484
Just found this on patriots.win Could be massive (media.greatawakening.win) N C S W I C
posted ago by DCSucks ago by DCSucks +485 / -1
Comments (92)
sorted by:
112
cathole953 112 points ago +112 / -0

So, I'm not the only one who sees this and IMMEDIATELY thinks, "Do the ATF next!" Am I?

86
DCSucks [S] 86 points ago +86 / -0

All 3 letter commie cesspools

39
usernametaken3 39 points ago +39 / -0

Also TSA!

17
GaIIowBoob 17 points ago +17 / -0

SEC should definitely be there. All they do is fund bad people like Epstein

2
SoMuchWinning45 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't think the SEC would have had anything to do with Epstein. However they could stop the hedge fund fuckery, but they won't because there's too much money in it.

Hedgies r fukt.

10
Cray_cray_ 10 points ago +10 / -0

Fucking this.

Maybe I'm too an-cap, but damn, let private companies protect their own property. I'd bet they do a better job than the feds.

6
What-Me-Worry 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes.

Department of mis-Education also please.

35
Cheesecakecrush 35 points ago +35 / -0

If this happens a LOT of shit is going to hit a VERY big proverbial fan. And I can't wait.

4
Silo101 4 points ago +4 / -0

Make them pay back all the money for all the weapons theyve taken and melted down. FPS Russia alone would probably bankrupt them.

68
HelloDolly 68 points ago +68 / -0

Gorsuch is the stealth constitutionalist we need on the bench. He is foaming at the mouth to reverse Chevron. God Speed. Congress's delegation of law making to the executive branch has been a disaster for the separation of powers and for our republic.

10
marvinthehaggler 10 points ago +10 / -0

Agreed.

Deep State needs to go DOWN.

5
CQVFEFE 5 points ago +5 / -0

Gorsuch in one of his first acts legislated transgenderism into existence as a protected class

11
blahblah-ologist 11 points ago +11 / -0

I can understand why you think that, but you have to look at it on a broader scale, thinking ahead as to how the precedent he set will affect things in the future. And remember, when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights act of 1964, he did so on Constitutional grounds, whereas LBJ supported the CRA after opposing both the CRA of 1957 and 1960.

Because the CRA of 1964 WAS un-Constitutional. Because it essentially bans freedom of association by forcing integration by mandate. All of these little immigrant enclaves, like Chinatowns, etc. are essentially illegal per that law, except it never gets enforced against anything but "white spaces".

What Gorsuch actually did with the transgender ruling was put a poison pill in the CRA of 1964 which will eventually unravel the entire thing. Because by negating any biological essentialism to identity on the basis of sex, for which there IS a biological component, he also set the stage for the same kind of anti-discrimination case to eventually come forward in regards to trans-racialism Think the Rachel Dolezal affair.

Because under American legal framework, if it can't be argued that a person is a particular identity based on biological sex characteristics, then it certainly can't be argued that they are a particular race or ethnicity because of any characteristics based on a more rigorous scientific standard that biological.

The issue just hasn't been raised, yet. But it will, eventually. And when white people start arguing that they are black and so therefore can't be discriminated against based on race, then the CRA will essentially lose all form and function. The very proponents which sought to codify transgenderism as a protected class will understand how they played themselves, and they will seek to repeal the law themselves.

Sometimes, when a law is built upon faulty logical framework, the only way to bring it down is to allow the contradictions to play themselves out until the law collapses upon itself. So, the ruling that you are talking about was a 6-3 ruing anyway, meaning Gorsuch alone wouldn't have been able to stop it. But by writing the majority opinion the way he did, he essentially laid the groundwork to end all of this madness in the long run.

5
CQVFEFE 5 points ago +5 / -0

Interesting! Thanks for the reasoned response.

Besides mine I bet it opened a lot of other eyes that don't belong to lawyers, as well.

1
SoMuchWinning45 1 point ago +1 / -0

The whole idea of "precedent" is bullshit.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
huhWHAThuh 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's just a game of musical chairs for the faux conservatives.

There are enough of them to take turns trashing the constitution without taking too much heat for just the one little mistake they made.

2
HelloDolly 2 points ago +2 / -0

Judge's don't legislate. Can you elaborate?

57
tomthung 57 points ago +57 / -0

I look at it and say do IRS next

30
deleted 30 points ago +30 / -0
10
Analophigus 10 points ago +10 / -0

Gosh I can’t help but feel like theres enough evidence by now to support the fact: I think the IRS is done and has been done for a year and a half 👍🏻 We shall see

51
lovecymru 51 points ago +51 / -0

Let’s examine every illegal act, law that over reaches the bounds set by the Constitution. I want what is unlawful to unravel.

6
DaesDaemar 6 points ago +6 / -0

Patriot?

2
GoGoOptomistic 2 points ago +2 / -0

By the book.

47
Death_Metal_Patriot 47 points ago +47 / -0

So you're telling me we get to throw out the controlled substances act, AND the national firearms act?

Don't threaten me with a good time!

