Comments on: 15 and Counting. Berkeley, CA Rejects NDAA

By: People's Blog for the Constitution » Civil liberties advocates rally in San Francisco against torture and NDAA

Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:28:00 +0000

[...] instance, in the wake of Northampton, MA and Takoma Park, MD taking such action, Berkeley, CA recently became the fifteenth local government to pass a resolution against NDAA, further stating that it will: Instruct all our public agencies to decline requests by federal [...]

By: JackKessler

JackKessler — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:33:28 +0000

Allunknowing seems to be one of those people who thinks that his having an opinion makes him right. It doesn’t. But it does make him a waste of my time.

By: JackKessler

JackKessler — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:32:20 +0000

Allunknowing seems to be one of those people who thinks that he has an opinion makes him right. It doesn’t. But it does make him a waste of my time to talk to.

By: allunknowing

allunknowing — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:17:35 +0000

Unless I appeal and get another judge’s… what is that called? oh yeah… opinion. (the reason why appeals exist.)

By: JackKessler

JackKessler — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:11:41 +0000

The difference between judicial review and your opinion is that judicial review is law and your opinion is just you running your mouth. The difference between judicial review and your opinion is that if the judge says you’re guilty and your opinion is that you aren’t, you go to jail anyway.

By: allunknowing

allunknowing — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:24:38 +0000

And what is judicial review if not opinion? Why would there be any sort of dispute ever about the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice if interpretation of law were completely objective? And do you really think that Marines are so brainwashed that they would willingly kill their own people (who they are sworn to defend) because they believe a law to be unconstitutional? Most likely, many Marines would be fighting on the side of the dissenters, like, for example, both my brother and brother in law who are both Marines.
Anyways, this argument has become irrelevant. I used facts and United States law to back my opinion, you have used some facts and mostly talking points to back yours. So, when you call someone you have never met a fool, next time look at your own argument first and make sure that you have the facts straight.

By: #Occupied: Reports From the Front Lines | Local Philadelphia News Aggregator

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:38:38 +0000

[...] California, became thе 15th city tο reject thе NDAA. Track NDAA repeal efforts асrοѕѕ thе [...]

By: JackKessler

JackKessler — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:14:18 +0000

Two points:
One is that Justice Marshall wrote that in the context that he was deciding Marbury vs. Madison and establishing the principle of judicial review. Judicial review – not opinionated shouter review.

Second is about resisting the government by force. Do you really imagine a scenario in which a bunch of middle-aged beer-bellied loudmouths with hunting rifles take on the Marine Corps? If you think you can do it, go right ahead and try it and see what happens.

By: allunknowing

allunknowing — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:27:15 +0000

So, what you are saying is that a law is constitutional until said unconstitutional by a Supreme Court Justice? I don’t think so. “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256),
which is the legal encyclopedic interpretation of “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void.” Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176. Annnd… owned.

By: #Occupied: Reports From the Front Lines | Portland Occupier

#Occupied: Reports From the Front Lines | Portland Occupier — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:04:43 +0000

[...] California, became the 15th city to reject the NDAA. Track NDAA repeal efforts across the [...]