Image 01 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.


Here’s the MOST alarming thing about all of this.

All of the people involved in creating and signing these state executive orders and those who are enforcing them, like these cops,

every one of them,


Think about that. They swore (probably on a Bible, dressed in nice clothing while their family members looked on with pride and admiration) that their volitionally-taken oath meant something.

    4fun in reply to pfg. | April 14, 2020 at 8:42 pm

    I wish the rest of the population would get as upset over the infringements on the 2nd Amendment.
    Too many give Me security and safety in exchange for my freedoms types.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to pfg. | April 15, 2020 at 2:10 am

    The only solution to this tyranny and the police being used as their private Army by corrupt politicians is to Outsource all police functions to for-profit companies.

    I can already hear the critics griping they’re centuries-old complaints, but you can’t fight City Hall is the saying that came about because of the collusion of corrupt politicians and their using a police as their private Army.

    With Outsourcing to private for-profit companies it will be much easier for citizens to sue tyrannical cops following the illegal edicts of dictator wannabe Mayors and governors.

    rickmcinnis in reply to pfg. | April 15, 2020 at 8:56 am

    You must realize there is the Constitution and the other one the DIMs call OUR Constitution.

    They are very different.

    Sanddog in reply to pfg. | April 15, 2020 at 9:41 am

    In my state, this is a unilateral action by the Governor. We’ve already had our first shutdown suicide, a small business owner in my town. I guess those deaths are okay, as long as they didn’t have the Wuhan virus at the time.

Yes and no.

No the Raleigh municipal government cannot lawfully prevent a peaceful assembly.

Yes they can limit the size of the assembly, within reasonable constraints based upon the size of the area utilized for that assembly, consistent with social distancing.

The government is required to implement every order infringing on constitutionally protected rights/activities in a neutral manner and in the least intrusive, least restrictive manner reasonably possible.

    Sanddog in reply to CommoChief. | April 15, 2020 at 9:42 am

    I don’t recall seeing a “coronavirus exception” in the 1st amendment. Can you point it out for me?

      CommoChief in reply to Sanddog. | April 15, 2020 at 4:56 pm


      As a general matter no constitutional right is infinite or absolute. Here is an example.

      Speech and religious exercise;
      Person A belongs to a religious group whose beliefs require him to proselytize in potential adherents homes. Person B owns a home and refuses entry to Person A.

      Has Person A been prevented from exercising his religious beliefs by Person B? Heck yes and it is absolutely, 100% constitutional.

        Sanddog in reply to CommoChief. | April 15, 2020 at 5:37 pm

        Again, where does it actually say that in the bill of rights? You’re talking about the opinions of politicians and judges, not what the law actually says.

          CommoChief in reply to Sanddog. | April 15, 2020 at 6:33 pm


          I provided you an easy example of how rights intersect and can conflict with each other. Your response seems to indicate that you either don’t understand the example or wish to ignore it.

          Let’s try an example of peaceful assembly.

          Your group wants to congregate at an event to discuss the state of constitutional rights, vote on a platform for change and select leadership of your group. Your group rents a meeting place with a fire code capacity of fifty (50) persons. On the day of the event two hundred (200) people show up to participate. The fire marshal and local police inform your group that the occupancy limit is fifty (50) persons.

          Have the remaining 150 persons, who were forced by local fire and PD to leave the rented event site, had their right to assemble violated? No, your group could have rented an event venue with a larger capacity.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Sanddog. | April 15, 2020 at 9:16 pm

          CommoChief’s arguments are nonsensical. The US restricts the government to act in certain ways. It confers no positive rights to anyone. The 1st amendment does convey the right of anyone to do anything, it simply restricts the government from doing so.

          If someone entered private property without the consent of the owner of that property to speak, the government does not arrest the person because of their speech, but for criminal trespass.

          CommoChief in reply to Sanddog. | April 15, 2020 at 10:25 pm

          Brave Sir Robin,

          You almost got it. The person trying to exercise his 1st Amendment rights of free exercise of religion would be arrested, by the PD, for trespassing.

          That person’s religious exercise would be curtailed, not for religious liberty reasons but because his rights are in conflict with the rights of the homeowner.

          This illustrates clearly that constitutional rights are not infinite or absolute. The old saw is ‘your rights end where my rights begin.’

