‘We know who he is’: Donald Trump continues to target officer who shot Ashli Babbitt

Pardon the interruption, but I don't think there is any provision for a State to leave the United States once it has been admitted.

This seems to me to be the part of the US Constitution that made the Civil War illegal and a violation of the Constitution by the Confederacy,

Do you not view it that way?

You also seem to be referring to the 10 Amendment, but doesn't Art 1 Sec 10 specifically prohibit States from entering into a Confederation and engaging in War of any kind, much less of engaging in war against the other States?

 

You mean like how the right champions cops who murder unarmed suspects who are on the wrong team?
What is it they love to say? If you don’t want to get shot, don’t confront a cop.

 

Restriction of secession is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government within the Constitution and this by the 10th Amendment is reserved to the state. This means of a state wants to secede then according to the Constitution they may.

Texas v White is a horrendously interpreted decision. Anti-Constitutional in every sense of the word.

 

This applied while a member of the United States. If a state secedes, it is declaring it is no longer a member. In other words, this does no restrict a state from secession, it just means any given state can not be a member of the United States and, as a whimsical example, the Canadian States of America.

It is Texas v. White that was the unconstitutional court decision that established a state can not secede during a frenzied post Civil War ruling.

 

You mean after social media and even the MSM gets it all wrong and starts riots?

 

Nevertheless, it's the current precedence.

 

The argument in Texas v. White, was that the original "contract" of independent states (formed by the original 13 colonies) was the Articles of Confederation. The "Articles" called for a "perpetual union" - i.e. once in there was no secession possibility other than via the amendment of the contract. The subsequent "Constitution" was an extension of the "Articles" and ratified by the people "in order to form a more perfect union." This was the significance in evolving from a "confederation" to a "federation." The latter established a new sovereign identity...with powers that exceeded the sovereign powers of subordinate states and bound them together "perpetually," unless agreed to via amendment.
This was a principal point in "The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution," my Michael J. Klarman, Oxford University Press, 2016.

 

I am familiar with the decision. The reasoning is specious at best. While important in examining the history of the U.S. and especially the mindsets of the founders the AOC were abandoned because they didn't work. The Constitution took it's place. There is nothing in the Constitution preventing secession as the founders were open to the context of a losely affiliated group of states. To use the AOC was inconsistent with precedence at that time and was used as a thinly veiled excuse by a northern-biased legal system to further thier agenda of operation of states.

This further the agenda that was set by Lincoln who by all accounts was a war criminal and should be remembered as such.

I mean if you want to include the article in lawmaking...

"Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."

This means that the northern army had no right to occupy Ft. Sumter, which was owned and occupied on land by the sovereign state of South Carolina.

 

You forgot "perpetual." It would be absurd to try and argue that the "federalists" at the Constitutional Convention were arguing for a weaker central government. They were not. They desired to use the Articles as the basis for a stronger central government with its own individual sovereignty, superior to the sovereignty of a single state. Even Madison in his "preface" to his "Notes," written after the ratification, references the "perpetual union" established by the Articles. In full awareness of the differences between a "confederation" and a "federation," their intention was to retain the "perpetual union" of a new sovereign nation-state. This was the reason for the ratification process to be accomplished, not by state legislatures, but by independent state conventions...i.e. ratification by "the people." Jefferson Davis was the "war criminal," not Lincoln. Lincoln was merely carrying out his responsibilities as President of the United States.

 

No, I didn't. The Constitution does not reference a "perpetual" union. It references "a more perfect" union. The intent is purely speculation on your part.

Oh, and yes...that's the definition of a federalists. Very good. Fortunately there were anti-Federalist as well.

And yes, Lincoln was a war criminal.

 

You have presented no proof for your argument other than your interpretation of Amendment 10 and the absence of a specific constitutional clause carrying over the provision of the Articles of Confederation for a "perpetual union." You ignore Article II, Section 10 and Article VI, paragraph 2. You certainly have a right to your opinion...but you must acknowledge that the "federalists" won the argument in 1789, with the ratification of the Constitution, and again in 1865, with the unconditional surrender of the Confederacy, and that the latter led to the abolition of slavery, which was a positive step for the country at large.

 

Go get the records yourself. You're the one crying about cover up and withheld this and that.

As for the hearings, your boys refused to participate when there was a chance to participate, as in no bi-partisan joint commission. Too bad for you. You and your
people practically invited this. I actually understand it: you fear the actual facts coming out because they are horribly negative for your conservative, Trumpian cause.
Instead of actually publishing the events, you prefer to attack the credibility of the hearing, as in, it's not about the event, it's about the spin. Again, too bad. You people
ran away from the awful truth: that a political party and administration headed by a slimebag, Dirty Donnie, sent a group of his supporters to violently stop the government
from counting the votes that confirmed his defeat. Dirty Donnie and the right deserve to be attacked for this vile attempt at an un-Constitutional power grab. How very
third world of you and Dirty Donnie and the right.

 

I know it hurts to be wrong…..but, you’re wrong. When Babbit chose to break through that window, the officers on her side had withdrawn. You are mistaking MAGA morons in combat gear with police officers. This all came out in the investigation of her shooting.

 

That's a social media and forum issue. Too many people around here would rather troll and post nonsense than have a meaningful discussion. They degrade the place even without breaking the many strictly enforced rules.

 

My opinion is you break a crime you take the chance of being shot
Color shouldn’t be a factor
I think all criminals being shot should not have much public outrage, just like this incident

 

So.......Has the murderous officer suffered any harm as a result?

Just waiting to see if the hysteria has any basis in reality....

* -----> Me turning into a dusty skeleton

 

Yes. The "rules" are definitely slanted. I see that all the time on most forums.

 

BUT...the irony is certainly entertaining!

 

Case in point.

 

Irony, you sport an avatar that smears 67 or so million, falsely and partisanly....you were saying?

 

There is nothing wrong in my statement and I challenge you to show so, again

There was surge they were right there, the CP was right there, the SWAT was right behind them and had been there. No one raised a gun against her, no one tried to stop her. The CP is perfectly capable of doing so, it's THEIR job. The guy who shot was CP.

Where are all the interviews with those who were there? Who authorized the use of lethal force against the protestors? What imminent threat of killing someone did the officer perceive. Why did not a single other officer there that day fire their weapon?

And when did we start telling police to shoot people because of the cloths they wear? Can we line up the machine guns at the next BLM/Antifa riot and mow them down now?

 

it was not murder

and seems enough time has passed, that even most republicans are not getting rilled up over this anymore, they want to forget 1-6 even happened, at least most of them, it was embarrassing for the party, not something they want to be a part of

 

Give me a link them and why have they not all been released, this was a homicide. So what did the hearings say about the shooting and how and why it happened? What witnesses testified to the shooting? What investigators into the shooting gave testimony?

And stop posting that I supported the riots that occurred or Trumps statements on the election, I was against holding the rally on that day so you're not going to get out of supporting your own position here by assigning me to Trump here.

This isn't about ME, so stick to the subject.

 

It's not my fault that the GQP is what it is today. Just pointing it out.

 

exactly. The left is the party of riots and now we finally have ONE and you’d think it was the only riot in the past decade