[Shark8]

There’s some silly notions that are circulating among people about governance; things like:
- Words mean things
- Constitutions are a form of legally binding documents
- Constitutions should be changed only by the appropriate amendment process
and
- Constitutions actually matter to those in governance.

Let’s look at this properly, shall we, if words actually meant things we might actually be forced to be culpable for anything we say; but, because words are so mutable, we have an ‘escape hatch’ to use should any of our peons (commonly called ‘constituents’) try to “use our own words against us.”

There is nothing worse than an uppity peon forcing one to think or apply these horrible Black Arts known as Reasoning & Logic. By eliminating any solid definition or meaning from words we simply bypass this fiendish trap.

Furthermore, when these peons attempt to apply Reasoning & Logic to Our Glorious Plans - analogous to mixing magic and science (or perhaps Religion and Government) - the result almost invariably makes Us look bad. This is plainly unacceptable, because as everyone knows: Perception is Reality; to besmirch Us by making Us look foolish these peons undermine how we are Perceived and thereby threaten Our very existence!

Along a similar line of perception is that ‘constitutions’ are ‘legally binding.’ This is related to them believing that words mean things and is utterly preposterous. Take this portion of the United States Constitution as an example:
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

We pass Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws all the time! Take the retroactive taxation of bonus monies of the recipients of the ‘Bailout,’ it was both ex post facto & a Bill of Attainder. Take the laws we passed barring firearm ownership from felons who have served their sentences, or the upgrading of misdemeanors to felonies. The peons would never have thought such things to be either right or allowable if the Constitution actually meant what it says; and yet now we have a large segment of peons which vigorously defend these policies! This is truly progress.

This brings us to the subject of changing constitutions; the concept of ‘amending’ a constitution is extraordinarily outdated. It helps that constitutions are not legally binding, as we can change the procedures or laws to anything we wish, even if it is something that is ‘prohibited’ by the constitution. Take Amendment 4 of the US Constitution as an example, it reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If that actually meant anything, we couldn’t send out SWAT teams to raid a house with a ‘No Knock Warrant’ as this amendment says that people are supposed to be secure in their homes from ‘unreasonable searches.’ The peons that argue against our methods will say that it is unreasonable to burst into someone’s home without announcing oneself and search and seize as we see fit. Others would point out that it perscribes that warrants must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Another good example is the sixth amendment to the US Constitution, it reads:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.‘

Yet when was the last time you heard of anyone having a Jury Trial for speeding or a ‘parking violation?’ The fools think that this actually entitles them to some sort of defense when it’s obvious that Our mere accusation is proof enough of guilt for punishments; just look at our highly-successful legal team at the IRS.

So, my Fellow Rulers, do not fear the peons that belong to this so called ‘Tea Party.’ They respect the laws, which we can change at the merest whim. They are so enthralled that they would beg for Our control if they found themselves without us; it is only natural for some pets to become jealous of other pets that receive more attention than they do. Keep a firm and steady hand in the application of Discipline ant the problem will resolve itself in due course.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by Shark8 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This brings us to the subject of changing constitutions; the concept of ‘amending’ a constitution is extraordinarily outdated. It helps that constitutions are not legally binding, as we can change the procedures or laws to anything we wish, even if it is something that is ‘prohibited’ by the constitution. Take Amendment 4 of the US Constitution as an example, it reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” If that actually meant anything, we couldn’t send out SWAT teams to raid a house with a ‘No Knock Warrant’ as this amendment says that people are supposed to be secure in their homes from ‘unreasonable searches.’ The peons that argue against our methods will say that it is unreasonable to burst into someone’s home without announcing oneself and search and seize as we see fit. Others would point out that it perscribes that warrants must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Obtaining a warrant is the process by which we assure that searches are reasonable and justified. The ammendment does not say " no searches". In effect, it says there has to be a process to ensure the search is reasonable.

Another good example is the sixth amendment to the US Constitution, it reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.‘ Yet when was the last time you heard of anyone having a Jury Trial for speeding or a ‘parking violation?’ The fools think that this actually entitles them to some sort of defense when it’s obvious that Our mere accusation is proof enough of guilt for punishments; just look at our highly-successful legal team at the IRS.

The last time I had to go to court for a ticket, there was a guy there that invoked his right to a jury trial for a speeding ticket. It happens. All you have to do is request a jury trial.

[Shark8]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Obtaining a warrant is the process by which we assure that searches are reasonable and justified. The ammendment does not say " no searches". In effect, it says there has to be a process to ensure the search is reasonable.

(I see you also have trouble with 'Ammendment;' I always want to put two Ms there instead of the correct one.)
That may have been the case once, but is it the case now? (Read pages 116 & 117 int the following preview.)
I'd HIGHLY recommend "Constitutional Chaos," there's a good preview here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The last time I had to go to court for a ticket, there was a guy there that invoked his right to a jury trial for a speeding ticket. It happens. All you have to do is request a jury trial.

True; but the number of such requests made makes it likely that they will go the way of Open Carry in some states within the next twenty years if not practiced/exercised. {Even if Open Carry is Constitutionally protected the police try to get around it with charging people with "disturbing the peace;" WI (I think) recently had that exact thing happen IIRC in addition to that the guy open carrying was on his own property when the complaint was made.}