keyboard_arrow_left
keyboard_arrow_right

Will Hawkins

@willhawkins

End Game [intheMatrixxx] American Patriot Constitutional Moderate - Ideology of a Constitutional Moderate: Governed By The Rule of Law: 1. The American form of government is based on our being a "REPUBLIC" rather than a Democracy. 2. It is a system of government that protects the rights of the people; under the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. 3. In a Republic, the rights of the government are limited by a fixed body of laws, not subject to majority whi...ms; as in a democracy. 4. Under a Republic, the people are freer, and able to benefit from their labors, without a domineering government influence. 5. The government gets its sovereign authority from the people; limited government under a higher law, (American Constitutionalism). No where in the Constitution of the United States of America or the Bill of Rights has the word, "Democracy" written in it. Republic: In modern republics such as the United States, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also sub national entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as "republican" in nature. For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government". Those on the far left desire absolute government power in the form of oligarchy, monarchy, Nazism, socialism, communism, dictatorships, and tyranny. Because such ideologies protect the rights of only a select few, leaving all other individuals as mere subjects to the same, such ideologies conflict with humanity and are, therefore, incorrect. Those on the far right desire an absolute lack of government in the form of anarchy. Because such an ideology protects the rights of no individual, thus placing in danger the rights of all individuals, such an ideology also conflicts with humanity and is also, therefore, incorrect. A Constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in ... power is subject to the rule of law. One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion. The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology. Many people claim to be moderate because of a lack of satisfaction with the more radical sides of the political or religious spectrum, rather than advocating a specific stance. Aristotle favored conciliatory politics dominated by the center rather than the extremes of great wealth and poverty or the special interests of oligarchs and tyrants. Voters who describe themselves as centrist often mean that they are moderate in their political views, advocating neither extreme left-wing politics nor right-wing politics. Voters may identify with moderation for a number of reasons: pragmatic, ideological or otherwise. It has even been suggested that individuals vote for ‘centrist’ parties for purely statistical reasons. A moderate position is to bring reason and logic to the public discussion regarding the constitutionality of government activity. The Constitutional Moderate seeks to protect the rights of ALL individuals through the rule of law. We recognize and appreciate the potential for law to preserve and protect the rights of us all both by limiting government power sought after by those on the far left and by limiting civil abuses dealt by individuals on the far right. Because the United States Constitution was framed for such a purpose, and because it represents the "Supreme Law of the Land", we seek to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic" who oppose it, as well as our republic (Article 4, Section 4). A Constitutional Moderate judicial philosophy is not as easily defined as judicially conservative and liberal philosophies are. It is usually composed of a balance between particular conservative and liberal beliefs. Frequently, judicial moderates are pegged as such because they will vote in a conservative manner on some issues, but vote in a liberal manner on others. This can make a judicial moderate the swing vote in certain cases depending on which legal issue is being decided. On the other hand, some judicial moderates are pegged as such simply because they will reverse their own prior decisions. On the appellate level, some jurists are known as judicial moderates because they concentrate on evaluating the law based on wording and past legal precedent (stare decisis) rather than upon a consideration of outside factors such as religious beliefs or public opinion. Supreme Court justices, however, are less likely to be defined as moderates for the same reason because there is not the same mandate for them to follow stare decisis. As members of the highest court in the land, they can vote to overturn legal precedents and do not have to follow stare decisis if they find such action warranted. http://www.willhawkins.com/
local_offer#8chan#anon#q#thegreatawakening#wwg1wga
𝐁𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞 𝐔𝐩 Fellow Patriots: What you are about to learn should not only scare you, but intensify your resolve to take back control [Freedom]. The information that will become public will further demonstrate the criminal & corrupt [pure evil] abuse of power that the Hussein administration undertook in joint efforts w/ domestic and foreign dignitaries. The snowball has begun rolling - there is no stopping it now. D5. Stay the course and trust the plan. Protective measures are in place. Remain BRAVE. We knew this day would come. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ United We Stand (WW). WWG1WGA. We FIGHT. Conspiracy no more. It has begun.
explicitClick to confirm you are 18+
3
remove_red_eye6,107
Flynn Case Update – Reply Motion Supporting Dismissal and/or Withdrawal of Plea… Posted on February 18, 2020 by sundance Lawyers representing Michael Flynn presented a strong argument today (pdf below) in reply to the governments’ continued efforts to refute prosecutorial wrongdoing. Within the reply motion Sidney Powell highlights the conduct of prosecutor Brandon Van Grack and hypocrisy within the government arguments: “Mr. Van Grack’s contention that he satisfied the government’s obligations by providing this information before Mr. Flynn’s sentencing now proves the point that he suppressed it when it was most important to Mr. Flynn: before his guilty plea on December 1, 2017, and before what was scheduled to be his sentencing on December 18, 2018.” Prosecutor Van Grack suppressed evidence to protect… “the prosecutors, his team, and the cadre of malfeasant FBI agents from the discovery of their negligence, crimes, and wrongs.” The tone of the reply motion reads like the Flynn defense is chomping at the bit to take this case to trial. Perhaps that is a strategy to add weight to their dismissal argument; or perhaps that is a reflection of defense confidence they can highlight all of the abuses at trial. The entire briefing is worth a good read and it includes some good timeline information to emphasize the abuses. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/02/18/flynn-case-update-reply-motion-supporting-dismissal-and-or-withdrawal-of-plea/#more-183983
explicitClick to confirm you are 18+
0
remove_red_eye4
Click to load more