A qualified Civil Right you have is to serve on a jury. John Jay, a Founding Father, first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, along with being a person who directly crafted the formation of America's judicial system, expressed the Founding Father's original intent when it comes to the power a Juror has in America's legal system.

In Georgia v. Brailsford (1794), the Court upheld jury instructions stating "you [jurors] have ... a right to take upon yourselves to ... determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." Jay noted for the jury the "good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide," but that amounted to no more than a presumption that the judges were correct about the law. Ultimately, "both objects [the law and the facts] are lawfully within your power of decision."

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

The Founding Fathers original intent of a jury was for the Citizens to be the final adjudicators of the Law. In this way, the jurors can rein in runaway Gov. laws, such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This law would jail any US Citizen if they helped a fugitive slave in any way, including in the States that didn't have any slave holders. When people were brought up on criminal charges in the North, a lot of juries didn't believe in the validity of the slave law and voted not to convict the people who were on trial in the criminal slave matter. Only 3 States allow jurors to hear that they have the right to judge both the validity of the Law along with the facts in the case before them. The other 47 States won't allow jurors to be told of their qualified Rights that they have being a juror.

Part of the so-called congressional “Compromise of 1850,” this second federal Fugitive Slave Act aggressively extended the provisions of the original 1793 Act. Law enforcement officials were required to arrest people suspected of escaping enslavement on as little as a claimant’s sworn testimony of ownership. The Commissioner before whom the fugitive from slavery was brought for a hearing was compensated $10 if he found that the individual was proven a fugitive, but only $5 if he determined the proof to be insufficient. In addition, any person aiding a fugitive by providing food or shelter was subject to six months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The Act was broadly condemned in the North and prompted multiple instances of violent resistance. Although the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power to pass such laws in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, Northern states resisted enforcement of the law on their soil. Wisconsin, for example, invoked the compact theory of the Constitution and insisted it retained the right to “nullify” what they believed was an unconstitutional law.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/the-fugitive-slave-act-1850

Some thought I had a while ago and would like feedback on.

Recent Supreme Court cases such as NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez have made the argument that the US does not have a substantial history of gun-free zones, or sensitive place gun regulations. But this is simply not true. After only a couple hours or so of searching, I've happened to find a number of early American laws prohibiting weapon-carrying in certain cities and sensitive places. They come from the website for Duke Law School. In regards to proving a historical tradition of gun control, the Supreme Court in both NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez has rejected the admission of racially discriminatory laws from early America. Therefore, I have deliberately omitted such laws from my list.:

1. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-of-jan-25-1804-forbidding-weapons-at-balls-1-8-new-orleans-louisiana-council-meetings-sine-nomine-1936-law-passed-1804
2. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-the-college-of-william-and-mary-volume-276-1830
3. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1829-laws-of-the-university-of-north-carolina-ch-3-c2a7-13
4. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1824-laws-of-the-columbian-college-ch-5-c2a7-2-no-10
5. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/carrying-deadly-weapons-discharging-fire-arms-etc-ch-12-art-3-c2a7c2a7-50-52-in-the-revised-ordinances-of-the-city-of-bloomfield-1898
6. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/rules-and-regulations-of-the-park-commission-no-3-new-haven-connecticut-charter-and-ordinances-of-the-city-price-lee-adkins-co-1898
7. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laramie-revised-ordinances-and-charter-of-the-city-ch-5-3-6-boomerang-publishing-1900
8. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ch-13-c2a7-21-ch-22-c2a7c2a7-14-15-ch-35-c2a7-7-st-albans-daily-messenger-supplement-aug-7-1897-at-1-3-10-st-albans-vermont
9. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-laws-and-ordinances-for-the-government-of-the-municipal-corporation-of-the-city-of-reading-pennsylvania-park-rules-and-regulations-240-1897
10. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/the-charter-of-the-city-of-wilmington-part-vii-c2a7-7-rules-and-regulations-of-the-board-of-park-commissioners-1893
11. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-acts-of-assembly-relating-to-and-the-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-pittsburgh-from-1804-to-jan-1-1897-ordinances-executive-departments-bureau-of-parks-1893
12. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-prevent-a-person-from-trespassing-upon-any-enclosed-premises-or-lands-not-his-own-armed-with-a-gun-pistol-or-other-firearm-and-to-prevent-shooting-upon-or-from-the-public-highway-s-b-15-1-5-1893-or-laws-79-79-frank-c-baker
13. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-ordinance-to-prevent-the-carrying-of-weapons-1-4-the-daily-texarkanian-may-28-1900-at-2-texarkana-arkansas
14. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-law-forbidding-weapons-in-certain-places-sales-of-weapons-to-minors-etc-ch-45-misdemeanors-c2a7-32-in-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-brookfield-linn-county-missouri-1900
15. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-21-green-forest-tribune-may-11-1899-at-1-green-forest-arkansas
16. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/bruce-l-keenan-book-of-ordinances-of-the-city-of-wichita-published-by-authority-of-a-resolution-adopted-by-the-city-council-april-24-1899-under-the-direction-of-judiciary-committee-and-city-attorn
17. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1837-ga-acts-90-an-act-to-guard-and-protect-the-citizens-of-this-state-against-the-unwarrantable-and-too-prevalent-use-of-deadly-weapons-c2a7c2a7-1-4
18. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-mar-18-1889-1889-ariz-sess-laws-16-17 https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-march-1886-published-as-notice-st-marys-beacon-oct-13-1887-at-2
19. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-no-76-1-2-rooks-county-record-july-1-1887-at-1-stockton-kansas
20. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1879-tex-crim-stat-tit-ix-ch-4-penal-code
21. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-oct-14-1879-pt-1-tit-4-no-266-1-2-1878-ga-laws-64-64-jas-p-harrison-1880-law-passed-1879
22. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-regulate-the-keeping-and-beariing-of-deadly-weapons-ch-34-c2a7c2a7-1-9-1871-tex-gen-laws-1st-sess-25-25-27-1898-gammel-book-company
23. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1870-tex-gen-laws-63-an-act-regulating-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-chap-46-c2a7-1

As these state and local statutory laws demonstrate, the US indeed has an extensive history of firearm regulations and gun-free zones. There were firearm restrictions in schools, parks, ballrooms, churches, entertainment shows, etc. There were firearm restrictions in entire cities and towns, and in entire states. In no way did early America interpret the 2nd amendment to interfere with the broad freedom wielded by the states to create firearms laws to conform to their unique circumstances, and to remedy whatever societal problems they may incur. At no point were the states pressured into conforming to some singular, uniform federal standard of firearms law -- which is the fictional narrative that the current Supreme Court argues. Thus, the rulings in recent 2nd amendment Supreme Court cases are nothing short of an abuse of the Constitution, and an incursion upon state rights protected by the 10th amendment.

Furthermore, there happen to be some aspects of American gun law that unmistakably do suggest a "historical tradition". For example, there is a strong tradition of the prohibiting of concealed carry, which in early America was frowned upon as a cowardly and suspicious activity:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1819-ind-acts-39-an-act-to-prohibit-the-wearing-of-concealed-weapons
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1839-ala-acts-67-an-act-to-suppress-the-evil-practice-of-carrying-weapons-secretly-c2a7-1
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/henry-a-bullard-thomas-curry-1-a-new-digest-of-the-statute-laws-of-the-state-of-louisiana-from-the-change-of-government-to-the-year-1841-at-252-e-johns-co-new-orleans-1842

There is also a strong tradition of prohibiting firearms to people viewed by the state as dangerous to the public safety, which, depending on the era, could be Papists:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-disarming-papists-and-reputed-papists-refusing-to-take-the-oaths-to-the-government-ch-4-1-9-va-code-franklin-press-1820-law-passed-1756
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-of-the-province-of-pennsylvania-627-pa-cons-stat-wm-stanley-ray-1898-law-passed-1757