44
BeKind 44 points ago +44 / -0

Order in the next 10 minutes and we'll include the Patriot Act absolutely free

22
DaesDaemar 22 points ago +22 / -0

pounds the touch-tone keypad vigorously.

17
A_Russian_Wall 17 points ago +17 / -0

The fingers you have used to dial are too fat. To obtain a special dialing wand, please mash the keypad with your palm, now.

3
TheJake 3 points ago +3 / -0

Deuce Bigallo reference, nice!

1
A_Russian_Wall 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nah, it's from The Simpsons. I've never heard of the thing you mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Size_Homer

https://youtu.be/O74sT4I0Yk0

1
TheJake 1 point ago +1 / -0

Deuce Bigallo fat chick says she dialed the wrong number

43
RedPill78 43 points ago +43 / -0

Is this congruent with devolution?

15
Jabber1 15 points ago +15 / -0

Yay baby!!

-2
RedPill78 -2 points ago +1 / -3

Rhetorical

8
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 8 points ago +8 / -0

They're still requiring it for healtcare workers. How could it possibly be consistent with that theory?

6
PeaceAndLovePatriot 6 points ago +6 / -0

But they are allowed religious exemptions

2
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 2 points ago +2 / -0

How about constitutional exemptions?

3
PeaceAndLovePatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah. To be clear i wasnt saying that it was ok. These bastards always have the same mo.

Ask for way too much and lose it all, but win on one thing. In the end it's a won for them because it's one thing they didn't have.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep, I agree.

1
DEF_NOT_A_FED 1 point ago +1 / -0

Correct me if I'm wrong, but someone on here said that would only apply to non EUA treatments..?

39
JC77 39 points ago +39 / -0

CHECKMATE.

13
JonathanE 13 points ago +13 / -0

Pretty sure this is the right answer, no co-incidences.

29
GoingCamaro 29 points ago +30 / -1

Well considering most federal law is Unconstitutional and written in a way that people thought they had to follow it, but really it was just a suggestion this whole time.

It is very obvious we need a Convention of States to put more Amendments in that pretty much relegate the Fed to a maintenance government as was originally intended and leave particulars up to the states. Did you know Congress isn't actually supposed to be a full time job?

13
DigitalWarrior 13 points ago +13 / -0

We can use strong verbiage in our updates. Things like “Shall not be infringed.”

1
GoingCamaro 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Shall not be infringed, dumb ass" should be the new wording. That way if anyone argues it in court, those arguing against it can't get mad for being called a dumb ass.

6
mengderen 6 points ago +6 / -0

This began in 1871 and was reinforced in 1913, ALL of USA Inc. is unconstitutional... And yes, congress should be peopled with honest folk who have jobs they go back to when their 2 terms are up..

2
SoMuchWinning45 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not too sure we would need a handful of amendments, more like we need to get rid of some. Some of them are useless, and some may be too broad, in that they cover multiple issues which would be all be best served as single amendments.

For example, the 14th amendment has 5 separate sections which would be best served as individual amendments. If we were to be able to do that, we would have a hell of a lot of amendments, but they would each be a single issue, and would necessarily be simple.

We should also have a separate, long amendment which tells congress how they are to operate. My big thing is no more voting present - either yes or no. Miss 3 votes without an excuse, and you are considered to have voluntarily left office and a special election held in your district.

Another stating that in order to join the union, every state must have recall provisions for all elected positions. Don't have that, can't join the union.

Maybe in that amendment that tells congress how to operate, all laws must first go to the supreme court to determine if it's constitutional or not. I'd also place more limitations on the privilege from arrest to be treason, sedition, espionage, sabotage, negligent homicide, and there's more that I can't think of right now.

2
GoingCamaro 2 points ago +2 / -0

My biggest one is anti corruption laws that carry the noose followed quickly by maximum transparency.

1
SoMuchWinning45 1 point ago +1 / -0

Political corruption that can lead to treason/sedition/sabotage/espionage, yes. If you're just talking financial corruption like money laundering, embezzlement, etc, then no, that's not worthy of the death penalty.

20
solarsavior 20 points ago +20 / -0

And with that, I am going to sleep like a baby for at least one night.

Today was a great day!

Goodnight all.

17
Based_from_Da_Future 17 points ago +17 / -0

I don’t want to get my hopes up, It’s Happening!!!

11
MICHIGANisRED 11 points ago +11 / -0

Joe Biden has a solution for this. Just let the government run EVERY BUSINESS.

6
Cyberhawk 6 points ago +6 / -0

That’s what I thought when I heard this ruling. This will either bring down government agencies, by companies saying no, no more, to them going forward...or, the government starts buying every thing they can get their hands on. Would be easy to do, since people fall so easily towards money over freedom. People have to remember, this government works for US, not we to them.

9
CQVFEFE 9 points ago +9 / -0

ADDING TO THE LIST OF LIBERAL BUZZWORDS

  • NONDELEGATION

  • ARCANE

If THEY want to use something old and obscure, it's TIME-TESTED, PROVEN, or A FOUNDATIONAL CORNERSTONE

If it's our side, it's ARCANE, OUTDATED, or OUTMODED

4
GoGoOptomistic 4 points ago +4 / -0

Exactly how they describe the Electoral Collage, nope it is there for a reason Libtards.