          The government can prevent the exercise of rights in specific and unusual circumstances. But, very big but, it must do so by articulating an actual ‘governmental interest’ (community really) and it must be applied in a very narrow circumstance, in a neutral manner and in very reasonable way.

          They can’t, lawfully, simply decree that grocery stores can stay open if they use social distancing and limit capacity to 25% of occupancy but a Church can’t even if it follows the same guidelines. That is very much a constitutional no no.

          Some of these little tin gods are going to find that out through the commuting lawsuits and DoJ involvement.

        Tionico in reply to CommoChief. | April 16, 2020 at 3:48 pm

        Your example is of one private individual within his own private domain, where HE is king. HIS dirt, HIS rules.

        The Constitution restrains GOVERNMENT not private citizens acting in their own domains. GOVERNMENT can never prohibit or restrict the activities listed in the Bill of Rights, and as mengioned, that BOR is incorporated per the 14th Article of Ammendment to EACH of the several states.

        Here we have agents of the government of the State of North Carolina prohibiting outright activity proteced by that First ARtcile o Ammendment. NOT CRICKET And Actionable by the private citizens whose RIGHTS are clearly denied.

        If I am, say, the governor of a state, I have some authority assigned me by the legislature and Cosntitutions. I may ONLY act within those limits. At the same time, when I am in my own provate residende I can delimit the conduct of others in any way I please. I can tell the salesman or proselytiser at the front door to take his ideas and values elswwhere. But as governor in my official capacity I MAY NOT DO THAT>

        TheNguyens in reply to CommoChief. | April 18, 2020 at 5:49 pm

        Person B infringed person A’s 1st amendment right? Don’t you think person B have his right/freedom of associates, or none there of?

First ammendment does not protect the right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater (although moot, since there are no more crowded theaters.)

Second ammendment does not grant me right to own machine guns or thermonuclear weapons.

Our rights, as enumerate Ted in the bill of rights, are not absolute. Government may, under some limited circumstances, infringe upon those rights.

    fscarn in reply to coolway. | April 14, 2020 at 5:42 pm

    You’re omitting the key word, “falsely.”

    Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

    If I’m in a theatre and there’s an actual fire in it, I sure hope someone raises the alarm.

      coolway in reply to fscarn. | April 14, 2020 at 6:20 pm

      I hereby ammend my previous comment to insert the word ‘falsely’ in the appropriate place.

      My main point stands.

        Firewatch in reply to coolway. | April 15, 2020 at 4:44 pm

        Actually you can own a machinegun. They are expensive and there is paperwork involved, but you can own one.

    Barry in reply to coolway. | April 14, 2020 at 5:49 pm

    Of course you can shout “fire” in a crowded theatre.

    A theatre on fire is a danger to the theatre patrons. Alerting them is certainly within your constitutional god given rights.

      coolway in reply to Barry. | April 14, 2020 at 6:22 pm

      I swear, if I said the sky is blue you would argue that at sunset it might be orange or magenta. Way to miss the point, Barry.

        Barry in reply to coolway. | April 14, 2020 at 9:48 pm

        I didn’t miss the point idiot. The discussion was about a right enshrined in the constitution as the 1st amendment including this: “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” which has zero to do with yelling fire in a theatre, and yelling fire in a theatre falsely has nothing to do with the right to speak freely.

        In other words, your comment was stupid and is thusly treated as it should be.

        Barry in reply to coolway. | April 14, 2020 at 9:49 pm

        The sky is not “blue”,

        it is Carolina blue.

      MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | April 14, 2020 at 10:21 pm

      I like it. Thanks. I always thought the fire argument was BS. I believe you can be held accountable for speech that creates damaging action through malice, but the government can not prevent you from saying it. So if you yell fire in a theater and it causes harm, you become the target of one big class action suit for the damages you cause including my time and expected experience at the theater. Is that not what tort law is all about. Think about it, if nobody is in the theater and you yell “fire” is there a problem? Or your friends yell at you to just shut up?

      The right is to speak, not what is spoken. What is spoken is the responsibility of the owner of speech.

    onlyabill in reply to coolway. | April 14, 2020 at 6:32 pm

    Not sure what you are “editing” with your add on comment below…

    You do have the right to own automatic weapons. Ragean put some (In my opinion wrong and should be removed) restrictions on them but you still can and many do.

      4fun in reply to onlyabill. | April 14, 2020 at 8:51 pm

      Check out the voice vote, the dems faked the ayes on the machine gun ban. It’s on a youtube video, kind of hard to find but was still there a while ago.
      Democrats, liars from birth to death. And death never stops them from voting.

    alaskabob in reply to coolway. | April 14, 2020 at 7:12 pm

    No one can falsely yell fire as noted… but THANK YOU for letting me say this:

    1) We do not ban people with loud voices or voices that can carry from entering the theater.
    2) We do not muzzle people prior to letting them enter the theater

    Your mischaracterization of 2A is classic! And cheap….

      alaskabob in reply to alaskabob. | April 14, 2020 at 7:18 pm

      At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, a citizen could own a warship, cannon and any weapon of war. At the time of the Spanish American War, Hearst bought and outfitted a warship and gave it to the Navy to use in the invasion of Cuba. Tiffany’s donated Colt “Potato Digger” machine guns to the Rough Riders. Only with the freeing of slaves did the “need” arise to keep the Black American “in their place”.

    gospace in reply to coolway. | April 14, 2020 at 8:27 pm

    …Second ammendment does not grant me right to own machine guns or thermonuclear weapons….

    Funny thing about that. Citizens did have the right to own machine guns, and could even mail order them and have them delivered to their home. Right up until the moment they didn’t.

    Without a single change in the words of the second amendment, but a decision of judges that the words didn’t actually mean exactly what the words say, but they meant subject, to of course, reasonable restrictions.

    4fun in reply to coolway. | April 14, 2020 at 8:48 pm

    Machine guns aren’t considered arms? Reread the 2nd.
    As for thermonuclear weapons they aren’t considered arms. And it’s the stupidest argument gun grabbers have ever made.
    First off we should ask you, as you’re so assuredly against personally owned nuclear bombs, where does one purchase such a bomb and exactly how much should we expect to pay for one? Can we all afford to buy one on our regular paychecks?
    Tell us, how much would you have to earn to keep “your” thermonuclear bomb operable? They require maintenance, lots of expensive maintenance.

    Obie1 in reply to coolway. | April 15, 2020 at 10:23 am

    Nonsense, I know many people who legally own machine guns–if I could afford one, I would, too. The first A does not prohibit one from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater–the justice’s opinion only means that someone who does so may be prosecuted after the fact.

    DaveGinOly in reply to coolway. | April 15, 2020 at 1:39 pm

    It’s becoming tiring responding to these tropes.

    You can yell “fire” in a crowded theater. It is not illegal, the government cannot stop you. Why? Because the theater may be on fire. Only when your intent is to cause unnecessary injury and harm have you committed a CRIME – in which case your yelling “fire” was NOT the exercise a right, it was a criminal act. Exercise of a right DOES NOT intentionally cause injury to innocent parties. This distinguishes the exercise of a right from a crime – you are comparing apples to oranges. This reminds me of people who equate the right to arms with a “right” (actually a CRIME) to commit mass murder. And that’s exactly what you did.

    If the right to arms is essentially unlimited, does that mean I have a right to a nuclear weapon? The question stumped me for a long time. But I developed an answer years ago: If you can describe to me a situation in which a nuclear weapon is essential to my survival, and I could deploy the weapon in such a manner that it produced zero collateral damage (no harm to innocent people or their property), then yes, I do have a right to a nuclear weapon. Because I not only have an absolute right to my life (and therefore its defense), I also have a right to the tools necessary to protect my life, so long as in the process of using those tools I do no harm to any innocent party. However the question is entirely academic because no such scenario exists.

    The people who pose the question ask it with an unstated major premise – that the person asserting an unfettered right to arms is asserting a right to cause collateral damage, and that is simply not true.

    Tionico in reply to coolway. | April 16, 2020 at 3:56 pm

    Go and learn the meaning of the word “arms” at the time and place of the drafting of the Bill of Rights. It meant “weapons of MILITARY USEFULNESS able to be transported and deployed by the action of a single individual.

    Yuo may not realise this, but there WERE semiatuomatic, and even at least one FULLY automatic, rifle in existnce and use in the 1780’s. So your point utterly fails.

    ANY weapon I can deploy and use operating by myself that “is of military usefulness” is included wihtin that Second Article of Ammendment. Fully automatic fifty caliber belt fed machine gun? It fits into that category. I can own and use it. Per the meaning of that Second Article.

