• Re: Aclj

    From MIKE POWELL@1:2320/105 to IB JOE on Mon Jan 8 09:31:00 2024
    | MP> You do realize that your first sentence there, re: states handle the
    | MP> legality of things, contradicts one of your earlier arguments, right?
    | MP>
    |
    | I'm a Canadian who naturalized to the US... As a result I had to pass a civics
    | test... you might want to review some things...
    |
    | Here U go... for review.... There are crimes that are handled at the State
    | level and some at the Federal level... Here are some names of CRIMES that the | Feds handle... Murder, Bank Robbery and Insurrection just to name a few....

    States handle murder, too. And you did not answer my question re: you do realize that you are contradicting yourself (and again, I might add)?

    | So, how did the Feds solve this problem... They made some crimes Federal
    | crimes... Like Murder, Robbing banks and Insurrection. In cases like this... | The FBI, US Marshals and a local US District Attorney investigate and gather | evidence ... that evidence

    Murder is not only a federal crime.

    | So lets bring this back... And I have said this before... A Grand Jury needs to
    | hear evidence... Consider this evidence and recommend charges to a local US
    | DA... That evidence will be presented to a Federal Judge and/or jury those
    | people will determine gu
    |
    | So again... It's not up to the Colorado Supreme Court to come to some kind of | decision on guilt denying someone of their due process rights. It's not up to
    | has ever made in the

    Here is where you get lost. State Legislatures, who set STATE laws, MUST, MUST, MUST consider the US CONSTITUTION before setting a law. State Courts MUST, MUST, MUST consider the US CONSTITUTION when interpreting their STATE LAWS. You have said they previously that they *do not/should not* consider
    the US Constitution which is false.

    State Legislatures can indeed set a STATE law that says that persons who
    are not US CONSTITUTIONALLY eligible to hold office must not be included on their STATE ballots. The US CONSTITUTION gives them the authority to do so.

    These laws HAVE BEEN put into use before. GORSUCH ruled on such a law in COLORADO. The State SoS has not only the right, but a DUTY to follow such a law. They swear an oath to do so.

    The issue is whether or not they (the Colorado SC and now the Maine SoS) interpreted the law correctly in this case. The SCOTUS can and will likely decide this in the Colorado case.

    Regarding the 14th Amendment, it was indeed put into blanket use against several thousand persons in the South who were never tried for any crimes. It has only really been attempted twice since, over 100 years ago during the
    WWI era. One attempt was not successful, and the other was apparently never questioned in court.

    | If you need help to better understand the Constitution and the legal processes
    | I'll send you some YouTube links.
    +-[IJ=>MP]

    I suggest strongly you QUIT watching Youtube and restudy your Civics
    books. And maybe some reading comprehension classes.

    Watching Youtube all day doesn't make you a legal expert. It makes you the conservative equivalent to a lefty who watches M$NBC all day.

    ##Mmr 2.61(beta). !link IJ 1-05-24 9:45
    ---
    * BgNet 1.0b12 = moe's tavern * 1-502-875-8938 * moetiki.ddns.net:27
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
  • From IB Joe@1:342/200 to MIKE POWELL on Mon Jan 8 15:22:51 2024
    On 08 Jan 2024, MIKE POWELL said the following...


    Here is where you get lost. State Legislatures, who set STATE laws,
    MUST, MUST, MUST consider the US CONSTITUTION before setting a law.
    State Courts MUST, MUST, MUST consider the US CONSTITUTION when interpreting their STATE LAWS. You have said they previously that they *do not/should not* consider the US Constitution which is false.


    State constitutions cannot usurp the constitutional rights put forth in the US constitution. So you can't withhold someone's due process. The standard for the US is that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    The fundamental reason why the US had a legal system that people envied was because of this. Innocent until proven guilty. Everyone was suppose to be charged and defend themselves...

    Like OJ... Who was clearly guilty in most reasonable estimates... Was found to be not guilty and he walked home a free man.

    The difference here is that no one has been charged with anything remotely to do with insurrection... No one.

    I sent you a clip as to what Ran Paul thinks about this insurrection business.

    IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of 4A 6F 65 73 42 42 53
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... The dog ate my .REP packet

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)
  • From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to IB JOE on Tue Jan 9 12:16:00 2024
    Here is where you get lost. State Legislatures, who set STATE laws, MUST, MUST, MUST consider the US CONSTITUTION before setting a law. State Courts MUST, MUST, MUST consider the US CONSTITUTION when interpreting their STATE LAWS. You have said they previously that they *do not/should not* consider the US Constitution which is false.

    State constitutions cannot usurp the constitutional rights put forth in the US
    onstitution. So you can't withhold someone's due process. The standard for t
    US is that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    The state used the Congressional January 6th findings, and the findings of
    a Federal Court in DC, to determine that there was an insurrection. People have been found guilty of Seditious Conspiracy... plotting an insurrection.

    People were indeed found in violation of the 14th Amendment without trial
    and without being found guilty in past. They were stripped of office
    and/or unable to hold office until pardoned (1868) and until Congress passed
    an act officially reinstating their rights to hold office (1870s).

    During the debate for the 14th, it was stated that Congress wanted to be
    sure that people like Jefferson Davis could not hold office. Davis was indicted, but was *never* tried, but the ammendment was meant to keep him
    from office. They also specifically discussed that the amendment should prevent Jefferson Davis, or any other confederate, from holding the Office
    of President.

    The fundamental reason why the US had a legal system that people envied was be
    use of this. Innocent until proven guilty. Everyone was suppose to be charge
    and defend themselves...

    Again, people have been found in violation of the 14th Amendment without
    trial, and it was meant to keep persons like Jefferson Davis -- indicted
    but never tried -- from holding office. Congress was clear about that
    during debate.

    Like OJ... Who was clearly guilty in most reasonable estimates... Was found to
    e not guilty and he walked home a free man.

    OJ wasn't involved in inciting an attempt to prevent the transition of
    power or to prevent the execution of US law.

    The difference here is that no one has been charged with anything remotely to
    with insurrection... No one.

    Persons have indeed been charged with, found guilty of, and sentenced to
    prison for things very much tied to insurrection, and not remotely so. See the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers.

    I sent you a clip as to what Ran Paul thinks about this insurrection business.

    It doesn't really matter what he thinks because Trump's team didn't call
    him to testify. They did call at least one other Congressperson whose testimony helped the petitioners more than helping Trump (Congressman Buck).

    I would also defer to Rep. Troy Nehls, R-TX, who was there on the floor and who spoke with rioters through a broken window on a door. The tape of this, taken by a rioter, was just used in his trial as evidence to find him guilty. This same Congressman would, days later, condemn their actions and, on tape,
    tells them that they "ought to be ashamed" of themselves.

    As an aside, state constitutions and laws often mimic their federal counterparts word for word, and several of the laws brought up during the Colorado ballot trial are ones that do so.


    * SLMR 2.1a * Windows isn't crippleware: it's "Functionally Challenged"
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)