Cary Monday Night Session to Concentrate on Constitution

From Bruce Johnson of We the People McHenry County:

Constitution Alive! Starting 12-week Series

6 PM, Galati’s, 800 Feinberg Ct, Cary

Location of Galati’s.

RSVP


Comments

Cary Monday Night Session to Concentrate on Constitution — 50 Comments

  1. I thought that Trump wants to “terminate” the Constitution.

  2. I guess he won’t be able to swear to defend the Constitution if elected.

  3. If we are going to “strictly construe” the Constitution as written, then we all will have to wear powdered wigs, silk stockings and wear those little three cornered hats.

    Oh wait, some of the Tea Partiers are already doing that!

    And one more thing, the only guns we will be permitted to own will be muskets and those single shot pirate pistols. Haaaarrr!

  4. More IL Einstein’s that can’t see the psy op.

    Have you caught on yet that the mockingbird MSM is now replacing the phrase “election denier” with the NEW phrase “subverting the constitution”? I wonder why? Well the hypocrisy of the left has been exposed especially in the case of the new minority leader Hakeem Jefferies. Subverting the constitution is just another projection of what the deep state has been doing and they are now claiming it’s Trump and not them that are doing it.

    Stand proud guys and keep clutching your TV remote.

    LOL.

  5. Well Monk, being an idiot must come naturally to you. I figured it was the tv or netflix. Good thing all those people that paid for appraisals and in turn your sailboat were happy with your service sport. It was Sudden. Time for bong number 15 troll.

  6. Did you find that one on Google Science? Great job. Is coordinated election interference a violation of the constitution? It’s interesting the authors on your post are all from socialist countries. And please don’t quote Fox News. You may want to go lick your Paul Ryan and Lachlan Murdoch bobbleheads if you believe the NEW CNN. LOL

  7. JT: So you are denying that that quote from Trump which was on his “Truth Social” account was not there?

  8. Man you 2 Einsteins don’t know when to quit. Define the word vitiates.

    And Monk, too funny, your new handle is now Gilligan. Who was your Skipper?

    Keep clutching those remotes guys. They’ll tell you what to think.

    Biden got 81m votes. Got it. LOL

  9. 81 million voted “not Trump”.

    Again, in 2022, similarly small pluralities voted “not Trump”.

    The above reality should inform what it is you should think about.

    “Suspend the Constitution….”

    Wow. Winning slogan. And this is on top of Nazi Thanksgiving, with Ye, Nick and Milo. MTG being Milo’s hag, she must have been around there too.

  10. Jt: You are not answering the question. Did Trump post the above quote on his Truth Social account or not?

  11. I take it back. The 2 Einstein’s keep their remotes up their ass to hold it tightly.

    Please Einstein science give us the posts in their entirety and support yor position.

    And Monk, sorry Gilligan, you seem to get more intelligent the more weed you smoke during the day. It may be time to change the bongwater.

  12. JT: You keep avoiding the question. What is your answer? Yes or No?

  13. I’m sorry liberal Science. You want a debate provide us all the content of your assertion Trump stated we need to suspend the constitution since you are so versed on the topic.

    And CornPop, they finally were able to get the last pieces of the 3 gerbil carcasses the dope smoker had up his ass after his 3rd colonoscopy this year

  14. JT: I gave you the quote on Truth Social. I don’t have an account there but it has been universally reported as having been made. Im sure you can check it out. He said it. Period.

  15. LOL…Now science uses WIDELY REPORTED as support for his position. So you’re not on Truth while quoting a post on Truth. LOL. What are your sources then? LOL. Liberals are fun. As I said science, keep clutching that remote. I hope you don’t hold it where Gilligan keeps his.

  16. LOL Again. Get out of your psy op Science. Are you really that thick?

    How amusing that Trump tricked the mainstream media into reporting that he wants the constitution to be thrown away when it’s the Democrats, Rhinos, and the deep state that have been trampling our constitution for generations.
    The fact that Trump tricks liberals and normies into talking about how we must defend the constitution after they tried to forcefully inject us with vaccines, bring in passports, cancel our free speech, and take away our guns is truly the height of irony.

    Trump is always forcing the media to humiliate itself at every turn.

  17. Provide the receipts Science. Open up a Truth account. That will happen when the Bears get to the SuperBowl.

  18. LOL Science. Please discern your media narrative with this post on Truth. This ought to be as good as Gilligan’s appraisals.