    As to the poor example of FIRE in a crowded theatre…. don’t be ridiculous. Don’t forget, I can FIRE my weapon in a public place without restriction.. but I am ALSO responsible for the harm done by so doing. I can legally and safely fire my rifle on my property where I live. But if I corss the next street to the south, for some insane reason no one can articulare, that is a NO SHOOTING zone, and per the strict letter of the law I mayn’t even fore my handgun at someone directly and immediately threatening me with a machete. There is no discernible difference between MY property and the equivalent land two lots to the south.

    Thus the government that emplaces that resti=riction is wrong.

Nuremberg defense- superior orders.

Isn’t this an applicable precedent in US jurist prudence? And can it be used to strip the sovereign collective or individual right of police officers claims of ‘just following orders’?

    Tiki in reply to Tiki. | April 14, 2020 at 5:46 pm

    *police officer immunity from tort liability.

      bear in reply to Tiki. | April 14, 2020 at 6:01 pm

      With all respect, Tiki, the jurisdictions in which they operate, and whose orders they “follow,” are not immune.

        Tiki in reply to bear. | April 14, 2020 at 6:28 pm

        I’m posing questions, not stating facts. I could use some help understanding this stuff.

        So, with all due respect, why are you being a snotty jackass?

    fscarn in reply to Tiki. | April 14, 2020 at 6:08 pm

    One of the strengths of our republican form of government is that each officer in which public trust is placed takes it upon his/her shoulders to do his/her duty. The Article VI oath – and the counterpart oath taken by state officials pertaining to that state’s own constitution – is taken individually. It is an affirmative duty of EACH officer to follow the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it. The duty imposed is personal, not dependent on what superiors do.

    This is a bulwark against tyranny. If, like General Ripper,

    “. . . Well now, what happened is… ahm… one of our base commanders [Ripper], he had a sort of… well, he went a little funny in the head… you know… just a little… funny. And, ah… he went and did a silly thing… Well, I’ll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes… to attack your country . . .”

    a higher-up went a little funny, oh say like taking away your 1A rights, then the officers under that higher-up, each one having taken the constitutional oath independently, would step up and step in and prevent the violation of citizen protections.

    The scary thing, as a commentator above noted, all of these line officers are mindlessly falling in line. They are NOT living up to their own oaths.

    So wtf good are they for? They’re serving the state, not the people.

      pfg in reply to fscarn. | April 14, 2020 at 6:24 pm

      As proof that the oath is personal, here’s the oath required (5 USC section 3331) for federal office holders (states ones are similar),

      “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

      The personal pronoun “I” is used six times.

        oldgoat36 in reply to pfg. | April 14, 2020 at 7:18 pm

        The original thought with these enumerated rights were that the rights were collective rights, with individual responsibility imposed on the people. Now all we hear is an individual’s rights while there is collective responsibility.

        That is a major difference. It up ends the whole idea of what a right actually is, and shares responsibility to a point where it becomes meaningless. Now responsibility means virtually nothing to the politician who does an act contrary to the will of the people and claims responsibility for it. The politician bears little to no responsibility for it.

        This is why we see such behavior from the police and the politicians who act in this manner.

        It is beyond time to rise against the fascism we are seeing from many of these governors and their agents. To place limits and behavioral expectations to protect people from is a far different thing from separating people from their livelihoods. While unemployment wages gives you something, it doesn’t give you healthcare, unless you pay for it out of your diminished unemployment check. It doesn’t put food on the table, and allow you pay all your bills. This “stimulus check” is a drop in the bucket toward helping to pay for those who lose their wages due to this shutdown.

        If the government has a good reason for this shutdown, we should be told what it really is, or let us get back to work while responsibly mitigating exposure.

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

        It is also notable for what is missing:
        Not swearing to uphold statute
        Not swearing to abide by the Constitution as interpreted by another party
        Not swearing to follow the orders of any other person, office, or authority

        Some complain, “You want every cop and ever private soldier to determine for himself what orders are constitutional and which are not?”
        Yes, I do. The beauty is that in so doing, the cop or private soldier is not permitted to do what he thinks is right, but is required to NOT DO THAT WHICH HE BELIEVES IS WRONG.

Let’s see them shut down a BLM protest !

The problem revolves in part around the use of the term ‘non-essential.’ Restrictions shouldn’t be based on essential vs non-essential activities. They should be around high-risk vs low risk activities.

THIS is what governments throughout the country screwed up. They thought they could and should decide what matters, rather than what will help keep people safe(r).

THIS is what they need to have explained to them (repeatedly and emphatically) before the next pandemic or other emergency hits!

    4fun in reply to irv. | April 14, 2020 at 8:58 pm

    I think the only explanation they’ll understand is to be voted out by a huge margin and then ridiculed so much they leave their fascist dreams of owning the population forever.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to 4fun. | April 15, 2020 at 2:20 am

      HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to 4fun. | April 15, 2020 at 8:32 am

      Point at them and laugh wherever they go. Restaurants, grocery stores, sidewalks, wherever. Make their lives pure hell.

in the Army, they told us we had an obligation to ignore illegal orders.

that’s why i refuse to obey the orders of Gavin Useless and Garshitty to stay home, and, if i do go out, to wear a mask.

i’m an American, and i’ll decide for myself what’s best for me.

The local police follow the orders, like sheep, of their hired superiors. In Portland, OR, cops, city and county and the health dept. took no action against the occupy anarchists, ignoring all laws and local ordinances, including vicious attacks on a well known reporter. They watched and did nothing as elderly people were attacked in their car. In that particular incident, they went after the elderly couple. Cops are a disgrace to their oaths as well as their sworn duty to “protect and serve.” The local courts support the lawless. None of the criminal left ever see any jail time.

Lefty politicians have their very own tax-paid gestapo at the ready.

And they wonder why firearms sales are continuing to spike.

Hey Raleigh Police>/b>

You are a dumb bunch of dim bulbs.

Citizen of North Carolina

Boot licking conservatives finally realizing how corrupt cops are. Good.

    Barry in reply to cgray451. | April 14, 2020 at 9:55 pm

    “boot lickers” are always progs. They always line up the same way.

    zennyfan in reply to cgray451. | April 14, 2020 at 10:41 pm

    I think the term is “badge-licking,” but I otherwise agree!

    cgray451 in reply to cgray451. | April 15, 2020 at 7:25 am

    12 down votes so far. Some people are simply conditioned to start groveling whenever they see a snazzy government costume.

      Barry in reply to cgray451. | April 15, 2020 at 1:45 pm

      You collect downvotes like S%^T collects flies, and for about the same reason.

      Conservatives support the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. In that it is expected that law enforcement will act in accordance with the constitution. When they don’t we point it out and condemn it. Many of us commenting at LI have a long provable history of condemning law enforcement when it is warranted.

      You made an unfounded and stupid comment.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to cgray451. | April 15, 2020 at 8:34 am

    One doesn’t see a lot of those “Support Your Local Police” stickers anymore. Gee. I wonder why.

I will guarantee if there was a large minority presence there would be no police action.

2smartforlibs | April 14, 2020 at 6:20 pm

Brute squad, meet Bill Barr DOJ

Subotai Bahadur | April 14, 2020 at 6:44 pm

I am reminded of an old song, to the tune of an even older song called “Jefferson and Liberty”.

The Night of Fire is yet to come,
The Tyrant’s Shadow down the years,
Demands we kneel or take the gun,
And go shed Blood instead of our Tears.”

The fools who are making peaceful seeking of redress of grievances impossible, are going to convince people that such is never possible. If the First Amendment can be voided simply by an official’s declaration, then the game is very, very different and in a way that the official is not going to like.

Subotai Bahadur

Umm, in this case I’d have to differ. The police may be ignorant, and Constitutional rights are not optional, but government does have the right to restrict the time, place and manner of speech. Just so long as the restrictions are consistent and not dependent on the content of that speech.

And it’s a good thing, too. For otherwise you’d have no recourse if/when someone parked a sound truck under your bedroom window and blasted away (something or other) at you all night long.

    alaskabob in reply to Albigensian. | April 14, 2020 at 7:23 pm

    I would disagree but time, place and manner can be so warped as to be useless. OK… 1 AM, in a small muny parking lot and only when shuffling feet. Demonstrations are to be seen and heard… only constraint is “peaceable”.

    We’ve seen that in action in California and other places where they restrict the access to a venue and allow antifa free rein to assault the attendees.
    Or they charge a huge police and insurance premium for the speaker to have the stage.

    Barry in reply to Albigensian. | April 14, 2020 at 9:57 pm

    There are laws against disturbing the peace. That covers your window unless you happen to live in the town square where you will just have to put up with citizens voicing their opinions.

