dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

here we go again - the ACB slide and here is why

LAWFAG here on why ACB is not going to be the next or any future nominee - soory its long BUT anons need to learn up on habeus corpus = detention of enemy combatants w/o court interference…

most anons know about her extreme catholic/evangeclical religious worship and it is not good at all - includes many women's issues easily attacked and also talking in tongues and other out of the mainstream biblefag stuff- however since she is so dogmatic many prolifers see her as a lock on that issue and that is as far as they go - i do NOT agree with this approach and believe her extreme beliefs DQ her.

that said POTUS did place her on the short list - IMO to appease said prolifers and evangelicals - however there is an indpt and objective reason why POTUS will not nominate her - and that is her announced position on habeus corpus.

as anons know a writ of Habeus Corpus is a legal device to get out of jail/arrest and into court - guaranteed by the Constitution no less - POTUS can suspend this writ in times of war and ER - OK great so what is the problem?

Well in 2014 this ACB wrote a vapid piece claiming that POTUS does not have the power to suspend habeus - ONLY CONGRESS - and went around the country giving this stinking opinion - heres the link:

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/the-suspension-clause-by-amy-barrett-and-neal-katyal

This legal opinion is unsound and illogical. The authors point out that the writ was needed because the monarch (executive) imprisoned persons w/o judicial process - the parliment thus passed a law prohibiting this action - the authors go on to point out that the founding fathers "…valued the Great Writ because they had this history in mind. Yet those who framed and ratified the Constitution also believed that in times of crisis, the executive might need leeway to hold suspects without answering to a court."

OK here is the disconnect - clearly the monarch had the power to imprison people - the legislature wanted to curb that power and did - that is the history - that is clearly was (is) the executive (monarch) that has this power.

So now on to the constitution - which ACB cites as her reasoning - Articl 1 Section 9 which provides that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Seems pretty clear right? WRONG! This clause LIMITS CONGRESS POWER - NOT POTUS POWER - Proof? LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION WHICH READS:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

limits on congress! NOT POTUS. NOWHERE in the Constitution is POTUS historical power to suspend habeus corpus limited or made subject to Congress. Well what does SCOTUS have to say about this? NOT MUCH! The case taught in law scholl for the ACB position is Ex Party Merriman - and it is true that case is cited for that proposition - but here is the catch - that was part of the legal confrontations in the runup to civil war - and decided by only ONE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE not SCOTUS - and BTW LINCOLN ignored it. So should we.

As a result of this prelim dust up Congress voted to grant POTUS the power to suspend habeus corpus but only for the duration of the civil war. So that long expired law does not address the current status of the matter.

Well after 9-11 Congress passed more national security laws including the detention of enemy combatants (sound familiar?) A litigation ensued with the court of appeals making the following decision:

"Because it is undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict, it was not proper for any court to hear a challenge of his status… The broad warmaking powers delegated to the President under Article Two of the United States Constitution and the principle of separation of powers prohibited courts from interfering in this vital area of national security."

>>4732546

YES ANONS THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT IN 2004 - but then this correct decision went to SCOTUS - which body promptly grabbed back power with a counter-attack on seperation of powers. SCOTUS carved out an exception to this long standing rule of law in holding that '… due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status…"

To further point out the legal mumbojumbo that counts for SCOTUS opinions, consider this statement: "…we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance." OK so does this ("unless") means that if Congress DOES suspend habeus under Article 1 Clause 9 (public safety) the court CANNOT review it? Doubtful but clear as mud - and SCOTUS has made clear that they can and will review excercise of POTUS power to suspend habeus - in either event the ACB logic fails as badly as SCOTUS.

OK so SCOTUS sticks to its principle that whatever Congress or POTUS do is always subject to judicial review - however - here is the reason they gave: "…. the Judiciary must not defer to the executive with respect to detentions. Instead the constitution empowers the judiciary to act as a check on executive power in this realm"

OK but once again - whose power is being reigned in? THE EXECUTIVE. Not Congress. There are other cases that do little to clear up this question. As always the law is an utter confusion and mess, with power politics playing the major role in every case. Bottom line though, is this - If I were WH counsel I would NEVER concede the power to suspend habeus to Congress - NEVER - Lincoln was right and we won. ACB just accepts this milk toast "CON LAW" with no thought at all.

