On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-20 1:03 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-20 8:02 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-19 1:44 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
>>>>>> or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the
>>>>>> laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under
>>>>>> this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
>>>>>> shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Calling it that is literally nothing short of libel, slander and
>>>>>> defamation.
>>>>>
>>>>> How is attempting to stop the process of certifying an election NOT a
>>>>> "rebellion" "against the authority of the United States OR THE LAWS
>>>>> THEREOF".
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the very definition of a rebellion in that context.
>>>>
>>>> Like Al Gore (who actually succeeded in delaying the certification,
>>>> unlike Trump)?? There is much more needed than this "very definition
>>>> of a rebellion" which I'm sure you would realize if you thought about
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Did Al Gore "rebel" by pursuing redress through the courts?
>>>
>>> Nope!
>>
>> Precisely my point. Yes, they are very different cases. Al Gore was not
>> guilty of insurrection or rebelling, but he was "attempting to stop
>> the process of certifying an election" and indeed did stop it for a
>> while.
>>
>> Therefore, something more is needed than just "attempting to stop the
>> process of certifying an election" to define something as a rebellion.
>
> And we have that.

No, *WE* don't have that, you say you have that but haven't
established it at all, other than claiming because they were
insurrectionists it was an insurrection.

Doing something against the law is not necessarily "rebelling"

> Read your own definition again.
What definition? I was using yours and showing it didn't lead to
the conclusions you wanted.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, there are differences in the two cases. For example, Al
>>>> Gore and the Florida Supreme Court were explicitly told by the US
>>>> Supreme Court that what they were doing was illegal. Then they went
>>>> and did it again, at which point the US Supreme Court declared Bush
>>>> the winner, with not a single US Supreme Court justice supporting
>>>> Gore's position.
>>>>
>>>> For the record, I consider both Trump and Gore's efforts to be
>>>> baseless.
>>>
>>> Courts differing on what is "legal" is a very different thing that armed
>>> insurrectionists invading a building.
>>
>> Agreed. But if you claim this applies to the current situation then you
>> are assuming what you are trying to establish - that these people are guilty
>> of insurrection. That doesn't help your argument at all!
>
> I'm looking at their actions and their actions only.

And not coming close to proving they were participating in a rebellion.
Lay out the *legal* argument as you see it that shows they are
insurrectionists and all the protesters in the past were not. What in
their actions made it a rebellion?

Chris

On 22 May 2022 22:58:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-05-20 1:03 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-20 8:02 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-19 1:44 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
>>>>>>> or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the
>>>>>>> laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under
>>>>>>> this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
>>>>>>> shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Calling it that is literally nothing short of libel, slander and
>>>>>>> defamation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is attempting to stop the process of certifying an election NOT a
>>>>>> "rebellion" "against the authority of the United States OR THE LAWS
>>>>>> THEREOF".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the very definition of a rebellion in that context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like Al Gore (who actually succeeded in delaying the certification,
>>>>> unlike Trump)?? There is much more needed than this "very definition
>>>>> of a rebellion" which I'm sure you would realize if you thought about
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Did Al Gore "rebel" by pursuing redress through the courts?
>>>>
>>>> Nope!
>>>
>>> Precisely my point. Yes, they are very different cases. Al Gore was not
>>> guilty of insurrection or rebelling, but he was "attempting to stop
>>> the process of certifying an election" and indeed did stop it for a
>>> while.
>>>
>>> Therefore, something more is needed than just "attempting to stop the
>>> process of certifying an election" to define something as a rebellion.
>>
>> And we have that.
>
>No, *WE* don't have that, you say you have that but haven't
>established it at all, other than claiming because they were
>insurrectionists it was an insurrection.
>
>Doing something against the law is not necessarily "rebelling"

A few hundred people out of a population of over 300 million is not
"insurrection", it is a small mob.

>> Read your own definition again.
>What definition? I was using yours and showing it didn't lead to
>the conclusions you wanted.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, there are differences in the two cases. For example, Al
>>>>> Gore and the Florida Supreme Court were explicitly told by the US
>>>>> Supreme Court that what they were doing was illegal. Then they went
>>>>> and did it again, at which point the US Supreme Court declared Bush
>>>>> the winner, with not a single US Supreme Court justice supporting
>>>>> Gore's position.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the record, I consider both Trump and Gore's efforts to be
>>>>> baseless.
>>>>
>>>> Courts differing on what is "legal" is a very different thing that armed
>>>> insurrectionists invading a building.
>>>
>>> Agreed. But if you claim this applies to the current situation then you
>>> are assuming what you are trying to establish - that these people are guilty
>>> of insurrection. That doesn't help your argument at all!
>>
>> I'm looking at their actions and their actions only.
>
>And not coming close to proving they were participating in a rebellion.
>Lay out the *legal* argument as you see it that shows they are
>insurrectionists and all the protesters in the past were not. What in
>their actions made it a rebellion?
>
>Chris

On 2022-05-22 5:52 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On 22 May 2022 22:58:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-20 1:03 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-20 8:02 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-19 1:44 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
>>>>>>>> or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the
>>>>>>>> laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under
>>>>>>>> this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
>>>>>>>> shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Calling it that is literally nothing short of libel, slander and
>>>>>>>> defamation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How is attempting to stop the process of certifying an election NOT a
>>>>>>> "rebellion" "against the authority of the United States OR THE LAWS
>>>>>>> THEREOF".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is the very definition of a rebellion in that context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Al Gore (who actually succeeded in delaying the certification,
>>>>>> unlike Trump)?? There is much more needed than this "very definition
>>>>>> of a rebellion" which I'm sure you would realize if you thought about
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did Al Gore "rebel" by pursuing redress through the courts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope!
>>>>
>>>> Precisely my point. Yes, they are very different cases. Al Gore was not
>>>> guilty of insurrection or rebelling, but he was "attempting to stop
>>>> the process of certifying an election" and indeed did stop it for a
>>>> while.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, something more is needed than just "attempting to stop the
>>>> process of certifying an election" to define something as a rebellion.
>>>
>>> And we have that.
>>
>> No, *WE* don't have that, you say you have that but haven't
>> established it at all, other than claiming because they were
>> insurrectionists it was an insurrection.
>>
>> Doing something against the law is not necessarily "rebelling"
>
> A few hundred people out of a population of over 300 million is not
> "insurrection", it is a small mob.

Really?

Where is that written/codified?

On Thu, 19 May 2022 11:14:33 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The American Constitution has fossilized now, though. There will be no
> further amendments.

Why bother to amend when you can re-define the existing words?

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:

> Lay out the *legal* argument as you see it that shows they are
> insurrectionists and all the protesters in the past were not. What in
> their actions made it a rebellion?

Well, they did break into the building in which the Senate conducted
its business.

Furthermore, they did so with the express intent of preventing it from
conducting its business, to wit, the certification of the results of the
2020 election.

So they were acting to stop the government from governing.

Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?

John Savard

On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>
>> Lay out the *legal* argument as you see it that shows they are
>> insurrectionists and all the protesters in the past were not. What in
>> their actions made it a rebellion?
>
> Well, they did break into the building in which the Senate conducted
> its business.
>
> Furthermore, they did so with the express intent of preventing it from
> conducting its business, to wit, the certification of the results of the
> 2020 election.
>
> So they were acting to stop the government from governing.

No. At most, some individuals were trying to stop one act of the
government, not targeting the government as a whole. (Possibly outside of
some crazy folks.) This was a mob, not an organized group - there
wasn't a single purpose.

> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?

I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
of the government. There are fuzzy boundaries to the definition, as
is true for most definitions.

Jan 6 was the same as many protests throughout our history, targeted
at one act of the government they disagreed with. There have been
many occupations and attempts at occupation of government
buildings/offices - none of the participants have been charged with
insurrection or widely called insurrectionists. The major difference
here is the sensitive place attacked and the incompetence of the
Capital Police.

