CSS pop

Thursday, October 8, 2020

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?

No comments:

Post a Comment

 It just dawned on me. If you want to see evidence that black people are no more inherently violent than white people Martin Luther King and...