Log In | Register
FINALLY someone (besides me) points out the fundamental fallacy of the existence of our federal government- that it is what the people really wanted. It isn't, and never has been THIS is why "Compromise" is a word most foul to those of us with principles.
Martial Law on Monday, by Michael Bradshaw
Seeded on Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:40 AM EST
Article Source: The Libertarian Enterprise- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (3)
I'm sure there will be much disagreement on this one. Keep it polite or do it elsewhere!
In order to avoid the possibility of further suspensions (I have friends here I want to keep hanging with), I am removing my usual amendment from ALL articles and seeds published henceforth. Since NV is private property, we will ALL follow their rules. To aid in this, I am letting all know how the rules are being interpreted by me on articles I am moderating. There will be STRICT enforcement of the CoH on ALL my main-Vine articles (NOT private group ones). Properly spell and use group and individual names. No more TEABaggers, Teapublicans, democraps, republiturds, Liberturdians, or other forms of deliberate and insulting references to members of political parties you don't like. ALL comments containing these or other similar phrases will be deleted. Other than using initials to shorten names, spell names correctly, and use them respectfully or expect to be deleted. Example- Joe Schmoe may ONLY be shortened to "JS". A name with two portions may be shortened (Neale Osborn to Neale or Osborn). Cursing is fine, we have filters for the people with a problem with them, but NO directed curses (@!$%# you, ______) will be tolerated. Expect deletion. Off-topic will be tolerated to an extent. it often adds a new dimension to the subject, or is just interesting. However, straying too far or for too long will result in a warning, and continuations may be deleted. ANYONE with policies on THEIR articles that allow spurious deletions will be treated to their own rules on MY articles (Assuming I know the policy they use). ANYONE with a problem with these rules may certainly appeal them to me OR the moderators (Sally and Tyler), but if the moderators run true to form, you'll probably wait a LOOOOONG time for a response. I will, of course, answer as swiftly as possible. Feel free to contact me with contact the author OR in posting to the article.
You are warned. Don't violate this in any way, or your post WILL disappear
- 3 votes
#1 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:42 AM ESTGood article. Any law that violates the Bill of Rights is 100% unlawful. And it is interesting to note that if the Bill of Rights is destroyed then that contract made hundreds of years ago would be dissolved but I think it would theoretically dissolve the US because the states would have no incentive to remain as a part of our Union unless I am incorrect in my interpretation. This is where military force would be used to crush dissent against this transition from Republic to Empire.
- 4 votes
#2 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:22 PM ESTMartial Law Monday…I hadn't thought of the implementation of NDAA in that term but the author is right. He is also right that if the law does not follow constitutional law, it is not a "legal" law which we, or anyone, is required to follow. Much as I despise Obama for many of the "laws" he has signed, I've always realized that he is just a link in a very long chain of men who have been secretly trying to overthrow our Bill of Rights since they are incorporated into the Constitution. Only now, they are not acting so much in secret but are overtly relegating that contract to the trash bin.
- 3 votes
#3 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:57 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