Chris

On 2022-05-23 5:52 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>
>>> Lay out the *legal* argument as you see it that shows they are
>>> insurrectionists and all the protesters in the past were not. What in
>>> their actions made it a rebellion?
>>
>> Well, they did break into the building in which the Senate conducted
>> its business.
>>
>> Furthermore, they did so with the express intent of preventing it from
>> conducting its business, to wit, the certification of the results of the
>> 2020 election.
>>
>> So they were acting to stop the government from governing.
>
> No. At most, some individuals were trying to stop one act of the
> government, not targeting the government as a whole. (Possibly outside of
> some crazy folks.) This was a mob, not an organized group - there
> wasn't a single purpose.

Stopping one act of governing by violence is the very definition of
insurrection.

And do you think that a mob has to all sign a form saying what they are
agreeing to do?

>
>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>
> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
> of the government. There are fuzzy boundaries to the definition, as
> is true for most definitions.
>
> Jan 6 was the same as many protests throughout our history, targeted
> at one act of the government they disagreed with. There have been
> many occupations and attempts at occupation of government
> buildings/offices - none of the participants have been charged with
> insurrection or widely called insurrectionists. The major difference
> here is the sensitive place attacked and the incompetence of the
> Capital Police.

The major difference here is that politicians fomented it.

Quite deliberately.

On 2022-05-23 6:52 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>
>>> Lay out the *legal* argument as you see it that shows they are
>>> insurrectionists and all the protesters in the past were not. What in
>>> their actions made it a rebellion?
>>
>> Well, they did break into the building in which the Senate conducted
>> its business.
>>
>> Furthermore, they did so with the express intent of preventing it from
>> conducting its business, to wit, the certification of the results of the
>> 2020 election.
>>
>> So they were acting to stop the government from governing.
>
> No. At most, some individuals were trying to stop one act of the
> government,

What was the act they were trying to stop?

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-23 6:52 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> > On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lay out the *legal* argument as you see it that shows they are
> >>> insurrectionists and all the protesters in the past were not. What in
> >>> their actions made it a rebellion?
> >>
> >> Well, they did break into the building in which the Senate conducted
> >> its business.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, they did so with the express intent of preventing it from
> >> conducting its business, to wit, the certification of the results of the
> >> 2020 election.
> >>
> >> So they were acting to stop the government from governing.
> >
> > No. At most, some individuals were trying to stop one act of the
> > government,
> What was the act they were trying to stop?

Their chants of 'Hang Mike Pence!' might be a clue.

Pt

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 3:27:29 PM UTC-4, rpre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ross Presser <rpre...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:a6af236d-2d21-41d9...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >> In other words, this white supremacist is angling to make the
> >> open primary into a de facto closed one.
> >>
> >Many would consider that a good thing. Open primaries have certainly
> >made certain that nobody can get elected in California who is not an
> >obedient party soldier.
> So sidelining state law is a good thing as long as you, Terry, like the
> outcome. Got it.
>
> It's difficult for me to imagine any more obedient party soldier than
> you. You spend countless unpaid hours here attempting to belittle and
> confuse all other rec.arts.sf.written readers, and to what end? To be
> the least believed joke on Usenet?

There is the argument that requiring political parties to hold primaries of any type
violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of association. A private
organization is converted into an agent of the state, and people are deprived of their
right to NOT associate with people whose views they find despicable. [Remember
the Republicans not being able to expel David Duke from the Louisiana GOP, because
of that state's jungle primary law?]

As a Libertarian, I object to mandatory primaries of any type, but also to their funding
and administration by organs of the state. Those who belong to no party or to smaller
parties that don't need a primary are forced to subsidize political activity they have no
interest in. Parties can raise their own funds and set up their own polling places, be
they "brick and mortar," via snail mail or electronic. Hire a disinterested accounting firm/
internet security outfit to give the count credibility. They'd be as likely to be believed as
the current mish-mash of voting and tabulation methods used by state and local governments
in the several US states.

