist that likes to play semantics. So, by his strict definition from the founding fathers and the original bill of rights, we can still own slaves, right?

I've got a solution for Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Milwaukee. :laugh:

Um, really, maybe they didn't tell you in your deployment months of training from manuals and board notes and 21 years of combat,
but there was another war where slavery was made illegal by the President and then by constitutional amendment.
So Yeah, maybe you should read the constitution when you get a chance. it's on paper still at the library if it's to hard for you to find it on goggle.:laugh::laugh:

[Gunny]

Um, really, maybe they didn't tell you in your deployment months of training from manuals and board notes and 21 years of combat,
but there was another war where slavery was made illegal by the President and then by constitutional amendment.
So Yeah, maybe you should read the constitution when you get a chance. it's on paper still at the library if it's to hard for you to find it on goggle.:laugh::laugh:

Oh, I see. So NOW Amendments count? So does legal jurisprudence. Try again. You're at epic fal right now because you just can't shut up.

I've apparently read it, the Amendments and legal jurisprudence more than you have. More importantly, I understand it.

[revelarts]

Wrong. The US signed up to the Geneva Convention. They gave away their Constitutional right to make our own laws regarding warfare.
WRONG. the Geneva Convention has ZERO to do with WHO has the authority to declare war in the U.S. gov't.

It mainly covers treatment of prisoners, civilians, the wounded and the like. But NOTHING having to do with Chain of Command in a signature country for starting a war.
But one thing it does define is when a war is LEGAL for a country to pursue. And gives set criteria that clearly says that a war of aggression, that is a war started BEFORE a country is attacked is a war crime and the leaders are criminally responsible. Aggressive war is a war crime.

But who has the authority to declare wars (legal or illegal wars) is up to the laws of each country.

[revelarts]

Oh, I see. So NOW Amendments count? So does legal jurisprudence. Try again. You're at epic fal right now because you just can't shut up.
I've apparently read it, the Amendments and legal jurisprudence more than you have. More importantly, I understand it.

I don't think you've quoted any specific words of any law here yet gunny.

Were you in the war of 1812 when you got your superior constitutional training on paper?
if not you should have been told that there are more than 10 amendments in the constitution if you were in any war of the 20th century.
You seem to know there is such a thing as the geneva conventions, even if you've forgotten what's in them or what they apply to... though you say you understand everything better.

[Gunny]

WRONG. the Geneva Convention has ZERO to do with WHO has the authority to declare war in the U.S. gov't.

It mainly covers treatment of prisoners, civilians, the wounded and the like. But NOTHING having to do with Chain of Command in a signature country for starting a war.
But one thing it does define is when a war is LEGAL for a country to pursue. And gives set criteria that clearly says that a war of aggression, that is a war started BEFORE a country is attacked is a war crime and the leaders are criminally responsible. Aggressive war is a war crime.

But who has the authority to declare wars (legal or illegal wars) is up to the laws of each country.


I don't think you've quoted any specific words of any law here yet gunny.

Were you in the war of 1812 when you got your superior constitutional training on paper?
if not you should have been told that there are more than 10 amendments in the constitution if you were in any war of the 20th century.
You seem to know there is such a thing as the geneva conventions, even if you've forgotten what's in them or what they apply to... though you say you understand everything better.

No, I don't play expand-a-post, I've responded to everything you posted.

Where were you in the War of 1812? You mean when Britain invaded the US? Declaration of war was a foregone conclusion. Try playing semantics with someone more at your kindergarten level. I'm a better litaralist than you and a better journalist. I can read right through your crap.

I haven't forgotten shit that you never knew. Kind of rhetorical, that, huh?

You need to give up. You're dumb because you don't live in reality.

[jimnyc]

No, I don't play expand-a-post, I've responded to everything you posted.

But the rambling sentences, and refusal to use the quote system, and recalling incorrect or purposely stretching quotes... makes it nearly impossible to reply as one normally would. I like to see clear paragraphs that I can reply to, bot 300 broken sentences, line after line. Many times the crap can go from what appears to be a lengthy, yet atrociously ugly post - down to a 2 paragraph, and neat looking post. Often I will just pick out a thing or 2 in order to reply, as I got tired of rearranging things in order to reply.

