Skip to main content

The cruel irony of slaughterhouse

 Seems to me we got fixated on it as well. I have to look up what the rights inherent before that decision were to have a better say. But if taking a face value all men created equal and maybe adapted to the times of people or citizens..


It seems like the decision was a lot of fancy wording to cover circular logic and create a splitting all or nothing decision.

With the inherent nature of checks and balances being considered or being part of the country's founding I think the elephants in the room missed by that decision is that who holds the states in check? I would think it could have just as easily been decided somewhere in between. Especially with what we know now about systems and organization development and theory in general what we know about sociology what the framers appeared to have intuitive insight into because checks and balances like external oversight.

Perhaps more disturbing at the moment though, we have private think tanks and federal government demanding states enforce some of them their laws and/or orders.

It's like the government wants to do anything but protect any bit of its citizens. And the scariest part is we have it framed between nanny state and no state with generations now conditioned to believe the only way for the government to exist is like a business when as far as I can see this creates the incentive to eventually turn on the citizens especially when tariffs are low and any state or any other nation can cut taxes and offer other incentives we literally turn the government into the pusher of a lot less than freedom as far as I can see.

That's not to say that my opinion matters but I believe I'm still entitled to it

Edit:

We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. Undoubtedly while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void. And so if other rights are assailed by the States which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent. But what we do say, and what we wish to be understood is, that in any fair and just construction of any section or phrase of these amendments, it is necessary to look to the purpose which we have said was the pervading spirit of them all, the evil which they were designed to remedy, and the process of continued addition to the Constitution, until that purpose was supposed to be accomplished, as far as constitutional law can accom plish it.We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. Undoubtedly while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void. And so if other rights are assailed by the States which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent. But what we do say, and what we wish to be understood is, that in any fair and just construction of any section or phrase of these amendments, it is necessary to look to the purpose which we have said was the pervading spirit of them all, the evil which they were designed to remedy, and the process of continued addition to the Constitution, until that purpose was supposed to be accomplished, as far as constitutional law can accom plish it.


What I find interesting here is it goes to great effort to define other nations systems as slavery and or indentured but says little to nothing about what our government does to its own citizens. Without that defined what we consider it it would seem that that's actually circular cuz what did we outlaw we're admitting within the language that we think other races and nations are creating slave light or indentured like systems. But we never defined what isn't or did we if someone knows this I'd love to know. It seems in the absence it all means nothing or it means we own you but we won't say it. What I wonder now is if that's entirely up to the states where is Minnesota's definition

Because again if we didn't define slavery other than here it was black other places its other colors other systems would both acknowledge that it's not just black yet failed to define it outside of that.

Part of what I was getting at above is Minnesota appears to define theft and property as business school would define tangible assets. But if no one enforces any equal enforcement.. there's a pretty big loophole there to hurt people. Or more so if the state decides your life is better as freedom curtailed court ordered to spend this much time doing this under threat of jail this seems like an absolute cluster f*** but more simply put bait and switch or switch and switch switch I've got to laugh where I'm going to go crazy

But what I don't believe is allows to happen oh wasn't there a case about a a woman and a drug buy? Something just crossed my mind that I read probably on electronic freedom frontier or something similar.

What I don't want to believe is legal is police overlooking repeated criminal acts one party against another especially when they endanger lives maybe it is legal I think the system is pretty flawed if it requires one to be able to get to civil court but all things legally speaking that might prevent that or make it extremely difficult or run out the time limit are ignored or ignorable


I also Wonder if allowing the theft of physical ID especially as officers Hanson informed me it was illegal to have driven down there without it and then the next time didn't care whatsoever despite the fact that that made it hard to get food in any way while other federal crimes like male fraud and check fraud like at what point do you deprive someone of life or risk doing so or is the edge the transition not can you only be guilty of that after it's done in that case what if my heart stops for a moment or is that possibly the real reason that we have laws against suicide?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

unchanged needs with Mal nutrition and poisoning still present 2020 27 10

Immediate  Tangible Asset Needs for basic security health and to end the terror going forward  this totals about $300 for things actually needed purchased most of it os things stolen and held from me  this is an expenditure to reduce money burnt and days hungey. actual new purchases to accomplish that about $400 usd mn police may think it's OK to allow someone robbed repeatedly moved under threat to 43k of assets they help a retired union leader steal and destroy but on a very practice level such as cooking a meal or managing my time this is hell. for the duration it's continued it may be lethal  I really look forward to a meal and dread it. but I'd rather not end up diabetic heart disease or dead. what I mean is 3 years isolated and abused losing all of my pets either seeing my parents who gaslight and threaten or no one. cooking and eating alone... not great but I seriously need to.  my hair and nails are falling out and apart. I'm usualy in enough physical pain I can

What Actual Peace Officers Look Like vs Many of MNs less than finest.

  Heres me traveling alone in Germany in 2006. 

My Needs 10/12

Nothing on this list is new. Most of it most of directly because the last 3 years of my life have been consumed by problems they created. With no bindings even to law and police refusing to allow me my property or care even when my ID is stolen.. 9mo of clean this car we made snow blow through made the landlord here unhappy it was clear I would be asked to leave end of lease from maybe 5 or 6mo in. They tried to evict the garage. Clean this car or your stuff gets donated recycled..etc I can't even wash clothes which is my fault. They steal to make fixing the dryer hard while I still don't have a glass in the cupboard but I have Clyde in the freezer and they play the let's rotate out what lie we're going to tell today game 20 days to be out of this apt (March 31 2020) still empty car broke for 6 days Marlene and Paul file domestic violence restraining orders in a family court an HR and a half from the apt they forced the lease in. 45min by freeway from their house no car