What the 2012 election taught us

[Eric Gustafson]

The 5th Amendment protects citizens from having to confess their crimes or participation and involvement in a crime.

That protection is written into the U.S Constitution, whether you understand it or not. That provision has been a protection of Americans since ratification of the Constitution.

If you are charged with a crime and you are asked about the incident on the witness stand under oath, you, being an American Citizen have the right to take the 5th........ You can not be sanctioned for refusing to answer the judge.

Are you a naturalized America?

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>there was nothing self incriminating against law abiding citizens in National Firearms Act of 1934 in Haynes vs. United States, its was Modern Liberals in 1968 that said that the law was self incriminating towards convicted felons because the convict Miles Edward Haynes was violating law to begin with and charged with failing to register a firearm under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and knew he violating the Law for having a fireman in his possession and these are the same People the Modern Liberals on the left today are saying should not have guns in their possession.

[Drink the hivE]

Hey Son No Worries Just Don't Get Arrested Youll Be Alright...

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Anonymous of Indy]

Eric Gustafson wrote:

The 5th Amendment protects citizens from having to confess their crimes or participation and involvement in a crime.
That protection is written into the U.S Constitution, whether you understand it or not. That provision has been a protection of Americans since ratification of the Constitution.
If you are charged with a crime and you are asked about the incident on the witness stand under oath, you, being an American Citizen have the right to take the 5th........ You can not be sanctioned for refusing to answer the judge.
Are you a naturalized America?
<quoted text>

I understand it very well, he violated federal law to begin with and those modern Liberals thinking on SCOTUS made an bad & poor legal decision on their part which was to benefit the convicted felons here in the US on the way the liberal SCOTUS issued their ruling & decision and it would have been different if it was a law abiding citizen if they failed to register since they were legal to own a firearm.

Remember this is the same Liberal Court that says indiviudals have no legal rights to Social Security which can be reduced or eliminated anytime which is another scam perpetrated by the modern Liberals as FDR called them and it was really only to benefit the Federal Government and the New Left has taken this new so called modern Liberalism to the next step which True Liberalism rejects everything it stands for.

Social Security’s Sham Guarantee

They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...

[Anonymous of Indy]

au contraire wrote:

<quoted text>If we have equal protection laws, how come we have affirmative action and hate crimes.

exactly and why affirmative action laws are contradictive and have created an enviroment of reverse discrimination which would be rejected by true Liberalism which reject government involvement and the thinking of the modern liberals of today.

[Eric Gustafson]

au contraire wrote:

<quoted text>If we have equal protection laws, how come we have affirmative action and hate crimes.

Affirmative Actions is not now or ever was a law and, Hate Crimes are applied and equally motivated by Ignorance.

Affirmative Actions are programs intended to affirm the civil rights and guarantees within the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution by taking positive action to protect them from, "the lingering effects of pervasive discrimination, enacted by White Southern State Legislators.

How old are you?

[Eric Gustafson]

They were simply enforcing the provisions in the U.S Constitution. They made no striking law...... They just enforce the protection clause contain in the Constitution's 5th Amendment.

That's what the SCOTUS is supposed to do.

Courts in America can not make citizens testify against themselves.

That what it means to be protected from self incrimination.

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>I understand it very well, he violated federal law to begin with and those modern Liberals thinking on SCOTUS made an bad & poor legal decision on their part which was to benefit the convicted felons here in the US on the way the liberal SCOTUS issued their ruling & decision and it would have been different if it was a law abiding citizen if they failed to register since they were legal to own a firearm.
Remember this is the same Liberal Court that says indiviudals have no legal rights to Social Security which can be reduced or eliminated anytime which is another scam perpetrated by the modern Liberals as FDR called them and it was really only to benefit the Federal Government and the New Left has taken this new so called modern Liberalism to the next step which True Liberalism rejects everything it stands for.
Social Security’s Sham Guarantee
They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...

[Eric Gustafson]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>exactly and why affirmative action laws are contradictive and have created an enviroment of reverse discrimination which would be rejected by true Liberalism which reject government involvement and the thinking of the modern liberals of today.

Well Affirmative Actions aren't laws.

Affirmative Actions is a set of policies or program that affirms your organization's compliance with the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

[Eric Gustafson]

The Felon violated Federal Law, of which the Federal prosecutors would have never convicted the felon without his cooperation. The 5th Amendment protects that felon and any other citizen from being being made a witness and supplying evidence against themselves in a court of law.

