Comments on: NYPD Arrest 4 After Raid Uncovers Massive Weapons & Drugs Stockpile

By: hereorthere

hereorthere — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:13:41 +0000

Did you know that Constitutionally, a person need not have any degree or be a lawyer at all, to serve as a Supreme Court Justice?

By: hereorthere

hereorthere — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:10:36 +0000

The Constitution was not written for lawyers to turn into whatever they wanted, under the guise of “scholarship way above the intelligence of everyone else”.

It was written plainly and simply for farmers to follow as they served a term in Washington then returned to their farms after service.

It says what it means, plainly and clearly.

Anyone who claims you need to be some “degreed scholar” to know what it says, is hiding their own anti Constitutional, agenda.

By: mw13

mw13 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 04:17:16 +0000

Ok, so thats your interpretation of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court justices, who do this for a living, disagree.

By: hereorthere

hereorthere — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:47:48 +0000

#9 The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It does not say it shall not be infringed by the Constitution but could be infringed by other things.
That is not what it says.
And yes the state Constitution should be a copy of teh Constitution only for that partricular state.
This is not a contest to see which state can be the most origional, it’s about upholding our inalienable rights.
About religion, It says; Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor restrict the free execrise thereof.
To make laws demanding the 10 commandments (from which all our laws come) be taken down they are making laws regarding the establishment of religion.
And the Ten Commandments do not represent one particular religion like a cross does.
And waging war is going against all our rights to “life liberty and persuit of happiness”.
The Ten commandments do not interfere with that, but violent jihadism, does.

If you wnat to interfere with our rights in the name of stopping radical Islam then we should be allowed to close down all their mosques and outlaw them, altogether.

By: mw13

mw13 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:06:08 +0000

#8 –
“State Constitutions must reflect the policies of the National Constitution and cannot have any clauses in it that go against the National Constitution.”
State Constitutions are not “going against” the Constitution by having restrictions on arms sale – the second amendment means only that the Federal Government cannot impose restrictions on arms sales. And if the State Constitutions were bound to follow the exact same rules as the Federal Constitution, what difference would there be between the Federal and State Governments?

“the Supreme court has upheld “anti religion laws” like the one wher ethey ordered a lower court to remove the Ten Commandments from their walls”
The Supreme Court is not limiting religious freedoms by taking the Ten Commandments off its walls, it is just not allowing the Government to force religion on the people by not allowing the Government to use any religious symbols. Imagine how you would feel if when you walked into a government building the first thing you see would be a cross. The Supreme Court was if anything defending our religious rights.

“the Constitution says they are not allowed to restrict religion, in any way.”
So according to you, what right does the government have to stop radical muslims from waging jihad against us? They have absolutely no right to “restrict religion, in any way”!

By: hereorthere

hereorthere — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:37:33 +0000

#5 They made unconstitutional laws because they want to have Stalinist control over the people and are illegally taking away our rights one after the other.

#7 State Constitutions must reflect the policies of the National Constitution and cannot have any clauses in it that go against the National Constitution.

And the Supreme court has upheld “anti religion laws” like the one wher ethey ordered a lower court to remove the Ten Commandments from their walls for their fake anti constitutional laws like the one they made up about “separation of Church and state” which not only do not exist in the Constitution but the Constitution says they are not allowed to restrict religion, in any way.

By: mw13

mw13 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:16:55 +0000

#3 – The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…” and does not apply to state and local (ie, city) governments. This ruling has been challenged two times, both unsuccessfully.

And precisely what “antu religion laws” have been “upheald” or “made up” by the Supreme Court?

By: Chushuva yid

Chushuva yid — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:48:42 +0000

Also, don’t forget about the drugs. Why weren’t they charged for that?

By: Chushuva yid

Chushuva yid — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:47:17 +0000

#3, why would they make unconstitutional laws?

By: aaym

aaym — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:55:38 +0000

# 2 weapons possession without a permit is illegal in NYC.