They violate their Constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity.
Where does the Constitution say that an official who has violated their oath has immediately forfeited their office and authority, and that all of their past actions are nullified?
That is a natural principle of authority. I don't need a document to say that when an authority figure attempts to rule outside the scope of their authority they have betrayed their office and forfeited their authority. That's a self-evident principle.
I don't know that "their proclamations may be disregarded" is truly comparable with "all their past actions are nullified". It would seem to me that the first statement refers to the specific proclamation that was deemed to be issued in violation of the oath of office.
That is a natural principle of authority. I don't need a document to say that when an authority figure attempts to rule outside the scope of their authority they have betrayed their office and forfeited their authority. That's a self-evident principle.
That's not how the law works.
Actually it really is. Anything codified against such a natural truth is just tyranny disguised as law.
YOU MAY NOT VIOLATE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Fucking period.
You're an elected official? You legislate it? You say its legal? You VIOLATE YOUR OATH.
Not only should we disregard them, we should arrest them.
Imagine if we held them to nuremberg law? We'd lose 70% of our doctors.. And all our politicians who followed these insane mandates, based on fabricated data any child could disprove.
How much fucking more tyranny do you need? Will you relinquish your right to work or will you take the dubious clot shot, whenever they tell you to?
Is this a difficult decision?
That's how all authority works whether it's written down or not. That's exactly what the British government would have said to the Declartion of Independence which appealed to self-evident principles above any codified system of legal code. Law is founded in authority. And when authority is unjustly wielded it is null. Would it change your willingness to exercise liberties if the code book said otherwise?
At the barrel of your gun apparently. Otherwise, bend over for your clot shot.
This is the final arbitrator of your rights.
Of course military force can settle a dispute, but you have to choose your battles. If every single thing you don't like is a cause to go to war you're not going to last long or accomplish anything.
YEah, it's been every little thing I've grabbed my gun for.. You are a fucking hack.
The line has been drawn.
Get a new username you fucking hobbyist.
They've been crossing line after line. Our country as we know it is gone. Our culture as we know it is gone. They're making laws as we speak to put me and @QuestionEverything and people like us in political prison camps.
This is exactly the time to come to terms with the violence that's being forced on us.
That is why men must be trained and assembled at all times for this purpose. It's called a militia and it's a constitutional right.
Unfortunately, people have decided they're going to let the feds bully them, tolerated infiltration and being treated like the mafia.
That was grounds right then and there.
The most obvious one was infringement of the 2nd Amendment, every single line has been crossed. Everything in the BoR has been trampled willingly and jack fucking nothing from the alleged "men".
You do have to choose your battles, but at some point, you have to pick one. Can't just sit there for 30 fucking years talking about choosing battles. lol
(post is archived)