you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]whistlepig 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

you could say then that the civil war of 1860s was unconsitutional

yep. many have said that, but not because of freedom of movement between states. Just because states use to be able to leave the union if they decided to.

I agree with the rest of your comment. Not only the bit about the difference in state and federal law and their constitutions, but people are far more ignorant of their state constitutions. I've been trying to remedy that in the last few years, but I include myself with that criticism.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

yeah it's just that the constitution gets ignored a lot. Either overtly or thru loopholes. I remeber with the occupy wall st peacful protests. It got leaked that the department of homeland security and FBI was coordinating with mayors across the country who then had the local police crackdown on the camps and kick out the protestors. Did the federal govt halt peaceful protests, which would be unconstitutional, against the first amendment? No, not technically. But it happened nonetheless.

How about when they infiltrate protest movements with agent provacateurs. Or when NSA spies on us. If anyone whistleblows they get arrested for the espionage act of 1917 that does not let them defend themself. Govt can make whatever they want classified.

[–]whistlepig 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Totally agree. Not trying to argue its ok if they use some loop hole or just don't get get called on it by most of the public. Just pointing out a technicality in an effort to understand and clarify the differentiation and point out their motivation to muddy those waters by involving the states in their sick manipulative ways.