Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Third anarchist jailed for refusing to testify before secret grand jury

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Third anarchist jailed for refusing to testify before secret grand jury

    http://rt.com/usa/news/refusing-grand-jury-plante-196/

    {snip}
    Plante was one of a handful of people targeted in a series of raids administered by the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force on July 25 of this year which the feds say were in conjunction with an investigation into acts of vandalism that occurred during May Day protests in Seattle nearly two months prior. As part of their probe, search warrants were issued at multiple residences of activists in the area, including Plante’s, demanding that dwellers provide agents with “anti-government or anarchist literature” in their homes and any flags, flag-making material, cell phones, hard drives, address books, and black clothing.

    “As if they had taken pointers from Orwell’s 1984, they took books, artwork and other various literature as ‘evidence’ as well as many other personal belongings even though they seemed to know that nobody there was even in Seattle on May Day,” Plante recalls in a post published this week to her Tumblr page.

    Only one week after the raid, Neil Fox of the National Lawyers Guild told Seattle Times that raids like this are create a “chilling effect” by going after lawful, constitutionally-allowed private possessions.{/snip}


    How much longer before it's the people who are like us who are being locked up? Those of us who exercise our freedom and would dare to talk discuss it on the world wide web like this?
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 10-12-2012 at 03:46 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Third anarchist jailed for refusing to testify before secret grand jury

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    http://rt.com/usa/news/refusing-grand-jury-plante-196/

    {snip}
    Plante was one of a handful of people targeted in a series of raids administered by the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force on July 25 of this year which the feds say were in conjunction with an investigation into acts of vandalism that occurred during May Day protests in Seattle nearly two months prior. As part of their probe, search warrants were issued at multiple residences of activists in the area, including Plante’s, demanding that dwellers provide agents with “anti-government or anarchist literature” in their homes and any flags, flag-making material, cell phones, hard drives, address books, and black clothing.

    “As if they had taken pointers from Orwell’s 1984, they took books, artwork and other various literature as ‘evidence’ as well as many other personal belongings even though they seemed to know that nobody there was even in Seattle on May Day,” Plante recalls in a post published this week to her Tumblr page.

    Only one week after the raid, Neil Fox of the National Lawyers Guild told Seattle Times that raids like this are create a “chilling effect” by going after lawful, constitutionally-allowed private possessions.{/snip}


    How much longer before it's the people who are like us who are being locked up? Those of us who exercise our freedom and would dare to talk discuss it on the world wide web like this?
    I wouldnt answer their questions either. What they are doing is unconstitutional. Period. I guess if not answering questions and having reading material that talks about being anti government makes you an anarchist, well I guess Im guilty. Come get me coppers.
    Last edited by Tucker6900; 10-12-2012 at 04:27 PM.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    I wouldnt answer their questions either. What they are doing is unconstitutional. Period. I guess if not answering questions and having reading material that talks about being anti government makes you an anarchist, well I guess Im guilty. Come get me coppers.
    I agree with you and the victim here. That is why I am wondering how much longer before the whole group of us is going to be locked up? There is that whole thread about a family getting storm troopered over a false domestic disturbance call simply because he was a "Constitutionalist"
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I agree with you and the victim here. That is why I am wondering how much longer before the whole group of us is going to be locked up? There is that whole thread about a family getting storm troopered over a false domestic disturbance call simply because he was a "Constitutionalist"

    Not us. Guns are too hot-button of a topic, next to impossible to spin to the same degree anarchists and other protesters can. Too much public sympathy for guns. Anarchists and anti-World Bank protesters, not so much public sympathy.

    Besides, the Directorate of Fatherland Insecurity already got their toes toasted once before for the constitutionalist angle. Back in (2003? 2006?) they came out with this list of indicators of being a possible domestic terrorist. Believing in the constitution was one of the indicators. Howls of rage and ridicule made the fedgoons backtrack on that one.

