Quick note I have on constitutional quotes

As you can see from my blog I like to come up with my quotes. That does not mean I don’t look into quotes from the past. Which brings me to my point. I was looking at quotes about the Constitution, I noticed something interesting. There are a lot of quotes on Constitution from people in our generation. There’s a big problem I have with that. Without making this too complex, I’ll just say I’d rather refer to quotes of the Constitution from the people who designed it rather than the current people who have destroyed it lol.

Advertisements

RIGHTS (QUOTE)

“IF YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR RIGHTS OR TAKE THE TIME TO RESEARCH THEM, YOU DON’T HAVE ANY”

STEPHEN JAMES

YOUR RIGHTS? (QUOTE)

“YOUR RIGHTS COME WITH RESPONSIBILITIES. GET TO KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, DEFEND THEM, ENFORCE THEM, AND APPLY THEM WHEN THEY ARE CHALLENGED. MORE IMPORTANTLY IS TO CONSIDER THAT MOST RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED THROUGH GREAT SACRIFICE AND COST BY OTHERS. SO IF YOU WISH TO BE PROTECTED UNDER THESE RIGHTS, YOU ARE ALSO OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS AS WELL.”

STEPHEN JAMES

RANDOM PRESIDENTIAL QUOTES

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
Abraham Lincoln

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds”           Samuel Adams

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
Thomas Jefferson

FAILING TO DEFEND

    “IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND YOURSELF FROM A VIOLATION, YOU HAVE ALSO INADVERTENTLY SUBSTANTIATED THAT VIOLATION.”

STEPHEN JAMES

IF YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS, THEY MOST LIKELY WERE NOT PROTECTED

Anyone who finds themselves in a position of fighting for their rights should ask themselves if they defended these rights when they were initially challenged. MOST LIKELY THEY DID NOT!………

Usually, your rights are challenged and abused before they are lost and you fight to get them back. With rights, come responsibilities! If they are being infringed or violated, OR, challenged, you need to protect them before they have been taken away.

IF YOU HAVE HAD THEM TAKEN AWAY—–GOOD LUCK GETTING THEM BACK!!!!!

Any dispute or issue challenging any of your presumed substantiated rights should be automatically a STOP!!!! AT THE VIOLATION OR CHALLENGE OF THE ASSUMED RIGHT BEFORE IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY!!!!!

THIS MIGHT REMAIN IN DISAGREEMENT WITH NO RESOLUTION, BUT, IN NO WAY SHALL THAT BE CONSTRUED AS A FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT IN QUESTION!!!!!!

MAKE SURE IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING YOU ARE WILLING TO DEFEND IT

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin

SOLDIER (1stDraft-unedited)

SOLDIER

A soldier may represent their nation with pride.

To protect, and defend the country that they reside.

This fight may occur outside their borders

They are simply following the issued orders

When danger is present on the battle field

It is the soldier next to them that they will shield

Giving up their life for the soldiers who naturally would do the same

Something difficult for those at home to sustain

Trading their life for those in the combat zone

Instead of a concern for those back home

Do not let this cause you to easily confuse

Without a consideration to this in other views

If a different situation resulted in their survival

Others demise may have contributed to their arrival

Just remember to use this thought

Before judging actions by those who fought.

UPDATE ON “START READING ALL POLICY AND AGREEMENTS”

NEW UPDATE ON “YOUR INFO”

REMINDER I NO LONGER USE ANY SOCIAL MEDIA (JUST THIS)

I’VE PREVIOUSLY POSTED A CONCERN REGARDING READING “TERMS” THAT WAS IN REFERENCE TO A CERTAIN SOCIAL MEDIA GROUP—-

THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO ANOTHER ONE—-

WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFYING WHATEVER ——- GENERALLY (HAHA)  ANYTHING YOU TWISTER OR TWINE (HINT)LOL WILL BE RECORDED, DOCUMENTED, AND ARCHIVED IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ! THIS IS NO SECRET—– YOU CAN EASILY SEARCH AND HAVE IT DISCLOSED TO YOU

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE?

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.. OR NOT….BUT, JUST IN “CASE” HAHA

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF—-

WHAT THE POLICE POWER APPLIES TO- (DRIVING) – Since no notice is given to people applying for driver’s (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure,—- the state has committed a massive construction of fraud. When any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways, The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, and is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY , AND VOLUNTARILY. Few know that the STATE DRIVERS LICENSE is a contract WITHOUT WHICH THE POLICE ARE POWERLESS TO REGULATE  the people’s actions or activities!!!!!!!!

Few (IF ANY) licensees intentionally surrender THESE RIGHTS. They are told that they must have the license. This is CLEARLY not the case. WOULD ANYONE voluntarily surrender complete liberty and accept any set regulations if given the option? (OUR RIGHT) “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Edmund Burke, (1784) Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions: “Is there threatened danger? Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right? Is this regulation reasonable?” People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under “Police Power” When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge. First, “is there a threatened danger”? SO, IS the individual using his automobile on the public highways or roads, in the ordinary course of life and business a threat? The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is properly being operated. The speed, and noise are easily controlled , under a competent operator, so it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy. It is the manner of using the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. ACTUALLY, EVEN SAFER!! YOU CAN CONTROL A MACHINE WITH PRECISION, BUT, NOT A ANIMAL!(See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.) “The automobile is not inherently dangerous.” Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532 To deprive any persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and/or business, because one MIGHT, IN THE FUTURE, BECOME DANGEROUS, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. Next; does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right? This question has already been addressed and answered …… YES!!!!!! The third question is the most important in this case. “Is this regulation reasonable?” The answer is No! Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with state and police power they choose to enforce, that power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others). Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.) “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887 “The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613 “It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.” Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 “As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.” Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882 As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear: “No person shall be … deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.” As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel. In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law. Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for-hire vehicles.” The legislature has attempted (by legislative fiat) to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of due process of law. This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.

RECORDING PHONE CONVERSATIONS

RANDOM RANT

Depending on the State your phone # is in and the State in the other callers # is in, legally determines the lawful recording of the conversation.

Some States have a single party consent rule,others have a two party consent rule.(IF ONE PERSON HAS A # IN A 2 PARTY CONSENT STATE, THAN IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE OTHER # IS IN A 1 PARTY CONSENT STATE) 

If you are having a phone conversation from a phone in a single party consent State with another person with a phone that is also in a single party consent State than you are not required to inform them that you are recording.

Now , If you are in conversation with someone that is on a phone that has a # registered in a 2 party consent State, and your phone is registered in a single party consent State- You can not legally record the conversation (without their consent) because of the other # is in a 2 party consent state.

Blah——- lol

My opinion on this is that if the gov is permitted to listen in on cellular phone conversations without a Warrant from a judge —- than we (the people)  should also have the right to freely and legally record any conversation as well – without consent set  by a “STATE” position of allowance.

I KNOW THIS WAS RANDOM THOUGHT AND NOT APPLICABLE TO MOST OF US…..

JUST ONE OF MY RANDOM RANTS…

BUT…. IF YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A POSITION TO WANT AND RECORD A PHONE CONVERSATION- MAKE SURE YOU CHECK YOUR STATE RULES AS WELL AS THE STATE RULES OF THE OTHER CALLER