"TERRORIST HATER" is a stupid fuck!

[RegisteredAndEducated]

I have, by no means, an expansive graps on the laws or the constitution but it seems to me that TH proved his own point wrong in one of his last posts.

 

Originally Posted By TERRORIST-HATER nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

 

This seems to me as if it is saying that your rights (I think these are those "unalienable rights") can be removed if "DUE PROCESS" is followed!!

 

Just wanted to throw that in there, let me know it I'm right.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030404.html

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030418.html

 

 

A Pending Supreme Court Case Addresses Ex Post Facto Laws:

Part One of a Two-Part Series on Unconstitutional Retroactive Criminal Legislation

By VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

 

The Essence of Ex Post Facto

 

...To the Framers, these clauses were so urgent that they were embodied in the original 1787 document - not the Bill of Rights, enacted a few years later. As this history indicates, we are dealing with a basic principle - one that the People of the United States from the outset felt should command nearly universal agreement in a free Republic.

 

At its core, the principle is this: Congress and state legislatures may not later make conduct criminal that was perfectly lawful when done. In other words, if conduct is legally innocent at a given time, when undertaken by person, a legislature may not pass, at some later time, a law that says the person's conduct at the prior time now can be the basis for criminal liability.

 

The justifications for this ban are both powerful and simple. Indeed, they are so powerful that ex post facto laws probably would be held implicitly unconstitutional, under several other provisions, even if they were not expressly banned in the Constitution.

 

First, ex post facto laws violate the separation of powers. When a legislature makes an ex post facto law, it knows (or at least is able to know) whom it is transforming into a criminal. But it is the job of the executive branch and the courts - not the legislature - to mete out punishment against individuals. Legislatures, by contrast, are supposed to make rules of general application that have nothing to do with individual personalities. (In this regard, the ban on ex post facto laws is related to the clause banning Bills of Attainder - that is, legislative punishments naming particular individuals.)

 

Second, ex post facto laws may violate First Amendment principles. Legislatures could easily use them to transform political enemies into "criminals" based on previous, then-non-criminal behavior. The "chilling effect" to speech would be severe. And the First Amendment is designed, at its core, to allow dissent from existing government policies to flourish.

 

Third, ex post facto laws are unfair - and thus also implicate broader notions about constitutional due process. Two of the most elemental principles of due process are these: The government must provide individuals with proper notice of the consequences of their actions. And, the government may not undermine legitimate reliance by individuals based on messages the government sends.

 

Thus, if a prosecutor promises, before you jaywalk, that he will not prosecute you, he should be bound by that promise if you rely on it. Similarly, if a prosecutor promises you a plea bargain, he should not be able to back out after you have confessed the crime.

 

In short, the ex post facto ban is an illustration of an overarching constitutional concern with systematic unfairness. Government has to treat individuals - even criminals - with dignity, respect and basic honesty..."

 

Vikram David Amar is a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School, and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. Before teaching, Professor Amar practiced at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Now that we've arrived here, and have a clear definition of ex post facto let's get to the meat of the matter.

 

HUGO gave us the Iowa Supreme Court ruling (thank you!) but let me boil it down a little as it applies to the original Florida complaint by TH.

 

In the case of the recent laws enacted in Florida, Terrorist Hater is incorrect in his argument that the law violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.

 

Under the new law, any convicted sex offender must be registered and live at least 2,500 feet from schools, public parks, day-care centers, playgrounds, churches or any other place of religious assembly.

 

TH claims that this legislation places an illegal ex post facto burden upon the convicted sex offender, in violation of the Constitution.

 

I submit that it does no such thing.

 

Firstly, felons who already live within the 2500 feet yet have lived continuously in residence prior to the passage of the new law, are exempt until they choose to move.

 

Secondly, the illegality of the action of residing within 2500 feet of the prohibited locations, is in and of itself, distinctly separate in both scope and application of punishment from the original crimes for which the felons were convicted.

 

The Iowa Supreme Court, in another similar case regarding a similar law, but in another state, summed it up best.

 

"An offender...does not face punishment under the statute simply because he is a convicted offender. Instead, punishment may come based only on a violation of the statute. While this punishment is based at least partially on the offender

[TerroristHater]

CES, has said nothing that was not already explained to your denseness several times over! Are you "just now" getting it? You are stupider than I gave you credit for.

 

No offense CES, this is really more of a testimony to your debating and writing skills. I guess you have a way of puncturing the fog of stupidity better than rest! Kudos to you CES!

 

... please answer, I have asked no less than 15 times already and you refuse to answer...WHY ?