Whether you're a felon or not, you are protected equally by the U.S. Constitution and it's the Supreme Courts' job to enforce those protections.

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>I understand it very well, he violated federal law to begin with and those modern Liberals thinking on SCOTUS made an bad & poor legal decision on their part which was to benefit the convicted felons here in the US on the way the liberal SCOTUS issued their ruling & decision and it would have been different if it was a law abiding citizen if they failed to register since they were legal to own a firearm.
Remember this is the same Liberal Court that says indiviudals have no legal rights to Social Security which can be reduced or eliminated anytime which is another scam perpetrated by the modern Liberals as FDR called them and it was really only to benefit the Federal Government and the New Left has taken this new so called modern Liberalism to the next step which True Liberalism rejects everything it stands for.
Social Security’s Sham Guarantee
They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...

[Eric Gustafson]

au contraire wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, it only took Obama over 4 years to do what Bush did..........your boy is slow.

Not exactly true, When Bush went into the White House the S&P 500 was January 22, 2001,... at 10,578. 20

When Bush Left on Jan 20, 2009 the S&P 500 was 7949

The Market was an indication of the Financial and Economic Collapse of America under the Bush policies. When you consider that at one point the S&P 500 was at 14,000, and for it to close out at 7949 when Bush left Washington was even more of an indication of how great a failure his presidency was.

For crying out loud, there had not been a collapse similar to the collapse of America since the Fall of the Roman Empire.

That's not much for the Republican supporters to be talking about, it is not as if anybody in the world forgot what the Bush policies did to the world's financial system.

[Anonymous of Indy]

Eric Gustafson wrote:

They were simply enforcing the provisions in the U.S Constitution. They made no striking law...... They just enforce the protection clause contain in the Constitution's 5th Amendment.
That's what the SCOTUS is supposed to do.
Courts in America can not make citizens testify against themselves.
That what it means to be protected from self incrimination.
<quoted text>

why do you think packing the US Supreme Court is so necessary to the Right & the Left which was even needed for FDR because the SCOTUS kept ruling against the New Deal legistlation as Unconstitutional until FDR threaten to remove the justices from the SCOTUS by having congress legistlate their removal by issuing age limits and by even adding more justices to the SCOTUS to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation since the US Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court.

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedu...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Court Packing" Plan

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history...

[Anonymous of Indy]

Eric Gustafson wrote:

The Felon violated Federal Law, of which the Federal prosecutors would have never convicted the felon without his cooperation. The 5th Amendment protects that felon and any other citizen from being being made a witness and supplying evidence against themselves in a court of law.
Whether you're a felon or not, you are protected equally by the U.S. Constitution and it's the Supreme Courts' job to enforce those protections.
<quoted text>

Miles Edward Haynes broke the law on his own by possessing a firearm besides he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm which was the law.

[Anonymous of Indy]

Eric Gustafson wrote:

<quoted text>
Not exactly true, When Bush went into the White House the S&P 500 was January 22, 2001,... at 10,578. 20
When Bush Left on Jan 20, 2009 the S&P 500 was 7949
The Market was an indication of the Financial and Economic Collapse of America under the Bush policies. When you consider that at one point the S&P 500 was at 14,000, and for it to close out at 7949 when Bush left Washington was even more of an indication of how great a failure his presidency was.
For crying out loud, there had not been a collapse similar to the collapse of America since the Fall of the Roman Empire.
That's not much for the Republican supporters to be talking about, it is not as if anybody in the world forgot what the Bush policies did to the world's financial system.

Why Higher Unemployment Is Good for Stocks

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02...

[Eric Gustafson]

I don't see the correlation with the New Deal and, the 5th Amendment and it's protection against self incrimination.

It's pretty elementary...... You have the right to plead the 5th and not testify or witness against yourself.

You have the right to remain silence, anything you say can be used against you?

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>why do you think packing the US Supreme Court is so necessary to the Right & the Left which was even needed for FDR because the SCOTUS kept ruling against the New Deal legistlation as Unconstitutional until FDR threaten to remove the justices from the SCOTUS by having congress legistlate their removal by issuing age limits and by even adding more justices to the SCOTUS to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation since the US Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court.
Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedu...
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Court Packing" Plan
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history...