--
Kevin R

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 3:54:31 PM UTC-4, William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:21:04 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> > On 2022-05-20 8:02 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> > > On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> > >> On 2022-05-19 1:44 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> > >>> 18 U.S.C. § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection
> > >>>
> > >>> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
> > >>> or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the
> > >>> laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under
> > >>> this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
> > >>> shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
> > >>>
> > >>> Calling it that is literally nothing short of libel, slander and
> > >>> defamation.
> > >>
> > >> How is attempting to stop the process of certifying an election NOT a
> > >> "rebellion" "against the authority of the United States OR THE LAWS
> > >> THEREOF".
> > >>
> > >> It is the very definition of a rebellion in that context.
> > >
> > > Like Al Gore (who actually succeeded in delaying the certification,
> > > unlike Trump)?? There is much more needed than this "very definition
> > > of a rebellion" which I'm sure you would realize if you thought about
> > > it.
> > Did Al Gore "rebel" by pursuing redress through the courts?
> >
> > Nope!
> Well consider this:
>
> "The rancor lingering from the bitterly contested presidential election spilled over during a joint session of Congress today, forcing Vice President Al Gore to gavel down black House members time and again in order to make official the election of his opponent, George W. Bush."
>
> ...
>
> 'May God bless our new president and new vice president and may God bless the United States of America,'' Mr. Gore said to a standing ovation from the remaining House and Senate members before gaveling the joint session to a close and signing autographs.
>
> Found in the NY times, 7 Jan 2001, via google in a few seconds.
>
> It's so much like Trump, I think I'm seeing double!
>

And even the so-called lefty VP violated the First Amendment by using government
resources to proselytize for his /r/e/l/i/g/i/o/n/ "ceremonial Deism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism

--
Kevin R

On 2022-05-23 3:45 p.m., David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-23 6:52 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lay out the *legal* argument as you see it that shows they are
>>>> insurrectionists and all the protesters in the past were not. What in
>>>> their actions made it a rebellion?
>>>
>>> Well, they did break into the building in which the Senate conducted
>>> its business.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, they did so with the express intent of preventing it from
>>> conducting its business, to wit, the certification of the results of the
>>> 2020 election.
>>>
>>> So they were acting to stop the government from governing.
>>
>> No.  At most, some individuals were trying to stop one act of the
>> government,
>
> What was the act they were trying to stop?

The certification of the election results.

On 2022-05-23 7:09 p.m., pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-05-23 6:52 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lay out the *legal* argument as you see it that shows they are
>>>>> insurrectionists and all the protesters in the past were not. What in
>>>>> their actions made it a rebellion?
>>>>
>>>> Well, they did break into the building in which the Senate conducted
>>>> its business.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, they did so with the express intent of preventing it from
>>>> conducting its business, to wit, the certification of the results of the
>>>> 2020 election.
>>>>
>>>> So they were acting to stop the government from governing.
>>>
>>> No. At most, some individuals were trying to stop one act of the
>>> government,
>> What was the act they were trying to stop?
>
> Their chants of 'Hang Mike Pence!' might be a clue.
>
> Pt

And Pence was so concerned that if he left the building with his Secret
Service detailed that he wouldn't be allowed to return...

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:59:05 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:gkv48h93ilq8kgp6o...@4ax.com:

[snip]

> > It is my understanding that, if you check with the Pope, you
> > will find that being pro-life includes all of:
> >
> > 1) opposition to abortion
> > 2) opposition to effective contraception
> > 3) opposition to capital punishment
> >
> > Although not a Roman Catholic, I suggest that the Pope's
> > definition of "pro-life" is reasonably authoritative.
> Only for Catholics. And really, when it comes to the loudest of the
> anti-abortion types in the US, neither they nor the Pope would
> consider tham Catholic (and most of them dont' consider Catholics
> Christian, or even human).
> --

Earlier, I mentioned the "seamless garment" theory regarding "pro-life."

AKA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethi

In 2018, Pope Frankie expounded thusly:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world/europe/pope-death-penalty.html

So, anti-capital-punishment is in the Catechism.

There has not yet been a papal bull, with Senor Bergoglio speaking
"ex cathedra."

https://religionnews.com/2018/08/02/francis-kills-the-death-penalty-for-roman-catholicism/

Paul VI at least issued this, re: abortion and artificial birth control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_vitae

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

But even that wasn't "ex cathedra," or was it ?

[quote]

“Ask 5 different theologians to define infallibility and you’ll get six different answers.”