4
CQVFEFE 4 points ago +4 / -0

Without the EC every election would be determined by a few most populous states like NY, TX, CA, IL and FL.

Nobody else's vote would matter because it would be overwhelmed by numbers from these states.

Ever notice how libs LOVE "democracy" as in "majority rule!!!" when it comes to the "popular vote"...but HATE it when you mention....

Law-abiding citizens in the US are a 2-to-1 majority or better

Christians in the country are a 65-75% majority

heterosexuals are a 95% majority

non-pedophiles are a 98% majority, and

people not pretending they are of the opposite sex are a 99.7% majority.

Majority rule, bitches!

2
GoGoOptomistic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes indeed like I want Libtards in those cities having anything to say do with my vote, that’s why we are here right?

9
marvinthehaggler 9 points ago +9 / -0

"Arcane".

These people are most likely having difficulty understanding (or at least accepting) what is happening.

If we decide to enforce the 9th and 10th Amendments, 90%+ of the Fed Gummint goes away.

8
Oblakhan 8 points ago +8 / -0

It is the unelected bureaucracy that has destroyed freedom in America with their rules and mandates. It is about time they were cut down.

7
lsvogel 7 points ago +7 / -0

Holy Cr*p this is huge! This could literally DRAIN THE SWAMP!

The SES (Senior Executive Employees) within the Fed Gov't make up a huge number of employees! These SES employees are partisan to the globalist agenda and have thwarted policies within their positions & agencies to anything the American People demand of their appointed and voted in politicians.

Congressional legislation has made it virtually impossible for these SES employees to be fired or terminated! This SCOTUS ruling sets a precedence for them to potentially be terminated!

SES link; https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/

6
DigitalWarrior 6 points ago +6 / -0

Nice!

Do the ATF next.

5
Tangent-love 5 points ago +5 / -0

Do the ATF now.

5
QuackiChan 5 points ago +5 / -0

The ATF is a government agency 🤔

4
UnbreakablePatriot 4 points ago +4 / -0

Our poor grandparents and everyone on state care will now only be treated by vaxx tards and the insane flunkies toeing the line.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
CherokeePede 3 points ago +3 / -0

The laws were clear in the first place. And none of these agencies or bodies of government should have ever been allowed to do it in the first place.

2
DEF_NOT_A_FED 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pretty sure this is why the American government system is set up the way it is. Power is supposed to belong to the state and the SC is supposed to remind the federal government it can't overreach. ..

Wish Canada was like that....

2
tub4lc41n 2 points ago +2 / -0

ATF IRS OSHA FBI CIA NIH NIAID FDA NSA TSA Department of (plug all of them here) …

2
arandocybernaut 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fucking finally. Bureaucrats BTFO

2
libtards_r_stoopid 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wonderful. Fail to see how this is a problem.

2
Grady_Wilson 2 points ago +2 / -0

As usual, Pravda has to spin things in the worst possible light for the rule of law and our founding documents.

Notice the use of the word 'archane' to describe the law that was used to limit the Fed's power.

Pravda wants to tell people that this completely unconstitutional Federal overreach is being thrown out due to an outdated, unneeded law.

2
ItsAFreeCountry 2 points ago +2 / -0

But, muh laws, muh hate crimes

1
PatriotSkorzeny 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, because not every federal law involves “forcing a needle with a liability free athlete killing experimental injection into my skin.”

1
OneNationUnderGod176 1 point ago +1 / -0

What I saw yesterday on their decisions was that they didn't uphold some of it but they DID uphold mandates for federally funded healthcare facilities so... there is that.

1
Riggs99 1 point ago +1 / -0

If true, and used as said, it is exciting in a 'changing the course of history' scale of exciting.

1
quai24 1 point ago +1 / -0

Could this potentially extend to the Fed?

1
mengderen 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Fed is dead, but, SHHHH! don't tell em... 😉

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Miztivin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fantstic. Lets do it.

1
JSSS 1 point ago +1 / -0

I sure hope this is the start!

1
SoMuchWinning45 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Arcane legal principle."

Which in itself is probably unconstitutional archaic British Common Law precedence bullshit.

Our entire "judicial system" must be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up.

1
IndyRose 1 point ago +1 / -0

So what CMS is doing doesn’t count b/c it just withholds payments. Is that what you call extortion?

1
IndyRose 1 point ago +1 / -0

So what CMS is doing doesn’t count b/c it just withholds payments. Is that what you call extortion?

1
Kektrain 1 point ago +1 / -0

“Arcane” that cracks me up.

2
FreedomFlowerDelta 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yep, if it wasn't passed by THIS congress, then it is old, flat earth shit

1
xchainlinkx 1 point ago +1 / -0

Link?

1
Bedminster 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just because it's in writing doesn't mean they'll enforce it or even hear a case regarding the doctrine. The SCOTUS has had a habit of "no standing" on shit they don't want to deal with.