 

 

I have said this a dozen times already and you have been ANSWERED:

 

THE CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED IN ORDER TO TAKE THIER RIGHTS AWAY. The Bill of Rights cannot be changed or altered without the ENTIRE document being invalid.

 

AS SUCH, THOSE RIGHTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT REGARDLESS OF STATUS.

 

 

TRY AND GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

 

 

 

[TerroristHater]

You sir, are a hypocrite. You ask that I not be childish and then you proceed to do so. I would have been happy to admit my error, but since you chose to be a total asshole. You may go fuck yourself.

 

"Lastly, regardless of how you view it, either your gross negligence of even a basic self-understanding of the topic at hand, or your brazen attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, is deplorable and most worthy of a trip to the IDIOT BOX!"

 

Constitutional law, American Colonial History, and the study thereof is my absolute favorite hobby and I welcome any educated debate you have on this but you'll have to drop the childish tantrums and rectify your incorrect statements if you wish to have any credibility. <-------- Hypocrite

[TerroristHater]

Now that we've arrived here, and have a clear definition of ex post facto let's get to the meat of the matter.

 

HUGO gave us the Iowa Supreme Court ruling (thank you!) but let me boil it down a little as it applies to the original Florida complaint by TH.

 

In the case of the recent laws enacted in Florida, Terrorist Hater is incorrect in his argument that the law violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.

 

Under the new law, any convicted sex offender must be registered and live at least 2,500 feet from schools, public parks, day-care centers, playgrounds, churches or any other place of religious assembly.

 

TH claims that this legislation places an illegal ex post facto burden upon the convicted sex offender, in violation of the Constitution.

 

I submit that it does no such thing.

 

Firstly, felons who already live within the 2500 feet yet have lived continuously in residence prior to the passage of the new law, are exempt until they choose to move.

 

Secondly, the illegality of the action of residing within 2500 feet of the prohibited locations, is in and of itself, distinctly separate in both scope and application of punishment from the original crimes for which the felons were convicted.

 

The Iowa Supreme Court, in another similar case regarding a similar law, but in another state, summed it up best.

 

"An offender...does not face punishment under the statute simply because he is a convicted offender. Instead, punishment may come based only on a violation of the statute. While this punishment is based at least partially on the offender

[TerroristHater]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030404.html

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030418.html

 

 

A Pending Supreme Court Case Addresses Ex Post Facto Laws:

Part One of a Two-Part Series on Unconstitutional Retroactive Criminal Legislation

By VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

 

The Essence of Ex Post Facto

 

...To the Framers, these clauses were so urgent that they were embodied in the original 1787 document - not the Bill of Rights, enacted a few years later. As this history indicates, we are dealing with a basic principle - one that the People of the United States from the outset felt should command nearly universal agreement in a free Republic.

 

At its core, the principle is this: Congress and state legislatures may not later make conduct criminal that was perfectly lawful when done. In other words, if conduct is legally innocent at a given time, when undertaken by person, a legislature may not pass, at some later time, a law that says the person's conduct at the prior time now can be the basis for criminal liability.

 

The justifications for this ban are both powerful and simple. Indeed, they are so powerful that ex post facto laws probably would be held implicitly unconstitutional, under several other provisions, even if they were not expressly banned in the Constitution.

 

First, ex post facto laws violate the separation of powers. When a legislature makes an ex post facto law, it knows (or at least is able to know) whom it is transforming into a criminal. But it is the job of the executive branch and the courts - not the legislature - to mete out punishment against individuals. Legislatures, by contrast, are supposed to make rules of general application that have nothing to do with individual personalities. (In this regard, the ban on ex post facto laws is related to the clause banning Bills of Attainder - that is, legislative punishments naming particular individuals.)

 

Second, ex post facto laws may violate First Amendment principles. Legislatures could easily use them to transform political enemies into "criminals" based on previous, then-non-criminal behavior. The "chilling effect" to speech would be severe. And the First Amendment is designed, at its core, to allow dissent from existing government policies to flourish.

 

Third, ex post facto laws are unfair - and thus also implicate broader notions about constitutional due process. Two of the most elemental principles of due process are these: The government must provide individuals with proper notice of the consequences of their actions. And, the government may not undermine legitimate reliance by individuals based on messages the government sends.

 

Thus, if a prosecutor promises, before you jaywalk, that he will not prosecute you, he should be bound by that promise if you rely on it. Similarly, if a prosecutor promises you a plea bargain, he should not be able to back out after you have confessed the crime.