And I don't always reply to everything, as often a reply will go off on tangents from the original topic and now how 17 topics within one post. As you see here, shit that was said 3,4,2 years ago will be looked up and brought back into posts, even if it were different topics and different context. That's the "literalist" you speak of. Just like if I disagree that these 193 wars/battles were somehow illegal - therefore that means I think the government should be able to break the law, generally, from time to time.

Oh, and even though Dzhokar Tsarnaev (boston bomber) outright admitted to the bombings, and was caught on camera all over the place, with and without his bag, and there are witnesses...) - he was setup, it was all a conspiracy!! :laugh2:

[Jeff]

I am both literalist and Constitutionalist. He claims to be but isn't. He's a literalist that likes to play semantics. So, by his strict definition from the founding fathers and the original bill of rights, we can still own slaves, right?

I've got a solution for Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Milwaukee. :laugh:

So we can now buy slaves, I want a couple of those Mohamed Ali looking brothers, man I could get my garden turned over in no time and have 2 awesome body guards . :laugh: Let alone the grass needs cutting. :laugh:


And yes this is a joke, but honestly I feel anyone that didn't see that or takes offense to this post is probably a racist.

[revelarts]

But the rambling sentences, and refusal to use the quote system, and recalling incorrect or purposely stretching quotes... makes it nearly impossible to reply as one normally would. I like to see clear paragraphs that I can reply to, bot 300 broken sentences, line after line. Many times the crap can go from what appears to be a lengthy, yet atrociously ugly post - down to a 2 paragraph, and neat looking post. Often I will just pick out a thing or 2 in order to reply, as I got tired of rearranging things in order to reply.

And I don't always reply to everything, as often a reply will go off on tangents from the original topic and now how 17 topics within one post. As you see here, shit that was said 3,4,2 years ago will be looked up and brought back into posts, even if it were different topics and different context. That's the "literalist" you speak of. Just like if I disagree that these 193 wars/battles were somehow illegal - therefore that means I think the government should be able to break the law, generally, from time to time.

Oh, and even though Dzhokar Tsarnaev (boston bomber) outright admitted to the bombings, and was caught on camera all over the place, with and without his bag, and there are witnesses...) - he was setup, it was all a conspiracy!! :laugh2:

So which is it Jim?
I made my 1st post about our general conversations and you complained that I DIDN'T quote you directly. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49468-Is-a-Curfew-Constitutional&p=732964#post732964) So i generally mention a few specifics and you denied and made justification (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49468-Is-a-Curfew-Constitutional&p=733019#post733019). For clarity I go back and get a link to DIRECT quotes on various items i was referring to and now you complain that i quote to much.:rolleyes: I try to give direct logical answers your replies, questions, accusations and to post law and history but then you complain and you say it's to long and rambling. You know Jim, I think the problem is you don't like the content of the facts i present and that i sometime show the content of people's stated positions in harsh unflattering lights.

And a saying that Kath mentioned in another post applies here, you've got a right to your opinion, not the facts. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49476-When-your-religious-leaders-are-wrong-Catholics&p=732800#post732800) (not an exact quote BTW but it's true to the content)

[revelarts]

No, I don't play expand-a-post, I've responded to everything you posted...
with contentless blather.

[revelarts]

So we can now buy slaves, I want a couple of those Mohamed Ali looking brothers, man I could get my garden turned over in no time and have 2 awesome body guards . :laugh: Let alone the grass needs cutting. :laugh:


And yes this is a joke, but honestly I feel anyone that didn't see that or takes offense to this post is probably a racist.

hmm, funny how some people get upset and/or defensive whenever blacks mentions slavery ("..it was100+ years ago...") in nearly any context. But no one is supposed to be offended when it's only brought up by whites as a joke where black men today are made slaves of whites.

the blind insenstive double standards are sad.

Anyone offended by my comment is a racist BTW.:laugh:

[revelarts]

But the rambling sentences, and refusal to use the quote system, and recalling incorrect or purposely stretching quotes... .....

