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

A society based on every individual having the legal authority to decide for himself what rules they will or will not follow is not tenable under any circumstances.

Nothing I have said is determined at the individual level. The question of whether or not an authority is operating within its originally granted jurisdiction can be objectively answered regardless of any individual's feelings or opinion. Why do you keep pretending that I'm advocating for anarchy?

[–] • 0 pt

The question of whether or not an authority is operating within its originally granted jurisdiction can be objectively answered regardless of any individual's feelings or opinion.

If that were accurate, that would mean there is no disagreement in the United States about whether the government has any authority to require vaccines.

Why do you keep pretending that I'm advocating for anarchy?

Because that's what you are advocating.

[–] • 0 pt

If that were accurate, that would mean there is no disagreement in the United States about whether the government has any authority to require vaccines.

That's incorrect. That just means that one side is objectively wrong.

Because that's what you are advocating.

No it's not and that you would claim so is ridiculous. I am advocating for the just rule of law as upheld by an authority operating within its granted scope. Take for example the Second Amendment. Disregarding any legal code enacted with regard to firearms and holding as void the now falsely claimed authority of whatever power enacts such code is not advocating for anarchy. It is advocating for compliance with the Law which states "shall not be infringed".

[–] • 0 pt

That's incorrect. That just means that one side is objectively wrong.

According to whom? According to them it's you, and according to you it's them. So who's interpretation of the law gets enforced and who enforces it?

No it's not and that you would claim so is ridiculous. I am advocating for the just rule of law as upheld by an authority operating within its granted scope.

That's not the part that's advocating anarchy, the part where every person decides what is and isn't within its granted scope is the anarchy part. You think the people who wrote the Constitution were too stupid to think of the idea of leaving it up to individuals or something?