Watch these. Then, you might understand something.
so a video on constitutional interpretation is to show me how constitutional interpretation is not relevant?
Our Government exists by the consent of the people. Any situation beyond the cotrol of local police,the Sherrif’s Dept. ,State Police, FBI, Homeland Security, ATF,DEA, TSA and a host of other domestic policing agencies that requires Military intervention would imply forced compliance of the people. Forced compliance is not consent.
The Armed Forces sole purpose is to defend the country. Anyone who would endorse the use of the Military to attack it’s own citizens is either a tyrant, a statist groupie, or an idiot.
Lincoln was a tyrant
if the people call for it, that is consent of the people. a sheriff can call higher and higher if needed. local can give permission to state, state can give permission to federal, federal can give permission to army.
so someone who is born in the usa, therefore being a usa citizen, then goes to a country, joins that countries army, and that army attacked the usa, you would say that person is untouchable and the military must let that usa citizen kill people in the military and citizens without resistance?
the usa should not attack , but they should defend if needed, against anyone no matter what citizenship.
from the government magic video, people can delegate self defence, but they cant delegate taxation, so therefore parts of the constitution are unconstitutional. as congress can’t have powers the citizens never had to delegate, a person can fund a army, but a person can’t tax. funding a nontaxed army for self defence seems perfectly in someones right to do or delegate.
Has Jim Garrow proven his statements yet?
“so therefore parts of the constitution are unconstitutional.”
Rather, parts of the constitution are innately unethical, and innately aggressive.