....Oh, and even though Dzhokar Tsarnaev (boston bomber) outright admitted to the bombings, and was caught on camera all over the place, with and without his bag, and there are witnesses...) - he was setup, it was all a conspiracy!!
:laugh2:

You got any direct quotes in context for that Jim?
The honest answer is no.
At least abide by your own standards buddy.

[jimnyc]

So which is it Jim?
I made my 1st post about our general conversations and you complained that I DIDN'T quote you directly. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49468-Is-a-Curfew-Constitutional&p=732964#post732964) So i generally mention a few specifics and you denied and made justification (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49468-Is-a-Curfew-Constitutional&p=733019#post733019). For clarity I go back and get a link to DIRECT quotes on various items i was referring to and now you complain that i quote to much.:rolleyes: I try to give direct logical answers your replies, questions, accusations and to post law and history but then you complain and you say it's to long and rambling. You know Jim, I think the problem is you don't like the content of the facts i present and that i sometime show the content of people's stated positions in harsh unflattering lights.

And a saying that Kath mentioned in another post applies here, you've got a right to your opinion, not the facts. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49476-When-your-religious-leaders-are-wrong-Catholics&p=732800#post732800) (not an exact quote BTW but it's true to the content)

Try re-reading, I was pointing out that you write like a 3rd grader. I NEVER said you quote too much - I simply said you don't know how to use the quote system.

[jimnyc]

with contentless blather.

WOW, from you? You can write a page that I have to scroll and hour to get through the gobbledey gook, can barely read it, and have to use the damn search function to find where in the hell you reply sometimes. You THINK you post content - but bullshit and youtube videos don't count, nor do recalling quotes which you fuck up 99 out of 100 times.

[jimnyc]

hmm, funny how some people get upset and/or defensive whenever blacks mentions slavery ("..it was100+ years ago...") in nearly any context. But no one is supposed to be offended when it's only brought up by whites as a joke where black men today are made slaves of whites.

the blind insenstive double standards are sad.

Anyone offended by my comment is a racist BTW.:laugh:

Coming from the person who condemns white people for their actions without saying it, but generally ignores crap when done by a black person. You can harp on Bush and others till the end of time... but to condemn Obama someone needs to poke you. To condemn Holder one needs to poke you. Funny how you are SO proactive in condemning white actions and such - but fall fairly silent when it's black folks tearing up neighborhoods, or when in office and fuck things up even more.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, who said i was defending Crime. Pleease quote me anywhere where i said crimes or criminals OF ANY color shouldn't be arrested or be ignored.
Tyr I haven't forgotten crap.
the question here is about curfew.
not scary blacks, or thugs, or crimes or whatever but curfew.

is it constitutional? NO.
not "No BUT..."
you seemed to have forgotten that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.



This was my post in reply to your previous comment.


"the only parts of the constitution that seem matter are gun rights, free speech and religion but the gov't needs to take those away too. it's to dangerous for those right wing animals to have guns, the founders never foresaw ak47s etc. in the hands of motorcycle thugs and PTS addled vets so it doesn't seriously apply anymore. it's scary. And freedom of speech and religion hurts people feelings and is scary too. soooo. I'm all for the Constitution 100% (TeaParty YEAH!) ...BUT....--REV


but it's only to control those other scary people.. the constitutions not for them... it's for us. whoever us is today"--REV


^^^Sarcasm is both ill advised and very ill placed with this part.

You seem to forget the actions taken by the black mob were deliberate acts of stealing, arson and property destruction--ALL OF WHICH ARE CRIMES!
Look that word up if you must as it makes a difference in both the punishment and the attempted justification for those severe actions made .
Those actions themselves point to the real reason they are engaged in and its the desire to loot(take/steal) and get by with doing so without being arrested and punished!
Save the "holy cause" crap for the gullible and stupid as hell libs my friend.
This true American, responsible citizen and real man, " ain't buying a damn lick of it"..
As my dad didn't raise me to be a damn dumbass fool like the libs, dems and other asshats infesting(destroying) this great nation!-Tyr