    ======

    Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump

    WE WANT PEOPLE WHO “LEGITIMATELY” WON THE ELECTION TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY, NOT PEOPLE WHO HAD TO CHEAT IN ORDER TO WIN!!

    SIMPLY PUT, IF AN ELECTION IS IRREFUTABLY FRAUDULENT, IT SHOULD GO TO THE
    RIGHTFUL WINNER OR, AT A MINIMUM, BE REDONE. WHERE OPEN AND BLATANT FRAUD IS
    INVOLVED, THERE SHOULD BE NO TIME LIMIT FOR CHANGE!

    The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said
    I wanted to “terminate” the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION
    & LIES, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of their other HOAXES &
    SCAMS. What I said was that when there is “MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD &
    DECEPTION,” as has been irrefutably proven in the 2020 Presidential
    Election, steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG. Only FOOLS
    would disagree with that and accept STOLEN ELECTIONS. MAGA!

  19. Umm, no, it’s Commander Velveeta that’s humiliating himself at every turn.

  20. The election has irrefutably proven to be irrefutable. Like 62 times.

  21. I see Science. Please define the word ^allows^ to me thru the filter of your MSM. LOL. What’s the definition of vitiates again.

    =======

    So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw
    the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL
    WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and
    magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and
    articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not
    want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

  22. The only person who would be suspending the Constitution would be the President. If Trump wanted that to happen, the time for action like that would have been in 2020. Biden’s going to suspend the Constitution to put Trump in office? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard. The military won’t be doing any coup either on account of chain of command look who runs DoD and Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s Biden people all the way at the top. Look at who runs DHS too. Basic chain of command stuff. The people at the top are Biden people.

    It’s ridiculous. I think that’s why JT and others are just pretending it was not said or something else was meant.

    Maybe I’m missing something. How are you explaining this one away, JT? ?

    My point is a little different than these other guys in that I’m not denying a president *could* declare martial law — it’s been done before — but why would Trump say that in 2022? Biden is President and Biden isn’t going to make Trump the President after suspending the Constitution lol

    Seems very silly, JT. Please enlighten the crowd.

  23. On a related note to the OP, SCOTUS is considering now a case that would vest total control in state legislatures over at least Congressional and U.S Senate elections, and possibly Presidential elections and selection of Electors to the Electoral College.

    Under this theory, state courts would have no power to affect gerrymandering by state legislatures, and state legislatures could declare winners of federal elections notwithstanding the certified state results from the Secretary of State and Governor.

    In Blue states such as Illinois, this could mean that no Republican could be elected to Congress or Senate so long as the state legislature remained in Democratic hands, which gerrymandering would guarantee. We could just dispense with federal elections altogether.

    This would be based on a “strict construction” of the “elections clause” of the Constitution which provides as follows:

    “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

    Be careful what you wish for.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/moore-v-harper-scotus-elections-amicus-brief/672281/

  24. What happened at Constitution meeting last night? Any good discussion?

  25. Constitution describes details about the U.S. Congress.

    This morning, a Democrat senator from NY, Chuck Schumer is making a speech acknowledging the efforts of the first responders at the Jan 6, 2021 riot. He continues the proven lie by the mostly dishonest, corrupt and in-the-tank for Democrats media by referring to the rioters as insurrectionists.

    Americans should continuously be asking why this guy, Chuck Schumer, is not in jail for making verbal threats against U.S. Supreme Court Justices while standing in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.

  26. Correcting, if you read Trump’s quote in my 10:43 post last night Trump clearly stated “allows”…therefore Trump was not stating to terminate the constitution.

    He was stating it allows for it due to the fraudulent election which we all know occurred. That was the debate whether he called for the termination of the constitution.

    It “allows” it.

    It’s like Clinton saying it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is in trying to talk about his infamous cigar dipping and subsequent BJ in the oval office with the woman in the blue dress.

    And there’s Science quoting the Steve Jobs’ widow’s pet project the Atlantic.

    I wonder if she visits Ghislaine Maxwell in prison.

    I really wonder if Jobs died “suddenly”.

    Trigger alert.

  27. First, resorting to “allows” as a qualifier and as a weasel word, especially after the uproar is complete bullshit. NOTHING “allows” this. But then he feels he’s allowed whatever pops into his head.

    Plus, he figures his adherents are as dumb as he is, won’t check up on it, and will believe him no matter what.

    Regardless of the weasel word arguments, he said what he meant and meant what he said.

  28. JT: THere are also about 70 amicus briefs on file with SCOTUS concerning this case which make various points and paint various scenarios,so continually harping on what news sources I use doesn’t change the facts on the ground.