    They may come after some of us as libertarians at some point, or some other subgroup of OCers, but not because of OC or guns.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-12-2012 at 05:16 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    http://rt.com/usa/news/refusing-grand-jury-plante-196/

    {snip}
    Plante was one of a handful of people targeted in a series of raids administered by the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force on July 25 of this year which the feds say were in conjunction with an investigation into acts of vandalism that occurred during May Day protests in Seattle nearly two months prior. As part of their probe, search warrants were issued at multiple residences of activists in the area, including Plante’s, demanding that dwellers provide agents with “anti-government or anarchist literature” in their homes and any flags, flag-making material, cell phones, hard drives, address books, and black clothing.

    “As if they had taken pointers from Orwell’s 1984, they took books, artwork and other various literature as ‘evidence’ as well as many other personal belongings even though they seemed to know that nobody there was even in Seattle on May Day,” Plante recalls in a post published this week to her Tumblr page.

    Only one week after the raid, Neil Fox of the National Lawyers Guild told Seattle Times that raids like this are create a “chilling effect” by going after lawful, constitutionally-allowed private possessions.{/snip}


    How much longer before it's the people who are like us who are being locked up? Those of us who exercise our freedom and would dare to talk discuss it on the world wide web like this?
    I suspect it won't be too long. Civil unrest will follow the catastrophic economic turmoil that has to be the conclusion of our debt and dollar printing.
    Once that happens the FED will have to move on non-conformist quickly to keep the sheep in step
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    I suspect it won't be too long. Civil unrest will follow the catastrophic economic turmoil that has to be the conclusion of our debt and dollar printing.
    Once that happens the FED will have to move on non-conformist quickly to keep the sheep in step
    Wait a minute. The common usage of the Fed means the Federal Reserve. Do you mean bankers will start locking up non-conformists? Or, do you mean the federal government?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Wait a minute. The common usage of the Fed means the Federal Reserve. Do you mean bankers will start locking up non-conformists? Or, do you mean the federal government?
    Sorry. I sometimes use FED-GOV as lazy short hand for federal government. I guess my laziness bumped it further to FED.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    And what is "anti-government" literature? Our constitution? Declaration of Independence? Book of "How to Win Playing Millionaire"?

    I know when I talk to my gov't officials about what I think the 2nd amendment means they classify me as a terrorist.

    So, I would have given them every possession I owned and let them sort it out. Including soiled underwear.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Dumb question: How can a person be jailed for contempt by invoking their right against self-incrimination?

    Dumb question answered: Testimony before a grand jury can be compelled under a grant of immunity from prosecution. However, I saw no indication in this story of such a grant of immunity.

    From what I gathered in reading this story, the object of having her testify in front of a grand jury was to determine if an indictment could be issued against her. Am I wrong? Am I misreading the story?

    Have we really come that close to what Orwell wrote about? Where even your thoughts and opinions can be used to fabricate criminal charges against you?
    Last edited by SFCRetired; 10-12-2012 at 07:34 PM. Reason: Answered my own question.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Dumb question: How can a person be jailed for contempt by invoking their right against self-incrimination?

    From what I gathered in reading this story, the object of having her testify in front of a grand jury was to determine if an indictment could be issued against her. Am I wrong? Am I misreading the story?

    Have we really come that close to what Orwell wrote about? Where even your thoughts and opinions can be used to fabricate criminal charges against you?
    I would be a little suspicious of that. The courts, although bad, aren't quite that far gone.

    I don't recall what it was, but when I read the story, something made me think it was a little hyperbolic and thus not entirely accurate. Oh, I recall, it was that the police arrived with a warrant demanding she show
    [list of items]. Warrants don't make demands; they authorize searches. Cops don't have to ask where something is, they can just search. They might ask where something is to establish guilty knowledge, but warrants don't authorize the asking.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Dumb question: How can a person be jailed for contempt by invoking their right against self-incrimination?
    No. Your constitutional rights exist everywhere on US soil .... even in a courtroom or grand jury ...

