CHAZ/CHOP: Autonomous No Cop Zone and Commune Declared In Seattle - Render unto Warlord Raz what is owed to Warlord Raz

[AnOminous]

Funny how these politicians think laws can just be ignored when it inconveniences their agenda.

Not just laws, the fucking Constitution itself. The more flagrantly and deliberately unconstitutional shit I see, the more I think there should actually be a federal crime for contempt of Constitution and the people who do this should go to fucking prison.

Note: nearly every public official literally has to take an oath to defend the Constitution. So at the very least these clowns have taken an oath and then nearly immediately shat all over it.

 

[Carlton]

A city councilman in Seattle is demanding they fire only white cops.

View attachment 1456371

http://archive.md/y3KhL

Buh...but I thought ALL cops were bastards?

 

[introvertedobserver]

Not just laws, the fucking Constitution itself. The more flagrantly and deliberately unconstitutional shit I see, the more I think there should actually be a federal crime for contempt of Constitution and the people who do this should go to fucking prison.

Note: nearly every public official literally has to take an oath to defend the Constitution. So at the very least these clowns have taken an oath and then nearly immediately shat all over it.

Looked up the Seattle Council oath of office and yep, "Support the Constitution" is in there (state and federal).

But I'm not as surprised by politicians ignoring the constitution. Virtually all of them have at some point since the "normal" mindset shifted to "it's not unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional".

But curiously, which part of the Constitution would be violated by them firing predominately whites?14th and the equal protection clause? Cause the rest of the civil rights stuff is just law AFAIK.

 

[AnOminous]

But curiously, which part of the Constitution would be violated by them firing predominately whites?14th and the equal protection clause? Cause the rest of the civil rights stuff is just law AFAIK.

That's the most obvious but you'd also have substantive due process under the Fifth (as well as the more commonly used Fourteenth). There would also be all the state laws that also exist prohibiting expressly racial discrimination, as well as the state constitution. These motherfuckers seem to think they can just break the law with impunity, though.

 

[Garm]

That won't fly (reading the full archive). It's against federal law to fire/lay people off because their race (against Washington law too). So if race was provably a factor in layoff decisions (and a deliberate decision like this to retain minorities and lay off mostly whites would be, easily), Seattle'd be slapped with a class action lawsuit. And a bunch of white cops suing for wrongful termination, getting their jobs back, and the department would have to fall back to seniority rules to decide layoffs (since that's race neutral). It'd just be a tremendous waste of time and money.

Funny how these politicians think laws can just be ignored when it inconveniences their agenda.

It does seem that a lot of their plans revolve around the notion "people will sit back and allow me to do this."

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

It does seem that a lot of their plans revolve around the notion "people will sit back and allow me to do this."

Or to take it one step further, a lot of their plans are outright ridiculous because they know it has no chance to get implemented. It's the intent that counts, nobody has the attention span to follow up on whether they actually did it or not.

 

[Pampered Degenerate]

Not just laws, the fucking Constitution itself. The more flagrantly and deliberately unconstitutional shit I see, the more I think there should actually be a federal crime for contempt of Constitution and the people who do this should go to fucking prison.

Note: nearly every public official literally has to take an oath to defend the Constitution. So at the very least these clowns have taken an oath and then nearly immediately shat all over it.

I don't know about putting them in prison, but if they act in a way which is later legally demonstrated to be unconstitutional then they should lose their job by default due to breach of contract.

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

I don't know about putting them in prison, but if they act in a way which is later legally demonstrated to be unconstitutional then they should lose their job by default due to breach of contract.

That (and AnOminious' stance) could cause a lot of issues, what happens if the SCotUS revereses a previous decision (e.g. the Death penalty), or it was just one section of a wider law that was just ruled unconstitutional? It is one things of its broad deliberate acts, but some times its smaller maybe not deliberate things.

The real issue on Constitutional Law is that in order to have your case heard (like in all lawsuits) is that you need to prove that you as a person were harmed, yet the Goverment will cry "State secret" in discovery, Constitutional law should work on the idea "is there a chance this harms the US Constitution if allowed to continue" or something along those lines.

 

[Jump]

A city councilman in Seattle is demanding they fire only white cops.

View attachment 1456371

http://archive.md/y3KhL

This is great. The woke crowed vs public sector UNIONS. A core value of UNIONS is Last in, First to go. Everything is based on seniority. There are binding labor contracts here.
Unions are a major Democrat base. Yes Lisa, blow that all up please.

 

[Standardized Profile]

Looked up the Seattle Council oath of office and yep, "Support the Constitution" is in there (state and federal).

But I'm not as surprised by politicians ignoring the constitution. Virtually all of them have at some point since the "normal" mindset shifted to "it's not unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional".

But curiously, which part of the Constitution would be violated by them firing predominately whites?14th and the equal protection clause? Cause the rest of the civil rights stuff is just law AFAIK.

Conservatives view the Constitution as a restriction on the power of the government, which is what the Framers intended. The more esoteric civnats look at the Constitution as the embodiment of the norms that constitute our nation. Lincoln said this was a new nation, conceived in liberty, and the Constitution is that nation's birth certificate. To both, the Constitution is definitive. It delineates the boundaries of Federal power, or it describes the distinctive values of the American people. (These are not mutually exclusive.) To depart from the Constitution is to depart from the lawful exercise of power or from the mores of the American people.

Liberals and other statists view the Constitution as a toolbox. It's an imperfect toolbox, lacking some of the more obscure widgets and gadgets, but they are content to improvise with what they have. And the nature of improvisational power is that it doesn't have to be consistent. You want to nationalize the health care system? The Constitution says something about general welfare, let's use that. You want to deploy Federal troops to enforce Supreme Court rulings or send militarized police to abduct a child? Use the Supremacy Clause. You don't want to cooperate with Federal law enforcement, or maybe you just want them to stop enforcing Federal statutes and go home? Use the 10th Amendment. All races should be treated equally by the law? 14th Amendment. All races are unequal and should be treated disparately by the law? Also 14th Amendment. They found a right to privacy to protect abortions, but lost it when they wanted to read your email.

That's why we're polarized. It's not disagreements about mere policy. We can't agree on the constitutive elements of our society, how we even make decisions about how it ought to be run. One faction asks "what can we do under the law," and the other asks, "how can we make the law do this?"

 

[AnOminous]

That (and AnOminious' stance) could cause a lot of issues, what happens if the SCotUS revereses a previous decision (e.g. the Death penalty), or it was just one section of a wider law that was just ruled unconstitutional? It is one things of its broad deliberate acts, but some times its smaller maybe not deliberate things.

The real issue on Constitutional Law is that in order to have your case heard (like in all lawsuits) is that you need to prove that you as a person were harmed, yet the Goverment will cry "State secret" in discovery, Constitutional law should work on the idea "is there a chance this harms the US Constitution if allowed to continue" or something along those lines.

Yes, it's called standing. You don't get to just go around suing the government because you don't like its decisions or have a low opinion of them, you actually have to demonstrate harm (in the vast majority of cases). Also legislatures are generally immune for nearly everything they do, and there are good arguments for this being the case but there are also reasonable arguments that some of these motherfuckers should be dancing on the gibbet.

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

Yes, it's called standing. You don't get to just go around suing the government because you don't like its decisions or have a low opinion of them, you actually have to demonstrate harm (in the vast majority of cases). Also legislatures are generally immune for nearly everything they do, and there are good arguments for this being the case but there are also reasonable arguments that some of these motherfuckers should be dancing on the gibbet.

I agree, but when you have things like mass warrantless surveillance of communications, there is no real ability for a citizen to show standing because everything is a "state secret" even though it violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. (See ACLU v. NSA, where appeals court ruled 2-1 "The plaintiffs -- a group of journalists, scholars and legal advocates -- had no legal standing to pursue their claims because they could not show they were targeted by the National Security Agency's warrantless spying program")

 

[AnOminous]

I agree, but when you have things like mass warrantless surveillance of communications, there is no real ability for a citizen to show standing because everything is a "state secret" even though it violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. (See ACLU v. NSA, where appeals court ruled 2-1 "The plaintiffs -- a group of journalists, scholars and legal advocates -- had no legal standing to pursue their claims because they could not show they were targeted by the National Security Agency's warrantless spying program")

That's the kind of ruling I mean when I'm not incredibly enthusiastic about standing doctrine. That's the kind of ruling that makes you think we should just seize "standing" by force in cases like that.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

I agree, but when you have things like mass warrantless surveillance of communications, there is no real ability for a citizen to show standing because everything is a "state secret" even though it violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. (See ACLU v. NSA, where appeals court ruled 2-1 "The plaintiffs -- a group of journalists, scholars and legal advocates -- had no legal standing to pursue their claims because they could not show they were targeted by the National Security Agency's warrantless spying program")

That's the sort of Catch 22 doublethink bullshit you'd expect from the UK government, not the US one.

 

[RA-5C Vigilante]

Just fucking nuke Seattle and everyone in it. There will be collateral, but collateral happens with the assurance the target is wiped.

 

[ElAbominacion]

That's the kind of ruling I mean when I'm not incredibly enthusiastic about standing doctrine. That's the kind of ruling that makes you think we should just seize "standing" by force in cases like that.

How do you feel about the McCluskies? Late to the conversation, but I figure that the action of illegally confiscating their guns and charging them with a nonexistent crime should be enough for that kind of action?

 

[AnOminous]

How do you feel about the McCluskies? Late to the conversation, but I figure that the action of illegally confiscating their guns and charging them with a nonexistent crime should be enough for that kind of action?

Got a link? I don't know this case.

 

[ElAbominacion]

Got a link? I don't know this case.

Police seize rifle from St. Louis couple who pulled guns on protesters

Mark and Patricia McCloskey went viral last month after brandishing weapons at a group protesting police brutality and actions by the city's mayor.

www.nbcnews.com

Essentially, St. Louis' DA decided to make an example out of people who decide to defend their private property.

 

[AnOminous]

Police seize rifle from St. Louis couple who pulled guns on protesters

Mark and Patricia McCloskey went viral last month after brandishing weapons at a group protesting police brutality and actions by the city's mayor.

www.nbcnews.com

Essentially, St. Louis' DA decided to make an example out of people who decide to defend their private property.

This is why we need Stand Your Ground laws in every state. And everyone needs to be educated on castle doctrine. Note, they're "McCloskey" not "McClusky."

This shit is why people shouldn't even live in the suburbs of absolute shithole cities like St. Louis.

 

[ElAbominacion]

Even the actions by the presumed soon-to-be prosecution are illegal under their fucking state law, unless I am interpreting this wrong, but:


Missouri Revised Statutes Title XXXVIII. Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders § 563.041. Use of physical force in defense of property


1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.