    The idea that the state legislatures could completely vitiate the popular vote represents the view promoted originally by Trump’s attorney Eastman although he has more recently backpedaled a bit on that.

    However it is clear that the import of the facts in Moore would allow state legislatures carte blanc to gerrymander to their hearts’ content without fear of any type of court review in their own states, regardless of what is says in their own constitutions. That is the square issue that is presented in that case.

    This is, as we know from Illinois, a double edged sword.

    For example, it could mean that the New York court re ordering of the districts drawn by the NY legislature would not be possible. This resulted probably in about 4 congressional districts going GOP and would have prevented the Republcans from garnering a majority in the House this last cycle.

    There may be some other Blue states that fall into that category as well.

    I would assume also that if SCOTUS goes that route, it would invalidate the NY re districting as it would have been unconstitutional ab initio, and there would have to be a special election held probably throughout the entire state which could return power to the Democrats in the House or very close to it.

    So again, be careful what you wish for. The Dobbs decision should prove that to you.

  29. LOL. It looks like Gilligan arrived right on cue.

    Science, if Cal would fix this site so I could respond to your lawyer BS I would.

    You think Dobbs prevented the red wave?

    Priceless.

    I’ve been business partners with lawyers.

    Nothing but slimeballs.

  30. “ If we are going to “strictly construe” the Constitution as written, then we all will have to wear powdered wigs, silk stockings and wear those little three cornered hats.”

    Where is this found in the Constitution?

    Sober up before posting.

  31. Funny that Because doesn’t care about the actual shredding of the Constitution being done as we speak by Dementia Joe.

  32. State legislature doesn’t decide who wins congressional races, BS. It’s done by popular vote. The 17th amendment for crying out loud spells it out for senators.

    There’s nothing new about this “independent state legislature theory.” Just retard buzzwords made up by Democrats. My understanding is that it applies to how districts are DRAWN which is how it is anyway, or the way it’s supposed to be if you just read the Constitution. How is it a theory if it’s the plain text of the Constitution? smh come on man.

    As for the president, the states already govern themselves in how they award delegates. Most do it winner take all based on popular vote. Could that change if states are perceived to get the greenlight from SCOTUS? it depends on what their laws are, but yes I suppose it COULD and that may be a problem depending on how far they go with it (for example, awarding ALL electors to someone who lost the race would infuriate people and be unfair) … but the way I see it is there is always violence as a solution. If a state blatantly does the opposite of what the people want and go against their own tradictions, there is the possibility that someone just smashes their head with a baseball bat or stabs them. I think that is a good thing. Violence sets people straight. Violence works. Don’t ever let some fag tell you violence doesn’t work. I’m NOT, by the way, telling anybody they should do violence against any specific person. My point is a theoretical point, one that you should remember though.

    Good talk man. Overall, BS, I think you may be a bit too worried about this SCOTUS thing but we’ll see what they say and what the implications are. I’ll tell you what there is something you should be alarmed about. AND NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT!!! Have you ever looked into the federal contested elections act? There’s already a mechanism where congress can just declare the winner of a race! Go read about it. I think Wiki has an entry. It sounded like it could be abused easily. I suspect the reason it has not been abused is because congress is afraid someone will hit them in the head with a hammer, abduct their family members, or shoot them. Because violence is what keeps people in line.

    Don’t ever let some liberal fag tell you violence does not work. Violence works.

  33. “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…”

    ― Thomas Jefferson

  34. Here Science, debunk these rulings
    =======
    “Our courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates whatever it touches, Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)”. Estate of Stonecipher v. Estate of Butts, 591 SW 2d 806. And “”It is a stern but just maxim of law that fraud vitiates everything into which it enters.” Veterans Service Club v. Sweeney. 252 S.W.2d 25. 27 (Kv.1952).” Radioshack Cory, v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d 256.
    ========
    I guess if the orange man invokes it that it somehow doesn’t apply to elections. Oh but the lower courts wouldn’t take it based on standing. I wonder why? Got it.

  35. That’s fraud that vitiates a TRANSACTION. That’s contract law. Elections are not transactions or contracts.

    Yet, the spirit still applies. But not based on mere allegation. And in either example, would necessarily be tried in court.

    And it’s been tried in court ohhh…, mmmm… 62 times or more.

    Seems the fraud is Agent Orange.

  36. LOL. Gilligan you are priceless. So no standing dismissals are proof. Got it

  37. btw this entire video series is available on YouTube if you search “Constitution Alive” you should find it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.