2/2

PS - just for giggles check out her co-author - Neal Katyal - moar evidence why ACB is a big fat DQ

>>4732373

1/2

some faggot posted this from the Q R. Board welcome message: As for the JQ, if you think we're all anti-semites, research our claims of jewish supremacy in media/gov./finance/entertainment before weighing in. How else do you think we came to our ideas? Do you think Q would choose a collection of idiots who have an ideology of hating people for no reason?

The gist of the post was Q has somehow endorsed the JQ and the prevailing attitude of BO, BV's and many /pol and 8chan vets - yes we all know their position and they have endorsed and adopted the concept that Jews and Judaism are evil. And since Q "chose" to post here Q therefore also supports this position

Not at all - Q chose this Board for a reason all right - but not that one - this is the same as proposing Q came here for the bewbs, or Q came here cuz 8chan has anime and robooty porn - no one claims that - so how and why does this so called JQ get a pass? Cuz the above noted group says so thats why - and they are dead wrong.

There is an obvious reason Q chose this forum - there were NO OTHER OPTIONS to inform and create a digital army - what other options are there? Start his own website or forum? Cant do that - cant use govt money and would have to conceal ownership and ops of the site which is trouble and risk - not to mention the fact that it would start with ZERO base or usage. NO not an option.

How about existing forums and media? Youtube, FB. Twitter, Instagram, Redditt? NOT an option - we all know what happens when anons post THE PLAN and POR POTUS sutff there - censored - not to mention NONE of those are setup as an image board - these being a critical part of the Q crumbs - which also rules out GAB and VOAT (assuming no censorship there?)

NO - 8chan is the ONLY forum that has robust imaging, zero censorship, and a large and savvy digital user base. That is why it was chosen and why is succeeded. And in fact the JQ and all the other less important shilling was a Q team bonus - used for training aids to tell truth from fiction - after all has Q ever endorsed or supported the prevailing view here on Jews? Well there were a few that were on topic - the meme that Q posted - however that is far from conclusive as it was posted in the middle of the revelations about the Vatican - and anti-semitism is a long standing tradition in the Catholic church.

There was also several posts on MOSSAD - but that cannot eb conflated with Jews, Israel or Judaism any more than saying CIA is American means all americans are evil. Finally the BIGGEST crumb was "Saving Israel for last - very specific reason." OK great - what does it mean? NO anon has decoded this - Sure lots of "reasons" (accusations) get posted but NONE has ever been a "VERY SPECIFIC REASON." NONE. EVER.

That said I do agree there IS INDEED A JQ - in fact there are two - the first s the Q post - WHAT IS THE VERY SPECIFIC REASON ISRAEL IS SAVED FOR LAST?" I have seen NO analysis or discussion of that VERY SPECIFIC crumb.

VERY = in a high degree - Extremely, exceedingly, exceptionally, especially, tremendously, immensely

SPECIFIC = particular, specified, certain, fixed, set, determined, distinct, separate, definite, single, individual, peculiar, discrete, express, precise (IE NOT GENERAL)

REASON = a basis or cause for some belief, action, fact or event

>>4732576

2/2

OK? so we are looking for "an extremely definite, discrete and precise basis for "saving Israel for last."" Any anon want to claim an answer or decode that fits these plain english words in the Q crumb? Havnt seen anything close.

JQ #2 - is the one from 40,000 feet - and that is "WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE JEW IN HUMAN HISTORY?" I will say there has been some high quality posting on this question - but it is drowned out by the false "Jews are evil" narrative shitposts. We all know the Jews have a disporportionate role in human history - OK some say all evil - of course that is so obviously wrong it has zero credibility even on this board. There are many ideas and theories - christian, muslim, secular and non-secular, historical, social, religious, financial, demographic, geographic and on and on - every aspect of human history. It is phenomenal indeed and warrants full analysis in any discussion of human histroy and where we are headed - which after all is the subject of the Q posts and the GA. Specifically "What role do the Jews have in the GA?" is the critical included question. By all means discuss, criticize and post away but if we stay intellectually honest and on target we will get there sooner and with much less suffering. The posts that pass for "discussion" of the JQ here is 90% simplistic garbage, insults, ethnic slurs, divisionfag shitposts, projections, misleading accusations and fake history, and outright falsehoods - that should tell all truth seekers just how important the JQ really is. Who is hiding the truth and preventing real consideration of the JQ? Those who claim to be exposing Jewish evil, thats who.