[/quote]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicauthenticity/2017/08/many-theologians-take-define-infallibility/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=ecperson&ref_post=afraid-theotokos-catholic-charismatic-carnal-dormition-fast-3

I'd expect self-described Catholic supporters of the death penalty here in the
States to follow the Pope about as faithfully as self-described Catholics who
don't want Roe overturned will.

{Atheist Ex-Catholic with a Poli Sci/History BA from a Jesuit University.,
here. I also went to Catholic elementary and high school. I was marinated
in this stuff as a kid. }

My personal view is that while popes may claim to be infallible,
juries and judges aren't, so "life without parole" is as far as I'm
willing to go. The US constitution does mention:

[quote ]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... {8th Amendment}

[/quote] - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rights1.asp#5

So since:

[quote]

Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes, capital offences, or
capital felonies, and vary depending on the jurisdiction,....

[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

....it might be a good idea to amend the Constitution to forbid the death penalty.

The Supreme Court blocked all executions from 1972 to 1976, so
depending on the courts to permanently ban it was a dashed hope,
once the state legislatures got to work amending their laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Capital_punishment_suspended_(1972)

In a country so split between two ideological camps, expecting an amendment
banning the death penalty t garner the required supermajority of states is a pipe
dream.

--
Kevin R

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:24:41 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:

[snip]

> Earlier, I mentioned the "seamless garment" theory regarding "pro-life."
>
> AKA
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethi
>

Should be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

[snip]

--
Kevin R

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:

>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>
>I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>of the government.

That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
current government.

On Tue, 24 May 2022 00:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:59:05 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:gkv48h93ilq8kgp6o...@4ax.com:
>
>[snip]
>
>> > It is my understanding that, if you check with the Pope, you
>> > will find that being pro-life includes all of:
>> >
>> > 1) opposition to abortion
>> > 2) opposition to effective contraception
>> > 3) opposition to capital punishment
>> >
>> > Although not a Roman Catholic, I suggest that the Pope's
>> > definition of "pro-life" is reasonably authoritative.
>> Only for Catholics. And really, when it comes to the loudest of the
>> anti-abortion types in the US, neither they nor the Pope would
>> consider tham Catholic (and most of them dont' consider Catholics
>> Christian, or even human).
>> --
>
>Earlier, I mentioned the "seamless garment" theory regarding "pro-life."
>
>AKA
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethi
>
>In 2018, Pope Frankie expounded thusly:
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world/europe/pope-death-penalty.html
>
>So, anti-capital-punishment is in the Catechism.
>
>There has not yet been a papal bull, with Senor Bergoglio speaking
>"ex cathedra."
>
>https://religionnews.com/2018/08/02/francis-kills-the-death-penalty-for-roman-catholicism/
>
>Paul VI at least issued this, re: abortion and artificial birth control.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_vitae
>
>https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
>
>But even that wasn't "ex cathedra," or was it ?
>
>[quote]
>
> “Ask 5 different theologians to define infallibility and you’ll get six different answers.”
>
>[/quote]
>
>https://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicauthenticity/2017/08/many-theologians-take-define-infallibility/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=ecperson&ref_post=afraid-theotokos-catholic-charismatic-carnal-dormition-fast-3
>
>I'd expect self-described Catholic supporters of the death penalty here in the
>States to follow the Pope about as faithfully as self-described Catholics who
>don't want Roe overturned will.
>
>{Atheist Ex-Catholic with a Poli Sci/History BA from a Jesuit University.,
>here. I also went to Catholic elementary and high school. I was marinated
> in this stuff as a kid. }
>
>My personal view is that while popes may claim to be infallible,
>juries and judges aren't, so "life without parole" is as far as I'm
>willing to go. The US constitution does mention:

I should just like to note that I am using the current RC definition
of "pro-life", however I choose to describe it. Papal infallibility is
not involved.