 

In short, the ex post facto ban is an illustration of an overarching constitutional concern with systematic unfairness. Government has to treat individuals - even criminals - with dignity, respect and basic honesty..."

 

Vikram David Amar is a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School, and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. Before teaching, Professor Amar practiced at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

 

This law intfears with the rights of the citizens to contract for the sale of property. The government is specifically forbidden to do so. As such, this is yet another reason this law and those like it are unconstitutional.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

This law intfears with the rights of the citizens to contract for the sale of property. The government is specifically forbidden to do so. As such, this is yet another reason this law and those like it are unconstitutional.

WTF!!!! Expost-Facto has nothing to do with property or property rights Expost-Facto simply means that government cannot pass a law to make something illegal and then go arrest people who violated the law prior to it becoming a law. What the flying fuck does it have to do with property??? We are clearly dealing with a retard (TH)! In fact Expost-Facto is written into the original constitution without ammendment!

[tizz]

The right to sell your home is not in the constitution are far as I can recall (then the damn thing keeps changin so who knows)

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

You sir, are a hypocrite. You ask that I not be childish and then you proceed to do so. I would have been happy to admit my error, but since you chose to be a total asshole. You may go fuck yourself.

 

"Lastly, regardless of how you view it, either your gross negligence of even a basic self-understanding of the topic at hand, or your brazen attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, is deplorable and most worthy of a trip to the IDIOT BOX!"

 

Constitutional law, American Colonial History, and the study thereof is my absolute favorite hobby and I welcome any educated debate you have on this but you'll have to drop the childish tantrums and rectify your incorrect statements if you wish to have any credibility. <-------- Hypocrite

 

 

Calling out your lies and/or misquotes is hardly childish and most certainly not hypocritical. In fact, it is the most adult thing I can do to you.

 

Your response is of course, to curse at me. Congratulations. You have met my expectations completely.

 

You are horribly wrong on this and you don't see it...Pity.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

"An offender...does not face punishment under the statute simply because he is a convicted offender. Instead, punishment may come based only on a violation of the statute. While this punishment is based at least partially on the offender

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

This law intfears with the rights of the citizens to contract for the sale of property. The government is specifically forbidden to do so. As such, this is yet another reason this law and those like it are unconstitutional.

 

Again you are incorrect.

 

It has nothing to do with the sale of property. In fact, the convicted criminal could very well purchase any property within that 2500 foot boundary, but he would be unable to LIVE there.

 

As to the laws circumventing the sale of property, this is a common distinction made between various types of regulated property. These categories of property fall under regulatory statues and as such although one may hold a valid license, permit, or even hold the legal right to own such property, this does not necessarily enable one to randomly sell this property to anyone whom you might choose.

 

 

Some examples are:

 

Automatic weapons

Controlled substances

Certain chemicals

Certain poisons

Certain engraving and printing machinery

Certain industrial lasers

Certain computer systems and/or software

Items once legal for sale but now strictly prohibited such as ivory, certain animal furs, certain woods

Property purchased from the government under certain programs with strict restrictions regarding transference

 

And there are many more but I think I've made my point.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

I have said this a dozen times already and you have been ANSWERED:

 

THE CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED IN ORDER TO TAKE THIER RIGHTS AWAY. The Bill of Rights cannot be changed or altered without the ENTIRE document being invalid.

 

AS SUCH, THOSE RIGHTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT REGARDLESS OF STATUS.

 

 

TRY AND GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

 

 

 

ADHD boy, this still does not answer the question (since you are obviously in a severe fit of ADHD and can't remember the question, I'll ask again.. I will try to make simple little points for your ADHD brain to follow.)

 

1) You stated that criminals do loose some of their constitutional rights.

2) You stated specifically that they loose their 2nd and 4th ammendment rights upon conviction.

3) You stated specifically that convicts do not loose their 1st or 14th ammendment rights.

 

Now the question, sir... What makes the 1st and 14th ammendment rights absolute while the 2nd and 4th ammendments are arbitrary????????????

 

The question is simple.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

According to MRIH, TH said:

 

1) You stated that criminals do loose some of their constitutional rights.

2) You stated specifically that they loose their 2nd and 4th ammendment rights upon conviction.

3) You stated specifically that convicts do not loose their 1st or 14th ammendment rights.

 

If this is true, he is mistaken yet once again.

 

In prison your 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th rights are highly modified subject to the regulations of the penal system to which you have been incarcerated into. In fact, most of the other amendment rights are modified as well, but this should do for now.