True, I was not speaking directly about the curfew . I was however pointing out that the crimes are not to be IGNORED, JUSTIFIED OR
winked at due to race of the criminals.(You made the comparison in error my friend, a thug is a damn thug regardless of skin color or cause)
As to you seeming to forget, I think you did whether that was intentional or not may be an entirely different matter amigo.
As to my reply , I made damn sure it was pointed directly at the idiocy of current appeasement. government action and natural desires to steal by a certain group of people.
If I were wrong on that desire then why is the prison population so high for black men=criminals?
Are they all being falsely accused and erroneously convicted?-Tyr

[jimnyc]

You got any direct quotes in context for that Jim?
The honest answer is no.
At least abide by your own standards buddy.

How about you worry about your own 3rd grade quoting and writing. Until then, you're welcome to take your racist self and fuck off.

Funny how you picked up INSTANTLY on my post mocking you. I purposely and dramatically CHANGED a few quotes without quoting - and look how FAST you notice it and COMPLAIN. I've been asking YOU to stop this shit for YEARS AND YEARS NOW. And yet you CONTINUE to keep doing it. Funny how suddenly you don't like it being done to you.

[tailfins]

Coming from the person who condemns white people for their actions without saying it, but generally ignores crap when done by a black person. You can harp on Bush and others till the end of time... but to condemn Obama someone needs to poke you. To condemn Holder one needs to poke you. Funny how you are SO proactive in condemning white actions and such - but fall fairly silent when it's black folks tearing up neighborhoods, or when in office and fuck things up even more.

Jim, why are you getting so wound up? Opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one.

[jimnyc]

Jim, why are you getting so wound up? Opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one.

Not wound up at all. Sitting here on my 5th cup of coffee and simply replying to ignorance, is all. :) And yep, my opinions is just the same as his, just written in a more legible manner. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jim, why are you getting so wound up? Opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one.


Opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one.

An expert speaketh on a subject dear to his heart and he knows so damn well. :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Good morning amigo.
Say this blasting out of the clear blue is good fun, now I see why you do it so damn often yourself. :clap:--Tyr

[revelarts]

Can i get an impartially ruling here, just for my own sanity here'.

I said
"...and now you complain that i quote to much."

Try re-reading, I was pointing out that you write like a 3rd grader. INEVER said you quote too much - I simply said you don't know how to use the quote system.

here's what I was referring to


But the rambling sentences, and refusal to use the quote system, and recalling incorrect or purposely stretching quotes... makes it nearly impossible to reply as one normally would. I like to see clear paragraphs that I can reply to, bot 300 broken sentences, line after line. Many times the crap can go from what appears to be a lengthy, yet atrociously ugly post - down to a 2 paragraph, and neat looking post. Often I will just pick out a thing or 2 in order to reply, as I got tired of rearranging things in order to reply.
And I don't always reply to everything, as often a reply will go off on tangents from the original topic and now how 17 topics within one post. As you see here, shit that was said 3,4,2 years ago will be looked up and brought back into posts, even if it were different topics and different context. That's the "literalist" you speak of. Just like if I disagree that these 193 wars/battles were somehow illegal - therefore that means I think the government should be able to break the law, generally, from time to time.
Oh, and even though Dzhokar Tsarnaev (boston bomber) outright admitted to the bombings, and was caught on camera all over the place, with and without his bag, and there are witnesses...) - he was setup, it was all a conspiracy!!

should i have said?
"...and now you complain that i quote to much SH!T."
would that be clearer?
Maybe i should write at a 1st grade level so you can understand the concept of WORDS and their CONTENT, their meaning. There are other words that convey the same MEANING in english. Somehow that concept goes over your head and bugs the crap out of you. I recommend you not be so sensitive and literal.

[revelarts]

WOW, from you? You can write a page that I have to scroll and hour to get through the gobbledey gook, can barely read it, and have to use the damn search function to find where in the hell you reply sometimes. You THINK you post content - but bullshit and youtube videos don't count, nor do recalling quotes which you fuck up 99 out of 100 times.

you want to compare the law and history content I quoted here to Gunnys.
And then get back to me.

