House passes HR1 "election reform" bill

[JTScribe]

Yeah, no it doesn't. His post is clear, the simple "introduction" of ideas he disagrees with should be capital offenses. The Constitution has always found such views abhorrent.

Nonsense.

Article III explicitly lays out the Constitutional case for the punishment of treason.

Elected representatives swear "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

Attempting to further principles contrary to the dictates and structure of the Constitution without utilizing the proscribed method to adapt said dictates and structure is assuredly criminal and potentially treasonous if that act brings harm to our nation--particularly if it benefits foreign entities. Globalism and socialism/communism are inimical to the framework of this country.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nonsense.

Article III explicitly lays out the Constitutional case for the punishment of treason.

Elected representatives swear "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

Attempting to further principles contrary to the dictates and structure of the Constitution without utilizing the proscribed method to adapt said dictates and structure is assuredly criminal and potentially treasonous if that act brings harm to our nation--particularly if it benefits foreign entities. Globalism and socialism/communism are inimical to the framework of this country.

Yeah, I'm clear.

"They should be publicly hung and used as examples of what happens if you try to introduce globalism, socialism, communism into this country."

That ain't treason. Sure you can say that "Globalism and socialism/communism are inimical to the framework of this country." Ok cool, I can agree with that, as far as the our current government works. However, there is a legal process in which those things could become elements of our govt. The mere suggestion of, within the confines of how our system works, isn't treason, and certainly not a capital offense. Any suggestion otherwise is indicative of someone who hasn't a clue about how our govt works.

 

[jbombelli]

 

[Unionvillecountryboy]

I doubt the ban will ever be overturned. No one is willing to put up the type of political capital needed to pull that off.

Exactly, republicans are only pressing the brakes, not trying to reverse anything.

 

[Unionvillecountryboy]

Wait. If a legislator tries to “introduce globalism, socialism, communism into this country,” you think they should be executed? You sure you don’t want to amend that statement in any way? Because, yeah, your suggestion seems to be the exact opposite of everything our founders fought for.
It appears you’re essentially saying that you want America to work only the way you want it to, and if it doesn’t, even within the confines of the Constitution, then you have no qualms about abandoning its principles. Hence why I’m asking if you might want to clarify.

Depends on if you make the case that it’s treason.

 

[Unionvillecountryboy]

Yeah, I'm clear.

"They should be publicly hung and used as examples of what happens if you try to introduce globalism, socialism, communism into this country."

That ain't treason. Sure you can say that "Globalism and socialism/communism are inimical to the framework of this country." Ok cool, I can agree with that, as far as the our current government works. However, there is a legal process in which those things could become elements of our govt. The mere suggestion of, within the confines of how our system works, isn't treason, and certainly not a capital offense. Any suggestion otherwise is indicative of someone who hasn't a clue about how our govt works.

The government isn’t working legally. Crowder just showed several hundred addresses in Nevada that are incorrect. He called the voter registration who told him there is nothing they can do. You have the Supreme Court who can’t hear a case pre election because there’s no standing but also can’t hear a case post election because there’s no solution.

 

[Magyars]

Just saw this article on Breitbart

Exclusive – Indiana AG Todd Rokita: H.R. 1 Kills Voter ID Laws, Sends Ballots to Dead People, Allows Ballot Harvesters to Hand in Fraudulent Votes After Elections

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said H.R. 1, if enacted as law, would prohibit voter ID laws nationwide.

www.breitbart.com

 

[AIRDOO]

Yeah, no it doesn't. His post is clear, the simple "introduction" of ideas he disagrees with should be capital offenses. The Constitution has always found such views abhorrent.

Well, since the Majority was gained through a fraudulent election it definitely changes things.

 

[AIRDOO]

The government isn’t working legally. Crowder just showed several hundred addresses in Nevada that are incorrect. He called the voter registration who told him there is nothing they can do. You have the Supreme Court who can’t hear a case pre election because there’s no standing but also can’t hear a case post election because there’s no solution.

Hell, there is rampant election fraud throughout the swing states.

 

[printcraft]

Yeah, I'm clear.

"They should be publicly hung and used as examples of what happens if you try to introduce globalism, socialism, communism into this country."

That ain't treason. Sure you can say that "Globalism and socialism/communism are inimical to the framework of this country." Ok cool, I can agree with that, as far as the our current government works. However, there is a legal process in which those things could become elements of our govt. The mere suggestion of, within the confines of how our system works, isn't treason, and certainly not a capital offense. Any suggestion otherwise is indicative of someone who hasn't a clue about how our govt works.

If the founders envisioned or wanted a socialist government or one that operated in that fashion they would have started one in the beginning.
The current system was put in place as designed for a reason and wasn't an accident that needs to be changed.

