Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Attila
2017-01-27 13:32:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:41:35 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it, using the wording of the
law involved and prior court decisions.
So which is it, as they see it or the rest of it?
Rest of what? It is their responsibility to interpret a law in light
of existing statutes and prior case law.
Free hint, the court doesn't need to use the wording, nor does it even need
a law. Further prior court decisions can also be ignored, but then they are
put in the position of whether a higher court will accept their revision of
the law as they made it.
Which is one reason those higher courts exist.
Yep, we see where this is goes. The law is the arbitrary whim of the court,
and you're perfectly happy accepting living under such whimsical law.
It is the way our system works - like it or move elsewhere.
You clearly of the British mindset, where you accept that others can tell
you what to think.
What do you have against the British?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-27 13:34:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:37:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 02:00:42 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 00:31:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:50:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:42:22 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:00:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such
illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even
legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't
preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen
to
the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and
how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically
legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?
A different question. It was perfectly legal because SCOTUS said
so.
That's not what SCOTUS said.
It did at a certain point in history.
See what happens when you allow the courts to decide what the law is
rather
than looking at the law itself.
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
If two people read a law and disagree about what it means who is
wrong?
The one that sees what isn't actually in the language, context and intent
of
the law as written and passed into law.
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research.
What happens if two or more people did such reading and basic research
and came to conflicting opinions? Who would prevail?


--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 16:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:37:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 02:00:42 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 00:31:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:50:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:42:22 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:00:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such
illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even
legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't
preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen
to
the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and
how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically
legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?
A different question. It was perfectly legal because SCOTUS said
so.
That's not what SCOTUS said.
It did at a certain point in history.
See what happens when you allow the courts to decide what the law is
rather
than looking at the law itself.
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
If two people read a law and disagree about what it means who is
wrong?
The one that sees what isn't actually in the language, context and intent
of
the law as written and passed into law.
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research.
What happens if two or more people did such reading and basic research
and came to conflicting opinions? Who would prevail?
The one that can best prove their case with the facts.

In any case, that certainly wouldn't be you, since you would just ask some
passing stranger for the answer and accept whatever you were told as utterly
true without any thought, consideration, or verification of your own. After
all, their opinion is all that matters, right?
Attila
2017-01-28 21:38:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:32:31 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such
illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even
legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't
preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen
to
the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and
how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically
legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?
A different question. It was perfectly legal because SCOTUS said
so.
That's not what SCOTUS said.
It did at a certain point in history.
See what happens when you allow the courts to decide what the law is
rather
than looking at the law itself.
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
If two people read a law and disagree about what it means who is
wrong?
The one that sees what isn't actually in the language, context and intent
of
the law as written and passed into law.
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research.
What happens if two or more people did such reading and basic research
and came to conflicting opinions? Who would prevail?
The one that can best prove their case with the facts.
Prove to who? That court you are so desperately trying to avoid?
Post by Scout
In any case, that certainly wouldn't be you, since you would just ask some
passing stranger for the answer and accept whatever you were told as utterly
true without any thought, consideration, or verification of your own. After
all, their opinion is all that matters, right?
Not unless they were a judge acting in that capacity.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 22:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:32:31 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for
such
illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or
even
legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't
preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen
to
the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and
how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically
legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?
A different question. It was perfectly legal because SCOTUS said
so.
That's not what SCOTUS said.
It did at a certain point in history.
See what happens when you allow the courts to decide what the law is
rather
than looking at the law itself.
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
If two people read a law and disagree about what it means who is
wrong?
The one that sees what isn't actually in the language, context and intent
of
the law as written and passed into law.
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research.
What happens if two or more people did such reading and basic research
and came to conflicting opinions? Who would prevail?
The one that can best prove their case with the facts.
Prove to who?
The other person. You know the one you claim can read and research.
Post by Attila
That court you are so desperately trying to avoid?
The courts that you assert are alone in knowing the law?
Attila
2017-01-29 03:09:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:42:37 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:32:31 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for
such
illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or
even
legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't
preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen
to
the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and
how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can
tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically
legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?
A different question. It was perfectly legal because SCOTUS said
so.
That's not what SCOTUS said.
It did at a certain point in history.
See what happens when you allow the courts to decide what the law is
rather
than looking at the law itself.
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
If two people read a law and disagree about what it means who is
wrong?
The one that sees what isn't actually in the language, context and intent
of
the law as written and passed into law.
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research.
What happens if two or more people did such reading and basic research
and came to conflicting opinions? Who would prevail?
The one that can best prove their case with the facts.
Prove to who?
The other person. You know the one you claim can read and research.
I really don't need to prove anything to anyone. The legal system
will provide such education if it is needed. That is covered under
the 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' provision.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
That court you are so desperately trying to avoid?
The courts that you assert are alone in knowing the law?
I am asserting nothing. I am pointing out the facts, as you know.

You really enjoy being argumentative for no purpose other than your
own amusement don't you?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 14:26:00 UTC
Permalink
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-01-27 22:25:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:26:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
Absolutely true, but suppose an Amendment was ratified that expressly
canceled the anti-slavery provisions of the other Amendments and
reinstated slavery? And the courts, based upon that Amendment, ruled
I was a slave?

It worked for Prohibition.

Don't bother screaming that would never happen. That is not what is
being discussed.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 16:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:26:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
Absolutely true, but suppose an Amendment was ratified that expressly
canceled the anti-slavery provisions of the other Amendments and
reinstated slavery? And the courts, based upon that Amendment, ruled
I was a slave?
Then you would be a slave.

Further I would note that a new Amendment wouldn't need to be ratified. The
courts could simply 'interpret' existing law to make you into a slave
regardless, and since NO ONE, by your standard, could context their
interpretation....then you would be a slave at the whim of the Courts.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 17:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:26:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
Absolutely true, but suppose an Amendment was ratified that expressly
canceled the anti-slavery provisions of the other Amendments and
reinstated slavery? And the courts, based upon that Amendment, ruled
I was a slave?
Then you would be a slave.
Further I would note that a new Amendment wouldn't need to be ratified.
The courts could simply 'interpret' existing law to make you into a
slave regardless, and since NO ONE, by your standard, could context
their interpretation....then you would be a slave at the whim of the
Courts.
As irony would have it, that has already happened.

It's called ObamaCare, and it's fractional slavery and the courts made
it possible by allowing a tax to create mandated fractional slave pools
and fractional mandated slave owners. They suggested that a tax is
superior to what is being taxed the tax is a power to create what has
been banned. if you want slavery all you need to do is create a tax law
that inn acts slavery and it overrides the ban on slavery. The problem
is that a tax is on an existing thing it doesn't create a new thing so
that it can be taxed. So the taxing of slavery that didn't exist until
the tax created slavery, is also unconstitutional.

All who signed up for ObamaCare under that tax mandate became fractional
slave owners or slaves in the fractional slave pool.

Welcome to Liberalism and the Democrat Party, the home of slavery.
--
That's Karma
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 19:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:26:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
Absolutely true, but suppose an Amendment was ratified that expressly
canceled the anti-slavery provisions of the other Amendments and
reinstated slavery? And the courts, based upon that Amendment, ruled
I was a slave?
Then you would be a slave.
Further I would note that a new Amendment wouldn't need to be ratified.
The courts could simply 'interpret' existing law to make you into a
slave regardless, and since NO ONE, by your standard, could context
their interpretation....then you would be a slave at the whim of the
Courts.
As irony would have it, that has already happened.

It's called ObamaCare, and it's fractional slavery and the courts made
it possible by allowing a tax to create mandated fractional slave pools
and fractional mandated slave owners. They suggested that a tax is
superior to what is being taxed the tax is a power to create what has
been banned. if you want slavery all you need to do is create a tax law
that inn acts slavery and it overrides the ban on slavery. The problem
is that a tax is on an existing thing it doesn't create a new thing so
that it can be taxed. So the taxing of slavery that didn't exist until
the tax created slavery, is also unconstitutional.

All who signed up for ObamaCare under that tax mandate became fractional
slave owners or slaves in the fractional slave pool.

Welcome to Liberalism and the Democrat Party, the home of slavery.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-01-28 21:15:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:20:09 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:26:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
Absolutely true, but suppose an Amendment was ratified that expressly
canceled the anti-slavery provisions of the other Amendments and
reinstated slavery? And the courts, based upon that Amendment, ruled
I was a slave?
Then you would be a slave.
Correct.
Post by Scout
Further I would note that a new Amendment wouldn't need to be ratified. The
courts could simply 'interpret' existing law to make you into a slave
regardless, and since NO ONE, by your standard, could context their
interpretation....then you would be a slave at the whim of the Courts.
If it was the Supreme Court, true. But such a court would quickly
find it's power limited by new laws that expressly spelled out what
was desired. Including Amendments.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 21:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:20:09 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:26:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
Absolutely true, but suppose an Amendment was ratified that expressly
canceled the anti-slavery provisions of the other Amendments and
reinstated slavery? And the courts, based upon that Amendment, ruled
I was a slave?
Then you would be a slave.
Correct.
See? They don't need a law to allow them to make you a slave. They just have
to say the law allows them to do it.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Further I would note that a new Amendment wouldn't need to be ratified. The
courts could simply 'interpret' existing law to make you into a slave
regardless, and since NO ONE, by your standard, could context their
interpretation....then you would be a slave at the whim of the Courts.
If it was the Supreme Court, true. But such a court would quickly
find it's power limited by new laws that expressly spelled out what
was desired. Including Amendments.
All the court would need to do is to 'interpret' the new laws so they aren't
a prohibition to their actions. Indeed, they could even interpret such laws
as a confirmation that what they are doing is what the law mandates.

After all, according to you who could challenge, or even question whatever
interpretation they come up with?
Attila
2017-01-29 02:42:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:51:58 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:20:09 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:26:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
Absolutely true, but suppose an Amendment was ratified that expressly
canceled the anti-slavery provisions of the other Amendments and
reinstated slavery? And the courts, based upon that Amendment, ruled
I was a slave?
Then you would be a slave.
Correct.
See? They don't need a law to allow them to make you a slave. They just have
to say the law allows them to do it.
If they hold that a law allows me to be made a slave then the result
is that there is in fact a law that allows this.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Further I would note that a new Amendment wouldn't need to be ratified. The
courts could simply 'interpret' existing law to make you into a slave
regardless, and since NO ONE, by your standard, could context their
interpretation....then you would be a slave at the whim of the Courts.
If it was the Supreme Court, true. But such a court would quickly
find it's power limited by new laws that expressly spelled out what
was desired. Including Amendments.
All the court would need to do is to 'interpret' the new laws so they aren't
a prohibition to their actions. Indeed, they could even interpret such laws
as a confirmation that what they are doing is what the law mandates.
Many people have accused some courts of doing exactly,that, of finding
applications where none actually exist. The remedy is a higher court,
a new ruling by the same court, or new law to address the issue.
Post by Scout
After all, according to you who could challenge, or even question whatever
interpretation they come up with?
See above.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 16:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*

Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 18:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction, that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law. They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws, they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT. Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.