>[quote ]
>
>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
>unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... {8th Amendment}
>
>[/quote] - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rights1.asp#5
>
>So since:
>
>[quote]
>
>Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes, capital offences, or
>capital felonies, and vary depending on the jurisdiction,....
>
>[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
>
>...it might be a good idea to amend the Constitution to forbid the death penalty.
>
>The Supreme Court blocked all executions from 1972 to 1976, so
>depending on the courts to permanently ban it was a dashed hope,
>once the state legislatures got to work amending their laws.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Capital_punishment_suspended_(1972)
>
>In a country so split between two ideological camps, expecting an amendment
>banning the death penalty t garner the required supermajority of states is a pipe
>dream.

Which confirms my assertion the the Supreme Court is /not/ pro-life,
but merely anti-abortion.

Indeed, they appear to be anti-justice as well, judging from a recent
decision that new evidence can be ignored in some situations.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <09622b7d-2fe9-4b23-89a0-db3745003adcn@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 3:27:29 PM UTC-4, rpre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Ross Presser <rpre...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > news:a6af236d-2d21-41d9...@googlegroups.com:
> >
> > >> In other words, this white supremacist is angling to make the
> > >> open primary into a de facto closed one.
> > >>
> > >Many would consider that a good thing. Open primaries have certainly
> > >made certain that nobody can get elected in California who is not an
> > >obedient party soldier.
> > So sidelining state law is a good thing as long as you, Terry, like the
> > outcome. Got it.
> >
> > It's difficult for me to imagine any more obedient party soldier than
> > you. You spend countless unpaid hours here attempting to belittle and
> > confuse all other rec.arts.sf.written readers, and to what end? To be
> > the least believed joke on Usenet?
>
> There is the argument that requiring political parties to hold
> primaries of any type violates the First Amendment's guarantee of
> freedom of association. A private organization is converted into
> an agent of the state, and people are deprived of their right to NOT
> associate with people whose views they find despicable. [Remember the
> Republicans not being able to expel David Duke from the Louisiana
> GOP, because of that state's jungle primary law?]
>
> As a Libertarian, I object to mandatory primaries of any type, but
> also to their funding and administration by organs of the state.

If the State is going to demand primaries, the State (well, the
taxpayers) better pay for it.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Mon, 23 May 2022 23:26:33 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 3:54:31 PM UTC-4, William Hyde wrote:
>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:21:04 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> > On 2022-05-20 8:02 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>> > > On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>> > >> On 2022-05-19 1:44 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> > >>> 18 U.S.C. § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion
>> > >>> or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the
>> > >>> laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under
>> > >>> this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
>> > >>> shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Calling it that is literally nothing short of libel, slander and
>> > >>> defamation.
>> > >>
>> > >> How is attempting to stop the process of certifying an election NOT a
>> > >> "rebellion" "against the authority of the United States OR THE LAWS
>> > >> THEREOF".
>> > >>
>> > >> It is the very definition of a rebellion in that context.
>> > >
>> > > Like Al Gore (who actually succeeded in delaying the certification,
>> > > unlike Trump)?? There is much more needed than this "very definition
>> > > of a rebellion" which I'm sure you would realize if you thought about
>> > > it.
>> > Did Al Gore "rebel" by pursuing redress through the courts?
>> >
>> > Nope!
>> Well consider this:
>>
>> "The rancor lingering from the bitterly contested presidential election spilled over during a joint session of Congress today, forcing Vice President Al Gore to gavel down black House members time and again in order to make official the election of his opponent, George W. Bush."
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 'May God bless our new president and new vice president and may God bless the United States of America,'' Mr. Gore said to a standing ovation from the remaining House and Senate members before gaveling the joint session to a close and signing autographs.
>>
>> Found in the NY times, 7 Jan 2001, via google in a few seconds.
>>
>> It's so much like Trump, I think I'm seeing double!
>>
>
>And even the so-called lefty VP violated the First Amendment by using government
>resources to proselytize for his /r/e/l/i/g/i/o/n/ "ceremonial Deism."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism

The Founders crafted that carefully. "Congress shall pass no law
respecting an establishment of religion", not "The President shall not
pray for divine intervention after he fucks up yet again". But the
courts have decided to make it a blanket "freedom of religion" instead
of the intended limitation on the power of Congress to legislate.

