We are a republic that elects it's leaders through a democratic process.
No, we are a Republic that elects its leaders through a "constitutional" process.
The way we elect is by our constitutional edicts.
And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...
That's why we all need to correct people every time we hear the word democracy.
This will do much to change the direction of our nation.
Mmmmmkay, you have my sympathies, but we're talking about the United States.
BTW: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10! You might get all of them in one post if you keep it up!
Your liberal Pee-Wee Herman defense tactic of "I know you are, but what am I" doesn't work here. None of the readers are falling for your nonsense. But they sure are laughing at you. A clear use of #7 on your part of the ole Liberal Left Wing(nut) Arguing Checklist tactics.
- Skim until Offended
- Disqualify that Opinion/Facts [States opposing case with little/no supporting evidence]
- Attack, Attack, Attack [Ad Hominem/Name Calling]
- Change the Narrative [Criticizes "tone" without addressing substance, You hurt my feelings/other topic]
- Disregard Inconvenient Facts [Moving the goalposts]
- Use only anecdotal emotional/compromise arguments
7. Make S#!t Up [Example: Peewee Herman arguments, Climate Change, Denies Election Fraud, Claims We're not Post-Racial]
-
Resort to Moral Equivalency
-
Concern Trolling
-
When all else fails, "ISM!"...Racism, Sexism, Sexualism
You've already outed yourself as one of the sovereign citizen wanna-bes whose ideology is warped and twisted beyond all reasonable logic. You have become boring and thus I relegate you back to under the rock you climbed from under.
Good day insignificant one. You can have the last word. I'm not so superficial and attention deprived as to need it.
^^^Ah yes, typical liberal. ^^^
Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a rooster. No matter how well you play chess, the rooster just knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, spews some profanities, and struts around like a rooster who thinks (s)he's won.
Another common mistake is to assume that a liberal will know when he is beaten. You may think you have scored a clear victory by not only citing the appropriate authority on each matter but utterly humiliating the liberal in the process – and yet (s)he will keep coming back for more punishment.
You simply can't slap liberals in the face because their head is generally protected by their butt cheeks.
What you must understand here is that liberals have no sense of dignity. They are quite willing to be humiliated and taunted in the service of their righteousness. Crawling through slime and offal does not offend them; living the lives they do, of course, many of them are quite accustomed to it.
It's the unspoken truth of liberal socialists that they crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes their life's joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. They were made to be ruled. In the end, they will always kneel.
And note; Nothing he's replied with so far is the product of original critical thinking. Just simple reliance on the ole Liberal Left Wing(nut) Arguing Checklist.
- Skim until Offended
- Disqualify that Opinion/Facts [States opposing case with little/no supporting evidence]
- Attack, Attack, Attack [Ad Hominem/Name Calling]
- Change the Narrative [Criticises "tone" without addressing substance, You hurt my feelings/other topic]
- Disregard Inconvenient Facts [Moving the goalposts]
- Use only anecdotal emotional/compromise arguments
- Make S#!t Up [Example: Climate Change, Denies Election Fraud, Claims We're not Post-Racial]
- Resort to Moral Equivalency
- Concern Trolling
- When all else fails, "ISM!"...Racism, Sexism, Sexualism
It's almost as if I'm dealing with a child.
Why no, you are not. But then I suspect that's a result of your common core liberal educa,... errr,....indoctrination.
And we are all still waiting for your proof of all those arrests for not wearing masks that YOU state exist. I, and all the other readers, have noticed that you seem to be avoiding producing the proof to support your assertion. Or, are you ready to admit that such arrests for not wearing a mask DON'T EXIST?
I'll reword the question: why are normal citizens not holding a seat under government not allowed the same luxury?
No, you're not simply rewording the question, you're "MOVING THE GOAL POSTS" since your original argument failed on account of your ignorance. We all can see that very easily. By the way, that's #5 on the ole;
Liberal Left Wing(nut) Arguing Checklist.