[jimnyc]

Can i get an impartially ruling here, just for my own sanity here'.

I said
"...and now you complain that i quote to much."


here's what I was referring to



should i have said?
"...and now you complain that i quote to much SH!T."
would that be clearer?
Maybe i should write at a 1st grade level so you can understand the concept of WORDS and their CONTENT, their meaning. There are other words that convey the same MEANING in english. Somehow that concept goes over your head and bugs the crap out of you. I recommend you not be so sensitive and literal.

You have the audacity to think it's my comprehension when you write like a 3rd grader? Seriously? Dude, you don't even know the difference between too and to! I think that concept goes over YOUR head.

[jimnyc]

you want to compare the law and history content I quoted here to Gunnys.
And then get back to me.

I really don't give a fuck about a comparison between you and Gunny. I have already disagreed with the majority of what you have posted, and I'll let my own posts stand where they do. Gunny is 4000% correct, even if he didn't go collect facts for you.

You talk about "history content" as you talk about are largest leaders in America ever, and say about how all of them were wrong, all of history is wrong, all the attorneys are wrong, 99% of congress in 200 years was wrong. Everyone is wrong about history since America's inception - except for you, Ron Paul and wacko Kucinich.

[revelarts]

Coming from the person who condemns white people for their actions without saying it, but generally ignores crap when done by a black person. You can harp on Bush and others till the end of time... but to condemn Obama someone needs to poke you. To condemn Holder one needs to poke you. Funny how you are SO proactive in condemning white actions and such - but fall fairly silent when it's black folks tearing up neighborhoods, or when in office and fuck things up even more.

funny how you and others never condemn Bush no matter what proof is provided.
But are willing to find fault with nearly everything Obama does and IS from his wife, children his mother, his father, his pastor, his real religion is made up muslim religion, and nearly anything he says or does politically.

But I'm one sided and racist because i don't pile on the loads of BS and only mention unconstitutional political points?

Jim your blind and full Crap here. I'm guessing your getting into one of your moods. bye.

[jimnyc]

funny how you and others never condemn Bush no matter what proof is provided.

100% incorrect. I've condemned a fair amount of his actions over the years. I'll bet you $50 RIGHT NOW that you are wrong on this one. I'll bet another $50 with anyone that you won't take this bet.


But are willing to find fault with nearly everything Obama does and IS from his wife, children his mother, his father, his pastor, his real religion is made up muslim religion, and nearly anything he says or does politically.

I've actually applauded Obama for quite a few actions, the most recent being his being man enough to admit when he was wrong, but there have been quite a few more. Perhaps another $50?


But I'm one sided and racist because i don't pile on the loads of BS and only mention unconstitutional political points?

Is that what I said? No, I said you very rarely chime in when it's blacks, but find time to condemn actions of whites non-stop. Actually, I believe what I said was "generally".


Jim your blind and full Crap here. I guessing your getting into one of your moods bye.

My ass. You just don't like being called to the floor with YOUR bullshit. YOU started this crap by AGAIN lying about me - and I've spent quite a few pages now proving my case. THE ONLY thing you provided to has any basis in reality is that I support these battles/wars issue that we are discussing. And I still believe it wasn't illegal at all. You believe differently, therefore you label me as someone supporting the government breaking the law.

So it's YOU who is blind and full of crap here, and YOU started with this shit. I literally fucking devour you with your own bullshit and now you want to hightail it. And I don't blame you. I mean, who wants to be called out repetitively and made to look foolish?

But you'll love me for this!! I have a way for this to ALL be fixed, Rev!! - all you need do is stop accusing me of bullshit. Stop trying to quote stuff by memory from years ago and posting bullshit instead.

You're welcome.