[Anonymous of Indy]

Eric Gustafson wrote:

I don't see the correlation with the New Deal and, the 5th Amendment and it's protection against self incrimination.
It's pretty elementary...... You have the right to plead the 5th and not testify or witness against yourself.
You have the right to remain silence, anything you say can be used against you?
<quoted text>

new liberal thinking.

[Anonymous of Indy]

Eric Gustafson wrote:

I don't see the correlation with the New Deal and, the 5th Amendment and it's protection against self incrimination.
It's pretty elementary...... You have the right to plead the 5th and not testify or witness against yourself.
You have the right to remain silence, anything you say can be used against you?
<quoted text>

all your trying to is justify the Failed SCOTUS liberal thinking that has failed US Society.

In Haynes v. U.S.(1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon."

The Court concluded:

•We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.

•If mandatory gun registration can't be used to punish ex-felons in possession of a firearm, what purpose does such a law serve? If mandatory gun registration can only be used to punish people that can legally possess a gun, why bother?

•The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration

•What Im reading here is that any known felon would not have to register a weapon because its a violation of his 5th amendment. you figure out the rest for yourself.
The second kicker is that the new laws now protect the felon from registry and of course will have little to no effect on crime.


FELONS DONT HAVE TO REGISTER KIDS- YOU DO!

http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politic...

Here this article makes a good point about Haynes vs United States and the issue with convicts and the direction this New Left with their moderen Liberala are taking this country.

Lawsuit targets New York's post-Sandy Hook gun law

Under the law, the failure to register a gun is a class E felony. The suit claims that the provision violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because it could force a gun owner who registers late to effectively admit to committing a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled in Haynes v. United States that felons and others who are prohibited from possessing guns could not be forced to incriminate themselves through registration.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/us-...

[truman]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
He wants to register them in the Take The Country The White Man Built Away From The White Man party.
And, they'll have no problem joining that party.
Republican RINOs are ignorant fools to think they can get any of that vote. The Democrats and all that they appeal to are racists. It's only us that adhere to the philosophy that a person is only what they do. They can only think in terms of race... like Hitler, for one example of a type mentality similar to them.

A ham handed Hitler analogy.
You truly are a dimwit spoon fed on Fox Mind Poison arent you?

[truman]

Eric Gustafson wrote:

<quoted text>
Not exactly true, When Bush went into the White House the S&P 500 was January 22, 2001,... at 10,578. 20
When Bush Left on Jan 20, 2009 the S&P 500 was 7949
The Market was an indication of the Financial and Economic Collapse of America under the Bush policies. When you consider that at one point the S&P 500 was at 14,000, and for it to close out at 7949 when Bush left Washington was even more of an indication of how great a failure his presidency was.
For crying out loud, there had not been a collapse similar to the collapse of America since the Fall of the Roman Empire.
That's not much for the Republican supporters to be talking about, it is not as if anybody in the world forgot what the Bush policies did to the world's financial system.

Well,you see a RATIONAL person could'nt forget.
However if you are a 2013 brand 'Conservative'you can simply ignore Objective Reality and re-write history and pretend ALL our problems started in January 2009.....
Republicans are genetically incapable of accepting responsibilty or owning ANY negative consquences for which their alde-pated idealogy is responsible ... which is why their default mode is blanket denial and point the finger elsewhere.... ANYWHERE else.

[Stoneman]

Al "Sex Poodle" Gore goes on Letterman, etc. to sell his worthless book. The fawning leftist show hosts delicately ask about how such a brilliant priest of the Global Warming Religion can justify such an apparent hypocrisy, selling his kooky Socialist/Democrat propaganda TV station to an oil-based country. How can he do this? Isn't oil (and rich, white, bald Conservative men) EVIL?

His answer: "I disagree with the assessment". End of discussion.

Oh. Okay. That should do it.

Explains how leftists can consider Princess Hillary to be a viable Secretary of State, responsible for defending the US in foriegn affairs, while remaining married to a man that humiliated her repeatedly by having his genitalia sucked and ejaculating in the face of a 20-year-old employee.

Leftists are clueless.

[barefoot2626]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>I understand it very well, he violated

FIFTH AMENDMENT.

You understand nothing.

You have a rant and you aren't going to allow facts to stand in your way.

[barefoot2626]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>why do you think packing the US Supreme Court is so necessary to the Right & the Left which was even needed for FDR because the SCOTUS kept ruling

... never interrupt a tea bagger on a rant...

Tell us about the black UN hellycopters, PA!