 

For example:

 

1st. - You do not have absolute freedom of speech. You cannot read or write anything you wish. Your mail is subject to confiscation if it contains improper language or messages. You can be confined to solitary detention, have privlidges taken away, and be subject to internal prison punishments for improper speech. In addition, you may not peaceably assemble for any reason without strict permission to do so, etc.

 

2nd. - You are clearly denied the right to own and/or possess a firearm.

 

4th. - You may be searched, including strip searched and body cavity searched at the pleasure of the prison authorities.

 

14th - When incarcerated, any US passport you hold is invalidated and cancelled by the Secretary of State.

[hugo]

You sir, are a hypocrite. You ask that I not be childish and then you proceed to do so. I would have been happy to admit my error, but since you chose to be a total asshole. You may go fuck yourself.

 

"Lastly, regardless of how you view it, either your gross negligence of even a basic self-understanding of the topic at hand, or your brazen attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, is deplorable and most worthy of a trip to the IDIOT BOX!"

 

Constitutional law, American Colonial History, and the study thereof is my absolute favorite hobby and I welcome any educated debate you have on this but you'll have to drop the childish tantrums and rectify your incorrect statements if you wish to have any credibility. <-------- Hypocrite

 

What a fucking dumbass. I'm sorry big fonts does not constitute legitimate debate points. Clearly ADHD boy is a moron.

[fullauto]

I have said this a dozen times already and you have been ANSWERED:

 

THE CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED IN ORDER TO TAKE THIER RIGHTS AWAY. The Bill of Rights cannot be changed or altered without the ENTIRE document being invalid.

 

AS SUCH, THOSE RIGHTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT REGARDLESS OF STATUS.

 

 

TRY AND GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

 

 

 

 

Ok... now I think you're an idiot! the bill of rights are AMMENDMENTS to the constitution... They can, and have been repealed... remember the 18th... Prohibition... well go and read the 21st...

 

just because the first ten haven't been touched yet, doesn't mean they CAN'T be repealed... they can... but we have never had to.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

If this is true, he is mistaken yet once again.

 

In prison your 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th rights are highly modified subject to the regulations of the penal system to which you have been incarcerated into. In fact, most of the other amendment rights are modified as well, but this should do for now.

 

For example:

 

1st. - You do not have absolute freedom of speech. You cannot read or write anything you wish. Your mail is subject to confiscation if it contains improper language or messages. You can be confined to solitary detention, have privlidges taken away, and be subject to internal prison punishments for improper speech. In addition, you may not peaceably assemble for any reason without strict permission to do so, etc.

 

2nd. - You are clearly denied the right to own and/or possess a firearm.

 

4th. - You may be searched, including strip searched and body cavity searched at the pleasure of the prison authorities.

 

14th - When incarcerated, any US passport you hold is invalidated and cancelled by the Secretary of State.

CES,

 

The truth is, I would gladly concede my argument if this moron had any basis for the above claim... BUT he doesn't, He just keeps repeating that the bill of rights applies to everyone including incarcerated felons. Maybe they do and maybe they don't I just want the dipshit to explain his fucked-up position. And if the truth be known, all he would have to do is say that he feels like they should and I'd be happy, but so far he just makes the claim as fact without basis and it pisses me off.

 

You, CES, have worked miracles in getting him to back off of some his wilder claims. You must have the patience of job, the wit of Will Rogers, and the quill of Samuel Clements. Hats off to you!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Thanks MRIH.

 

Believe it or not, I LIKE the guy and was hoping that he would sharpen his arguments a little and that this would turn into a debate like we had in "Intelligent design taught in our schools. Good or Bad

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

RIGHTS THAT ARE LOST

 

The right to vote (in most states)

This is true... I seriously doubt that you researched this. It was either a lucky guess or you picked it up off of a valid website.

 

The right to bear arms (in SOME states)

WRONG ADHD boy, you guessed wrong again. The gun control act of 1968 prohibits ex-cons from possessing any type of firearm, this is a federal law and extends to all states and territories of the US.

 

There are more, but as stated above, it varies by the state (mostly the IQ of the people running the state)

WRONG again ADHD boy!

[TerroristHater]

Ok... now I think you're an idiot! the bill of rights are AMMENDMENTS to the constitution... They can, and have been repealed... remember the 18th... Prohibition... well go and read the 21st...

 

just because the first ten haven't been touched yet, doesn't mean they CAN'T be repealed... they can... but we have never had to.

 

 

 

 

THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE THE FIRST TEN AMMENDMENTS YOU STUPID FUCKING IMMIGRANT COCKSUCKER!!!

 

 

 

<FONT size=7>THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

 

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

 

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

 

Amendment I

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Amendment II

 

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Amendment III

 

 

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

Amendment IV

 

 

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.

