Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by 25n56il4 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    I just visited our neighborhood grocery store...been here over 100 years same family run. Didn't see one mask. People eating at the canteen. Men at their big table (8 -10 men) drinking coffee, gossiping, checkers No masks. Back to full normal. People greeting one another. It was so good. Flags on our main street every block. Children playing in the parks. Teens skating. No masks. Women visiting at the various tables while children were swinging.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      Encouraging to hear!
      This video has nothing to do with covid. The video is centered about how we've come to accept lawlessness from government as common practice. Law on the boijs being misrepresented and us being illegally taxed and hit with fees.

      It us very interesting and revealing to see how we've been coerced into accepting illegal and unconstitutional conduct to be used against us.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks, 2 days ago
    My notes:

    Citizen vs individual. The Constitution only applies to Citizens. It recognizes individual rights, but its authority only applies to Citizens of the United States of America. This guy tries to just blow past this, but it is an important point of jurisdiction.

    If you're going to make the pitch that individual rights are guarded by the Constitution, one must also recognize that when talking about legitimacy one must consider who is trying to take the action. The principle of Federalism states that the Federal Government is supreme over matters which it has authority over, but those which are reserved to the States (the majority) make the Federal Government's imposition illegitimate.

    The claim that the Constitution guarantees free travel is misunderstood to say it politely. That clause was written to prevent States from prohibiting or taxing travellers coming from other States. Such taxes and travel restrictions were considered fractious and undermined the principle that the States should be "United." What about toll roads? This person's interpretation would certainly apply to them as well, would it not?

    Profit motive? I do agree with the commenter that the profit motive is irrelevant and not just because any such is absent from the interstate travel clause. Does one profit from going to work? Does one profit by getting groceries? Does one profit from mere sight-seeing? The answer is YES. If we did not see a benefit (or profit) from driving somewhere, we wouldn't do it just to waste gas and impose wear-and-tear on the vehicle!

    Questions on the regulation of travel. Is he seriously going to argue that no regulation whatsoever is needed on the roads? No traffic laws even as simple as which side of the road to drive on? This one may start as well-meaning objection, but needs to be critically examined rather than just as a knee-jerk opposition just because he doesn't agree with the overall point of the commentary.

    At this point, I'm just going to say that while I understand why he wants to make these arguments, a more careful and rational approach with less emotional objectionism is called for.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    Thanks, AJ, have to watch again and also read the law/definitions; but as I comprehend at this moment, If I get pulled over for speeding or other violations while traveling, I'd have to provide the information requested...is that your understanding as well?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      Quite the contrary. The guy provides the law definitions and exact wording citing case after case against all that stuff. License, registration , insurance and even a license plate is unconstitutional according to law. It is compelling.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        I remember the guy saying, 'unless I have committed a crime' and of course, "Driving" for an employer...and the information would be: name, address and ownership of the car.

        I was introduced to the idea a long time ago but what makes this video valuable, is the application of the law in real life...although, I don't think I'd have the patients this guy had...I would like to have this conversation with the local constabulary in a (non pull over and stop position).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 2 weeks, 4 days ago
          attached beneath the video are supporting links.

          Still, it would be an intimidating stance to take considering, even if you right, you could end up with your car impounded and sitting in a cell until its sorted.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 4 days ago
            "you could end up with your car impounded and sitting in a cell until its sorted."
            I don't know how it should be structured, but there should be some consequences for police who detain people for no good reason, even for the incorrect reason that rights are for protecting criminals. If you give gov't the power to stop people who are going about their business and insist they answer questions, the power will inevitably be abused.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 weeks, 4 days ago
            I copied the links and intend to study them, especially the definitions. I am always interested in using proper language...laughing, I will never use the term 'Driving' any more. From now on, I will use the term: Traveling.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo