From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
This section is about laws, legal, court rulings.


I'm pro-choice (read Abortion for more background), but whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, you should be offended by the dishonestly named NY "Reproductive Health Act" that the Democrats and Cuomo just passed, and all of its provision. They claim this is about protecting Roe v Wade -- they are liars: it has virtually nothing to do with that.
🍉 The Green New Deal was a program championed by AOC, endorsed by the left, that confirms everything conservatives have been warning about the Watermelon Environmental Movement: their goal is not to save the planet, but use that to enact communism/socialism in the U.S. This $93 Trillion boondoggle admits wanting to destroy the coal, oil, airline industry, and replace planes to Hawaii with trains, and replace every building in the U.S. force everyone to go vegetarian (and eliminate cow-farts), within 10 years. Oh and complete wealth redistribution, 70%+ taxes, and so on. Politifact is of course flagging people as false for pointing this out, because they meant it, "perhaps in jest", even though there was not a scintilla of evidence of that.
In 2010 the Obama Administration was violating immigration law, the Constitution, and the oath of office, by ignoring or being lax on immigration. So Arizona passed a law that said they should enforce federal law (that the Obama administration wouldn't), called SB-1070. Democrats and Californian's lost their nut... how dare a state enforce federal law, they said. They called it racist, sexist, xenophovic and homophobic, along with other words they obviously don't know the meaning of.... only California had the same law on their books.
Many on the left claim that Citizens United created/invented Corporate Personhood, and that this makes Corporations People, and this new power puts our political system "up for sale". They're frighteningly wrong on all counts, and most are highly resistant to Historical, Legal and Logical facts. But this article does a fly-over of this history of Corporate Personhood, Citizens United, and why I politically distrust anyone that decries the ruling.
Progressive Conservative Democrats helped drive Alcohol Prohibition: the right way for once, via the Amendment process. While their propaganda tries to label it "right wing": most of the leadership and effort came from the Progressive, Democrats and the left. The whole radical idea that you should limit what other people put in their bodies, through federal powers, is quite a bit against the whole spirit of conservatism, individualism, liberty and the constitution. This was a huge lesson to the informed that laws need to follow society, not try to force society before the culture is ready or you get lawlessness and empowerment of organized crime. The left still gets that backwards and thinks the law should lead society.
    • Twenty-First Amendment: this repealed prohibition. Since the left hates giving up government power over our lives, they converted the anti-Alcohol cops and regulations into the DEA and Anti-Drug and Guns instead. The conservatives/right demand we enforce the laws we put on the books. But it's usually the controlling left/Democrats that demand those laws be put on the books. The other aspect of this is the anti-tobacco movements were popular with temperance leftists, and most of our anti-smoking laws also sprung out of this movement
There's a statement in the Eighth Amendment which says, "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". It wasn't until Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238) 1972 that the progressive activist side of the court was able to invent the trope that the death penalty could be considered cruel and unusual and be barred by the Constitution. None of them could agree with each other as to why this was the case, but the one excuse in common was about the "arbitrary imposition" of the punishment. (Basically, they were saying because it was rare and arbitrarily applied, they could say that was cruel). This is something that the Founding Fathers would have likely been completely surprised by, as capital punishment was quite common (thus not unusual) punishment for the prior 200 (nay, thousands) of years. Again, when Democrats/left can't win the right way (a Constitutional Amendment, etc), they just cheat and lie. The States rewrote their Capital Punishment laws to guarantee that it would be less arbitrary, and with their core excuse gone, even the liberal Supreme's had admit in Gregg v. Georgia (428 U.S. 153 ) 1976, that the death sentence could be imposed without being cruel and unusual.
There are three common classes of illegal voting: non-citizen (Illegals), proxy (voting for someone else, alive or dead, individually or mass ballot stuffing), duplicate voting (more than one state). All can be mitigated with simple voter roll sanitizing -- but Democrats have historically been against that as well as voter ID, and one can easily guess why.
  • Non-citizens voting (2014) One of the strongest pieces of evidence we have, is still a bit soft on methodology. But it's an Old Dominion University study (by Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, David C. Earnest) that showed 6.4% of non-citizens voted in 2008. Using the low estimate of ≈11.5M illegal aliens, means ≈729K illegal votes. That lowball estimate is plenty to swing elections in key regional and national votes.
  • North Carolina Board of Elections Partial Audit (2017) found 508 fraudulent votes (mostly democrats)
  • James O’Keefe did underground sting where his folks asked Democrat Operatives to help him rig some elections (2016), they bragged how they'd done it before, and explained how they could do it again (for a price).
  • Via Wikileaks, journalists found John Podesta (DNC operative) emailing about how Obama flooded the caucus with ineligible voters in 2008, and they were reliving that (2015).
  • Multiple cases of voter fraud (2016) - if you consider a couple hundred people voting from wrong address, more votes than there were ballots, and other anomalies.
  • llegals and Felons voting in Philly (2015) - Public Interest Legal Foundation sued Philadelphia to get voting role, found dozens of illegals and felons had voted. Repeated it in VA found hundreds more illegals that had voted.
  • New York City’s DOI fraud test - 97% of the polling places they tried let them vote as dead, incarcerated or relocated people. Their report was ignored. (2013).
  • Suspicious Obama turnout - 140% turnout, 100% of votes in districts going to Obama, Millions of illegals estimated to have voted. Not proof of fraud, but definite proof of distrust in our elections (2008, 2012).
  • Pew Survey - 2.75M registered in 2 or more states, 24M invalid registrations, 1.8M dead people. Proof that our systems aren't safe and democrats oppose sanitizing them. Why is that? (2012)
  • True The Vote - 348,000 dead people on the rolls(2012), by cross-indexing they turned over 99 cases of felony cross state voter fraud to the fed, people voting after death in Maryland, 160 counties in 19 states have over 100 percent voter registration, 12 Indiana counties have more registered voters than residents, same in Ohio.
  • 2012 North Carolina - elections board found 35,570 with names+DOB collision with voters in another state.
  • 2012 South Carolina - elections board found 900 dead people that voted.
  • 2010 Al Franken (D) - lost a contested election by 700+ votes. Appealed, and in a series of questionable recounts (in a Democrat controlled state) "won" by 312 votes. Despite 2 counties alone showing 393 felons had illegally voted (but were counted anyways).
  • 2006 United States Election Assistance Commission Report - details hundreds of voter-fraud cases (with often many plaintiffs each), about something that Democrat leadership claims doesn't exist (or rarely happens).
  • 2000 Bush-Gore Florida - In an election with a 537 vote margin, there were ≈925,000 illegal immigrants with a ≈6% voter turnout (and 80% Democrat) means ≈44,400 likely illegal votes for Gore in Florida alone. Tell me again how voter fraud can’t swing an election.
  • 1996 Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez - After showing 748 (of 984 election margin) were illegal aliens, and there was another 4,700 questionable registrations affidavits to be investigated (according to the INS), amidst allegations of a cover-up or payoff, the House dropped the investigation. California had successfully obstructed long enough that Sanchez was called the winner in a corrupted election, with the help of voter fraud that the Democrats deny ever happens. And that's why they're against cleaning up the voter roles, right there. Read: Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez for more.
  • 1993 Motor Voter - This National Voter Registration Act of 1993 was passed with 2 of the 4 goals being to (a) protect election integrity (b) ensure states sanitize their voter roles (make them accurate). Democrats (including Obama admin) refuse to enforce (and obstruct the enforcement of) those clauses claiming it would be voter suppression if they sanitized the voter roles of illegals, dead people and felons.
  • 1982 Adlai Stevenson - Judge Frank Mc­Garr of the U.S. District Court released the federal grand jury's report and the evidence re­vealed substantial vote fraud in Chicago during the November 2, 1982 election, with over 100,000 phony votes total, and found "that similar fraudulent activities have occurred prior to 1982.”
  • 1960 JFK/Nixon - Mayor Daily was widely rumored and accepted to be blatantly corrupt. FBI agent Ernest Locker later investigations into 1982 voter fraud, lead him to believe the corruption of 1960 election was far wider than the 8,858 votes needed that swing the election. Whether true or not, the wide acceptance of voter fraud in this case is proof why we need better quality control.
And this just skims the surface.
{{::File:Lib-LegalMorals.jpg }}
{{::File:Licensing.png }}
{{::File:MelLostFreedom.jpg }}
{{::File:PassALaw.jpg }}
{{::File:Problems.png }}
{{::File:Regulate.png }}
{{::File:WhatchaInFor.jpg }}
When it comes to Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, or Freedom of the Right Wing Press (Radio, TV or Internet), the left has almost always opposed it. At least if you're saying anything they don't like.
Democrats/left are so against the 2A, that they're willing to sacrifice all our other civil rights (and bill of rights) as well, including the 4th. The 4th protects against illegal search and seizures by requiring probable cause. But "Red Flag" laws (and no fly lists), both violate the 6th clearly and stretch the 4th in some seriously questionable ways. Basically, anyone can claim you're dangerous and the storm-troopers will come and endanger you or your family if you resist, and you can try to sort it all out later.... and that's getting dangerously close to what a Police State looks like.
There's a program called the H-1B visa. It’s a complete fraud, that I support. Sorta.
Because I have a reasoned view of immigration, some have called me a xenophobic racist, showing they don't know what either word means, and aren't listening to what I actually think (or are missing the nuances of life).

I love immigrants. I am one. Well, 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant. (Iranian Dad on one side, Italian Grandma and German Great Grandparents on the other), raised mostly by a British Step-Dad. Many of my friends (now and growing up) and coworkers today (and historically) have been immigrants as well. I've dated immigrants, I taught immigrants, and I hang with immigrants. I love variants in culture, language, food, and people. So if you think I'm against immigrants, you're a moron.That being said, if you think all immigrants are equal, and we should have open borders, your reading comprehension needs work. (I say that because lots of people will read the following, and then claim I'm anti-immigrant.
James Mitose was an Japanese American that learned the hard way about our legal system and how the public views Martial Artists. He is well known in some Martial Arts circles, because he brought Kenpo/Kempo over to Hawaii and the mainland from Japan, and is one of the important Masters of the art.
If you thought the fight was over when the last punch was thrown, you don't know much about the law and societies need for justice. Legalities are different than realities. Laws vary from state to state, and sometimes city to city. It is hard to prove "your intent" or the intent of "the other guy". So just like it is best to avoid a physical fight, it is also best to avoid a legal fight. The law rarely looks at either person as a hero... they more see two people who weren't smart enough to avoid combat, and each side is trying to prove the other side was worse.
No war is legal or illegal, there's only moral or immoral -- and all wars are immoral (some just more than others), the only real issue is whether the war is more immoral than doing nothing. Now as for justification, there was more legal justification for the Iraq War than most of the wars we got into. That still doesn't make it right, it just makes it slightly less wrong. But we had support from U.N. (1441), NATO, largest coalition ever, and a foreign country that had broken the terms of the cease fire. That's more than we had for any other war, included Korea (which was the previous war with the most faux-legality behind it).
Living Document.png
One of the stupidest things the Progressives have ever done (and they've done a lot), is around the turn of the 19th century, Harvard and other progressives tried to re-invent Contract Law and the Constitution as a "Living Document". This is another way of saying that, "A legal documents words have no fixed meaning, and can be altered without the consent of either party, in order to meet the political whims of subsequent generations". In other words, a contract means nothing, the only thing that matters is the opinions of 9 oligarchs residing in the top court. Thats' fine if you're one of the judges, but it makes America a Democracy where only 9 people's opinions matter.
Memes about the law.
The "Nuclear Option" (aka the Filibuster Rules) isn't really law. Since 1806, the Senate said there was no time limit on debate -- so basically, if a group of Senators was resentful enough over any rule or appointee, they could get up to the Lectern and speak (debate) until the other side gave up: basically anyone could stand on their principles or duty to prevent bad law from getting enacted by discussing it to death (called the filibuster). This guaranteed that all new laws oppressing the people would have to have super-super majority support, and wasn't so offensive to some that it would gridlock the Senate. The Democrats Nuclear Option, ended that.
Abortion is a deeply personal view, and I have no problem with how people come down on it, as long it is thoughtfully decided. But Roe v. Wade is a lot simpler that the position on abortion. Roe v. Wade is about a ruling that invented law from the bench, and whether it was a good ruling or not. While I actually agree with the position (it fits my beliefs), that's not actually how it has been enforced (Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a later and far worse decision, and is how Roe is enforced). But despite agreeing with Roe, everyone with the slightest law background who has looked at the decision, has admitted that it was a lousy ruling, Blackmun totally overreached, and it made the world a worse place.
A sanctuary city is the idea that if someone an illegal alien and they commit many felonies (some violent), the state will not inform the Federal Government that they're in custody, and will release them into the public to avoid them getting rounded up by ICE. So it is a sanctuary for criminal illegal aliens. The state reports Americans who commit crimes to the Fed. California took it a step further and made it a State Law, which lead to a Sanctuary State Backlash : where cities are suing the state to follow federal law, and California taxpayers have to pay both sides lawyers to fight.
A law is the point where you say, "people that don't agree with me, must be punished and have their rights taken away"... either with loss of property (fines/taxes), loss of freedom (imprisonment), or death (if they resist). With that in mind, now think of seatbelt laws: if you don't wear something that 80% of the time will help your safety, and 20% of the time, endanger it, we will steal your property, liberty or kill you... for your own good, of course. Does that sound like a good use of law or government authority?
America was founded on the idea that "Guns are liberties teeth", and if you can't trust your public to defend themselves, or to defend their liberty, then the government is corrupted beyond repair and it's time for a new one. To the left, that's an antiquated idea that needs to change -- so that they can remake America in a different image. To the informed, those actions are proof that the left is exactly the kind of leaders and issue positions that the founders were warning against, and the Second Amendment was written for.
Democrats/left are so against the 2A, that they're willing to sacrifice all our other civil rights (and bill of rights) as well, especially the 6th. The 6th basically guarantees fundamental rights like due process, the ability to face your accusers and the accusations. "Red Flag" laws (or ERPO's: Extreme Risk Protection Orders) are ones that say anyone can make claims that you are a threat to yourself or others, and thus should have your 2A (and 4A) civil rights taken away, based on secret Kafkaesque proceedings where the gun owner is barred from participating in the hearings, arguing their side of the dispute, or even seeing and addressing the accusers or charges until after the storm troopers have kicked in your door to take your property (for your own good).... and that's what a Police State looks like.
One of the great contributions to civilization, was the creation of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS : Supreme Court of the United States), in the United States Constitution (as defined in the Judiciary Act of 1789). It was such a good idea, that many other countries have copied it. Even the U.K. got religion and created one in 2009, 220 years after we did. America's Supreme Court was partly inspired by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is one of the oldest in the world and created with the colonies charter in 1692 -- but of course various courts and Judicial activities far predate that.
The knee-jerk anti-voterID response is, “but Voter Suppression”. While voter suppression is real, and infrequently happens on both sides of the aisle -- it's usually done by not having enough polling places in the right areas, not by checking ID. And you can tell how seriously the Democrats care about it, because in cases where goons in Philadelphia are standing outside a polling station with clubs, presumably to intimidate away anyone not voting how they might prefer, the Obama Administration's DOJ (Democrats), just dropped open-and-closed case, to prevent sending a signal that such voter intimidation/suppression will not be tolerated. It would only be a problem for them if white folks did that.
The purpose of this aimless article isn’t to convince people of any particular solution, it is to meander through the facts, eviscerate the fallacies, and give everyone the data to come to their own conclusions about Voter fraud and VoterID. There are a lot of fallacies and noise about voter fraud and whether voterID (requiring ID at voting places would fix it). I’ll list just a few of the many examples of voter fraud, and reasons for concerns below -- yet, there's are a lot of DNC fronts (media outlets) that claim there’s virtually none. Why the discrepancy? Well the reason is that voter fraud overwhelmingly benefits the Democrats (DNC). If you were them, would you want it to stop? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

🔫 It doesn't matter what you think the law should be, it matters what it says. Politicians, Legislators and Judges all often ignore the rule of law (letter of the law), for sake of what they wish it said. Here's some examples.

There are a few late 20th century inventions in the war against civil liberties (and the 2nd), but few as virulent and wrongheaded as that the 2nd amendment was about "the militia" and the militia meant "National Guard" (something that wasn't invented until 1903). These assumptions fail at Logic, English, History, and Constitutional Law, and there were the founders words, Supreme Court rulings, and experts in language and history that all but unanimously disagree with them. Of course mere facts won't prevent the determined from demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect, but hopefully the evidence can deter a few of them from demonstrating their willful ignorance in the future.
There’s a common argument (fallacy) that the Second Amendment didn't project changes in armament / technology, thus it couldn’t have been intended to apply to modern pistols and rifles (most of whose designs actually go back to the 1800’s or early 1900’s). This argument completely fails on the intent of the 2nd (which was about balancing power), but it even more strongly fails on understanding gun technology and history. At the founding of the country they had 8-shot revolvers, 9 shot "repeaters", 11-shot field artillery pieces, Jefferson even had a 22 shot repeating rifle. Not to mention "burst mode" automatics that fired up to 20 rounds with a single pull of the trigger. And during the remainder of their lives, not one of the founding fathers came forward to complain that technology was advancing beyond the intent of the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
In 2016, California passed many gun-grabbers dream laws: phased in tyranny over the next couple years. If you want to know why gun advocates have a problem with "reasonable" gun laws, you have to look no further than California, and their legislators versions of "reasonable". Not one of these new laws will help in shooting or mass shootings in any way, or gun safety, they only show raw, naked contempt for gun owners and the second amendment, in ways that will hurt the innocent, waste millions of dollars in legal fights, and eventually lose. But that doesn't slow them down from passing them. And that's why the NRA exists, and informed gun owners have contempt for what sounds reasonable to the uninformed.
Concealed carry facts:
  • They commit fewer crimes than the population, or police
  • They have better records on shooting than the populace or police
  • The fallacy with more guns = more crime is disproven by the fact that states with the most conceal and carry permits, have lower crimes -- and the trends as C&C goes up, crime has not
In 1994 the federal government enacted a "Assault Weapon" ban, with a sunset clause to end by 2000. After 6 years it was shown that it had done absolutely nothing to curb crime, gun crime or mass shootings -- so it went away and there was absolutely no noticeable difference in either. California quickly enacted a standard magazine ban (what they call high capacity magazines) to punish their citizens for not living in a free state -- but because ex-post facto laws (ones that make prior actions a crime) are generally unconstitutional, they grandfathered in old magazines. While the law was still technically unconstitutional, it wasn't clear how the Supreme's would rule, so the gun advocates took it, and could get around the law by claiming new magazines were pre-ban. Then in 2018 California figured fuck the Constitution they'd ban them all (without fair compensation). It was guaranteed to lose, but they could harass their citizens for years while it wound it's way through the court. Instead a judge quickly and brutally ruled against it, and made standard capacity magazines legal for a week: and over 1M of them were bought, showing how fraudulent and corrupt the ban was in the first place. If crime doesn't skyrocket, it proves that magazine bans aren't about public safety, but intolerance and people control.
Words change meaning over time. The militia means what it meant at the founding, not what the word evolved to mean today.

At the time of the writing, the definition of militia was, "The whole body of civilians, that are NOT part of the regular army”. Since the Guard/Reserves are part of the regular army (or reserves), they are the unorganized militia (which was everyone else). Basically, anyone old enough to defend their home, town or country (that was not in the army already) was the militia.

But even today, the meaning hasn’t changed as much as some think. Some people mistakenly think it means reserves or National Guard (established 1903, and subject to federal control) — but since those didn’t exist at the time of authoring, there is no way it could have been the type of body envisioned by the framers. Today’s legal definition is, the "militia" consists of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age”, with a few exclusions for medical, mental or job deferments (by their choice) (10 U.S.C. 311 and 32 U.S.C. 313).

You don’t have to take my word for it, there are multiple Constitutional rulings and the words of the authors listed below
Some claim, "nobody wants to take your guns, we just want a few 'reasonable' controls on them". But if we pretend that gun control works (by ignoring facts and history), and we assume guns are the problem, then there is no such thing as gun-control: you need gun bans. "Controlling" semi-auto rifles means you have to control semi-auto-pistols... and then revolvers, and pump/lever action, then bolt action guns (which committed one of our worst mass shootings in American history) and the results are, there are no safe guns in the hands of crazies. Thus logic says they're lying, either to us, themselves or both. So I've yet to meet the gun-controller that will be satisfied with X, when that means their neighbors will still have guns.
While Hillary tries to play the moderate to those that don't know better, if you have any understanding of her background, you'd know she'd be on the least constitutional, and certainly least pro-2nd Amendment Presidents we've ever had. For me, that's reason enough to never have voted for her. But the denials of those on the left come in two flavors: ignorance or polemics (trying to spin). If you know what you're talking about, there's no doubt of where she stands, only doubt on how successful she'd be at her agenda.
A good gun law? I'm pleasantly surprised. This law requires mandatory firearm knowledge before legislators can introduce firearm related legislation. What a novel idea!
Anyone that says any variant of "Just ban assault rifles", "no one should own military grade weapons", or "it's not all guns, just these killing machines" shows they are completely ignorant about assault rifles, or bans. This article breaks down why you can't ban "Assault Rifles", and why it would be moronic to try.
Magazine limits have never been shown to have any impact on gun crime, crime, or casualties in mass shootings. Democrats demand low capacity magazines either knowing that (and not caring), or being ignorant of the topic they're trying to legislate. Persecuting someone knowing that your law can't help is kinda the definition of asshole.
Microstamping is a form of gun-control. California figures if you can't outlaw something, you can still put impossible regulations on it to illegally achieve the same ends: enter micro-stamping. Like their law passed in 2007 to put little engravings of serial numbers rounds that are fired, the technology doesn't exist, if it did it would be easy to defeat, and wouldn't be effective for 100 years. But common sense doesn't slow the left, they passed it anyways (A.B. 1471).
The left demands that we close the “insane” loophole that allows people on the No Fly List to buy guns. Which begs the question, who gets on that list, and how do you get off it, if you're on it by mistake? What we know is there's thousands of people that shouldn't be on there, on it. No known way for them to get off it. And no mass shooter has ever been on it. Sounds like a good enough reason to assume your guilt and take away your rights, to a Democrat.
California was one of only 10 "May-issue" Conceal and Carry permits states (as opposed to "Shall-Issue"). Which means they can choose to use the "good cause" to set impossible standards that no one other than the politically connected or big police donors, to meet the standards -- thus they violate the intent of the law that is supposed to allow C&C permits (not deny them). Stacked on top of California not having open carry, it means that you have a right to have a gun, you just can't ever take it anywhere in California. And it's been ruled before that such restrictions violate the people's Second Amendment rights. The State's then A.G. (Kamala Harris) doesn't care about victims lives as much as her political career: and she had armed security guards, so that's all that mattered.
There’s an oft repeated fallacy that “all we want it a few more ‘reasonable’ gun laws” but (insert either the NRA, evil republicans, gun-nuts), won’t be reasonable. So let's talk about "what's reasonable", and explain some of the complexities that the reasonable laws on the books already look like, to understand why some are so hesitant to ask for more. If you want to be reasonable, you first need to be informed, and get the basics right. How can you reason with an ignoramus (well meaning or not)? So the first step to reasonable gun laws, is educating the gun controllers, on what guns are, how they work, and how bad the current laws are.
There’s an oft repeated fallacy that “all we want it a few more ‘reasonable’ gun laws” but (insert either the NRA, evil republicans, gun-nuts), won’t be reasonable. So let's talk about "what's reasonable", and explain some of the complexities that the reasonable laws on the books already look like, to understand why some are so hesitant to ask for more.
Progressives are full of good ideas on how to spend other people's money, on ways to avoid blaming criminals for their actions. This one was by spending ≈$250,000/square mile (or about $60-90K/sq mi in yearly reoccurring costs), you could detect and send cops to scenes of shootings. And liberals who watch too much CSI pressed many cities to adopt the expensive systems. How are they working?
"Smart guns" (sometimes called safe guns) were an idea invented by gun controllers to have a wedge issue to divide the nation. But there's nothing smart about them. Anyone with a basic clue of them, would laugh openly, if they weren't so fucking dangerous. But the whole issue is evidence of why we should tests to qualify people on topics, before allowing them to vote.