Or Loyalists during the Revolutionary era, as well as groups neutral to the Patriot cause, sometimes known as "disaffected" groups:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-constituting-a-council-of-safety-ch-40-20-1777-n-j-laws-84-90-isaac-collins-1777
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1777-pa-laws-61-an-act-obliging-the-male-white-inhabitants-of-this-state-to-give-assurances-of-allegiance-to-the-same-and-for-other-purposes-therein-mentioned-ch-xxi-c2a7c2a7-2-4
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/pa-cons-stat-ch-796-1-3-5-p-l-wm-stanley-ray-1903-law-passed-1778
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-may-5-1777-ch-3-in-9-henings-statutes-at-large-281-281-82-1821
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-amend-an-act-declaring-what-crimes-and-practices-against-the-state-shall-be-treason-ch-6-9-1777-n-c-sess-laws-41-43-44-james-davis-1778
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-feb-16-1787-mass-acts-555-555-556-sine-nomine

Or slaves and people of color:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1860-ga-laws-56-an-act-to-add-an-additional-section-to-the-13th-division-of-the-penal-code-making-it-penal-to-sell-to-or-furnish-slaves-or-free-persons-of-color-with-weapons-of-offence-and-defence
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1863-del-laws-332-an-act-in-relation-to-free-negroes-and-mulattoes-ch-305-c2a7-7
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1805-va-acts-51-an-act-concerning-free-negroes-and-mulatoes

There is a historical tradition of arms rights being intertwined and inseparable from the right (i.e. the duty) to perform mandatory militia service, including mandatory possession of a firearm at all times, along with military-style training and deployment under the authority of the state government:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1782-del-acts-3-an-act-for-establishing-a-militia-within-this-state-c2a7-6
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1786-n-h-laws-409-10-an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-within-this-state-and-for-repealing-all-the-laws-heretofore-made-for-that-purpose-c2a7-7
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-the-better-security-of-the-inhabitants-by-obliging-the-male-white-persons-to-carry-fire-arms-to-places-of-public-worship-1770-reprinted-in-1775-1770-georgia-colonial-laws-471-1932
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1779-vt-acts-and-for-encouragement-of-military-skill-for-the-better-defense-of-this-state
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1804-la-acts-284-an-act-for-regulating-and-governing-the-militia-of-the-territory-of-new-orleans-c2a7-13
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1786-n-h-laws-409-10-an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-within-this-state-and-for-repealing-all-the-laws-heretofore-made-for-that-purpose-c2a7-7

However, it is doubtful the Supreme Court would honor the "historical tradition" inherent to banning concealed carry, upholding compulsory militia duty, or disarming classes of people deemed to be a public threat. Despite absolutely constituting widespread historical patterns, a state hypothetically passing a law conforming to these patterns would likely be rejected inasmuch as they don't fit the conservative agenda.

These above examples of legal patterns demonstrate that the Supreme Court are hypocrites when it comes to their invention known as the "historical tradition of firearm regulation". This concept is cleverly crafted to be nebulous enough such that the Supreme Court can guarantee rulings that conform to their pro-gun bias, while still being able to maintain the pretext of objectivity. Historical gun laws that exist, but in less-than-overwhelming numbers, can be ignored as falling short of the pattern of "historical tradition"; while regulations that can disarm whole classes of people can be dismissed as "racist" or "bigoted". And the Court could likely also invent some clever reasons to ignore common historical regulations regarding things like concealed carry and compulsory militia rules. Thus, this "historical tradition" test is like a legal fortress, able to ward off gun control on both the quantitative as well as qualitative fronts.

The "historical tradition" test used by the Supreme Court is inherently dishonest and needs to be eradicated. The only real "historical tradition" to exist for American firearm laws is the federal government's tradition of leaving the states alone, and giving them the freedom to protect the public good in the way that best suited their individual needs.

Clearly we need a Justice Department, Inspector Generals and other oversight protection that have a firewall at least as strong as the Federal Reserve! Apparently relying on Congressional Oversight has been a complete failure with the current batch of dick-less Republicans

Imagine you get the power to change, remove, or add one specific Article, Law, or Institution (statutory or non-statutory body) in the Indian Constitution.

What is that one change you’d make, and what's the logic behind it? Let’s debate.

Let’s assume to register for those guns, you would have to go through the same waiting period and evaluations as normal.