    I believe the 2nd would take care of that

    DaveGinOly in reply to Albigensian. | April 15, 2020 at 2:25 pm

    Someone else, I see, who conflates rights with crimes because they sometimes bear a superficial resemblance to one another.

Remember, kids! The police are your friends! ?

“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.

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.”

Contact Gov. Roy Cooper:
Phone: 919/814-2000
Fax: 919/733-2120

Raleigh City Mgr. Office
[email protected]
[email protected]

I wonder how many of the Sovereign Citizen types are boldly going about their “1st amendment audits” during this time?

    Sanddog in reply to windbag. | April 15, 2020 at 9:44 am

    My town has one. He’s done a couple of “audits” in the last few weeks. He only really ran into trouble when he decided to film people entering the hospital for possible coronavirus testing.

SuddenlyHappyToBeHere | April 15, 2020 at 9:45 am

No surprise here. Never forget that this is North Carolina. There are monuments to Confederate generals. More that 100 still stand. Monument to secession and trying to preserve slavery.

Never forget that it is, notwithstanding the influx of Northerners, a State full of crackers. Get out of Charlotte with all its banking business and you will find the descendants of slave owners everywhere. And they still have their cracker attitudes.

These cops just reflect the state motto, ‘Once a Cracker, Always a Cracker”.

No surprise here. Never forget that this is North Carolina. There are monuments to Confederate generals. More that 100 still stand. Monument to secession and trying to preserve slavery.

ah, the words above from yet another brain-washed twit/apologist

the monuments to which you refer(and we have many here as well) exist to honor the bravery/sacrifice of those involved–on both sides of the conflict

honor, or more specifically valor, exist independent of the reasons/intentions of any particular conflict

is obvious from your comments that you are unfamiliar with honor or valor so would suggest you follow clement’s advice
and remain silent

From Article I of the NC Constitution: Sec. 12. Right of assembly and petition.

The people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances; but secret political societies are dangerous to the liberties of a free people and shall not be tolerated.

These people were not part of a secret society like the KKK so they were within their rights as Tar Heels to assemble and apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances.

Americans need to start pushing back against draconian lockdowns and socialist governors/mayors who initiate and enforce them. The herd mentality that has swept the nation and imprisoned Americans across the country does not have the proper evidentiary basis, and the precedent, if left unchallenged, can and will be abused in the future. Public outcry should be widespread and loud. Time to get rid of these socialistic governors who take away your rights and freedoms documented in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our Country fought hard for these rights and I will be damned if these communists can take it away. People can be responsible for themselves and make their own decisions and we do not need a fraudulent press supporting fake models that lack verifiable support to assist the socialistic agenda! The coronavirus threat and the unfounded hysteria that has accompanied it will pass. But the specter of a pandemic offers a timely warning to remember that we are not necessarily any more immune from volatile nature—and humankind’s paranoid response to it—than were the ancients.

SuddenlyHappyToBeHere | April 15, 2020 at 12:05 pm

the monuments to which you refer(and we have many here as well) exist to honor the bravery/sacrifice of those involved–on both sides of the conflict

LOL! I should have added Texas to the list of states with idiots who think the Civil War was about “States Rights” or that these monuments honor bravery. Much as I love Texas, there are a whole lot of crackers there too.

These statues don’t honor “bravery”, they honor a South that was wished to “rise again”. The vast majority of them were erected by organizations such as Daughters of the Confederacy and other racist organizations wishing for a return to pre-Civil War life. They were erected as the defeat of Reconstruction was completed and the old Confederacy sought to impose Segregation upon the South in perpetuity.

Those statues are a slap in the face of every descendant of slaves in America. Same with so many of the State flags in the South in the 1950s being modified to include a version or an aspect of the Confederate battle flag. The South has several centuries of shameful history. It appears to still be there.

If these monuments honor bravery on both sides, why are there no monuments to Union soldiers in the South? Huh? HUH?

Content yourself with your self-delusion if you wish. But as to “honor and bravery” you haven’t the foggiest notion of me or my life, so probably best you not keep making a fool of yourself by opening your yap again.

    Hey moron –

    Whose family owned slaves at the start of the war? Lincoln or Davis?

    Which general most recent to the start of the war was a slaveowner? Grant or Lee?