 

Amendment V

 

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Amendment VI

 

 

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 defense.

 

Amendment VII

 

 

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

 

 

MORE INFORMATION:

 

 

The New United States of America Adopted the Bill of Rights

December 15, 1791

Do you know your Bill of Rights? It is the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, confirming the fundamental rights of American citizens. The new United States of America adopted them on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, and the press, the rights of peaceful assembly and petition. Do you know what the others do?

George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights," carefully wrote out these amendments to ensure individual liberties. He was a lifelong champion of the rights and freedoms of people.

 

 

 

The New United States of America Adopted the Bill of Rights

December 15, 1791

Mason had drafted the Virginia state constitution in 1776, asserting the principle of inalienable rights--certain individual rights that cannot be taken away.

Elected to the new House of Representatives, James Madison agreed with Mason. In the fall of 1789, he sponsored the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, speaking out on freedom of religion, speech, and the press. Ultimately, George Mason's views prevailed. When James Madison drafted the 10 amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

 

 

 

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

 

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

 

• End the deception.
  

 

THERE... AS USUAL ... YOU, MRIH, ARE WRONG. NOW ACCEPT IT AND GO BACK TO MEXICO.

[TerroristHater]

CES,

 

The truth is, I would gladly concede my argument if this moron had any basis for the above claim... BUT he doesn't, He just keeps repeating that the bill of rights applies to everyone including incarcerated felons. Maybe they do and maybe they don't I just want the dipshit to explain his fucked-up position. And if the truth be known, all he would have to do is say that he feels like they should and I'd be happy, but so far he just makes the claim as fact without basis and it pisses me off.

 

You, CES, have worked miracles in getting him to back off of some his wilder claims. You must have the patience of job, the wit of Will Rogers, and the quill of Samuel Clements. Hats off to you!

 

 

THE ABOVE IS NO LONGER TRUE ONCE A PERSON IS RELEASED FROM INCARCERATION.

 

 

I guess I failed to make it clear that I was referring to people who had been RELEASED from prison. I figure that once they've paid thier debt to society there is no reason they need to continue paying. The fact that many ex-cons are continually punished by the current system long after thier debt to society is paid is why there is such a huge number of re-offenses. These people feel there is no other option.

 

 

Once again, I stress, once a person is RELEASED, the list above is no longer applicable.

 

 

And if you like me you have a STRANGE way of showing it.

[tizz]

And when you are released you are usually subject to a probabtion period where certain rights can still be restricted and some rights CAN be permanantly revoked if a judge thinks you shit all over them. You don't like it? Do something about it. That's the beauty ofthis country. Whether you think so or not you DO have the power to change things.

[TerroristHater]

And when you are released you are usually subject to a probabtion period where certain rights can still be restricted and some rights CAN be permanantly revoked if a judge thinks you shit all over them. You don't like it? Do something about it. That's the beauty ofthis country. Whether you think so or not you DO have the power to change things.

 

 

WRONG AGAIN

 

The New United States of America Adopted the Bill of Rights

December 15, 1791

Mason had drafted the Virginia state constitution in 1776, asserting the principle of inalienable rights--certain individual rights that cannot be taken away.

Elected to the new House of Representatives, James Madison agreed with Mason. In the fall of 1789, he sponsored the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, speaking out on freedom of religion, speech, and the press. Ultimately, George Mason's views prevailed. When James Madison drafted the 10 amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

 

 

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

 

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

• 
  [ ]End the deception.
  

THOSE RIGHTS CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY... EVER FOR ANY REASON

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

And if you like me you have a STRANGE way of showing it.

 

Why? Because I called you out when you were wrong, and then hammered you again and nailed you with a little bad rep the second time out? Sorry you chose to disregard the message and that you were wounded but you were simply way off the deep end of good judgment. Words mean something and facts need to be checked when presented as such. I would expect you to do the same to me otherwise I would not respect you.

 

Anyway, I will be just as glad to give you good rep when you warrant that!

 

It's not personal, it's situational and earned.

[TerroristHater]

Why? Because I called you out when you were wrong, and then hammered you again and nailed you with a little bad rep the second time out? Sorry you chose to disregard the message and that you were wounded but you were simply way off the deep end of good judgment. Words mean something and facts need to be checked when presented as such. I would expect you to do the same to me otherwise I would not respect you.

 

Anyway, I will be just as glad to give you good rep when you warrant that!

 

It's not personal, it's situational and earned.

 

 

I don't mind being called out... I just don't like the way you did it.