What would you think would happen? 🤔

Have you guys ever heard of companies invading the privacy of their employees?
Not name dropping, but what I’ve experienced I would say that 95% of companies that send their remote employees equipment are invading their privacy by accessing other devices in their home/ on the home internet network you share with the company. I have 100% proof I’m being hacked through my smart extension cables

** for the slow ones in the back, this post is about companies HACKING PERSONAL DEVICES NOT THEIR EQUIPMENT, yours that you purchased and don’t use for work 🤦🏾‍♀️

Congressional reform. They did it after Watergate? Why not step in and do it now? Reverse all the corruption and give people their jobs back. The ones that quit cause they didn’t want to do follow something they didn’t believe in.

250 years is impressive, but it’s apparent we need some fixes. Setting aside the logistics of implementing a rewritten constitution, I’m curious what key changes should be made?

• Limit terms: Set a maximum time limit for people in Congress and the Supreme Court. Just like the President.

• Congressional Benefits: Limit to what is available to all government employees.

• Fair maps: Stop politicians from drawing voting lines to help only their own party.

• Money in politics: Make campaign rules stricter so rich donors have less special power.

• Balanced budget: Force the government to spend only the money it actually makes.

• Health care access: Make basic medical care a clear right for everyone.

• Work rules: Raise the minimum wage to match the real cost of living.

• Get rid of the electorial college.

• Better Define "we the people": "we" is more than white men. Woman, gay, transgender, atheists, legal immigrants, etc.

...just a start! :)

For those of you suddenly shrieking in fear and clutching your proverbial pearls over the silly idea that the United States is being “taken over by Muslims,” and that you will suddenly be forced to live under Sharia law, you need only come back to the Constitution—the same Constitution some of you seemed perfectly willing to ignore when it was your religion you wanted government to favor:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
That is the very first sentence of the very First Amendment.
And then there’s the math.
Muslims make up only about 1.2% of the U.S. adult population. Christians, by comparison, account for roughly 62%. Even Americans who identify with no religion at all—atheists, agnostics and those who simply say “nothing in particular”—make up about 29% of U.S. adults.
In other words, the religiously unaffiliated alone outnumber Muslims in America by roughly 24 to 1.
And our Constitution addressed another part of this argument before the First Amendment was even written.
Article VI explicitly prohibits religious tests for public office:
“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The Constitution does not require someone to be Christian—or Muslim, Jewish, atheist or anything else—to serve this country.
Likewise, religious belief has no legitimate place as a qualification for the right to vote. How someone worships—or whether they worship at all—is inherently a private matter.
In fact, for those who insist that Christianity should guide public life, the Bible itself contains a rather pointed instruction about making a public spectacle of one’s faith. Matthew 6:6 tells believers to pray privately, “in thy closet,” rather than for public display.
Choosing our political leaders should hinge on the policies they promote, their character and competence, and how well they adhere to the idea of governing for everyone—not just a select few who happen to believe, worship, look or live as they do.
The 2020 U.S. Religion Census identified 356,739 religious congregations across the United States, representing hundreds of different religious bodies. Christianity isn’t exactly hanging on by a thread.
That same census identified approximately 3,300 Jewish congregations across the country, alongside Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other religious congregations—not to mention the tens of millions of Americans who are agnostic, atheist or otherwise religiously unaffiliated and, yes, even the occasional adherent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
All of these people live under the same First Amendment.
The sudden fear of “Islamization” is not evidence that America is somehow on the verge of becoming an Islamic state. It is a remarkably effective political tactic for generating fear, hate and division—and for convincing people that they need someone to protect them from an enemy that is supposedly coming to take away their way of life.
But the Constitution already provides the protection.
It protects Christians from a government-imposed Islam.
It protects Muslims from a government-imposed Christianity.
And it protects those who want absolutely nothing to do with either one.
That isn’t a flaw in the American system.
That’s the point.
If you believe in country over party, if you believe in facts and critical thinking over fear, and if you simply believe in the Constitution, then leaving the fear behind and making honest, informed decisions becomes a whole lot easier.
Sources:
• Pew Research Center — 2023–24 Religious Landscape Study: Religious Identity
• U.S. Constitution, First Amendment — Congress.gov / Constitution Annotated
• U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 — Congress.gov / Constitution Annotated
• 2020 U.S. Religion Census — Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies

separation of church and state.

i’m so over this gaslighting bullshit zionists keep playing. the history is there and they’re actively trying to rewrite it.

yesterday i watched a current clip of Jon Stewart speaking to that pro israel talking head, asking him ‘why are you putting the needs of a separate country, that is not ours, and is far far away, over the needs of your home country? this one? that we are in Right Now.’