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Dumb question: How can a person be jailed for contempt by invoking their right against self-incrimination?
    Oh, sorry. It just dawned on me.

    Immunity. Apparently in some jurisdictions (many?), you can be compelled to testify against yourself if the government gives you immunity from prosecution for the things you reveal. Perjury excepted.

    I just read again about this recently. Don't know how I forgot about it so quick.

    The spurious government justification is that if you are immunized, then you are not exposing yourself to danger by government for testifying to incriminating stuff. Basically, the tactic is used to go after others. You testify to stuff you did or know about, thus implicating others where there is a connection.

    Its a very old tactic. Part of the English version of the Inquistion. Used by the High Commission (and Court of Star Chamber?) to ferret out people who disagreed with the aspects of the Church of England--non-conformists and heretics, etc. Of course, those people didn't have immunity. But, I do think the immunity angle was tried; I just can't recall if it was before or after they finally got the right against self-incrimination.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-12-2012 at 08:07 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, sorry. It just dawned on me.

    Immunity. Apparently in some jurisdictions (many?), you can be compelled to testify against yourself if the government gives you immunity from prosecution for the things you reveal. Perjury excepted.

    I just read again about this recently. Don't know how I forgot about it so quick.

    The spurious government justification is that if you are immunized, then you are not exposing yourself to danger by government for testifying to incriminating stuff. Basically, the tactic is used to go after others. You testify to stuff you did or know about, thus implicating others where there is a connection.

    Its a very old tactic. Part of the English version of the Inquistion. Used by the High Commission (and Court of Star Chamber?) to ferret out people who disagreed with the aspects of the Church of England--non-conformists and heretics, etc. Of course, those people didn't have immunity. But, I do think the immunity angle was tried; I just can't recall if it was before or after they finally got the right against self-incrimination.
    Q: "Where were you on date X"
    A: "I don't recall"

    Q: "Do you know John Smyth?"
    A: "I don't recall"
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    No. Your constitutional rights exist everywhere on US soil .... even in a courtroom or grand jury ...
    Our rights exist everywhere, the constitution is supposed to force U.S. government to recognize them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Not us. Guns are too hot-button of a topic, next to impossible to spin to the same degree anarchists and other protesters can. Too much public sympathy for guns. Anarchists and anti-World Bank protesters, not so much public sympathy.

    Besides, the Directorate of Fatherland Insecurity already got their toes toasted once before for the constitutionalist angle. Back in (2003? 2006?) they came out with this list of indicators of being a possible domestic terrorist. Believing in the constitution was one of the indicators. Howls of rage and ridicule made the fedgoons backtrack on that one.

    They may come after some of us as libertarians at some point, or some other subgroup of OCers, but not because of OC or guns.
    First they came for the protesters but I was not a protester, then they came for the anarchists, but I was not an anarchist, then they came for a constitutionalists.......

    I believe it's about time for us to be more pro-active in a peaceful and lawful way possible. I believe we have crossed the bounds though because even being peaceful is unlawful now and the law criminalizes any action that some uniformed Ahole says it does.

    I am getting worried for all of us. The moves are being made so that the worry seems justified.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Our rights exist everywhere, the constitution is supposed to force U.S. government to recognize them.
    Th constitution is just a piece of paper ... its up to us all to insure it is followed. Resistance is not futile Mr. Picard !

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Th constitution is just a piece of paper ... its up to us all to insure it is followed. Resistance is not futile Mr. Picard !
    What company insures that? Liberty Mutual, of course. I will of course ensure to buy some.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member mlr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And what is "anti-government" literature? Our constitution? Declaration of Independence? Book of "How to Win Playing Millionaire"?

    I know when I talk to my gov't officials about what I think the 2nd amendment means they classify me as a terrorist.