This is where I say, GTFO if you don't like it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If the founders envisioned or wanted a socialist government or one that operated in that fashion they would have started one in the beginning.
The current system was put in place as designed for a reason and wasn't an accident that needs to be changed.

This is where I say, GTFO if you don't like it.

The rebuttal to that, is "If the Founders thought that the government they created should never be changed, they would've never have placed a mechanism for changing it in the Constitution."
Why is this so difficult to understand? You guys took civics right? In theory, the Constitution allows for the re-introduction for slavery....if the votes are there. The Constitution can allow for ANYTHING, legally, if the votes are there. Are you guys really so unknowledgeable that you don't know this?

 

[printcraft]

The rebuttal to that, is "If the Founders thought that the government they created should never be changed, they would've never have placed a mechanism for changing it in the Constitution."
Why is this so difficult to understand? You guys took civics right? In theory, the Constitution allows for the re-introduction for slavery....if the votes are there. The Constitution can allow for ANYTHING, legally, if the votes are there. Are you guys really so unknowledgeable that you don't know this?

Amend parts , sure ... replace with a different form of government entirely?
Poppycock.
They would have started with the socialist ******** if that was their intent.
“Unknowledgeable” Get off your high horse.

 

[Slapstick]

Yeah, no it doesn't. His post is clear, the simple "introduction" of ideas he disagrees with should be capital offenses. The Constitution has always found such views abhorrent.

Wouldn't holding those view make him a Democrat? You know, the party that wants to eliminate or re-educate those that disagree with them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The rebuttal to that, is "If the Founders thought that the government they created should never be changed, they would've never have placed a mechanism for changing it in the Constitution."
Why is this so difficult to understand? You guys took civics right? In theory, the Constitution allows for the re-introduction for slavery....if the votes are there. The Constitution can allow for ANYTHING, legally, if the votes are there. Are you guys really so unknowledgeable that you don't know this?

I must have overlooked the section of the Constitution where it says that if you don't like it just ignore it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Amend parts , sure ... replace with a different form of government entirely?
Poppycock.
They would have started with the socialist ******** if that was their intent.
“Unknowledgeable” Get off your high horse.

If knowing how the Constitution works, and telling those who, apparently, don’t is being on a “high horse,” all I gotta say is “giddy up.”

 

[printcraft]

If knowing how the Constitution works, and telling those who, apparently, don’t is being on a “high horse,” all I gotta say is “giddy up.”

Yes yes, I know you are a "living document" type. Hopefully we can "reinterpret" that pesky 2A part if the votes are there. (tyranny of the majority FTW)

 

[IndyDave1776]

If knowing how the Constitution works, and telling those who, apparently, don’t is being on a “high horse,” all I gotta say is “giddy up.”

If you are right about the founders, then why did they feel the need to address domestic enemies (I.e., people who are enemies of the Constitution)?

 

[Kutnupe14]

If you are right about the founders, then why did they feel the need to address domestic enemies (I.e., people who are enemies of the Constitution)?

A think a domestic enemy is pretty obvious in its definition. We can’t, or rather shouldn’t, call, people who work within the mechanism of the Constitution, “domestic enemies,” even if their views are distasteful.
Look at it this way Garrison was an abolitionist who printed papers encouraging the end of slavery. Slavery at that time was Constitutionally, legal. He’s wasn’t a domestic enemy. His speech was constitutionally protected. Contrast with John Brown. Brown had the same ultimate goal as Garrison, but employed an entirely different method. While his goal was noble, the way he tried to achieve it was not. He could rightfully be called a “domestic enemy.”

 

[IndyDave1776]

A think a domestic enemy is pretty obvious in its definition. We can’t, or rather shouldn’t, call, people who work within the mechanism of the Constitution, “domestic enemies,” even if their views are distasteful.
Look at it this way Garrison was an abolitionist who printed papers encouraging the end of slavery. Slavery at that time was Constitutionally, legal. He’s wasn’t a domestic enemy. His speech was constitutionally protected. Contrast with John Brown. Brown had the same ultimate goal as Garrison, but employed an entirely different method. While his goal was noble, the way he tried to achieve it was not. He could rightfully be called a “domestic enemy.”

You are telling me that people who work night and day subverting the Constitution they swore under oath to uphold and defend are NOT enemies? If your leftist buddies were proposing Constitutional amendments I would accept your argument. They aren't and I don't.

 

[Unionvillecountryboy]

What do these arguements have to do with HR1 anyway? Is it not a bs bill? If we want to get off topic, weren’t we never supposed to be on a fiat currency with a national bank?