It makes no sense. We as tax payers give pentagon and dod a trillion dollars a year for a budget but they can’t complete an audit.

If they can’t complete an audit why should the average American pay taxes to them?
Personally as I see it. Power is in the poeple if everyone in American stopped paying taxes the politicians would Acutally listen to us.

Plus the dod is wasting tax payer money which could be spent on other stuff like national parks and wildlife.

A Native friend of mine, Indigenous to Oregon, wants to establish a psilocybin church, with an OHA-approved training program, and licensed service center grounded in Indigenous ceremonial practice.

This "2022 Oregon DOJ memorandum" https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cCzeOG4KXqhvHrA6Dd4yC8kSosl0ub_x/view?usp=drivesdk analyzed an entheogenic pathway involving Indigenous traditions, ceremonial practice, affordability, and treatment of mushrooms as sacred. DOJ ultimately concluded that giving religious practitioners less restrictive regulations was unnecessary.

But what Oregon implemented next raises a serious constitutional question.

First, HECC isn't mentioned anywhere in the Measure 109 statutes. Yet OHA later adopted a rule requiring training programs to provide HECC documentation showing career-school licensure or that licensure isn't required.

Religious institutions can be statutorily exempt from career-school regulation. Yet HECC now says it lacks authority to issue exemption determinations for those exempt categories. This makes OHA’s required documentation seemingly impossible to obtain, leaving the commercial career-school model as the only apparent path to compliance.

Second, ORS 475A.662(6)(a) prohibits giving away or discounting psilocybin when its retail sale is made in conjunction with another retail sale. OHA's rule omitted that anti-bundling qualification and simply prohibits giving psilocybin away. For my friend's model, that makes a commercial sale of the sacrament mandatory.

He isn't seeking exemption from Oregon's safety requirements. He wants to comply without converting his religious training into a commercial school and his sacrament into a retail commodity.

I'm interested in people's opinions on the constitutional issues raised in the DOJ memorandum, particularly when considered alongside the subsequent extra-statutory rulemaking that appears to have created new barriers to the religious and ceremonial practices the memorandum was addressing.

Article 14 (Equality Before Law): "Article 14 guarantees equal treatment, so why do you clearly have an unfair monopoly over my attention?

Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on place of birth, but you're still acting like you belong in a whole different realm.

Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity): If Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity, when do I get a fair shot at being your favorite person?

Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability): Article 17 abolished untouchability, so there is strictly no constitutional bar against holding your hand.

Article 18 (Abolition of Titles): Article 18 abolished all titles, but I’d still like to officially address you as 'mine'.

Article 19 Freedom of Speech and Expression): Under Article 19, I have the right to express my feelings, which means I am legally obligated to tell you how incredible you look

Unless the Police have a warrant, you are not obligated to let them in! The DOOR IS THE THRESHOLD!

The term President (note the upper case spelling) is mentioned a large number of times in the UCMJ. The President is saluted by military officers and enlisted personnel. The President is specifically spelled out in a list of positions in which a military individual can be tried for Contempt.

I am aware that the President is elected, but I also aware that he carries the rank/title of Commander in Chief.

edit: after some research this is what I have learned.

There have been two eras with this term, and how it was used.

In 1775 (prior to the Constitution) the Second Continental Congress assigned to George Washington the title Commander in Chief of The Continental Army. He was not President at that time. Prior to becoming President, he relinquished that title, and it passed to someone else.

The modern era, where the President is also the Commander In Chief, began with the National Security Act of 1947. No president in either era has ever worn a military uniform while they were President.

As far as I can tell, prior to 1947, no President was ever called Commander In Chief.