- Skim until Offended
- Disqualify that Opinion/Facts [States opposing case with little/no supporting evidence]
- Attack, Attack, Attack [Ad Hominem/Name Calling]
- Change the Narrative [Criticises "tone" without addressing substance, You hurt my feelings/other topic]
- Disregard Inconvenient Facts [Moving the goalposts]
- Use only anecdotal emotional/compromise arguments
- Make S#!t Up [Example: Climate Change, Denies Election Fraud, Claims We're not Post-Racial]
- Resort to Moral Equivalency
- Concern Trolling
- When all else fails, "ISM!"...Racism, Sexism, Sexualism
Let's see which liberal argument tactic he uses next, shall we?
Classifying law enforcement as citizens doesn't answer the question.
It certainly does. Qualified immunity applies to ALL GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC OFFICIALS. Not just law enforcement. It applies to judges, Clerk of Court secretaries, federal, state, county, and city attorneys and their staff, city garbage collectors, city and county fire, building and other inspectors, ANYBODY who works for a governmental entity. Are they all not citizens? Do you even think?
I cannot fathom why they would require more protection than the citizens they don't have to protect.
Which clearly shows why you would never have ever been considered for a position on the Supreme Court. You simply don't get to place law enforcement officers in a "Damned if you do AND damned if you don't." situation. And it's not more protection, it's sufficiently minimum appropriate protection.
AGAIN: “A policeman’s lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does,” ~ Chief Justice Earl Warren
Never did I state that it could never happen. I only answered your question of, "...don’t know where you’ve been the last two fuckin years".
I only demonstrate that your contention that "people have been harassed and arrested by police on a daily basis for refusing to wear masks" is not in any way the norm as you unethically suggest.
Which reminds me, where's your proof of all those arrests for not wearing masks that YOU state exist. I, and all the other readers, have noticed that you seem to be avoiding producing the proof to support your assertion. Or, are you ready to admit that such arrests for not wearing a mask DON'T EXIST?
The key words being: "...secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States"
You know,...the same words in the law enforcement officer's oath of office;
"I, [Name] do solemnly swear that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of [State] not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as Law Enforcement Officer, so help me God."
What in the world does ANY of this have to do with "Qualified Immunity"?
Why yes, we ARE aware of your Liberal Left Wing(nut) Arguing Checklist tactics.
- Skim until Offended
- Disqualify that Opinion/Facts [States opposing case with little/no supporting evidence]
- Attack, Attack, Attack [Ad Hominem/Name Calling]
- Change the Narrative [Criticises "tone" without addressing substance, You hurt my feelings/other topic]
- Disregard Inconvenient Facts
- Use only anecdotal emotional/compromise arguments
- Make S#!t Up [Example: Climate Change, Denies Election Fraud, Claims We're not Post-Racial]
- Resort to Moral Equivalency
- Concern Trolling
- When all else fails, "ISM!"...Racism, Sexism, Sexualism
You failingly tried to utilize #4 because you couldn't refute the original topic of qualified immunity.
Get back on topic. Or are you going to simply resort to something else on the ole Liberal Left Wing(nut) Arguing Checklist?
"...or should have known" is an even more important phrase.
"willfully" is also another important word in legislation, laws and charging language.
I've been walking/travelling N.C. maskless and have not encountered ANY law enforcement officer in a gas station, store, church, or any other business telling me to put a mask on. A few Karens who I've told to Piss Off. But no cops have ever bothered me. But please do show me all these arrests that you state are out there for people not wearing masks. I'll wait. In fact, show me the LAW that an officer would charge for not wearing a mask. I've yet to see one legislated and that in itself proves you a liar.
To protect and serve...
That "serve and protect" nonsense generated by California liberals. That was nothing more than a radio contest by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950's for a slogan for them. It is nothing more than a LIBERAL attempt to try to exert control over law enforcement. It's bull shyt. Go ahead and google it.
Live body cams from clock in to clock out, everyone in the department.
Law enforcement officers LOVE the body/dash cams because they are the most prominent factor is thousands of law enforcement officers being found innocent and exonerated regarding thousands of complaints that would have otherwise been upheld just to appease the masses. The officers now have all the proof they need to show that the majority of complaints are LIES.
almost all in law enforcement are guilty of not upholding their oath.