[revelarts]

^^^Sarcasm is both ill advised and very ill placed with this part.
You seem to forget the actions taken by the black mob were deliberate acts of stealing, arson and property destruction--ALL OF WHICH ARE CRIMES!
Look that word up if you must as it makes a difference in both the punishment and the attempted justification for those severe actions made .
Those actions themselves point to the real reason they are engaged in and its the desire to loot(take/steal) and get by with doing so without being arrested and punished!
Save the "holy cause" crap for the gullible and stupid as hell libs my friend.
This true American, responsible citizen and real man, " ain't buying a damn lick of it"..
As my dad didn't raise me to be a damn dumbass fool like the libs, dems and other asshats infesting(destroying) this great nation!-Tyr
This was my post in reply to your previous comment.
--REV
--REV
True, I was not speaking directly about the curfew . I was however pointing out that the crimes are not to be IGNORED, JUSTIFIED OR
winked at due to race of the criminals.(You made the comparison in error my friend, a thug is a damn thug regardless of skin color or cause)
As to you seeming to forget, I think you did whether that was intentional or not may be an entirely different matter amigo.
As to my reply , I made damn sure it was pointed directly at the idiocy of current appeasement. government action and natural desires to steal by a certain group of people.
If I were wrong on that desire then why is the prison population so high for black men=criminals?
Are they all being falsely accused and erroneously convicted?-Tyr

Tyr Ok you say,

"True, I was not speaking directly about the curfew"

Ok thanks, i appreciate you saying that. You commented on my post where i sarcastically made light of the double standard where some of the constitution is held as sacred while this bit and others are not. and you replied to me by saying.

"You seem to forget the actions taken by the black mob were deliberate acts of stealing, arson and property destruction--ALL OF WHICH ARE CRIMES!..."

And you go on from there. But I had never mentioned ignoring crimes of black mobs or "current appeasement" or justification of crimes at all. You ASSUMED i'd forgotten it or held those ideas and went on from there. I responded to that Tyr.
Concerning your sad general views on blacks "real reasons", "natural desires" and the like, you've made your thoughts quite obvious over the past year or so. And frankly i'd rather not get into that with you.

[tailfins]

An expert speaketh on a subject dear to his heart and he knows so damn well. :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Good morning amigo.
Say this blasting out of the clear blue is good fun, now I see why you do it so damn often yourself. :clap:--Tyr

I keep trying to tell you: Don't knock it 'til you try it. This is a forum, not a serial course. It's not like a course of study where for example, if you miss addition, you can't do multiplication.

[Gunny]

with contentless blather.

Nah. With facts you can't fathom because they don't fit into your rigid little box where reality doesn't matter. You're a waste of time.

[aboutime]

Does anyone now recognize my warnings many months ago about Rev?

I was soundly reminded that Rev was a good guy, very intelligent, and unbiased.

And because I warned everyone to beware. I became the bad guy here. Daring to speak the truth

about a member all of you LOVE SO MUCH.

What does it take for some of you to understand what, and who Rev. really is?

Personally. I believe Rev is the same person who always argued with me about NOT being able to
walk in his shoes (at another forum) whenever I dared to speak about race...in any form, which
earned me the Racist Identity for being so honest.
All of which are reasons why I have never trusted Rev, or his AL SHARPTON Techniques.

And, as I have also repeated here many times. I no longer care what ANYONE thinks of me, or how they pretend to ignore my words,
yet somehow...happily use my words to make the same statements. Go figure.

[Gunny]

Does anyone now recognize my warnings many months ago about Rev?

I was soundly reminded that Rev was a good guy, very intelligent, and unbiased.

And because I warned everyone to beware. I became the bad guy here. Daring to speak the truth

about a member all of you LOVE SO MUCH.

What does it take for some of you to understand what, and who Rev. really is?

Personally. I believe Rev is the same person who always argued with me about NOT being able to
walk in his shoes (at another forum) whenever I dared to speak about race...in any form, which
earned me the Racist Identity for being so honest.
All of which are reasons why I have never trusted Rev, or his AL SHARPTON Techniques.

And, as I have also repeated here many times. I no longer care what ANYONE thinks of me, or how they pretend to ignore my words,
yet somehow...happily use my words to make the same statements. Go figure.

He seems to be intelligent. Whether or not he's a "good guy", I don't know.

What I DO know is there is a disconnect between his intelligence and reality, and his arguments are circular. He likes to cut n paste for an argument, but can actually argue his point not much at all. And when you start telling vets what they do and don't know about the military .... that doesn't fly. :)