HOME | DD
jollyjack β Did You Just Article 13?
Published: 2019-03-27 23:16:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 51995; Favourites: 927; Downloads: 221
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 493
π: 0 β©: 0
'People working together achieve more than divided'
Two hard hats standing around while another digs a hole leaps to mind.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 2 β©: 1
Its chief architect being a communist.Β
π: 1 β©: 0
I can't help but feel that all governments would be improved by being less about politics and more about good governance.
π: 6 β©: 0
Just walk away from it all in Brussels, Jolly, walk away. The EU wants you shut up, give them all your money, and obey their edicts of the week. Brexit it and just work on making the UK a better place.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I was originally one of the idiots who voted Leave. Soon enough, I realised I'd been duped and an idiot, and regretted my decision. I longed for a new referendum in response to the evidence that the Leave campaign had lied top to bottom.
And then the EU Article 13'd their pants, and now I'm on the fence again.
π: 2 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 2 β©: 0
v. good cartoon work, as good as steve bell - as for the E.U. it is a good idea in a purely utilitarian sense.Β By combining together as a bloc member states gain greater collective bargaining power on the international stage if only because that represents a big market.
Points like the European Convention of Human rights are also a good idea since it provides a necessary yard stick for civil liberties especially important when you consider that many current E.U. states underwent authoritarian rule of either fascist rule e.g. Spain and Portugal & Greece(under the Colonels Junta) or communist dictatorship e.g. the former Warsaw Pact members.
Other members provide a sort of neighbourhood watch mentality in defence ofΒ civil liberties and the rule of law ~ witness the stink raised when Poland and Hungary were suspected of politicising the judiciary.
π: 0 β©: 0
Let's be honest. EU. Good idea, poor execution.
I mean, all they had to do was just copy the united states.
(Yes, I also understand that it's a lot more complicated than that, but at the same time America only had one civil war. And Europe?....I mean, can they go a hundred years without killing each other, having on of the nations become mad with power (germany/England), or having an uprising against the government? (France.))
I mean, you don't see american states doing any of these things. The worst you got is Washington State legalizing weed despite the government considering it illegal, which ended with the government going "Ok. You can have weed, but only in your state."
π: 1 β©: 2
"I mean, all they had to do was just copy the united states."
Yeah, based on our history, that wouldn't help. In fact it's one of the reasons why I supported BREXIT when I first heard of it.Β
"America only had one civil war"
A civil war is when two militant political interests vie for the central government. The War between the States was nothing of the sort: because the South didn't want to control the federal government: they wanted to form their own confederacy and trade peacefully with their former confederates.Β Β
"despite the governmentΒ "
Those three words? They are precisely why I endorsed Britain's resumption of their full sovereignty. That fundamental conflagration of the federal government with "the government", like we're all one big blob, has been the source of more cruelty, waste and wasted lives than any other fallacy in American history. Our Union is "between the States so ratifying the same", not the States and the federal government they authored and populate; and it says so in the federal Constitution (which is not the only Constitution, but one of many of equal authority).Β The fact that you didn't know that, until I explained it, based on your answer, is why the British needed to leave the EU: before someone told them their government wasn't "the government"; before their children were taught, over and over, generation after generation, that the EU preceded the States that formed it.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, actually, it is a civil war. We call it The American Civil War.
Where, yes, the southern states stated they had seceded from the union, but because President Lincoln declared that the southern states had not constitutionally segregated from the union, the confederates were considered rebels and the war a rebellion. Therefore, because it was technically considered a war between people of the same nation, it's called a Civil War.
History written by the victor and all that. I'm sure if the south won, it would be a Revolutionary war or something. And I have no doubt that there was justification for the South leaving. One doesn't start a war over shits and giggles and all that.
Also, the federal constitution is the Constitution, and what you quoted is Article 7 that says that the power of those states ratify the constitution. As in, these states make the constitution, which is the government. And Article 1, Section 10, (which remember, was agreed on by the states) says the government can limit the states' powers.
Which can include illegalizing things that even a state legalizes. And the states, in turn, have the power to change the government by both the House of Congress and the Senate which has representatives from the states, which the representatives are elected by the people of the states. If 49 states say that something is illegal, then the government makes it illegal, and that one state can't just not follow the law. States are the government. The government is the sum of the action of the states. Though, I'll emit, most people do forget that and think the government a massive, all powerful entity, when really it's just a states working together.
hmm. Maybe that's how we can fix Europe. More national representation and less governmental control over the nations. Something, honestly, more like the Confederate states of America than our own Union of States might work. Though maybe more control than that League of Nations idea.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's not the definition of a civil war. A civil war is two or more factions vying for supremacy of a government. It doesn't matter what we call it (I'm American, dude). It matters what it is. Haven't you ever heard of a misnomer? Or a fallacy? You can call anything anything, it wouldn't make it factual.
"because President Lincoln declared that the southern states had not constitutionally segregated from the union"
Well, it wasn't up to him, because Article 4 sect. 4 states the following, and still does:Β
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union aΒ Republican Β Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
That means you can't march troops into a Union State without permission from their duly elected Legislatures or governor: so, yeah: Lincoln, blatantly, was violating his oath of office, to uphold the federal contract, by waging an invasion against a Union member; also, by waging unilateral war without Congressional Consent (which he did not get until July 1861), and even then Congress was breaching the contract because they wouldn't dare declare the Confederate States of America a sovereign government, because that would mean they were willingly violating the contract themselves, making it null en void. There's no circling this square: "shall protect them against Invasion" is not "open to interpretation". There's a reason Lincoln suspended habeus corpus simultaneously
"History written by the victor and all that.Β "
You don't see a problem with that hypocrisy? Because, last I checked, we won the "war" against aboriginal Americans; and nobody's told them to shut up about it, nor denied that long, sordid legacy of injustices and abuses.Β
"Also, the federal constitution is the Constitution"
No, it's the federal Constitution listing the enumerated powers and duties of the provisional federal government. The States have Constitutions of equal legal potency, because they are sovereign and independent; and if you think otherwise, ask yourself a very simple question: can anything but a sovereign government authorize and populate a federal government? No. Ergo, to deny the States' sovereignty, which predates the confederacy styled as the United States of America in the Articles of Confederation, that Union not consisting of 13 sovereign members of equal suffrage until 1781, when the last State independently ratified their membership, is to deny the source of that Union's provisional authority. It's as absurd as saying, 'The EU was first!'; and it's just as dangerous.Β
"and what you quoted is Article 7 that says that the power of those states ratify the constitution"
No, it's says "The Ratification of the Conventions ofΒ nine Β States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." The Philadelphia Convention was not the ratification convention, it was a committee to draft potential Amendments to the Articles of Confederation; but, nine out of the 13 original States decided, 'We can secede and form a new Union bound by a new compact: because it only applies to US, the States who sign up." That's why the Federalist Papers were written after the Convention: as advertisements and commentaries on the contract being offered to New Yorkers, who legally had to vote for a State Convention, in their country, New York, to ratify their membership into this new Union. Every one of the nine Northern States who signed up did not do so in Philadelphia; if that's what you think it's historically false. Read the Ratifications acceding to the new federal Constitution, they are public record; and they are important.Β
"and that one state can't just not follow the law."
Yes. It can. Because Article 4 says 'You can't march troops into our turf, just because you want to boss us around. We are the source of your federal authority, and we have, therefore, as your superiors, the power to interpret the limits of the authority WE granted you.' Madison goes on to expound on this by saying, in his commentaries on the Constitution, 'If the general welfare could be interpreted as "Whatever shit we make up." why would we put Articles and Amendments in at all? They would be contradictory and useless.' Hence the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which nullified the Aliens and Seditions Acts. And furthermore, that's why Secession was always a human right the States had; guaranteed by the fact that, if they left, you couldn't march troops into them to call them back, not without having to declare war, and you can't declare war against a Union member. "shall protect them against invasion", again, is not open to interpretation. It's the plainest legalese imaginable, and it was still violated: which is why I am SO happy Britain GTFO out of their Union before it got itself a shiny new Continental army it could throw at the Brits for daring to be free and independent.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
No offense, General, but America is in the midst of a civil war at this moment.Β It's not declared, in any formal sense, but people are still dying.
As for what individual states do: look what happened when the Supreme Court ruled that everyone should have the right to marry.Β County clerks and states' attorneys general across the country announced that they just weren't going to abide by the decision.Β They took an oath of office, every one of 'em, which included a vow to uphold the Constitution of the United States (and yes, that includes the constitutional structure of our government), and they paid lip-service to their oath until that Constitution required them to do something they didn't want to do.Β Then it was "Oh, our Christian principles must be defended!"
I don't know what's happening with the E.U. right now - Brexit never made much sense to me at this distance - but for feck's sake, don't look to us as an example of how to run a confederation!
I love my country - I served my country during one of those wars we had a while back, and I'd do it again if I had to - but we are a goddam mess right now.
π: 0 β©: 2
"No offense, General, but America is in the midst of a civil war at this moment."
Not yet, but we're briskly ticking off all the boxes for one; and all of them old. It's eerie, to be honest.Β
"County clerks and states' attorneys general across the country announced that they just weren't going to abide by the decision."
Well, those judges have a right to interpret the extents of the federal contract, and, parenthetically, the federal SCOTUS's authority, and, therefore, they have the right to declare any laws beyond the bounds of the Constitution null and void. If that sounds outrageous to you, let me ask you something: doesn't "government by consent of the governed" mean the governed have as much right, necessarily, to interpret the law as the law maker? If your answer is, 'Yes, of course.' then these judges shouldn't shock you. Whether you're pro-gay marriage or not, the rule of law, the ability to interpret the law, and thus hold law-makers accountable, are more important, as republican principals. If you don't think so, well, I'm sorry, but that's dangerous and short-sighted; because the federal government cannot have unilateral power to interpret the extents of its power: because then the Articles and Amendments, limiting its power, become meaningless. Now, saying that does mean I agree with those judges' decisions: I am saying I support their right to interpret the SCOUTS's authority, and their willingness to exercise that right.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
hahaha. Ya, we are a mess too, but I mean basically every other superpower nation is just as bad, if in their own way. Should read up on the shit going down in china. Haven't heard much coming out of Russian ever since they invaded that one country.
And to give a bit of help, from what I know, Brexit happened cause Britain was footing the bill for most of the EU whilst not getting an equal return back (neither monetarily nor politically). People in britain got pissy as the EU just seemed to get worse, so parliament let the people vote to leave (expecting people would want to stay cause they had LITERALLY no plan on what to do if the people voted to leave, I guess. It's actually kind of amazingly stupid even by american politics standards.)
There's also the south american farms being killed for their land by other south americans at the encouragement of their government, and then having people starving cause nobody knew how to farm the land.
We live in an age of stupid. Things that would be satire years ago is now reality. Monty Python is now political commentary
π: 0 β©: 0
I know this is a VERY late comment, and you most likely don't read my comments anyway, but I felt like I should at least say this. The reason I never commented on this picture when it first came out, was that - being notoriously anti-EU - I felt anything I would've said, would appear as rubbing your face in the mud, so I kept silent.
Now though, after your meme drawing, I fell that I should at least explain that the first three panels of this comic are what I like. It's you being civil and clarifying WHY you think the EU is excellent; Which is what I love. If you want to express your opinion, I believe that you should do more like this in the future - again, the first three panels.
π: 0 β©: 0
Don't worry, Jollyjack, you'll be joining the rest of us against the Wall eventually. Just keep it up, bro. And when you do, I don't want to hear a peep out of you. We all know it'll happen because of the way you draw the female form in the last several years. The last lesson people like you learn is that NO ONE is safe from the far left.
π: 0 β©: 1
Who would have thought we'd end up in a timeline where the fundamentalist right is less sex-negative than the far left?Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Mind if I turn part of that last panel into a meme? That expression is priceless.
π: 0 β©: 0
Convert to Islam and become free again. Valid to the entirel Europe.
π: 0 β©: 0
I would point out that Britain has now voted for article 13 too.
π: 0 β©: 0
Look:Β
Β I know you think Europe's doing something new and exciting and revolutionary (but it's not). We did it before, that's what the Articles of Confederation were, and, when we seceded from those Articles, what the Federal Republic, under the federal Constitution, was: a Union of States. Hence, the United States of America. It was a free trade zone and more sophisticated than the one you have; because we had a continental military, the EU, by comparison, does not. And looked how that turned out. Great if you don't believe in government by consent of the governed, not so much if you try to leave; as 11 States learned painfully, as will you. Centralists don't take 'No!' for an answer. They'll keep eroding your country's sense of sovereignty, through its children, and their children's children, until everyone silently denies your country's sovereignty ever existed. America is living proof of this. Our very name is a testament to his imperial revisionism: because we went from the obvious "the United States are" to "The United States is". The EU is already trying to do that to you, guys, calling everyone under their government "Europeans" and claiming Europe is a nation. Merkel openly petitions for a continental army.Β www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gHOA2β¦Β Please don't romanticize our mistakes by repeating them.Β I'm serious: please reconsider your stance and join the struggle to get the fuck out of this honey trap while you still can.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
First Article 13 and from what I have heard, you're having people arrested for saying mean things on twitter....so basically you have no freedom of speech either...I really hate to say it...but....Trump's sounding pretty good right now in comparison...and I feel like Beelzebub's Ballsack for even saying that
π: 0 β©: 1
Centralization of power breeds authoritarianism.Β Doubly so if everyone wants to move in the same direction.Β As Herbert said, "All governments tend towards aristocracy."
π: 0 β©: 1
"Aristocracy" isn't the right word for the problem: all governments crave centralization. When the United States were first discussing authoring a provisional federal government in the Philadelphia Convention of 1788, Alexander Hamilton openly proposed to make the President a popularly elected king, with all the authoritarian bells and whistles. He also proposed making the sovereign States corporations, no more than cities to a nation. Its capital being Washington D.C. in the District of Columbia (ironic, giving Columbia is the goddess of Democracy). Hamilton was immediately ripped a new one by the Convention---'Are you FUCKING high! We just got done fighting a foreign power hundreds of miles away across the sea! You want to make a new one HERE!' The Jeffersonian generation, the lower case federalists, fought tooth and nail to maintain State sovereignty, and the minute Washington got the income tax, the second they got a permanent standing army through the first ever draft, they have never relinquished those unconstitutional means of centralized, authoritarian power; because who's going to make them without another civil war?Β
Β Europeans better get out while they can, or learn the hard way: you can't give up authority of your own land to foreign governments: it doesn't work.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I'd be interested to see what innovations and shared successes we're talking about here. How does EU membership benefit me personally? Fact is, it doesn't. It's a banking union, for large-nosed, hand-wringing bankers and fiscally dependant protected classes, like politicians and their families, to hide money and assets in other countries. The U.K. has factually deteriorated under EU membership. It factually has not benefitted from it. They are not listening to the vote of the people because the banking cartels and the influencial mafia families won't permit the UKs freedom from EU dictatorship.
To solidify various slave countries in EU membership, the powers that be have flooded these countries with foreign migrants to out-vote the native populations. These beautiful countries, once so full of promise and culture, each with their own personalities and identities, will soon be nothing more than slave-States to the growing EU land-grab. A corrupt, inherently evil project modelled after the former USSR.
A country should stand on its own, by its own merits and strengths. It should require exactly zero overarching legislation and would still perfectly capable of working with other countries for the better. Your stance isn't the working together of nations, your stance is the abdication of freedom, sovereignty, cultural identity and financial responsibility.
A unity of law is simply a means of dictating to more and more countries. Not that most countries keep to those laws anyway. The glorious UK keeps to most EU laws whilst many of the more decrepit, corrupt mainland EU slave-states do not. Article 13 is only one example of a far bigger authoritarian disease metastasising within the EU.
Its sad that the dictatorship in charge of the U.K. will not listen to the vote of the people. It's sad that the globalist disease is prevalent even in Conservative politics. But at least we now know where we stand; as a country and a people. The truth is, we are no better than any middle-eastern country we invade to bolster the petrodollar. We live in a dictatorship. I'm perfectly willing to accept that. Given that votes no longer matter and honour no longer exists, rules are only guidelines now.
People can laugh at the UK, but we made a bid for freedom and the globalist dictatorship who owns this country, will not honour the will of the people. Other EU slave-states are too scared to even try.
I mourn for the cultural death of Europe. Such beautiful, inspiring countries, each of them unique, far better free and independent than as part of the EU collective. And such culture and beauty can only come from independence and national sovereignty. I think now that we must accept we live in a Middle-eastern style dictatorship, freedom must be viewed as an individual act rather than a national one. Individual freedom will be the last stand, the final good organ that the globalist disease has yet to devour.
I would choose freedom every time.
π: 0 β©: 1
"To solidify various slave countries in EU membership, the powers that be have flooded these countries with foreign migrants to out-vote the native populations. These beautiful countries, once so full of promise and culture, each with their own personalities and identities, will soon be nothing more than slave-States to the growing EU land-grab. A corrupt, inherently evil project modelled after the former USSR."
A-yup.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I feel so bad for the EU, just look how sad it is.
Damn all those Continental corporate tools! At least Sweden was... Supposed to be unanimously against, but it seems we aren't free of our own sellouts.
π: 0 β©: 0
Article 13 is there to make platforms accountable, so we don't get Putined and get some orange clown in a critical political position through data mining, bots and fake news. No memes will be harmed.
π: 0 β©: 2
Nobody with a sensible mind says article 13 is a good idea. Sure, it holds platforms accountable for copyright protection, but it's so damn vague that politicians can exploit it to hell and back. Even then, the requirements are so ludicrous that it would be smarter for every platform to just boycot the EU all together.
π: 0 β©: 0
Um, no. That's the exact opposite of what it does. It's explicitly a copyright and trademark protection measure.
π: 0 β©: 1
Where do you get your information?
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, Jollyjack, I can add just two things: first, leaving the European Superstate that is as much democratic as the former Council of Mutual Economic Assistance was is not a mistake. Second, Article 13 is actually an attempt from the losing EU politicians to censor and ban their opponents in the pretext of "protection of authors". Because they know the upcoming election to the EU "parliament" (which is a "parliament" only nominally and even lacks the power to propose bills) will be their very end.
And besides, blaming the UK citizens for the failures of the EU is as absurd as stupid.
π: 0 β©: 0
I swear I want to see an animated version of the hamster going ape-shit on Article 13 there.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dScavG⦠everything beyond 10min is quite interesting for the current Article 13 situation... (beware its german so activate subtitle)
But in short it seems that France bribe germany with a new Gas pipeline in order to get current form of Article 13/17. And that the UK could stop it if they vote against it but probably won't do because they are "too occupied" with the Brexit...
π: 0 β©: 2
Do you really want to be in bed with countries that would propose such a hair brained policy? And force on you through the pretext of authority they don't have unless you give it to them?Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh me, oh my so much delicious grief to go around. It's almost like a free meal, all is missing is someone grinding pepper on everyones heads here. But then again, we live in a society where people believe in clickbait neckbearded youtubers as "experts" on things instead of doing research themselves.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Yep. Article 13 sucks. Still, fun to see all the people that gets so defensive whenever Jollyjack makes anything about Trump, come out of the woodwork to criticize the EU.
π: 0 β©: 0
βͺ What the Hell did you just do...? βͺ
βͺ After all the crap you put me through, βͺ
βͺ You torture me with this s**t too? βͺ
βͺ WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU?! βͺ
βͺ Every damn day I go to work βͺ
βͺ For a heartless, stingy, jackass/jerk βͺ
βͺ And you 'reward' me with a wet, brown 'twerk' βͺ
βͺ WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU?! βͺ
β« WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU?! β«
β« WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU?! β«
β« DO MY TEARS OF RAGE NOT PLEASURE YOU?!β«
β« WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU?! β«
β« WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU?! β«
β« WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU?! β«
β« MY LIFE IS HELL!! I DON'T NEED THIS TOO!!β«
β« WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU?! β«
----
It'll never be a chart topper but it might be catchy...maybe. *shrug*
π: 0 β©: 0
Ha ha! You silly Europeans! This kind of thing would never happen in the good olβ US of A!
*Ajit Paht and The Net Neutrality Bill loom overhead*
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>