Again, you are proliferating a LIE. The truth is that the majority in law enforcement ARE Oath Keepers and "cop haters" like you can never provide any reliable source for the case being otherwise. So PROVE it! I'll wait.
imposing a fee to "freely travel"
No one has ever denied you your right to "freely travel". You're free to take the shoe leather express anywhere you want, even across state lines or country borders.
Where your argument fails is your contention that operating a motor vehicle on a taxpayer funded street or highway is a "right". IT IS NOT. It is a privilege and if you want to exercise that PRIVILEGE then you have to meet the requirements.
Of course, if you don't like the way that this nation is operated, then you are quite free to shoe leather express your ass to a country that is more to your liking. Good luck with that,...sovereign citizen wannabe.
No, actually YOUR comment is the lie in this issue. There are thousands of law enforcement officers who are Oath Keepers and refuse to enforce mask mandates. Mandates are NOT laws and thus law enforcement views them as unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Ohio Sheriff Defiantly Refuses To Enforce Mask Mandates - https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/09/ohio-sheriff-defiantly-refuses-to-enforce-mask-mandates/
Quarter of NY counties refuse to ‘become mask police’ despite Hochul mandate - https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/quarter-of-ny-counties-refuse-to-enforce-hochul-mask-mandate/
AND
https://granthshala.com/quarter-of-ny-counties-refuse-to-become-mask-police-despite-hochul-mandate/
State Police Officers Refuse to Wear Masks in Corvallis Coffee Shop - https://pdx.eater.com/2020/7/6/21314885/masks-police-lucky-lab-closing-brewpubs
US Police Refuse to Enforce Virus Mask Mandates - https://www.courthousenews.com/some-us-police-refuse-to-enforce-virus-mask-mandates/
Sheriffs Around The Country Refuse To Become “Mask Police” - https://www.newswars.com/sheriffs-around-the-country-refuse-to-become-mask-police/
Why are citizens not granted the same luxury?
Law enforcement officers ARE citizens.
...it is a Choice to take that job.
“A policeman’s lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does,” ~ Chief Justice Earl Warren
It is time that the playing field was leveled.
The SCOTUS decision in Pierson vs. Ray DOES level the playing field.
...necessary for our safety while we are denied equal opportunity to keep ourselves safe.
Law enforcement's job has nothing to do with keeping you safe. It never did. Law enforcement's ONLY goal is to enforce the U.S. Constitution and all state and federal laws not inconsistent therewith. This is the oath that law enforcement officers take:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of [State] not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as a law enforcement officer of the [Name of Department] so help me God."
It is through the enforcement of the laws legislated by society as a whole that an area of peace and safety is developed and maintained in which you, the citizen, can live your life in a relative measure of security while maintaining the autonomy you desire.
You also might be interested in:
The police have no general duty to protect. Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals. Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.
First we all must understand what "Qualified Immunity" really is:
“Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan .
Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.
Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.
Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions.
Now read the IMPORTANT part again: "ALLOWING suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right."
I fully support the practice of qualified immunity as it takes NOTHING from the citizens and properly support and protects law enforcement as well as others from frivolous lawsuits and unethical attorneys.
No,...not an ankle monitor, an ankle HOLSTER. 2 Amendment baby!
Why yes,
DO quash all decisions in the previous trial, like the judge's decision to seal the customer book.
DO have a "do over" which may well result in a conviction on ALL SIX charges and the new judge releasing the customer book information for all to see.
DO have a "do over" which may well be televised this time because a new judge will allow it.
I'm good with them reopening that particular can of worms.
What if I told you that the "counters" aren't working for free!?
But one DOES run out of CREDIBLE and BELIEVABLE false flags. They're down to running stories about UFOs again. That should tell you something.
A "she" with an adam's apple"? I'm calling bullsh!t on this one.
Hardly, 99.9% of the time it's CRT, LGBTQ marches, and Snivel Rights.
About 0.1% of the time is about our U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our forefathers, and how our government was meant to be conducted.