    Which side funded (pre-war) 85% of the federal government while receiving 15% in return?

    Nice playing with you. Study history and then come back to get you rear handed to you again.

      SuddenlyHappyToBeHere in reply to Barry. | April 15, 2020 at 4:47 pm

      Ah, another Cracker Defender heard from! You were certainly looking in the mirror when you cast that “moron” invective.

      To your specifics:

      Lincoln never owned slaves. While he was born in KY, a slave state, he personally did not have them. That cracker fool Davis? Who cares? – his sin was complete with leading the confederacy.

      Lee had slaves and was a cruel master. Attempts by revisionists to create a mythology about him have been debunked. Here is an interesting article you might appreciate (but I doubt it):

      Grant did have a single slave before the North beat the ass of the South in the Civil War. And he freed that slave in 1859.

      I haven’t the foggiest idea what the South paid to the federal government, if indeed it paid 75% as you imply. Whatever those crackers paid was off the back of brutalized slave labor, under the cracking whip of the Cracker masters. To take some sort of pride or justification in that is truly a sign of a deranged understanding of the history of Cracker Nation.

      And it is also interesting that you choose a few anecdotes to attempt proof of something – though we are not sure what. You failed. You missed the point of the depth of racism that pervaded ad still is embedded in the South. The confederate flags, Segregation, etc.

      You can stop playing with yourself and think a bit more. Otherwise, go for it, cracker. But just remember, your attitude is what gives Republicans and conservatives a bad name and a racist label.

        Hundreds of thousands of Southerns lost their lives in the Civil War. The statues are in their honor and were erected by the families of the lost. If your going to start tearing down statues of slave owners, then don’t forget Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. I love all of American history, and none of it should be erased for political correctness. Learn it and respect the past, even the ugly parts of it.

        “Lincoln never owned slaves. While he was born in KY, a slave state, he personally did not have them.”

        I never said Lincoln personally owned slaves, so either 1) you can’t read for comprehension, 2) you purposely avoided answering the question, or 3) your stupid. I’m going with door #3 with a heavy helping of door #1. Now you may try again. Read carefully. Do a bit of research. LOL, yes I know all this is impossible for a half wit.

        “Lee had slaves and was a cruel master. Attempts by revisionists to create a mythology about him have been debunked.”
        “Grant did have a single slave before the North beat the ass of the South in the Civil War. And he freed that slave in 1859.”

        Lee never owned slaves, his father in law did. Upon the father in law’s death (1857) his instructions were to free them all within 5 years which Lee did. All were freed by 1862. Grants wife claimed several servants through 1862, though ownership is unclear. Her father purchased the slaves and transfer of official ownership is uncertain. Grant managed his father in laws farm for 5 years just prior to the civil war.

        “I haven’t the foggiest idea what the South paid to the federal government, if indeed it paid 75% as you imply.”

        Of course you don’t. You don’t know anything about history. And it was not “75%”, it is 85%. There is that reading comprehension thingy again. Did Lincoln and congress increase further tariffs that largely fell on the South? Why yes they did. What was the effect on the Southern states?

        If you really wish to know what the Civil War was over read the literature of the period from Europe.

        “And it is also interesting that you choose a few anecdotes to attempt proof of something – though we are not sure what.”

        Do you know the meaning of “anecdote”? Would you care to share a “few anecdotes” that I used just for the humour? Consult a dictionary first.

        A racist term. Which makes you a racist.

        Let’s add a few, shall we:

        Northern states were slave states for many years. The underground railroad ended where? At the Mason – Dixon line or Canada?

        Canada. Any slave caught in the northern states was promptly returned south. The northern states didn’t grant them freedom, they returned them to a life of slavery. They hunted them down with dogs.

        Bonus question: Did some northern states exclude blacks?

texansamurai | April 15, 2020 at 7:39 pm

You can stop playing with yourself and think a bit more. Otherwise, go for it, cracker. But just remember, your attitude is what gives Republicans and conservatives a bad name and a racist label.

call the waaahambulance !!!! another tiresome ” victim ”
grow-up and face it–millions and millions of people alive in this country during the civil war didn’t give a damn about slavery–and even more millions that are alive now don’t either

btw–looks like you’re the one using the racist labels

lol–must be usin mamma’s computer in the basement

It’s both astonishing and disappointing that the police would enforce a dictate that was so obviously unconstitutional. I’m sorry to see it happen in my time.