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5l7q8hl5fmepsct04kbr9tjlnvs453sika@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 23 May 2022 23:26:33 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
> <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 3:54:31 PM UTC-4, William Hyde wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:21:04 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>> > On 2022-05-20 8:02 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> > > On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>> > >> On 2022-05-19 1:44 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> > >> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> > >>> 18 U.S.C. § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in
>>> > >>> any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of
>>> > >>> the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or
>>> > >>> comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or
>>> > >>> imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
>>> > >>> shall be incapable of holding any office under the
>>> > >>> United States.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Calling it that is literally nothing short of libel,
>>> > >>> slander and defamation.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> How is attempting to stop the process of certifying an
>>> > >> election NOT a "rebellion" "against the authority of the
>>> > >> United States OR THE LAWS THEREOF".
>>> > >>
>>> > >> It is the very definition of a rebellion in that context.
>>> > >
>>> > > Like Al Gore (who actually succeeded in delaying the
>>> > > certification, unlike Trump)?? There is much more needed
>>> > > than this "very definition of a rebellion" which I'm sure
>>> > > you would realize if you thought about it.
>>> > Did Al Gore "rebel" by pursuing redress through the courts?
>>> >
>>> > Nope!
>>> Well consider this:
>>>
>>> "The rancor lingering from the bitterly contested presidential
>>> election spilled over during a joint session of Congress
>>> today, forcing Vice President Al Gore to gavel down black
>>> House members time and again in order to make official the
>>> election of his opponent, George W. Bush."
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> 'May God bless our new president and new vice president and
>>> may God bless the United States of America,'' Mr. Gore said to
>>> a standing ovation from the remaining House and Senate members
>>> before gaveling the joint session to a close and signing
>>> autographs.
>>>
>>> Found in the NY times, 7 Jan 2001, via google in a few
>>> seconds.
>>>
>>> It's so much like Trump, I think I'm seeing double!
>>>
>>
>>And even the so-called lefty VP violated the First Amendment by
>>using government resources to proselytize for his
>>/r/e/l/i/g/i/o/n/ "ceremonial Deism."
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism
>
> The Founders crafted that carefully. "Congress shall pass no
> law respecting an establishment of religion", not "The President
> shall not pray for divine intervention after he fucks up yet
> again". But the courts have decided to make it a blanket
> "freedom of religion" instead of the intended limitation on the
> power of Congress to legislate.
>
There are subtleties between "passing a law that says 'you *must*
do this'" and "passing a law that makes it difficult, if not
impossible, to *not* do this." Those subtleties often do not
matter, and the courts recognize this.

But subtly isn't your forte, especially when bloviating on your own
biases.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>
>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>
>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>> of the government.
>
> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
> current government.

Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>
>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>>> of the government.
>>
>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
>> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
>> current government.
>
>Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
>insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.

Well, either that or there are so few "Registered Republicans" that
the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are 59% of them.

Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered Republicans"
is about 100 at best?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 2022-05-25 10:22 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>>>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>>>> of the government.
>>>
>>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
>>> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
>>> current government.
>>
>> Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
>> insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.
>
> Well, either that or there are so few "Registered Republicans" that
> the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are 59% of them.
>
> Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
> deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered Republicans"
> is about 100 at best?

What are you babbling about?

On Wed, 25 May 2022 09:22:05 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
><davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>>>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>>>> of the government.
>>>
>>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
>>> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
>>> current government.
>>
>>Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
>>insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.
>
>Well, either that or there are so few "Registered Republicans" that
>the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are 59% of them.
>
>Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
>deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered Republicans"
>is about 100 at best?

I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
they have to try to do something unlawful about it.

On 2022-05-25 10:24 a.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 09:22:05 -0700, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>>>>> deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>>>>> of the government.
>>>>
>>>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
>>>> insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
>>>> current government.
>>>
>>> Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to be
>>> insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing that.
>>
>> Well, either that or there are so few "Registered Republicans" that
>> the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are 59% of them.
>>
>> Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
>> deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered Republicans"
>> is about 100 at best?
>
> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.

Like invade a building to stop the peaceful transfer of power...