    So, I would have given them every possession I owned and let them sort it out. Including soiled underwear.
    I would imagine that anything written by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the authors of Federalist papers or anyone proposing the ouster of an incumbent.

    Michael

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr View Post
    I would imagine that anything written by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the authors of Federalist papers or anyone proposing the ouster of an incumbent.

    Michael
    You wanta watch how you use The Federalist Papers. They were partisan letters-to-the-editor in battleground states, the authors trying to sway readers to support the constitution in the ratification fight in those states. They contain some serious whoppers.

    The Anti-federalists mistrusted the constitution because they saw a powerful central government that would grow and over shadow the states and the people. They wrote their own letters to the editor which have been collected into The Anti-federalist Papers. If you can find it at Barnes & Noble or Amazon I recommend it. Its surprising just how right the Anti-federalists turned out to be.

    Also, none of the Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights. It was only after the Anti-federalists nearly derailed ratification of the constitution that James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. History as taught in schools is so full of [censored] sometimes. Madison himself called the Bill of Rights an odious affair, yet today he is called the father of the Bill of Rights. Yeah, a very reluctant father who wouldn't have done it if men like Patrick Henry and George Mason hadn't been raising the devil against the constitution and its lack of a Bill of Rights. And, Madison is one of the authors of The Federalist Papers.

    Another author of The Federalist Papers is one of the premier jerks of the time. Alexander Hamilton. Yeah, the guy who, as Washington's Treasury Secretary arranged a very complex plan--so complex even Washington didn't understand it--to tie investors to the new federal government with regard to paying off the revolutionary war debt. Neat trick. After his little plan, investors had a financial interest in the success of the federal government. Also, despite a complete absence of any authority to set up a central bank, Hamilton urged Washington to sign just such a bill. Over Thomas Jefferson's objections as Secretary of State. Washington went with Hamilton's advice and signed the bill. Hamilton was a monarchist, too, preferring that American society be set up with social strata like the English with nobles, lords, etc. You want to read his particular Federalist Papers with a very skeptical eye.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You wanta watch how you use The Federalist Papers. They were partisan letters-to-the-editor in battleground states, the authors trying to sway readers to support the constitution in the ratification fight in those states. They contain some serious whoppers.

    The Anti-federalists mistrusted the constitution because they saw a powerful central government that would grow and over shadow the states and the people. They wrote their own letters to the editor which have been collected into The Anti-federalist Papers. If you can find it at Barnes & Noble or Amazon I recommend it. Its surprising just how right the Anti-federalists turned out to be.

    Also, none of the Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights. It was only after the Anti-federalists nearly derailed ratification of the constitution that James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. History as taught in schools is so full of [censored] sometimes. Madison himself called the Bill of Rights an odious affair, yet today he is called the father of the Bill of Rights. Yeah, a very reluctant father who wouldn't have done it if men like Patrick Henry and George Mason hadn't been raising the devil against the constitution and its lack of a Bill of Rights. And, Madison is one of the authors of The Federalist Papers.

    Another author of The Federalist Papers is one of the premier jerks of the time. Alexander Hamilton. Yeah, the guy who, as Washington's Treasury Secretary arranged a very complex plan--so complex even Washington didn't understand it--to tie investors to the new federal government with regard to paying off the revolutionary war debt. Neat trick. After his little plan, investors had a financial interest in the success of the federal government. Also, despite a complete absence of any authority to set up a central bank, Hamilton urged Washington to sign just such a bill. Over Thomas Jefferson's objections as Secretary of State. Washington went with Hamilton's advice and signed the bill. Hamilton was a monarchist, too, preferring that American society be set up with social strata like the English with nobles, lords, etc. You want to read his particular Federalist Papers with a very skeptical eye.
    By reading both the federalist and the anti-federalist papers you learn much about what the fears at the time were. I have not read the anti-federalist papers yet myself. I have read the federalist papers and I understand their logic for not including a bill of rights at the start of things. I have made comments to that effect in another thread.