*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*

And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.

In truth it's just that the law is unable to be enforced as it's NOT
within Federal jurisdiction meaning it's a right that belongs to the
people or the States.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-28 18:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction, that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law. They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws, they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT. Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.
*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*
And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.
In truth it's just that the law is unable to be enforced as it's NOT
within Federal jurisdiction meaning it's a right that belongs to the
people or the States.
That's so stupidly wrong that it's funny. Oh, wait,
you actually believe that nonsense. That's even funnier.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 19:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction, that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law. They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws, they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT. Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.
*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*
And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.
In truth it's just that the law is unable to be enforced as it's NOT
within Federal jurisdiction meaning it's a right that belongs to the
people or the States.
That's so stupidly wrong that it's funny. Oh, wait,
you actually believe that nonsense. That's even funnier.
The constitution say it... if you can find any other words in the
constitution that modify that then be sure to post them.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-29 10:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction, that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law. They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws, they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT. Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.
*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*
And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.
In truth it's just that the law is unable to be enforced as it's NOT
within Federal jurisdiction meaning it's a right that belongs to the
people or the States.
That's so stupidly wrong that it's funny. Oh, wait,
you actually believe that nonsense. That's even funnier.
The constitution say it...
Since the Constitution says no such thing, in addition to
being stupid you're also illiterate.
Just Wondering
2017-01-28 18:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
I will note that the Courts were specifically denied
any power over the Constitution,
What does that even mean? If you mean that the Constitution
specifically denies courts the power to construe or interpret the
Constitution, you are incorrect. Article III of the Constitution
describes the powers delegated to the Judicial Branch. Please identify
the language that you say specifically denies the courts any power over
the Constitution.
< sound of crickets chirping >

Suggested reading: Marbury vs. Madison, in particular the latter part
that begins:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to
say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must,
of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with
each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. [p178]

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and
the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must
either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the
Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law,
the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the
case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137
Post by Scout
and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government.
That much is true.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 19:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction, that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law. They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws, they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT. Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.

*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*

Which still means that the constitution is the highest law.

And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.

In truth it's just that the law is unable to be enforced as it's NOT
within Federal jurisdiction meaning it's a right that belongs to the
people or the States.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-01-28 21:50:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction,
Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law.
Actually they can. They alone decide what case is heard by the full
Court.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws,
The court can decide how the law is applied.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT.
If it is vetoed by the President and that veto is not overridden by
Congress the law is dead. No court involvement is needed.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.
A court cannot veto a law. It can however stop it from being enforced
or can declare it unconstitutional.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*
Wrong. A court can decide if a law is to be applied and how it is
applied.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Which still means that the constitution is the highest law.
And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.
Correct, if that decision is legally based.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
In truth it's just that the law is unable to be enforced as it's NOT
within Federal jurisdiction meaning it's a right that belongs to the
people or the States.
Whatever that is supposed to mean.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-28 22:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction,
Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law.
Actually they can. They alone decide what case is heard by the full
Court.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws,
The court can decide how the law is applied.
Bullshit

[snip the rest after such egregious bullshit]
Scout
2017-01-28 22:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction,
Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.
OK....please cite the Constitutional provision that allows the federal
government to set EPA mandates.

Oh, let me guess, there is no such provision, you claim it because the
courts do?
Attila
2017-01-29 02:24:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:45:05 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction,
Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.
OK....please cite the Constitutional provision that allows the federal
government to set EPA mandates.
Oh, let me guess, there is no such provision, you claim it because the
courts do?
I am not an attorney nor am I an expert on law. The court decision
should provide references of existing law.

Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that is the only
basis for any laws in the US.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Just Wondering
2017-01-29 10:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that is
the only basis for any laws in the US.
We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothing
in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to
establish an administrative agency, especially an agency that's
under the control of the executive branch but is given power to
enact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation of
legislative power to the executive branch, a violation of the
separation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.
Attila
2017-01-29 11:10:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Our legal system is based on the Constitution, and that is
the only basis for any laws in the US.
We have a HUGE administrative law system. There's nothing
in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to
establish an administrative agency, especially an agency that's
under the control of the executive branch but is given power to
enact regulations with the force of law. That's a delegation of
legislative power to the executive branch, a violation of the
separation of powers that is blatantly unconstitutional.
There have been court challenges to every one of these, and the courts
have said they are - wait for it - Constitutional.

Almost every case heard and decided by SCOTUS results in a decision
directly based upon the Constitution. Lower courts have usually
referenced all law they consider pertinent.

If not the Constitution just what is the basis for any other laws?
Something specific that can be referenced by a court?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-29 00:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction,
Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law.
Actually they can. They alone decide what case is heard by the full
Court.
Once a law is deemed outside Federal jurisdiction there is NO need and
probably no way to redefine it as within the jurisdiction unless they
are suggesting a change in the constitution has changed the laws
possible jurisdictional balance.
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws,
The court can decide how the law is applied.
I don't see that power, the law can describe how it's applied. If there
is NOT enough information in the law then the courts can't make it up as
they go they are only permitted by the constitution to reject the law.
It would be outside their jurisdiction and have to be fixed by congress
and passed again, their jurisdiction doesn't include making laws or
writing laws. And so they can't interpret what is NOT there. All they
can do is deem the law outside their jurisdiction, because it doesn't
fit into those delegated powers of the constitution.

This is part of the problem, the Congress never fixes the laws they,
just make new laws and let the courts fix what is broken and that's NOT
in the constitution. If they followed the correct process then congress
wouldn't have time for so damn many new laws.

We need a 7 year sunset clause in the form of an Amendment to the
constitution to keep them busy confirming old laws that are what they
call good laws and constitutional.
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT.
If it is vetoed by the President and that veto is not overridden by
Congress the law is dead. No court involvement is needed.
Yes there is that.. but if the bill doesn't pass the HOUSE and/or the
Senate then it's also dead.
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.
A court cannot veto a law. It can however stop it from being enforced
or can declare it unconstitutional.
That's what I said "it's like a veto". They don't have a "veto" but
the courts do have a chance to invalidate the law.
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*
Wrong. A court can decide if a law is to be applied and how it is
applied.
Where in the constitution does it say that?
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Which still means that the constitution is the highest law.
And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (or outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.
Correct, if that decision is legally based.
But they can only deem the law unconstitutional for jurisdictional
reasons. Their opinions are meaningless unless it's fixed by congress.
And he law is just thrown out until it is fixed. The courts have decided
to fix the laws and that's just NOT constitutional.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Attila
2017-01-29 02:38:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 19:01:02 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction,
Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law.
Actually they can. They alone decide what case is heard by the full
Court.
Once a law is deemed outside Federal jurisdiction
By who? When? Based on what?
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
there is NO need and
probably no way to redefine it as within the jurisdiction unless they
are suggesting a change in the constitution has changed the laws
possible jurisdictional balance.
Any court has the same power as the SCOTHUS except for not being
appealed to a higher court.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws,
The court can decide how the law is applied.
I don't see that power, the law can describe how it's applied.
You don't need to. The courts do, and their opinion is the only one
that counts.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If there
is NOT enough information in the law then the courts can't make it up as
they go they are only permitted by the constitution to reject the law.
They can define if and how it is to be applied.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
It would be outside their jurisdiction and have to be fixed by congress
and passed again, their jurisdiction doesn't include making laws or
writing laws. And so they can't interpret what is NOT there.
What is or is not there again is the provision of the courts.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
All they
can do is deem the law outside their jurisdiction, because it doesn't
fit into those delegated powers of the constitution.
Nope. They can do more than that.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
This is part of the problem, the Congress never fixes the laws they,
just make new laws and let the courts fix what is broken and that's NOT
in the constitution. If they followed the correct process then congress
wouldn't have time for so damn many new laws.
A new law is the only way to fix a broken or improper law.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
We need a 7 year sunset clause in the form of an Amendment to the
constitution to keep them busy confirming old laws that are what they
call good laws and constitutional.
That is not the business of the legislature. They address new
business.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT.
If it is vetoed by the President and that veto is not overridden by
Congress the law is dead. No court involvement is needed.
Yes there is that.. but if the bill doesn't pass the HOUSE and/or the
Senate then it's also dead.
Of course. That is obvious. No law ever existed.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.
A court cannot veto a law. It can however stop it from being enforced
or can declare it unconstitutional.
That's what I said "it's like a veto". They don't have a "veto" but
the courts do have a chance to invalidate the law.
The system doesn't work that way. A case must be brought before the
courts before they are involved.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*
Wrong. A court can decide if a law is to be applied and how it is
applied.
Where in the constitution does it say that?
Marbury v. Madison. That has been long accepted as legal.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Which still means that the constitution is the highest law.
And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (or outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.
Correct, if that decision is legally based.
But they can only deem the law unconstitutional for jurisdictional
reasons. Their opinions are meaningless unless it's fixed by congress.
A court decision is never meaningless.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
And he law is just thrown out until it is fixed.
It is never 'fixed'. New laws are enacted which apply to the same
conditions as the origional law but to provide for a different
application.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The courts have decided
to fix the laws and that's just NOT constitutional.
It is according to accepted law.

Based upon Marbury v. Madison in which the Court formed the basis for
the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III
of the Constitution.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-29 03:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 19:01:02 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction,
Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law.
Actually they can. They alone decide what case is heard by the full
Court.
Once a law is deemed outside Federal jurisdiction
By who? When? Based on what?
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
there is NO need and
probably no way to redefine it as within the jurisdiction unless they
are suggesting a change in the constitution has changed the laws
possible jurisdictional balance.
Any court has the same power as the SCOTHUS except for not being
appealed to a higher court.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws,
The court can decide how the law is applied.
I don't see that power, the law can describe how it's applied.
You don't need to. The courts do, and their opinion is the only one
that counts.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If there
is NOT enough information in the law then the courts can't make it up as
they go they are only permitted by the constitution to reject the law.
They can define if and how it is to be applied.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
It would be outside their jurisdiction and have to be fixed by congress
and passed again, their jurisdiction doesn't include making laws or
writing laws. And so they can't interpret what is NOT there.
What is or is not there again is the provision of the courts.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
All they
can do is deem the law outside their jurisdiction, because it doesn't
fit into those delegated powers of the constitution.
Nope. They can do more than that.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
This is part of the problem, the Congress never fixes the laws they,
just make new laws and let the courts fix what is broken and that's NOT
in the constitution. If they followed the correct process then congress
wouldn't have time for so damn many new laws.
A new law is the only way to fix a broken or improper law.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
We need a 7 year sunset clause in the form of an Amendment to the
constitution to keep them busy confirming old laws that are what they
call good laws and constitutional.
That is not the business of the legislature. They address new
business.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT.
If it is vetoed by the President and that veto is not overridden by
Congress the law is dead. No court involvement is needed.
Yes there is that.. but if the bill doesn't pass the HOUSE and/or the
Senate then it's also dead.
Of course. That is obvious. No law ever existed.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.
A court cannot veto a law. It can however stop it from being enforced
or can declare it unconstitutional.
That's what I said "it's like a veto". They don't have a "veto" but
the courts do have a chance to invalidate the law.
The system doesn't work that way. A case must be brought before the
courts before they are involved.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*
Wrong. A court can decide if a law is to be applied and how it is
applied.
Where in the constitution does it say that?
Marbury v. Madison. That has been long accepted as legal.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Which still means that the constitution is the highest law.
And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (or outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.
Correct, if that decision is legally based.
But they can only deem the law unconstitutional for jurisdictional
reasons. Their opinions are meaningless unless it's fixed by congress.
A court decision is never meaningless.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
And he law is just thrown out until it is fixed.
It is never 'fixed'. New laws are enacted which apply to the same
conditions as the origional law but to provide for a different
application.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The courts have decided
to fix the laws and that's just NOT constitutional.
It is according to accepted law.
And yet it's NOT constitutional.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Attila
2017-01-29 11:12:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:29:58 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 19:01:02 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power
over the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as
any other part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
NOT quite, the courts have the power to declare jurisdiction, so the
Supreme court can declare a law to not be within the U.S. constitution's
jurisdiction,
Every law in the US ultimately rests upon the Constitution.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
that only means they can NOT hear any case that comes
before them or any lower courts regarding that law.
Actually they can. They alone decide what case is heard by the full
Court.
Once a law is deemed outside Federal jurisdiction
By who? When? Based on what?
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
there is NO need and
probably no way to redefine it as within the jurisdiction unless they
are suggesting a change in the constitution has changed the laws
possible jurisdictional balance.
Any court has the same power as the SCOTHUS except for not being
appealed to a higher court.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
They have no power
to change the laws or interpret the laws,
The court can decide how the law is applied.
I don't see that power, the law can describe how it's applied.
You don't need to. The courts do, and their opinion is the only one
that counts.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If there
is NOT enough information in the law then the courts can't make it up as
they go they are only permitted by the constitution to reject the law.
They can define if and how it is to be applied.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
It would be outside their jurisdiction and have to be fixed by congress
and passed again, their jurisdiction doesn't include making laws or
writing laws. And so they can't interpret what is NOT there.
What is or is not there again is the provision of the courts.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
All they
can do is deem the law outside their jurisdiction, because it doesn't
fit into those delegated powers of the constitution.
Nope. They can do more than that.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
This is part of the problem, the Congress never fixes the laws they,
just make new laws and let the courts fix what is broken and that's NOT
in the constitution. If they followed the correct process then congress
wouldn't have time for so damn many new laws.
A new law is the only way to fix a broken or improper law.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
We need a 7 year sunset clause in the form of an Amendment to the
constitution to keep them busy confirming old laws that are what they
call good laws and constitutional.
That is not the business of the legislature. They address new
business.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
they would need to go back to
congress for another journey through the system to be changed so they
are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It just means
that congress votes on a bill and passes it and the president vetoes it
or NOT and then the courts veto it or NOT.
If it is vetoed by the President and that veto is not overridden by
Congress the law is dead. No court involvement is needed.
Yes there is that.. but if the bill doesn't pass the HOUSE and/or the
Senate then it's also dead.
Of course. That is obvious. No law ever existed.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Where the veto of the courts
is considered a jurisdictional issue as to it being a state power or a
power the people did NOT delegate to either States or the Federal
government.
A court cannot veto a law. It can however stop it from being enforced
or can declare it unconstitutional.
That's what I said "it's like a veto". They don't have a "veto" but
the courts do have a chance to invalidate the law.
The system doesn't work that way. A case must be brought before the
courts before they are involved.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
*THE ONLY REAL POWER THE COURTS HAVE IS TO NOT HEAR THE CASES*
Wrong. A court can decide if a law is to be applied and how it is
applied.
Where in the constitution does it say that?
Marbury v. Madison. That has been long accepted as legal.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Which still means that the constitution is the highest law.
And that means there is no way to enforce that law that they deem
unconstitutional (or outside their jurisdiction) and that was interpreted
to mean that the courts can deem any law unconstitutional.
Correct, if that decision is legally based.
But they can only deem the law unconstitutional for jurisdictional
reasons. Their opinions are meaningless unless it's fixed by congress.
A court decision is never meaningless.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
And he law is just thrown out until it is fixed.
It is never 'fixed'. New laws are enacted which apply to the same
conditions as the origional law but to provide for a different
application.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The courts have decided
to fix the laws and that's just NOT constitutional.
It is according to accepted law.
And yet it's NOT constitutional.
What court has rendered that decision?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-28 21:16:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 21:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.
The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that the supreme
court can interpret the constitution....


Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Attila
2017-01-29 02:45:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.
The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that the supreme
court can interpret the constitution....
Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.
Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system as well as the other
branches of government and has been for over 200 years. You won't get
anywhere arguing against it today.

It is established and will not be changed. Deal with it.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-29 03:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.
The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that the supreme
court can interpret the constitution....
Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.
Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system as well as the other
branches of government and has been for over 200 years.
Didn't you get abortion changed after 200 years and it's NOT written
anywhere in the constitution. Killing a human (even inside a uterus)
was illegal and was excepted by the legal system.... until it wasn't.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Attila
2017-01-29 11:22:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:35:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.
The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that the supreme
court can interpret the constitution....
Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.
Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system as well as the other
branches of government and has been for over 200 years.
Didn't you get abortion changed after 200 years and it's NOT written
anywhere in the constitution.
Very few laws apply to anything actually spelled out in the
Constitution. That is why the document has remained so small for over
200 years. Look at some state constitutions that try to include
everything and see how big they are and how often they are completely
rewritten.

In the case of R v W the court spelled out in detail where the
Constitutional support is found - I am not going to repeat it here.
The decision is law and applies to the entire US.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Killing a human (even inside a uterus)
was illegal and was excepted by the legal system.... until it wasn't.
Not really. It depended on local law and the circumstances. R v W
made the law the same everywhere and based the decision on the
Constitution.

Medical advances such as the morning after pill and improved
contraception have reduced the need for medical abortion in many cases
but there will always be a need in a few cases. It is currently a
simple and safe medical procedure that is usually done on an
outpatient basis.

No big deal.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Just Wondering
2017-01-29 10:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.
The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that the supreme
court can interpret the constitution....
Circular logic and it's childishly stupid.
Yet it is accepted by the entire legal system as well as the other
branches of government and has been for over 200 years. You won't get
anywhere arguing against it today.
Not just today. Nobody has EVER seriously argued against
Marbury v. Madison. In fact, the reason the rule is not expressly
spelled out in the Constitution was that it was so self-evident that
there was no perceived need to write it into the Constitution.
Post by Attila
It is established and will not be changed. Deal with it.
Just Wondering
2017-01-29 10:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied
any power over the Constitution, and further are as bound by
it's conditions as any other part of the federal government.
Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison. That boat sailed a long time go.
The Supreme Court interpreting the constitution to say that
the supreme court can interpret the constitution....
Apparently you have not read Marbury v. Madison.
Its explanation is a whole lot better than yours.
Question: When a case comes before a court, and the
resolution of the case requires the court to interpret
the Constitution, what do you suggest the court do?
Scout
2017-01-28 21:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison.
Which only proves my point. If the court had to grant itself such a power,
then clearly it wasn't granted by the Constitution.

Oh, and how long they have violated the Constitution doesn't absolve them of
doing so, or continuing to do so.
Attila
2017-01-29 02:48:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison.
Which only proves my point. If the court had to grant itself such a power,
then clearly it wasn't granted by the Constitution.
According to the court it was. In Article 3.
Post by Scout
Oh, and how long they have violated the Constitution doesn't absolve them of
doing so, or continuing to do so.
Everyone else has accepted this for over 200 years. Do you really
expect anyone else to pay any attention to you?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-29 03:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison.
Which only proves my point. If the court had to grant itself such a power,
then clearly it wasn't granted by the Constitution.
According to the court it was. In Article 3.
Post by Scout
Oh, and how long they have violated the Constitution doesn't absolve them of
doing so, or continuing to do so.
Everyone else has accepted this for over 200 years. Do you really
expect anyone else to pay any attention to you?
Liberals try to ban firearms that we have been owning for 200 years.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Attila
2017-01-29 11:30:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:37:58 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison.
Which only proves my point. If the court had to grant itself such a power,
then clearly it wasn't granted by the Constitution.
According to the court it was. In Article 3.
Post by Scout
Oh, and how long they have violated the Constitution doesn't absolve them of
doing so, or continuing to do so.
Everyone else has accepted this for over 200 years. Do you really
expect anyone else to pay any attention to you?
Liberals try to ban firearms that we have been owning for 200 years.
By attempting to get such laws accepted by the courts. They have had
little success.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

Just Wondering
2017-01-29 10:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison.
Which only proves my point. If the court had to grant itself such a
power, then clearly it wasn't granted by the Constitution.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution" is a grant of power
to the courts to interpret the Constitution.
Scout
2017-01-28 21:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison.
So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.

And here you told me they couldn't.
Attila
2017-01-29 02:49:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison.
So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.
And here you told me they couldn't.
They didn't. Article 3.


--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-29 03:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
If the courts so ruled why would I not be a slave?
Because the constitution is the highest law NOT the courts.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
Indeed, I will note that the Courts were specifically denied any power over
the Constitution, and further are as bound by it's conditions as any other
part of the federal government. Though they might try to deny it.
See Marbury v. Madison.
So clearly they can interpret law that hasn't been written.
And here you told me they couldn't.
They didn't. Article 3.
[""""""Article III
Section 1. The *judicial Power* of the United States *shall be vested*
*in one supreme Court* , *and in such inferior Courts as the Congress*
may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the
supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a
Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in
Office.

Article III
Section 2. *The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law* *and*
*Equity* , *arising under this Constitution* , the Laws of the United
States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, *under their*
*Authority* ; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a
Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State
and Citizens of another State; [Note: modified by Amendment XI] —
between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same
State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, *the supreme Court shall*
*have original Jurisdiction* . *In all the other Cases before*
*mentioned* , *the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction* ,
*both as to Law and Fact* , *with such Exceptions* , *and under such*
*Regulations as the Congress shall make* .

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the
Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have
directed.
%
Article III
Section 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but
no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture
except during the Life of the Person attainted."""""""]


The congress has no power to change the constitution and interpret it
and so neither can they empower/delegate the courts any power to change
the constitution.

There is no place in Article 3 where the courts are charged with
interpreting or changing the constitution. SO the congress can't
delegate that power to the courts and the courts can't delegate that
power to themselves and the constitution never delegated the power to
interpret laws change laws or write laws... The BIG QUESTION IS where
did this new power come from and what delegates the Courts the power to
change or rewrite or otherwise effect the actual written laws?
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-27 15:54:50 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not
be constitutional in all its applications.
No, I stated that some specific types of chattel slavery might be cruel
and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
Say, as having the slaves engage in gladiatorial matches, or certain
other specific types of extreme chattel slavery.
In those applications where chattel slavery is not constitutional,
what part of the constitution would it violate?
8th Amendment.
See while the 13th allows chattel slavery, certain extreme types may
still be considered cruel and unusual such as one in which the slaves
are forced to fight to the death.
Of course, if you wish to state it would be allowed, then that certainly
could be a valid interpretation, but somehow I doubt you're willing to
go that route.
When I said "application", I didn't mean how the punishment was carried
out. I meant for what crime it was a sentence for.

Let's assume that the "how" does not violate the 8th amendment (no
fighting to the death, etc.). The question remains is chattel slavery
as a sentence for parking violations unconstitutional? Above, you said
"That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide". Of course that
is the case in our legal system, but isn't it true that according to
your supersession argument the courts should hold that 1) such a
sentence is permitted by the 13th, and 2) therefore cannot be cruel and
unusual punishment?
Scout
2017-01-28 16:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not
be constitutional in all its applications.
No, I stated that some specific types of chattel slavery might be cruel
and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
Say, as having the slaves engage in gladiatorial matches, or certain
other specific types of extreme chattel slavery.
In those applications where chattel slavery is not constitutional,
what part of the constitution would it violate?
8th Amendment.
See while the 13th allows chattel slavery, certain extreme types may
still be considered cruel and unusual such as one in which the slaves
are forced to fight to the death.
Of course, if you wish to state it would be allowed, then that certainly
could be a valid interpretation, but somehow I doubt you're willing to
go that route.
When I said "application", I didn't mean how the punishment was carried
out. I meant for what crime it was a sentence for.
I see no limits on that within the 13th, so it would be a matter for the law
and the courts to decide what crimes merit such a punishment.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Let's assume that the "how" does not violate the 8th amendment (no
fighting to the death, etc.). The question remains is chattel slavery as
a sentence for parking violations unconstitutional?
Yes.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Above, you said
"That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide".
It is.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Of course that is the case in our legal system, but isn't it true that
according to your supersession argument the courts should hold that 1)
such a sentence is permitted by the 13th, and 2) therefore cannot be cruel
and unusual punishment?
since you've already stipulated that chattel slavery isn't cruel and unusual
punishment, and no limits are imposed upon which such a punishment can be
imposed by the Constitution, other than as punishment for a crime they have
been duly convicted of....in theory if you're convicted of a parking ticket,
then that punishment could be imposed if the law and the courts allowed it.

I personally think it would be excessive, but then I feel the same about a
permanent infringement of your rights for another misdemeanor, and that has
been accepted by the law and the courts. So, at this point, I can hardly say
they couldn't do as you ask, because they have already shown that a crime
doesn't have to be a felony to infringe your rights for the rest of your
life.
Heck, they can even impose that additional punishment long after the crime
was commit, you were convicted, and served the sentence issued by the court.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-28 17:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not
be constitutional in all its applications.
No, I stated that some specific types of chattel slavery might be cruel
and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
Say, as having the slaves engage in gladiatorial matches, or certain
other specific types of extreme chattel slavery.
In those applications where chattel slavery is not constitutional,
what part of the constitution would it violate?
8th Amendment.
See while the 13th allows chattel slavery, certain extreme types may
still be considered cruel and unusual such as one in which the slaves
are forced to fight to the death.
Of course, if you wish to state it would be allowed, then that certainly
could be a valid interpretation, but somehow I doubt you're willing to
go that route.
When I said "application", I didn't mean how the punishment was
carried out. I meant for what crime it was a sentence for.
I see no limits on that within the 13th, so it would be a matter for the
law and the courts to decide what crimes merit such a punishment.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Let's assume that the "how" does not violate the 8th amendment (no
fighting to the death, etc.). The question remains is chattel slavery
as a sentence for parking violations unconstitutional?
Yes.
Huh? I'm pretty sure below, you came to the opposite conclusion.
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Above, you said
"That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide".
It is.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Of course that is the case in our legal system, but isn't it true that
according to your supersession argument the courts should hold that 1)
such a sentence is permitted by the 13th, and 2) therefore cannot be
cruel and unusual punishment?
since you've already stipulated that chattel slavery isn't cruel and
unusual punishment,
I assumed that was true for the sake of argument because I assumed for
the sake of argument that your interpretation of supersession is correct.
Post by Scout
and no limits are imposed upon which such a
punishment can be imposed by the Constitution, other than as punishment
for a crime they have been duly convicted of....in theory if you're
convicted of a parking ticket, then that punishment could be imposed if
the law and the courts allowed it.
... and thus such a punishment wouldn't be unconstitutional (assuming
your supersession interpretation), right (even though above you said it
would be unconstitutional)?
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 19:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not
be constitutional in all its applications.
No, I stated that some specific types of chattel slavery might be cruel
and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
Say, as having the slaves engage in gladiatorial matches, or certain
other specific types of extreme chattel slavery.
In those applications where chattel slavery is not constitutional,
what part of the constitution would it violate?
8th Amendment.
See while the 13th allows chattel slavery, certain extreme types may
still be considered cruel and unusual such as one in which the slaves
are forced to fight to the death.
Of course, if you wish to state it would be allowed, then that certainly
could be a valid interpretation, but somehow I doubt you're willing to
go that route.
When I said "application", I didn't mean how the punishment was
carried out. I meant for what crime it was a sentence for.
I see no limits on that within the 13th, so it would be a matter for the
law and the courts to decide what crimes merit such a punishment.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Let's assume that the "how" does not violate the 8th amendment (no
fighting to the death, etc.). The question remains is chattel slavery
as a sentence for parking violations unconstitutional?
Yes.
Huh? I'm pretty sure below, you came to the opposite conclusion.
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Above, you said
"That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide".
It is.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Of course that is the case in our legal system, but isn't it true that
according to your supersession argument the courts should hold that 1)
such a sentence is permitted by the 13th, and 2) therefore cannot be
cruel and unusual punishment?
since you've already stipulated that chattel slavery isn't cruel and
unusual punishment,
I assumed that was true for the sake of argument because I assumed for
the sake of argument that your interpretation of supersession is correct.
Post by Scout
and no limits are imposed upon which such a
punishment can be imposed by the Constitution, other than as punishment
for a crime they have been duly convicted of....in theory if you're
convicted of a parking ticket, then that punishment could be imposed if
the law and the courts allowed it.
... and thus such a punishment wouldn't be unconstitutional (assuming
your supersession interpretation), right (even though above you said it
would be unconstitutional)?
Then cruel and unusual punishment is a standard for people NOT duly
convicted of a crime, and sentenced to slavery. Or slavery was not
considered cruel and unusual when the 13th amendment was ratified.
--
That's Karma
Scout
2017-01-28 22:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not
be constitutional in all its applications.
No, I stated that some specific types of chattel slavery might be cruel
and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
Say, as having the slaves engage in gladiatorial matches, or certain
other specific types of extreme chattel slavery.
In those applications where chattel slavery is not constitutional,
what part of the constitution would it violate?
8th Amendment.
See while the 13th allows chattel slavery, certain extreme types may
still be considered cruel and unusual such as one in which the slaves
are forced to fight to the death.
Of course, if you wish to state it would be allowed, then that certainly
could be a valid interpretation, but somehow I doubt you're willing to
go that route.
When I said "application", I didn't mean how the punishment was
carried out. I meant for what crime it was a sentence for.
I see no limits on that within the 13th, so it would be a matter for the
law and the courts to decide what crimes merit such a punishment.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Let's assume that the "how" does not violate the 8th amendment (no
fighting to the death, etc.). The question remains is chattel slavery
as a sentence for parking violations unconstitutional?
Yes.
Huh? I'm pretty sure below, you came to the opposite conclusion.
Sorry, misread that as 'constitutional'.

Answer should be 'no'.

As what is a fit punishment is up to the law and the courts to decide.

Further when I mention the law, I reference any punishments mandated,
limited or specifically denied for a particular class of crime.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Above, you said
"That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide".
It is.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Of course that is the case in our legal system, but isn't it true that
according to your supersession argument the courts should hold that 1)
such a sentence is permitted by the 13th, and 2) therefore cannot be
cruel and unusual punishment?
since you've already stipulated that chattel slavery isn't cruel and
unusual punishment,
I assumed that was true for the sake of argument because I assumed for the
sake of argument that your interpretation of supersession is correct.
Post by Scout
and no limits are imposed upon which such a
punishment can be imposed by the Constitution, other than as punishment
for a crime they have been duly convicted of....in theory if you're
convicted of a parking ticket, then that punishment could be imposed if
the law and the courts allowed it.
... and thus such a punishment wouldn't be unconstitutional (assuming your
supersession interpretation), right (even though above you said it would
be unconstitutional)?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-29 08:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not
be constitutional in all its applications.
No, I stated that some specific types of chattel slavery might be cruel
and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
Say, as having the slaves engage in gladiatorial matches, or certain
other specific types of extreme chattel slavery.
In those applications where chattel slavery is not constitutional,
what part of the constitution would it violate?
8th Amendment.
See while the 13th allows chattel slavery, certain extreme types may
still be considered cruel and unusual such as one in which the slaves
are forced to fight to the death.
Of course, if you wish to state it would be allowed, then that certainly
could be a valid interpretation, but somehow I doubt you're willing to
go that route.
When I said "application", I didn't mean how the punishment was
carried out. I meant for what crime it was a sentence for.
I see no limits on that within the 13th, so it would be a matter for the
law and the courts to decide what crimes merit such a punishment.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Let's assume that the "how" does not violate the 8th amendment (no
fighting to the death, etc.). The question remains is chattel slavery
as a sentence for parking violations unconstitutional?
Yes.
Huh? I'm pretty sure below, you came to the opposite conclusion.
Sorry, misread that as 'constitutional'.
Answer should be 'no'.
Amazing!
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-28 18:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not
be constitutional in all its applications.
No, I stated that some specific types of chattel slavery might be cruel
and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
Say, as having the slaves engage in gladiatorial matches, or certain
other specific types of extreme chattel slavery.
In those applications where chattel slavery is not constitutional,
what part of the constitution would it violate?
8th Amendment.
See while the 13th allows chattel slavery, certain extreme types may
still be considered cruel and unusual such as one in which the slaves
are forced to fight to the death.
Of course, if you wish to state it would be allowed, then that certainly
could be a valid interpretation, but somehow I doubt you're willing to
go that route.
When I said "application", I didn't mean how the punishment was
carried out. I meant for what crime it was a sentence for.
I see no limits on that within the 13th,
You also believe that the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited
because you "see no limits" in the second amendment. The right to keep
and bear arms is, of course, not unlimited.
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Let's assume that the "how" does not violate the 8th amendment (no
fighting to the death, etc.). The question remains is chattel slavery
as a sentence for parking violations unconstitutional?
Yes.
Not based on what you've previously written.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 22:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You also believe that
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 22:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You also believe that
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Bill Flett
2017-01-27 17:11:27 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Maybe you should read it?
I have. It permits involuntary servitude, but not slavery.
This is
apparent to anyone with a solid understanding of English
composition,
including punctuation and the use of conjunctions.
So, that means you're not such a person.
After all, Clave tried to produce a study, and first off it said
slavery
was permitted as a punishment under the Constitution. This by a
legal
scholar.
That was me, not Clave.
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
While the author read the clause as Scout does (*), he presented
other
viewpoints which agreed with Flett. The issue is not settled.
(*) And yet, the author's analysis of when a prison guard is the
slave
owner
LOL! The guard cannot *possibly* be the legal owner of any putative
prison slave. The guard is an employee of the state - the state's
agent. The guard is, at best, the equivalent of a plantation
overseer -
a civil service Simon Legree.
Stop being stupid.
Did you read the article?
Enough of it to know that the guard is not made the lawful owner of the
prisoner, yes.
The author agrees with you when the prison guard acts on his own, but
disagrees with you when the sentence calls for the prison guard being
the owner.
No such sentence.
Hypothetically there could be.
No. The only "slavery" <chuckle> contemplated by the 13th amendment is
the limited control of the person by the state. There is no ownership;
only control.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-27 18:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Maybe you should read it?
I have. It permits involuntary servitude, but not slavery.
This is
apparent to anyone with a solid understanding of English
composition,
including punctuation and the use of conjunctions.
So, that means you're not such a person.
After all, Clave tried to produce a study, and first off it said
slavery
was permitted as a punishment under the Constitution. This by a
legal
scholar.
That was me, not Clave.
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
While the author read the clause as Scout does (*), he presented
other
viewpoints which agreed with Flett. The issue is not settled.
(*) And yet, the author's analysis of when a prison guard is the
slave
owner
LOL! The guard cannot *possibly* be the legal owner of any putative
prison slave. The guard is an employee of the state - the state's
agent. The guard is, at best, the equivalent of a plantation
overseer -
a civil service Simon Legree.
Stop being stupid.
Did you read the article?
Enough of it to know that the guard is not made the lawful owner of the
prisoner, yes.
The author agrees with you when the prison guard acts on his own, but
disagrees with you when the sentence calls for the prison guard being
the owner.
No such sentence.
Hypothetically there could be.
No. The only "slavery" <chuckle> contemplated by the 13th amendment is
the limited control of the person by the state. There is no ownership;
only control.
... he said begging the question.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-27 19:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Maybe you should read it?
I have. It permits involuntary servitude, but not slavery.
This is
apparent to anyone with a solid understanding of English
composition,
including punctuation and the use of conjunctions.
So, that means you're not such a person.
After all, Clave tried to produce a study, and first off it said
slavery
was permitted as a punishment under the Constitution. This by a
legal
scholar.
That was me, not Clave.
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
While the author read the clause as Scout does (*), he presented
other
viewpoints which agreed with Flett. The issue is not settled.
(*) And yet, the author's analysis of when a prison guard is the
slave
owner
LOL! The guard cannot *possibly* be the legal owner of any putative
prison slave. The guard is an employee of the state - the state's
agent. The guard is, at best, the equivalent of a plantation
overseer -
a civil service Simon Legree.
Stop being stupid.
Did you read the article?
Enough of it to know that the guard is not made the lawful owner of the
prisoner, yes.
The author agrees with you when the prison guard acts on his own, but
disagrees with you when the sentence calls for the prison guard being
the owner.
No such sentence.
Hypothetically there could be.
No. The only "slavery" <chuckle> contemplated by the 13th amendment is
the limited control of the person by the state. There is no ownership;
only control.
... he said begging the question.
LOL!

All you would need would be one counter-example to prove me wrong,
little sophomore joshie. There are some required details to this
counter-example, however:

1. convict's sentence expressly says slavery
2. state attempts to sell convict - permanent title transfer
3. sale is challenged in court as violation of 13th amendment
4. court rejects challenge on 13th amendment exception grounds

As I and my associates Mr. Flett and Mr. VanRensselaer have elaborated,
prisoners and their sympathizers see them as "like" slaves, in that
someone else controls them to some degree, without their consent. That
control is never the same quality or extent as it was under chattel slavery.

Numerous scholars have elaborated that the language of the thirteenth
amendment is taken from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Here is one:

The language of the Thirteenth Amendment is taken from the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787. But the idea of “slavery” at the founding was far
broader than the chattel slavery that was the primary object of the
Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. To the Founders, slavery was the very
opposite of republican government. American revolutionaries argued
that British tyranny and the un-representativeness of British
institutions had reduced them to slaves.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=948094085101100117097098092088004112050056057015048070089079093127004082102025068111035039121014039099118097086124002083024065018080026002036080126107120019020022067046084067027027011068104073111026103106102095072103110023027121105102112076124090067&EXT=pdf

But of course they *weren't* chattel slaves.

You're not a lawyer, little sophomore joshie, and you don't know any who
inform your speculative spew about legal issues. You're a sophist who
wishes you had been a lawyer rather than a civil engineer or whatever
other trade you plied.
Poor dumb Curt
2017-01-27 23:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You're not a lawyer, little sophomore
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You're not a lawyer, little sophomore joshie,
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You're not a lawyer, little sophomore joshie,
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
You're not a lawyer, little sophomore joshie,
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:11:46 UTC
Permalink
There is no ownership; only control.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Bill Flett
2017-01-27 17:57:14 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop. The
prisoner does not become the lawful property of anyone. The apparent
exception granted by the 13th amendment is for a broader, more
rhetorical meaning of slavery.
Sorry, but if the 13th applies to a broader, more rhetorical meaning of
slavery, then why isn't the 13th applied to such broader, more
rhetorical slavery?
LOL! It is. But it excludes chattel slavery. There is no ownership of
the prisoner, and there is not *complete* control of the prisoner. For
example, a true chattel slave cannot sue in court. Prisoners can.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 20:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop. The
prisoner does not become the lawful property of anyone. The apparent
exception granted by the 13th amendment is for a broader, more
rhetorical meaning of slavery.
Sorry, but if the 13th applies to a broader, more rhetorical meaning of
slavery, then why isn't the 13th applied to such broader, more
rhetorical slavery?
LOL! It is. But it excludes chattel slavery. There is no ownership of
the prisoner, and there is not *complete* control of the prisoner. For
example, a true chattel slave cannot sue in court. Prisoners can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_slave_court_cases

Dred Scott is one of those listed on this link but there are more.

What are you saying, is it that blacks were never slaves?
--
That's Karma
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Prisoners can.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Bill Flett
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Bill Flett
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Prisoners can.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Bill Flett
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Bill Flett
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Bill Flett
2017-01-27 17:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of
toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery
would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a
travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at
least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would
not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop.
That's not settled law.
It is.
Ever read the 13th Amendment?
Yes, several times. It does not permit chattel slavery. It permits
"something akin to slavery."
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 20:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of
toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery
would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a
travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at
least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would
not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop.
That's not settled law.
It is.
Ever read the 13th Amendment?
Yes, several times. It does not permit chattel slavery. It permits
"something akin to slavery."
Strange since it says NO "slavery" and then it says except... and the
word except is applied to slavery so it looks as if the 13th allows
"slavery" under that exception.
--
That's Karma
Scout
2017-01-28 16:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of
toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery
would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a
travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at
least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would
not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop.
That's not settled law.
It is.
Ever read the 13th Amendment?
Yes, several times. It does not permit chattel slavery. It permits
"something akin to slavery."
Strange since it says NO "slavery" and then it says except... and the
word except is applied to slavery so it looks as if the 13th allows
"slavery" under that exception.
Any grade student in English class would diagram the sentence so.....

Apparently it's only when you grow up and decide you don't like what it says
that you start inventing your own rules for English.

Some people just can't accept the law as written, if what they read isn't
what they want to see.

After all, you can see the same thing with the 2nd Amendment.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 18:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of
toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery
would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a
travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at
least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would
not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop.
That's not settled law.
It is.
Ever read the 13th Amendment?
Yes, several times. It does not permit chattel slavery. It permits
"something akin to slavery."
Strange since it says NO "slavery" and then it says except... and the
word except is applied to slavery so it looks as if the 13th allows
"slavery" under that exception.
Any grade student in English class would diagram the sentence so.....
Apparently it's only when you grow up and decide you don't like what it
says that you start inventing your own rules for English.
Some people just can't accept the law as written, if what they read
isn't what they want to see.
After all, you can see the same thing with the 2nd Amendment.
And the first where it says "Congress shall make no law" and then
Liberals decide to make laws about all the following listed items.

If it's a right then there are no laws to be written. Because there is
NO delegated power.

A right and a power are the same, the only thing is that a power is what
you give or delegate you right to someone and the RIGHT is when you
retain that power. There can be no rights where others tell you how to
use your rights. because that would be powers that you delegated away
and they are NO longer rights when you delegat those rights to others.

It's an either/or as in a binary computer system on or off, it can't be
both since a "right" is fully a right and a "power" is fully a power and
there is no half way or gray area. It's black or white.
--
That's Karma
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 19:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of
toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery
would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a
travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at
least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would
not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop.
That's not settled law.
It is.
Ever read the 13th Amendment?
Yes, several times. It does not permit chattel slavery. It permits
"something akin to slavery."
Strange since it says NO "slavery" and then it says except... and the
word except is applied to slavery so it looks as if the 13th allows
"slavery" under that exception.
Any grade student in English class would diagram the sentence so.....
Apparently it's only when you grow up and decide you don't like what it
says that you start inventing your own rules for English.
Some people just can't accept the law as written, if what they read
isn't what they want to see.
After all, you can see the same thing with the 2nd Amendment.
And the first where it says "Congress shall make no law" and then
Liberals decide to make laws about all the following listed items.

If it's a right then there are no laws to be written. Because there is
NO delegated power.

A right and a power are the same, the only thing is that a power is when
you give or delegate your right to someone and the RIGHT is when you
retain that power for yourself. There can be no rights where others
tell you how to use your rights. Because that would be powers that you
delegated away and they are NO longer rights when you delegate those
rights to others. The exception is when two rights conflict and then
your rights end at that point. You can't kill someone because it
conflicts with their right to life.

It's an either/or as in a binary computer system on or off, it can't be
both since a "right" is fully a right and a "power" is fully a power and
there is no half way or gray area. It's black or white. The constitution
is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT to deny people
their rights.
--
That's Karma
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 20:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Bill Flett
{snip}
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of
toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery
would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
And since the 13th would supersede the restriction of the
8th....chattel
slavery would be Constitutional.
Not in all of its applications.
That certainly could be true.
(****)
I hope you would agree that chattel slavery for parking violations
(or a similar trivial crime from 1868) is cruel and unusual even
though (per your viewpoint) the 13th permits it.
That's an issue for the law and the courts to decide. Personally I
would
think that losing one's rights for any misdemeanor would be a
travesty,
but since that's already the case, I fail to see why a similar
principle
couldn't exist for other rights.
The principle of supersession only implies that there must be at
least
*one* application where chattel slavery is not cruel and unusual
punishment.
The one within the 13th Amendment even if it is cruel and unusual
punishment, since the 13th specifically allows for it, and thus would
negate any opposition from the 8th.
You just conceded (****) that chattel slavery as punishment would
not be
constitutional in all its applications.
Chattel slavery is not constitutional as punishment, full stop.
That's not settled law.
It is.
Ever read the 13th Amendment?
Yes, several times. It does not permit chattel slavery. It permits
"something akin to slavery."
Strange since it says NO "slavery" and then it says except... and the
word except is applied to slavery so it looks as if the 13th allows
"slavery" under that exception.
Any grade student in English class would diagram the sentence so.....
Apparently it's only when you grow up and decide you don't like what it
says that you start inventing your own rules for English.
Some people just can't accept the law as written, if what they read
isn't what they want to see.
After all, you can see the same thing with the 2nd Amendment.
And the first where it says "Congress shall make no law" and then
Liberals decide to make laws about all the following listed items.

If it's a right then there are no laws to be written. Because there is
NO delegated power.

A right and a power are the same, the only thing is that a power is when
you give or delegate your right to someone and the RIGHT is when you
retain that power for yourself. There can be no rights where others
tell you how to use your rights. Because that would be powers that you
delegated away and they are NO longer rights when you delegate those
rights to others. The exception is when two rights conflict and then
your rights end at that point. You can't kill someone because it
conflicts with their right to life.

It's an either/or as in a binary computer system on or off, it can't be
both since a "right" is fully a right and a "power" is fully a power and
there is no half way or gray area. It's black or white. The constitution
is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT to deny people
their rights.
--
That's Karma
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Yes, several times.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Bill Flett
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Bill Flett
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Bill Flett
2017-01-27 18:04:37 UTC
Permalink
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the
death penalty for things like parking violations, so the
case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual
punishment, which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death
penalty for infractions and misdemeanors would be
prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit
cruel and unusual punishment, and courts are charged with
applying the Eighth Amendment to claims that a particular
punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude
or enslavement as punishment for your crime would be a
cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these
were cruel and unusual punishments the 8th could no longer
be a basis for denying such a sentence because the 13th
would have changed, altered, modified and or eliminated
such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether
a particular punishment for a particular crime
is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal
(constitutional) in the separate case of a person
duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence
of slavery would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment
if either slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel
and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify, negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would
be in conflict with the language within the later Amendment.
Bullshit.
OK.....why is it legal to buy and drink alcohol?
Because the 21st explicitly repealed the 18th, of course. Heck,
even elementary school civics students can get that one. The
13th amendment has no connection whatever to the 8th.
I accept your acknowledgement that neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude when imposed as a punishment for crime would be a cruel or
unusual punishment.
It's a matter of degrees, of proportionality. For example, the death
penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment for certain particularly
heinous homicides, if carried out humanely. But execution by drawing
and quartering is cruel and unusual punishment in all cases.
Agreed, standard 'normal' chattel slavery would be allowed by the 13th
No. It isn't. "Something akin to slavery" is allowed, sort of in the
way petulant children say their parents are treating them like "slaves"
in controlling what the children do, but of course the children are not
literal slaves, nor are prisoners.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
No. It isn't.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Bill Flett
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Bill Flett
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Bill Flett
2017-01-27 18:18:28 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Maybe you should read it?
I have. It permits involuntary servitude, but not slavery. This is
apparent to anyone with a solid understanding of English
composition,
including punctuation and the use of conjunctions.
So, that means you're not such a person.
After all, Clave tried to produce a study, and first off it said
slavery
was permitted as a punishment under the Constitution. This by a legal
scholar.
That was me, not Clave.
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
While the author read the clause as Scout does (*), he presented other
viewpoints which agreed with Flett. The issue is not settled.
(*) And yet, the author's analysis of when a prison guard is the slave
owner
LOL! The guard cannot *possibly* be the legal owner of any putative
prison slave.
Doesn't matter who is the slave's 'owner'.
It sure does.
Ok...then explain to me how slavery is allowed under the 13th based
purely on who the 'owner' is.
Chattel slavery - that is, persons held as property - *isn't* allowed by
the thirteenth amendment. Prisoners can be ordered to work, and can be
punished if they refuse, but the punishments allowed are limited. The
guards are not permitted to whip or beat or kill prisoners who refuse to
work as ordered; chattel slaves are subject to any punishment the owner
wishes to inflict.

The thirteenth amendment does not allow chattel slavery as a criminal
sentence. It allows something "like" slavery.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
It allows something "like" slavery.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Bill Flett
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Bill Flett
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
It allows something "like" slavery.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Bill Flett
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Bill Flett
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-01-27 18:22:57 UTC
Permalink
On 1/25/2017 12:03 AM, Scout wrote:>
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if
either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual
punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter,
modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in
conflict
with
the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
Wrong. If a state had a law authorizing slavery as a criminal
punishment per 13A, and if a person was tried for a crime,
convicted
and sentenced to slavery pursuant to the authorizing statute, he
could
invoke cruel and unusual punishment as a defense.
Anyone can invoke any excuse they like, but the reality is what is
permitted by the 13th
You're not a lawyer and have no background in law or political
science. You're making crap up.
And you've not refuted me in the least.
I have. You are making crap up, based solely on your far-right
ideology and not facts.
Fact: The language of the 13th Amendment
Fact: Independent verification of that language via a source posted by
Clave
Fact: The legal order of precedents involving Amendments which change,
alter, modify, override or otherwise negate any prior language of
provisions that would conflict with the provisions of the Amendment.
This is where you go off the rails. You don't have any understanding
of this at all. You're just making it up.
And other than your denial, do you have anything to refute what I stated?
Fact: The 13th was ratified long after the 8th Amendment
Irrelevant and immaterial. The 27th was ratified long after the 4th. So?
So it means that if the 27th Amendment and the 4th Amendment were ever
in conflict, what the 27th Amendment states would override the
conflicting language within the 4th.
You have no valid basis for stating that - no knowledge of the law.
It's what you wish to believe, that's all.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
It's what you wish to believe, that's all.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
It's what you wish to believe, that's all.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
It's what you wish to believe, that's all.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 19:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
--
That's Karma
Don Kresch
2017-01-27 22:27:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:18:24 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
There's no such thing as mental illness.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-27 22:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:18:24 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
There's no such thing as mental illness.
says the Chicago burrito roller, ignorantly.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
says the Chicago burrito roller
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 16:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
says the Chicago burrito roller
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-27 22:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:18:24 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
There's no such thing as mental illness.
Let me guess, they tested you already?
--
That's Karma
Olrik
2017-01-28 05:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:18:24 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
There's no such thing as mental illness.
Fuck, is "Kresch" now a scientologist?
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-01-29 06:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
I'm hetero, not homo, but I suppose most gays are, like you would be if you
decided to exercise your freedom to chose, mad as hell at asshole bigoted
intolorant people like you.

Do you agree that you should have the freedom to just try homosex if you wanted to?

America is about freedom and fair equal treatment of *all* law-abiding citizens.

USA!!!
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-29 06:15:03 UTC
Permalink
!! Atheist ------------------------------, there's no goodness in thy
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Is there any alt.atheist verifiable evidence that.... gays are NOT just
mentally ill heterosexuals?
I'm hetero, not homo
You protest too much. Come out of the closet.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Scout
2017-01-28 16:17:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:36:46 -0500, "Scout"
They exist if the legislature passes the proper laws
Sorry, it makes no difference what laws the legislature passes, only
what
the Courts say the law is.
But the law must exist before the courts can interpret it.
No it doesn't. It's called "legislating from the bench"
The label is irrelevant - several are used.
Then you know that courts don't need law, in order to interpret it. They
just need to say there is such law.
Wrong yet again. They can only interpret existing law under a case
they adjudicate.
If only that were the case.

But I will note that what they can 'interpret' is a matter of law, and only
the courts can comment on that.

So shut up, by your own standards you're not qualified to have an opinion.

You set the rule, now live with it.
Attila
2017-01-28 21:19:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:17:21 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:36:46 -0500, "Scout"
They exist if the legislature passes the proper laws
Sorry, it makes no difference what laws the legislature passes, only
what
the Courts say the law is.
But the law must exist before the courts can interpret it.
No it doesn't. It's called "legislating from the bench"
The label is irrelevant - several are used.
Then you know that courts don't need law, in order to interpret it. They
just need to say there is such law.
Wrong yet again. They can only interpret existing law under a case
they adjudicate.
If only that were the case.
But I will note that what they can 'interpret' is a matter of law, and only
the courts can comment on that.
True. But the law can be changed if the consensus is that it was
interpreted incorrectly.
Post by Scout
So shut up, by your own standards you're not qualified to have an opinion.
Nor are you. Not as far as legal interpretation is concerned.
Post by Scout
You set the rule, now live with it.
We all do, every day.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 21:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:17:21 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:36:46 -0500, "Scout"
They exist if the legislature passes the proper laws
Sorry, it makes no difference what laws the legislature passes, only
what
the Courts say the law is.
But the law must exist before the courts can interpret it.
No it doesn't. It's called "legislating from the bench"
The label is irrelevant - several are used.
Then you know that courts don't need law, in order to interpret it. They
just need to say there is such law.
Wrong yet again. They can only interpret existing law under a case
they adjudicate.
If only that were the case.
But I will note that what they can 'interpret' is a matter of law, and only
the courts can comment on that.
True.
Then you can have nothing further to say on the subject.

Your rule, now live with it.
Attila
2017-01-29 02:50:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:46:10 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:17:21 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:36:46 -0500, "Scout"
They exist if the legislature passes the proper laws
Sorry, it makes no difference what laws the legislature passes, only
what
the Courts say the law is.
But the law must exist before the courts can interpret it.
No it doesn't. It's called "legislating from the bench"
The label is irrelevant - several are used.
Then you know that courts don't need law, in order to interpret it. They
just need to say there is such law.
Wrong yet again. They can only interpret existing law under a case
they adjudicate.
If only that were the case.
But I will note that what they can 'interpret' is a matter of law, and only
the courts can comment on that.
True.
Then you can have nothing further to say on the subject.
Your rule, now live with it.
It isn't my rule,, it's the way our system works. And we all live
with it every day.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 16:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Really?

What exactly is a god, and what exactly would evidence of such a god look
like?

Indeed, can you even tell me what a god looks like?

To find evidence of something, you first need to know the nature,
characteristics, etc of that something and what evidence would result from
that.

You're like a cave man complaining about the lack of verifiable evidence for
atoms.....such a caveman having NO concept of what an atom really is, much
less how one might detect evidence of it. All that caveman would know is
that it's really small.

So you would be looking through dust looking for 'atoms' and seeing only
dust. Yet, atoms are all around you and you deal with them every day. Yet,
you would have no evidence of them because you don't really know what you're
looking for and couldn't see it if it were staring you in the face.

Which is why I'm an agnostic. God(s) may exist, or they may not. I do have
one unproven 'theory' in which science and the Bible could both say
basically the same thing and at least one God would exist, but like the
handful of dust the evidence was there all along. You just couldn't see
what's staring right at you because you don't even know what you're looking
at.
Attila
2017-01-28 21:35:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:30:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Really?
What exactly is a god, and what exactly would evidence of such a god look
like?
Indeed, can you even tell me what a god looks like?
To find evidence of something, you first need to know the nature,
characteristics, etc of that something and what evidence would result from
that.
Not really. The subject could be so new and unexpected the very
nature of the evidence could be something that has never been known
before.
Post by Scout
You're like a cave man complaining about the lack of verifiable evidence for
atoms.....such a caveman having NO concept of what an atom really is, much
less how one might detect evidence of it. All that caveman would know is
that it's really small.
So you would be looking through dust looking for 'atoms' and seeing only
dust. Yet, atoms are all around you and you deal with them every day. Yet,
you would have no evidence of them because you don't really know what you're
looking for and couldn't see it if it were staring you in the face.
But that caveman could be educated to recognize and understand the
steps leading to the final evidence.
Post by Scout
Which is why I'm an agnostic. God(s) may exist, or they may not. I do have
one unproven 'theory' in which science and the Bible could both say
basically the same thing and at least one God would exist, but like the
handful of dust the evidence was there all along. You just couldn't see
what's staring right at you because you don't even know what you're looking
at.
If it was much of a god it could arrange to have evidence that would
be unmistakable.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 22:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:30:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Really?
What exactly is a god, and what exactly would evidence of such a god look
like?
Indeed, can you even tell me what a god looks like?
To find evidence of something, you first need to know the nature,
characteristics, etc of that something and what evidence would result from
that.
Not really. The subject could be so new and unexpected the very
nature of the evidence could be something that has never been known
before.
Yep, and what I said would still apply.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
You're like a cave man complaining about the lack of verifiable evidence for
atoms.....such a caveman having NO concept of what an atom really is, much
less how one might detect evidence of it. All that caveman would know is
that it's really small.
So you would be looking through dust looking for 'atoms' and seeing only
dust. Yet, atoms are all around you and you deal with them every day. Yet,
you would have no evidence of them because you don't really know what you're
looking for and couldn't see it if it were staring you in the face.
But that caveman could be educated to recognize and understand the
steps leading to the final evidence.
So you sit him down, show him a few movies, and the tell him to write a book
to explain it to other cave men.

I bet they could read that book for thousands of years and still not
understand the nature of atoms until their own knowledge expands enough to
understand the very principles written down, much less to be able to
establish verifiable evidence of the existence of atoms. Until
then......anatomists would be asserting that there is no verifiable evidence
of atom(s) and thus they don't exist.

So once again, we're back to knowing what to look for and whether you can
recognize such evidence if you saw it.

So what does a god look like?
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Which is why I'm an agnostic. God(s) may exist, or they may not. I do have
one unproven 'theory' in which science and the Bible could both say
basically the same thing and at least one God would exist, but like the
handful of dust the evidence was there all along. You just couldn't see
what's staring right at you because you don't even know what you're looking
at.
If it was much of a god it could arrange to have evidence that would
be unmistakable.
Then it wouldn't be a matter of faith, would it?

Besides, perhaps the evidence is unmistakable, but people can't understand
what they are looking at.

What if God were the universe?

The evidence that the universe exists is unmistakable....but could you see
God if you don't know what you were looking at?

If you did, could you prove it to another?

No, until you know what to look for, you can see it, wonder over it, even be
amazed by it, but still not see it for what you're looking for.

So again I ask, what does God look like?
Attila
2017-01-29 03:05:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:40:24 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:30:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Just who is to decide what is "actually in the language, context and
intent of the law as written and passed into law"?
Anyone capable of reading and basic research....which would leave you
out.
Here in alt.atheism we know there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s).
Really?
What exactly is a god, and what exactly would evidence of such a god look
like?
Indeed, can you even tell me what a god looks like?
To find evidence of something, you first need to know the nature,
characteristics, etc of that something and what evidence would result from
that.
Not really. The subject could be so new and unexpected the very
nature of the evidence could be something that has never been known
before.
Yep, and what I said would still apply.
It would follow that the evidence must be understandable or it would
be meaningless.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
You're like a cave man complaining about the lack of verifiable evidence for
atoms.....such a caveman having NO concept of what an atom really is, much
less how one might detect evidence of it. All that caveman would know is
that it's really small.
So you would be looking through dust looking for 'atoms' and seeing only
dust. Yet, atoms are all around you and you deal with them every day. Yet,
you would have no evidence of them because you don't really know what you're
looking for and couldn't see it if it were staring you in the face.
But that caveman could be educated to recognize and understand the
steps leading to the final evidence.
So you sit him down, show him a few movies, and the tell him to write a book
to explain it to other cave men.
I am sure a bit more than that would be required. The point is that
it is possible.
Post by Scout
I bet they could read that book for thousands of years and still not
understand the nature of atoms until their own knowledge expands enough to
understand the very principles written down, much less to be able to
establish verifiable evidence of the existence of atoms. Until
then......anatomists would be asserting that there is no verifiable evidence
of atom(s) and thus they don't exist.
The same situation exists today when anyone takes the word of anyone
else for something they personally do not understand.

You are simply being argumentative, as usual.
Post by Scout
So once again, we're back to knowing what to look for and whether you can
recognize such evidence if you saw it.
So what does a god look like?
Since I have never seen on I have no idea.

Isn't that your point?
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Which is why I'm an agnostic. God(s) may exist, or they may not. I do have
one unproven 'theory' in which science and the Bible could both say
basically the same thing and at least one God would exist, but like the
handful of dust the evidence was there all along. You just couldn't see
what's staring right at you because you don't even know what you're looking
at.
If it was much of a god it could arrange to have evidence that would
be unmistakable.
Then it wouldn't be a matter of faith, would it?
Of course not. It isn't today as far as I am concerned.
Post by Scout
Besides, perhaps the evidence is unmistakable, but people can't understand
what they are looking at.
What if God were the universe?
Or not.
Post by Scout
The evidence that the universe exists is unmistakable....but could you see
God if you don't know what you were looking at?
If you did, could you prove it to another?
Why should I prove anything I have not asserted? Such proof is not my
problem.
Post by Scout
No, until you know what to look for, you can see it, wonder over it, even be
amazed by it, but still not see it for what you're looking for.
So again I ask, what does God look like?
I have no idea, but since I have not asserted any god exists it really
isn't my problem.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 16:34:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent of
existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.

Further, you can NOT even question what they claim to see. If they say the
King is wearing the finest suit ever made, then you would accept it even
though no one can see any suit.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 17:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent
of existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
Further, you can NOT even question what they claim to see. If they say
the King is wearing the finest suit ever made, then you would accept it
even though no one can see any suit.
And how can they violate you rights your whole life just because no one
wanted to risk the penalty to bring the case to trial?

Our rights are superior to the government's powers and it says so in
Amendment 9, which means that any law that violates a persons rights, is
unconstitutional before the case is tried and the courts would have to
prove the law was not a violation of Amendment 9 before it is a law.


[""""Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."""""]

The government rights to make laws doesn't deny or depreciate our
rights, so any law that is in question of violating any of my rights
must first prove that it doesn't in a court of law, before it is law.

Because until then it's in violation of amendment 9.

So the test of the law is NOT just each time someone has violated it,
it's before it becomes part of the body of laws.
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-01-28 21:31:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:24:25 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent
of existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
Further, you can NOT even question what they claim to see. If they say
the King is wearing the finest suit ever made, then you would accept it
even though no one can see any suit.
And how can they violate you rights your whole life just because no one
wanted to risk the penalty to bring the case to trial?
There is no penalty for bringing a case to trial other than the
expense.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Our rights are superior to the government's powers and it says so in
Amendment 9, which means that any law that violates a persons rights, is
unconstitutional before the case is tried and the courts would have to
prove the law was not a violation of Amendment 9 before it is a law.
A law goes into effect on the specified date unless it is stayed by a
court. No matter what that law is.

Only a court can legally decide if something is unconstitutional and
there is no prior test for new law.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
[""""Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."""""]
The government rights to make laws doesn't deny or depreciate our
rights, so any law that is in question of violating any of my rights
must first prove that it doesn't in a court of law, before it is law.
Not unless a court says so.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Because until then it's in violation of amendment 9.
Only a court can decide that.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
So the test of the law is NOT just each time someone has violated it,
it's before it becomes part of the body of laws.
Nope.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 21:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:24:25 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent
of existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
Further, you can NOT even question what they claim to see. If they say
the King is wearing the finest suit ever made, then you would accept it
even though no one can see any suit.
And how can they violate you rights your whole life just because no one
wanted to risk the penalty to bring the case to trial?
There is no penalty for bringing a case to trial other than the
expense.
The risk of penalty is breaking the law to prove it's unconstitutional.
You otherwise go your whole life being subjected to an unconstitutional
law which is a violation of the constitution.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Attila
2017-01-29 02:54:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:39:46 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:24:25 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent
of existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
Further, you can NOT even question what they claim to see. If they say
the King is wearing the finest suit ever made, then you would accept it
even though no one can see any suit.
And how can they violate you rights your whole life just because no one
wanted to risk the penalty to bring the case to trial?
There is no penalty for bringing a case to trial other than the
expense.
The risk of penalty is breaking the law to prove it's unconstitutional.
There is a penalty for breaking any law. The reason is irrelevant. Or
should be.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
You otherwise go your whole life being subjected to an unconstitutional
law which is a violation of the constitution.
If no court has held a law to be unconstitutional it is considered
constitutional.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-29 04:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:39:46 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:24:25 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent
of existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
Further, you can NOT even question what they claim to see. If they say
the King is wearing the finest suit ever made, then you would accept it
even though no one can see any suit.
And how can they violate you rights your whole life just because no one
wanted to risk the penalty to bring the case to trial?
There is no penalty for bringing a case to trial other than the
expense.
The risk of penalty is breaking the law to prove it's unconstitutional.
There is a penalty for breaking any law. The reason is irrelevant. Or
should be.
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
You otherwise go your whole life being subjected to an unconstitutional
law which is a violation of the constitution.
If no court has held a law to be unconstitutional it is considered
constitutional.
That is unconstitutional according to amendment 9.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, *shall not* *be*
*construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people* .

You can't create any power/right in the constitution that will deny me
my rights so the burden of proof is on the government passing the laws
or constitutional amendments to prove they don't deny or even disparage
my rights or the rights of any of the people.

If you pass a law that does deny my rights I don't have to abide by it.
Because if I did it would be denying my rights. That puts the onus of
proof on the Government to prove it doesn't violate my rights before
they can enact the law. Then if they do prove that then later the
persons prosecuted can still try to appeal on the ground the law is
unconstitutional for the reasons they claim.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Scout
2017-01-28 21:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent
of existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
Further, you can NOT even question what they claim to see. If they say
the King is wearing the finest suit ever made, then you would accept it
even though no one can see any suit.
And how can they violate you rights your whole life just because no one
wanted to risk the penalty to bring the case to trial?
Because that's the way the courts 'interpret' the law?
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Our rights are superior to the government's powers and it says so in
Amendment 9, which means that any law that violates a persons rights, is
unconstitutional before the case is tried and the courts would have to
prove the law was not a violation of Amendment 9 before it is a law.
Now, now, remember according to Attila you have NO opinion on what the law
says. Only the courts do and it's their opinion which is definitive and
absolute. So if the courts say it, then according to Attila that is the law
and who cares what anyone else sees in the language of the law....including
the very people who drafted, debated and enacted such law?
Attila
2017-01-28 21:26:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:34:27 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent of
existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
If it SCOTUS we are pretty much stuck with it. Until any perceived
error is corrected by new law or a subsequent ruling under a new case.
Post by Scout
Further, you can NOT even question what they claim to see. If they say the
King is wearing the finest suit ever made, then you would accept it even
though no one can see any suit.
Legally that is correct.

The remedy is to enact new law where required.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 21:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:34:27 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent of
existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
If it SCOTUS we are pretty much stuck with it.
Only because of people like you....who say we have to swallow whatever the
court comes up with.

Yep, you would have been a firm supporter of racial discrimination.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-28 22:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:34:27 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent of
existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
If it SCOTUS we are pretty much stuck with it.
Only because of people like you....who say we have to swallow whatever
the court comes up with.
Yep, you would have been a firm supporter of racial discrimination.
By that you mean... it's OK when the government discriminates against
people of any color that choose who they wish to associate with?

The problem is the government has no power delegated to tell us who we
are allowed to associate with.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-01-29 06:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The problem is the government has no power delegated to tell us who we
are allowed to associate with.
The government, that you agreed to, must treat *all* law-abiding citizens
equally fairly. That's all; you don't have to have any friends you don't
like, regardless of any bigoted reasons.

We Americans are strong enough, big enough, man enough to be tolerant....aren't you?

USA!!!
Attila
2017-01-29 02:56:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:56:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:34:27 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it,
Even if no such law exists, or the language, meaning and even the intent of
existing law doesn't support they way they chose to 'see it'.
If it SCOTUS we are pretty much stuck with it.
Only because of people like you....who say we have to swallow whatever the
court comes up with.
Just what is the alternative?
Post by Scout
Yep, you would have been a firm supporter of racial discrimination.
Just because something is currently legal does not mean I support it.
For example I do not support giving illegals any legal protections or
any access to governmental services.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 16:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:41:35 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it, using the wording of the
law involved and prior court decisions.
So which is it, as they see it or the rest of it?
Rest of what? It is their responsibility to interpret a law in light
of existing statutes and prior case law.
Sorry, but you're already stated that's a matter that's purely up to the
courts to decide.

Oh, and FYI, isn't 'case law' just a fancy name for how courts have already
invented crap that doesn't exist within the law, or match the language of
any law?

Otherwise, why would we even need to consider case law?
Attila
2017-01-28 21:23:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:36:34 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:41:35 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it, using the wording of the
law involved and prior court decisions.
So which is it, as they see it or the rest of it?
Rest of what? It is their responsibility to interpret a law in light
of existing statutes and prior case law.
Sorry, but you're already stated that's a matter that's purely up to the
courts to decide.
That decision is required to be based upon existing law and prior
court decisions.
Post by Scout
Oh, and FYI, isn't 'case law' just a fancy name for how courts have already
invented crap that doesn't exist within the law, or match the language of
any law?
I suppose it would depend on how you look at it, but the result is no
different. A court decision remains law until and unless reversed by
a higher court, changed buy a subsequent ruling at a later date, or
made moot by a new law being enacted.
Post by Scout
Otherwise, why would we even need to consider case law?
Case law is integral to our legal system.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-28 21:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:36:34 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:41:35 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it, using the wording of the
law involved and prior court decisions.
So which is it, as they see it or the rest of it?
Rest of what? It is their responsibility to interpret a law in light
of existing statutes and prior case law.
Sorry, but you're already stated that's a matter that's purely up to the
courts to decide.
That decision is
Entirely up to the courts to decide, and they can base it on whatever they
like.

That's your rule, now stick to it.
Attila
2017-01-29 02:51:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:57:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:36:34 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:41:35 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it, using the wording of the
law involved and prior court decisions.
So which is it, as they see it or the rest of it?
Rest of what? It is their responsibility to interpret a law in light
of existing statutes and prior case law.
Sorry, but you're already stated that's a matter that's purely up to the
courts to decide.
That decision is
Entirely up to the courts to decide, and they can base it on whatever they
like.
They are legally required to base any decisions on existing law.
Post by Scout
That's your rule, now stick to it.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Just Wondering
2017-01-29 09:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case
they are charged with applying the law as they see it, using
the wording of the law involved and prior court decisions.
So which is it, as they see it or the rest of it?
Rest of what? It is their responsibility to interpret a law
in light of existing statutes and prior case law.
There are actually rules for interpreting/construing laws, for example
courts must if possible give words their ordinary and usual meaning.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Sorry, but you're already stated that's a matter that's
purely up to the courts to decide.
That decision is
Entirely up to the courts to decide, and they can base it
on whatever they like.
They are legally required to base any decisions on existing law.
Then why does Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (most
states have a similar rule) state that an attorney's signature on a
motion filed with the court is his certification that "the claims,
defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or
by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
existing law or for establishing new law"?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-28 22:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:36:34 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:41:35 -0500, "Scout"
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:53:35 -0700, Just Wondering
The courts are charged with looking at the law.
The courts are charged with trying cases. They don't have
a general charge to just go out and look at the law.
They must have a case to try first, but in deciding that case they are
charged with applying the law as they see it, using the wording of the
law involved and prior court decisions.
So which is it, as they see it or the rest of it?
Rest of what? It is their responsibility to interpret a law in light
of existing statutes and prior case law.
Sorry, but you're already stated that's a matter that's purely up to the
courts to decide.
That decision is required to be based upon existing law and prior
court decisions.
Kind of like Brown v Board of Education was. Oh, wait...it wasn't.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 22:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Oh, wait...it wasn't.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
2017-01-28 22:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Oh, wait...it wasn't.
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:

You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!

We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Loading...