Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

Memorize this. This is your authority.

Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency.

ANYONE who declares the suspension of Constitutionally guaranteed rights (to travel freely, peacefully assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) AND OR attempts to enforce such a suspension within the 50 independent, sovereign, states of the United States of America is making war against our Constitution and therefore the people.

They violate their Constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity.

Memorize this. This is your authority. Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency. ANYONE who declares the suspension of Constitutionally guaranteed rights (to travel freely, peacefully assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) AND OR attempts to enforce such a suspension within the 50 independent, sovereign, states of the United States of America is making war against our Constitution and therefore the people. They violate their Constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (111).
[–] • -1 pt

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.

[–] • 4 pts

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?

[–] • 0 pt

Actually it really is.

No, it isn't. You want it to be that way, and it hurts your fee fees that it isn't that way. It still isn't that way.

YOU MAY NOT VIOLATE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Fucking period

If everyone gets to decide what's a violation of their Constitutional rights, how about the shitlib who thinks it's their Constitutional right to force your to get vaccinated for their safety? Now we have a problem because in your system everyone gets to decide for themselves what's their Constitutional right. You can't say their view is invalid because you've just said that individuals get to decide.

[–] • 2 pts

Fuck you hoppes, go get jabbed as much as you want. When you try to force it on me, when you support the people who force it on me, you tell the devil that's how you got there.

[–] • 3 pts

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?

[–] • 0 pt

That's how all authority works whether it's written down or not.

Then why make any pretense about it being some kind of law. Just say, "I'm not listening to what the government says if I think it's not right," and leave it at that?

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.

They did say that by sending over troops. Do you have a Continental army ready to defend your position?

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?

Yes, the problem isn't the theory. The problem is who has the authority to decide what is just and unjust? If it's every individual for himself, then there is no rule of law.

[–] • 0 pt

"I'm not listening to what the government says if I think it's not right," and leave it at that?

Because that's not at all what I said. The obligation to obey authority is null if the authority operates outside it's jurisdiction. That's self-evident. It has nothing to do with "if I think" anything.

Do you have a Continental army ready to defend your position?

Obviously not. But what's your point? We know that an unjust authority will use any means within it's reach to maintain itself. Does that mean it is still to be obeyed or that it's proclamations still carry moral force when it operates outside it's jurisdiction?

The problem is who has the authority to decide what is just and unjust? If it's every individual for himself, then there is no rule of law.

It is self-evident that it is morally right or just for an authority to operate only within it's granted scope. Every individual should have the mental capacity to recognize that authority operating outside it's jurisdiction is unjust, false and to be disregarded. That's not an overthrow of the rule of law. In such a case the authority is the one who is attempting to overthrow and sidestep the rule of law. Those disregarding the unjust authority are attempting to return to the just rule of law.