    The basic idea being that if we did not enumerate the powers that we were granting the government in the constitution then the government would not have that power. The were worried that by using enumerated rights such as a bill of rights that the effect would be a limiting of the rights of the people.

    That is what I walked away understanding.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Th constitution is just a piece of paper ... its up to us all to insure it is followed. Resistance is not futile Mr. Picard !
    Viva la resistance!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    By reading both the federalist and the anti-federalist papers you learn much about what the fears at the time were. I have not read the anti-federalist papers yet myself. I have read the federalist papers and I understand their logic for not including a bill of rights at the start of things. I have made comments to that effect in another thread.

    The basic idea being that if we did not enumerate the powers that we were granting the government in the constitution then the government would not have that power. The were worried that by using enumerated rights such as a bill of rights that the effect would be a limiting of the rights of the people.

    That is what I walked away understanding.
    I like books that break things down to layman understanding so I enjoyed "The politically incorrect Guide to the Constitution" by Gutzman. Some of the things written are hard to swallow because of what we grow up taught to believe.

    Hamilton, Washington, even Madison were nationalist not really federalist, and because they won the first Presidency and Court it's been a down hill slide away from the true nature of the War of Independence by individual states to the massive over bloated unconstitutional Federal government we have today.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Th constitution is just a piece of paper ............. Resistance is not futile Mr. Picard !
    I believe the Idea behind The Document. Yes, it is just a piece of paper, it is the Idea behind it that must be preserved. I will stand with David and resist those who wish to pollute it.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    What company insures that? Liberty Mutual, of course. I will of course ensure to buy some.
    Companies like Smith and Wesson silly.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    By reading both the federalist and the anti-federalist papers you learn much about what the fears at the time were. I have not read the anti-federalist papers yet myself. I have read the federalist papers and I understand their logic for not including a bill of rights at the start of things. I have made comments to that effect in another thread.

    The basic idea being that if we did not enumerate the powers that we were granting the government in the constitution then the government would not have that power. The were worried that by using enumerated rights such as a bill of rights that the effect would be a limiting of the rights of the people.

    That is what I walked away understanding.
    This is more or less the understanding I have, also. The trick is to recognize the speciousness of their argument. The Anti-federalists knew government toads would stretch, twist, bend, and ignore pretty much anything they wanted to anyway and so wanted positive declarations. Notice, too, that the constitution does not say anywhere that the fedgov has only the powers vested by the document. This is how the whole implied powers business got going.

    Also, take a moment and recall the Alien and Sedition Acts. Despite an express First Amendment prohibition against criminalizing free speech, the Federalists passed a bill criminalizing certain criticism against the fedgov. Despite an express prohibition against it. Not only does the constitution not provide that power, which according to the Federalist argument was enough to prevent an overreach, the First Amendment free speech clause expressly denied Congress the power to make such a law. Yet, the Federalists went ahead and passed the bill, which Federalist Adams signed into law. And, which was used by other Federalists to prosecute and imprison people.

    The Federalist Papers make frequent reference to a vigorous federal government being desirable. Vigorous is a code word for powerful. In one of the papers, the author pretends that Congress will be careful about which bills it approves because they themselves will be subject to that law. Ha!! In another, Madison made a soothing argument about finance; then, when he was president he tried to get around it. My main point is that the Federalist Papers need to be understood in the light of their authorship. One cannot read simply the words; one must read between the lines. Take into account what isn't being said. Make a healthy dose of one's own estimation of the likelihood of such-and-such outcome based on understanding of cronyism, lobbying, powerlust, and personal gain.

    The authors knew the score on government. They were all intimate with the workings of government. There was no possible way they didn't know.

    Scholars know this. You can bet the farm all of SCOTUS knows this. There is no reason we can't know it and use it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-13-2012 at 02:11 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •