Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    First Amendment Fail — Raleigh Police: “Protesting is a non-essential activity”

    First Amendment Fail — Raleigh Police: “Protesting is a non-essential activity”

    Damn right it’s an essential activity! Our basic rights do not go away during a pandemic!

    Our Founding Fathers never once said that the rights given to us by our Creator go out the door in the case of a viral pandemic.

    In other words, the Constitution still exists and it still protects us from tyrants.

    The Raleigh Police Department had the nerve to tell someone on Twitter that protesting is a non-essential activity.

    I misspoke before when I said that the Constitution only applies to the federal government. I forgot that the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of said amendment.

    So what the actual fuck, Raleigh police?

    Just in case they delete it and so you can read it again:

    How do I fascism? Where is Occupy Wall Street? Where is Antifa?

    More importantly, how the hell do I Constitution?! The First Amendment specifically states:

    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.

    The right to protest and freely assemble is absolutely an essential activity!

    Do you know why the Founding Fathers added the freedom of assembly into the amendment? The tyrannical English monarchy also did not find protesting or freedom to assemble an essential activity. Quaker William Penn faced charges for simply preaching in public in 1670. The jury found him innocent, but it made the citizens realize that they have a right to assemble.

    Then right before the Revolutionary War, the monarchy made the British forces use their power to restrict protests after Parliament passed stupid taxes.

    The British forces did just that. In 1770 these forces committed the Boston Massacre. The British army quickly ended protests in New York and *gasp* North Carolina.

    The monarchy was not blind and knew the colonists could get rowdy. MOAR LAWS. The government tried to discourage future protests by implementing more asinine acts known as the Intolerable Acts here in America: Boston Port Act, Massachusetts Government Act, Administration of Justice Act, and Quartering Act (an expansion of the previous Quartering Act.)

    You better believe it pissed off the colonists. Instead of cowering and admitting defeat, the colonists got together and rebelled.

    The behavior by the Raleigh police department and the North Carolina government should piss off everyone. The shit that the government on all levels passed and forced down our throats during this pandemic should piss off everyone.

    The government at any level has no right to tell us what to do even when it’s supposedly for the common good.

    “Assessing the situation.” Bitch, please. People want to go back to work. They want to earn a living and provide for their families.

    As I’ve said before. You want more libertarians? This is how you get more libertarians!


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    “As I’ve said before. You want more libertarians? This is how you get more libertarians!” No one wants more Losertarians. The only thing they do is siphon enough votes from Republicans so Democrats win. Losertarians are basically liberals who don’t want to pay taxes.

      DaveGinOly in reply to bw222. | April 15, 2020 at 2:29 pm

      Unh, no. Libertarians actually believe in smaller and less intrusive government. That, perforce, would result in less taxation and fewer taxes. They don’t ask for government services at no cost to themselves.

      The Libertarian Party: Proof that at least some Americans tried to fix this country without resorting to violence.

    rdmdawg | April 14, 2020 at 8:09 pm

    Like I’ve said before, the Nuremberg Trials established the legal precedent that ‘I was following orders’ is never a sufficient defense. Arrest all these police officers.

    This was the ruling of the United States Supreme Court shortly after the “Civil War” in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which yet stands to this day:

    “The Constitution for the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace…at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine…was ever invented… than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the exigencies [emergencies/urgencies] of government.”

    pp. 120-121
    “…there is no law for the government of the citizens, the armies or the navy of the United States, within American jurisdiction, which is not contained in or derived from the Constitution.”

    p. 141
    In 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, a legal encyclopedia of United States law, suspension of the Constitution is prohibited, as follows:
    “It is sometimes argued that the existence of an emergency allows the existence and operation of powers, national or state, which violate the inhibitions of the Federal Constitution. The rule is quite otherwise. NO emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

    Section 71
    “…Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of an emergency…”

    Section 98
    Therefore, ANYONE who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights (to freely travel, peaceably assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) and/or attempts to enforce such suspension within the 50 independent, sovereign, continental United states of America is making war against our constitution(s) and, therefore, we, the people. They violate their constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity and that means ANYONE; even the Governor and President!

    “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” – Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (SCOTUS—1803)

    “An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.” – Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (SCOTUS—1879)

    “An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (SCOTUS—1886)

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (SCOTUS—1966)

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
    “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 177

    “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it

      Barry in reply to jaya. | April 14, 2020 at 10:01 pm

      Very Good, thanks!

      Sage in reply to jaya. | April 15, 2020 at 9:18 am

      All well and good, but tell that to “King” Donald, who — if had his way — would rule like a Putin or Xi Jinping. Remember Charles I

        SDN in reply to Sage. | April 15, 2020 at 10:00 am

        Translation: “I have no evidence of this. After all, I’m allowed to type it and publish it. If Trump really ruled like Putin or Xi (and my soyboy self couldn’t stop him), I’d have already disappeared.”

        Barry in reply to Sage. | April 15, 2020 at 1:48 pm

        Sage my ass. Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing. Your infected.

      DaveGinOly in reply to jaya. | April 15, 2020 at 2:44 pm

      Habeas corpus is the ONLY right (and a civil right, not a natural right) that the Constitution says can be suspended, and only when two separate criteria are met (during time of rebellion or invasion & when the public safety requires it). This fact, and the absence of any other such language with respect to other rights, strongly implies this is the ONLY right that can be suspended. (Otherwise language would exist such as, “Other rights may be suspended under other and various conditions as the legislature or chief executive shall determine.”)

    Wade Hampton | April 14, 2020 at 8:28 pm

    I was at the rally, with about 100-125 others. Very peaceful, observing safe distance. The head uniform officer came over at the beginning and said as long as we observed the rules everything was okay. Dumbest thing he said was, “since they can not tell who were family members, children could not be near their parents”. We had mothers with small children, how stupid is that. After an hour they must have gathered at least 100 cops, shut down the roads and ordered all to leave. I guess we interrupted the Governor’s haircut.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Wade Hampton. | April 15, 2020 at 8:40 am

      The “authorities” counted on your being polite, which you were. So, in the end, you were hassled.

      Antifa is not polite. BLM is not polite. “Revrunns” are not polite. “Community organizers” are not polite. In every one of those cases, the cops turn tail.

    “We have ways of making you not talk.”

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend