Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Jeanne Douglas
2017-01-30 17:01:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basis
in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the court
on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
You can't say, because you have no way of knowing if courts are basing
their decision on existing law or not. You *couldn't* possibly know
that. You're presuming it to be the case, but that's presumptuous.
Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing their
opinion
on what their opinion of the law is.
Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.
That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has the
force of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.
I could have the term wrong - as I have frequently said I am not an
expert.
And as you routinely reveal.
Talk about circular reasoning.
Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that you
can
have an opinion on the law.
I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.
No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you're
not a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're an
opinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.
Oh? Just where am I wrong? What are your qualifications to make this
judgment?
You're wrong when you presume that courts are basing their decisions on
prior law. As I have elaborated, you have no possible way of knowing that.
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Mike Kuhn
2017-01-30 17:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basis
in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the court
on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
You can't say, because you have no way of knowing if courts are basing
their decision on existing law or not. You *couldn't* possibly know
that. You're presuming it to be the case, but that's presumptuous.
Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing their
opinion
on what their opinion of the law is.
Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.
That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has the
force of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.
I could have the term wrong - as I have frequently said I am not an
expert.
And as you routinely reveal.
Talk about circular reasoning.
Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that you
can
have an opinion on the law.
I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.
No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you're
not a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're an
opinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.
Oh? Just where am I wrong? What are your qualifications to make this
judgment?
You're wrong when you presume that courts are basing their decisions on
prior law. As I have elaborated, you have no possible way of knowing that.
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
Which they don't always do, of course.

You're no more a lawyer or legal scholar than he is...and he admits not
to being one in any way.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 17:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
You're no more a lawyer or legal scholar than he is...
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 Mike Kuhn
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 Mike Kuhn
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.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 17:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
You're no more a lawyer or legal scholar than he is...
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 Mike Kuhn
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 Mike Kuhn
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.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 18:55:44 UTC
Permalink
he admits not to being one in any way.
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.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 19:12:10 UTC
Permalink
They did not in any way make up a definition.
Exactly.
-- JD
Silence, Beast!
I don't take orders from you, you silly goose.
Frauds are Exposed:

Buster Norris Impersonation:

From: Buster Norris <***@buster.com>
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <Buster-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: TpbvbY7Zmh0vN1P1sEbKsA.user.speranza.aioe.org
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

Patriot Games Impersonation:

From: Patriot Games <***@america.com>
Organization: Lemonparty.org
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: M6X0he1w3BSDuSsLAtZ2jg.user.speranza.aioe.org
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

"bb.sky.com" =

From: Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMpacbell.net>

"hlwdjsd" =

Name: Jeanne Douglas
"Bio Baseball fanatic (GO ANGELS!) and compulsive follower of
progressive politics."
http://twitter.com/hlwdjsd

YouTube - hlwdjsd's Channel; Age: 59
http://www.youtube.com/user/hlwdjsd

Jeanne Douglas
Holllywood, CA: http://digg.com/hlwdjsd/following

CNET Community Member Profile: http://www.cnet.com/profile/hlwdjsd

hlwdjsd.blogspot.com/

Amazon.com: Profile for J. S. Douglas "hlwdjsd". (REAL NAME).
Location: Hollyweird, CA ...
www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1BXR4SI6MQLHV

Home Address:

Jeanne Douglas
7941 Selma Ave,
Apt 218
Los Angeles, CA 90046
(323) 656-7357

--------------------------------------------------
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

Yer a 400-pounder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.peekyou.com/jeanne_douglas/37045400
You scored 1.60 out of 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OLD: http://www.myspace.com/110539116
--------------------------------------------------

===================================================

NEW: myspace.com/561335290
Oops! She's got Herpes!
http://responsibledating.com/community/index.php?do=/hlwdjsd/

-------------------------------------------------
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/8fff1088d734b4ed?hl=en
The Beast that Ate Hollywood would like you to know that she's a
secretary at UCLA in the Physics Dept.

They probably use her for gravity experiments on super-dense
objects........ HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IP: 169.232.154.216
***@gmail.com
Los Angeles, CA
Latitude: 33.7866 Longitude: -118.2987
Host: jd.physics.ucla.edu

Jeanne Douglas - Admin Specialist [Secretary or Clerk]
310-825-1678
Physics & Astronomy
Dept Code 1000
***@physics.ucla.edu
4-140B Knudsen

Jeanne Douglas
UCLA Physocs & Astronomy
BOX 951547, 4-140B Knudsen
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547

Employment Services
Phone 310-794-0890

-------------------------------------------------

References
===================================================
Jeanne 'The Beast That Ate Hollywood' Douglas using her 'aioe.org'
account with her REAL NAME:

From: Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMpacbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: Dn01HP7seZtxMmrUMC4ndQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:20:36 -0800
Message-ID: <hlwdjsd-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bb24a2a6a95d862d?hl=en&dmode=source

From: Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMpacbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ckvNbXipBnVpQJPE3/DVBg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:33:25 -0700
Message-ID: <hlwdjsd-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/0ef2be2c63e1b376?hl=en&dmode=source

-------------------------------------------------
Jeanne 'The Beast That Ate Hollywood' Douglas using her 'aioe.org'
account IMPERSONATING Patriot Games [as of 2/25/11]:

Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>

-------------------------------------------------

Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
checkered demon
2017-01-30 19:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
-- JD
Frauds are Exposed:

Buster Norris Impersonation:

From: Buster Norris <***@buster.com>
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <Buster-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: TpbvbY7Zmh0vN1P1sEbKsA.user.speranza.aioe.org
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

Patriot Games Impersonation:

From: Patriot Games <***@america.com>
Organization: Lemonparty.org
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: M6X0he1w3BSDuSsLAtZ2jg.user.speranza.aioe.org
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

"bb.sky.com" =

From: Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMpacbell.net>

"hlwdjsd" =

Name: Jeanne Douglas
"Bio Baseball fanatic (GO ANGELS!) and compulsive follower of
progressive politics."
http://twitter.com/hlwdjsd

YouTube - hlwdjsd's Channel; Age: 59
http://www.youtube.com/user/hlwdjsd

Jeanne Douglas
Holllywood, CA: http://digg.com/hlwdjsd/following

CNET Community Member Profile: http://www.cnet.com/profile/hlwdjsd

hlwdjsd.blogspot.com/

Amazon.com: Profile for J. S. Douglas "hlwdjsd". (REAL NAME).
Location: Hollyweird, CA ...
www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1BXR4SI6MQLHV

Home Address:

Jeanne Douglas
7941 Selma Ave,
Apt 218
Los Angeles, CA 90046
(323) 656-7357

--------------------------------------------------
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

Yer a 400-pounder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.peekyou.com/jeanne_douglas/37045400
You scored 1.60 out of 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OLD: http://www.myspace.com/110539116
--------------------------------------------------

===================================================

NEW: myspace.com/561335290
Oops! She's got Herpes!
http://responsibledating.com/community/index.php?do=/hlwdjsd/

-------------------------------------------------
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/8fff1088d734b4ed?hl=en
The Beast that Ate Hollywood would like you to know that she's a
secretary at UCLA in the Physics Dept.

They probably use her for gravity experiments on super-dense
objects........ HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IP: 169.232.154.216
***@gmail.com
Los Angeles, CA
Latitude: 33.7866 Longitude: -118.2987
Host: jd.physics.ucla.edu

Jeanne Douglas - Admin Specialist [Secretary or Clerk]
310-825-1678
Physics & Astronomy
Dept Code 1000
***@physics.ucla.edu
4-140B Knudsen

Jeanne Douglas
UCLA Physocs & Astronomy
BOX 951547, 4-140B Knudsen
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547

Employment Services
Phone 310-794-0890

-------------------------------------------------

References
===================================================
Jeanne 'The Beast That Ate Hollywood' Douglas using her 'aioe.org'
account with her REAL NAME:

From: Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMpacbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: Dn01HP7seZtxMmrUMC4ndQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:20:36 -0800
Message-ID: <hlwdjsd-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bb24a2a6a95d862d?hl=en&dmode=source

From: Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMpacbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ckvNbXipBnVpQJPE3/DVBg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:33:25 -0700
Message-ID: <hlwdjsd-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/0ef2be2c63e1b376?hl=en&dmode=source

-------------------------------------------------
Jeanne 'The Beast That Ate Hollywood' Douglas using her 'aioe.org'
account IMPERSONATING Patriot Games [as of 2/25/11]:

Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>

-------------------------------------------------

Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
checkered demon
2017-01-30 19:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
-- JD
Frauds are Exposed:

Buster Norris Impersonation:

From: Buster Norris <***@buster.com>
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <Buster-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: TpbvbY7Zmh0vN1P1sEbKsA.user.speranza.aioe.org
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

Patriot Games Impersonation:

From: Patriot Games <***@america.com>
Organization: Lemonparty.org
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: M6X0he1w3BSDuSsLAtZ2jg.user.speranza.aioe.org
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

"bb.sky.com" =

From: Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMpacbell.net>

"hlwdjsd" =

Name: Jeanne Douglas
"Bio Baseball fanatic (GO ANGELS!) and compulsive follower of
progressive politics."
http://twitter.com/hlwdjsd

YouTube - hlwdjsd's Channel; Age: 59
http://www.youtube.com/user/hlwdjsd

Jeanne Douglas
Holllywood, CA: http://digg.com/hlwdjsd/following

CNET Community Member Profile: http://www.cnet.com/profile/hlwdjsd

hlwdjsd.blogspot.com/

Amazon.com: Profile for J. S. Douglas "hlwdjsd". (REAL NAME).
Location: Hollyweird, CA ...
www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1BXR4SI6MQLHV

Home Address:

Jeanne Douglas
7941 Selma Ave,
Apt 218
Los Angeles, CA 90046
(323) 656-7357

--------------------------------------------------
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

Yer a 400-pounder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.peekyou.com/jeanne_douglas/37045400
You scored 1.60 out of 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OLD: http://www.myspace.com/110539116
--------------------------------------------------

===================================================

NEW: myspace.com/561335290
Oops! She's got Herpes!
http://responsibledating.com/community/index.php?do=/hlwdjsd/

-------------------------------------------------
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/8fff1088d734b4ed?hl=en
The Beast that Ate Hollywood would like you to know that she's a
secretary at UCLA in the Physics Dept.

They probably use her for gravity experiments on super-dense
objects........ HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IP: 169.232.154.216
***@gmail.com
Los Angeles, CA
Latitude: 33.7866 Longitude: -118.2987
Host: jd.physics.ucla.edu

Jeanne Douglas - Admin Specialist [Secretary or Clerk]
310-825-1678
Physics & Astronomy
Dept Code 1000
***@physics.ucla.edu
4-140B Knudsen

Jeanne Douglas
UCLA Physocs & Astronomy
BOX 951547, 4-140B Knudsen
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547

Employment Services
Phone 310-794-0890

-------------------------------------------------

References
===================================================
Jeanne 'The Beast That Ate Hollywood' Douglas using her 'aioe.org'
account with her REAL NAME:

From: Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMpacbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: Dn01HP7seZtxMmrUMC4ndQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:20:36 -0800
Message-ID: <hlwdjsd-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bb24a2a6a95d862d?hl=en&dmode=source

From: Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMpacbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ckvNbXipBnVpQJPE3/DVBg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:33:25 -0700
Message-ID: <hlwdjsd-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/0ef2be2c63e1b376?hl=en&dmode=source

-------------------------------------------------
Jeanne 'The Beast That Ate Hollywood' Douglas using her 'aioe.org'
account IMPERSONATING Patriot Games [as of 2/25/11]:

Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>
Message-ID: <Patriot-***@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>

-------------------------------------------------

Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Siri Cruise
2017-01-30 19:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
-- JD
Fuck off, spammy. You are going *DOWN*, bitch.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 19:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
-- JD
Fuck off, spammy. You are going *DOWN*, bitch.
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 Siri Cruise
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 Siri Cruise
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.
Scout
2017-01-30 20:49:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basis
in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the court
on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
Supposed to be.....well shit... with assurances like that why would anyone
ever question the courts......why even bother having a Constitution or a
Legislature.....we can just let leave everything to the courts.

Oh, that's right, the courts don't base everything upon prior existing law,
instead they not only ignore existing law, but even 'law' that doesn't even
exist except in their imaginations.

So, as I observed, the law is whatever the courts say it is per your own
claims.
Attila
2017-01-30 21:54:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:49:06 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basis
in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the court
on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
Supposed to be.....well shit... with assurances like that why would anyone
ever question the courts......why even bother having a Constitution or a
Legislature.....we can just let leave everything to the courts.
They are legally required to base rulings on prior existing law but
since the judges are human upon occasion I would bet they don't. That
would be corrected when the case is reviewed by a higher court.
Post by Scout
Oh, that's right, the courts don't base everything upon prior existing law,
instead they not only ignore existing law, but even 'law' that doesn't even
exist except in their imaginations.
Citations are required when a ruling is published.
Post by Scout
So, as I observed, the law is whatever the courts say it is per your own
claims.
Yes, it is. That is how our system works, like it or not.

--
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
2017-01-30 20:51:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:32:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:45:05 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
in
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.
And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.
I know enough to know my opinions
Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you're
not a court of law.
My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.
If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law at
all.

After all, the sum of the whole is made up of it's parts. If you know
nothing about any particular, then by direct extension you know nothing
about the sum.

So shut up.

Strange how you keep wanting to talk about the law, you claim to know
nothing about.
Attila
2017-01-30 21:57:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:32:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:45:05 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
in
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.
And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.
I know enough to know my opinions
Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you're
not a court of law.
My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.
If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law at
all.
I never said I know "the law". I do know a small bit about how the
legal system works - enough to know it is impossible to simply read
something and know what it means legally and how it would be
interpreted in court.
Post by Scout
After all, the sum of the whole is made up of it's parts. If you know
nothing about any particular, then by direct extension you know nothing
about the sum.
So shut up.
There you go again.
Post by Scout
Strange how you keep wanting to talk about the law, you claim to know
nothing about.
I know enough to detect a blowhard when I see one.

--
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.
Mike Kuhn
2017-01-30 22:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:32:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:45:05 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
in
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.
And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.
I know enough to know my opinions
Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you're
not a court of law.
My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.
If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law at
all.
I never said I know "the law". I do know a small bit about how the
legal system works - enough to know it is impossible to simply read
something and know what it means legally and how it would be
interpreted in court.
Post by Scout
After all, the sum of the whole is made up of it's parts. If you know
nothing about any particular, then by direct extension you know nothing
about the sum.
So shut up.
There you go again.
Post by Scout
Strange how you keep wanting to talk about the law, you claim to know
nothing about.
I know enough to detect a blowhard when I see one.
You both are. You're just not quite as much a know-it-all or as
bombastic as he is.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 22:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
You both are.
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 Mike Kuhn
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 Mike Kuhn
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.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 22:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
You both are.
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 Mike Kuhn
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 Mike Kuhn
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.
Attila
2017-01-31 09:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:32:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:45:05 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
in
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.
And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.
I know enough to know my opinions
Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you're
not a court of law.
My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.
If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law at
all.
I never said I know "the law". I do know a small bit about how the
legal system works - enough to know it is impossible to simply read
something and know what it means legally and how it would be
interpreted in court.
Post by Scout
After all, the sum of the whole is made up of it's parts. If you know
nothing about any particular, then by direct extension you know nothing
about the sum.
So shut up.
There you go again.
Post by Scout
Strange how you keep wanting to talk about the law, you claim to know
nothing about.
I know enough to detect a blowhard when I see one.
You both are. You're just not quite as much a know-it-all or as
bombastic as he is.
I freely admit I know next to nothing about the law other than to
recognize it is impossible for an untrained person to have a clue as
to what a law means or how it is applied. Basically that is all I
have been saying.

Would anyone here attempt to perform surgery? Would a medical
education and training have any bearing on the probability of 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.
Scout
2017-01-31 00:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:32:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:45:05 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
in
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.
And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.
I know enough to know my opinions
Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you're
not a court of law.
My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.
If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law at
all.
I never said I know "the law".
And yet time and again you've stated that the law requires the courts to do
this or that, the law is this or that, or whatever bolsters your argument at
the time.

Now you claim you don't know the law.

Tell you what, when you do know what you're talking about, maybe you can try
this again.

Until then..... nothing you say has any meaning or merit and will be ignored
unless supported by direct evidence and facts.

To bad you couldn't uphold your end of the discussion.
Attila
2017-01-31 09:52:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:17:36 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:51:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:32:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:45:05 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:33:30 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
in
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.
And yet you seem MORE than opinionated on the law.
I know enough to know my opinions
Sorry, but by your own statements your opinion is meaningless since you're
not a court of law.
My opinion about any particular law is meaningless, that is correct.
If you know nothing about any particular law, then you don't know the law at
all.
I never said I know "the law".
And yet time and again you've stated that the law requires the courts to do
this or that, the law is this or that, or whatever bolsters your argument at
the time.
I suspect you once again are taking material out of context or
rewording what was actually said in order to further your agenda. You
do that constantly.

How about a reference to where I have "stated that the law requires
the courts to do this or that".
Post by Scout
Now you claim you don't know the law.
I have never claimed I *do* know the law. I have tried to make it
clear that I do not know the law but I do know it is not possible to
simply read a law and know what it legally says or how it is legally
applied.
Post by Scout
Tell you what, when you do know what you're talking about, maybe you can try
this again.
Until then..... nothing you say has any meaning or merit and will be ignored
unless supported by direct evidence and facts.
To bad you couldn't uphold your end of the discussion.
Based upon what I have observed any opinions you have about much of
anything aren't worth the space they take up. I certainly am not
going to pay any attention to any opinions you have about me or what I
do.

--
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
2017-01-30 20:54:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basis
in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the court
on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's nothing
but wishful thinking on your part.
Does seem to be the a major fallacy in his reasoning, if you can call it
reasoning.
Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing their
opinion
on what their opinion of the law is.
Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.
That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has the
force of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.
Talk about circular reasoning.
Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that you
can
have an opinion on the law.
I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.
No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you're
not a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're an
opinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.
*ding* *Ding* *DING*

Congratulations, we have a winner. Pick any item from the top shelf.

Yep, he wants to express his opinions, even though he admits he knows
nothing about the law. Yet complains when others who do know the law want to
share their opinions and correct his errors on the law.

Seems he's allowed to talk and the courts can talk, but everyone else should
shut up.
Attila
2017-01-30 21:49:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:54:42 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Yep, he wants to express his opinions, even though he admits he knows
nothing about the law. Yet complains when others who do know the law want to
share their opinions and correct his errors on the law.
I have yet to see anyone claim to have any legal training whatsoever
anywhere in this conversation. Do you have such training?

Just what 'errors on the law' have I made since I have tried very hard
not to comment on any law but only on the mechanism of how the legal
system works plus pointing out it is based heavily on precedent. That
precedent requires a specialized knowledge and training to understand
- the average person may think he knows what something says but
legally it could mean something entirely different.

--
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
2017-01-31 00:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:54:42 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Yep, he wants to express his opinions, even though he admits he knows
nothing about the law. Yet complains when others who do know the law want to
share their opinions and correct his errors on the law.
I have yet to see anyone claim to have any legal training whatsoever
anywhere in this conversation. Do you have such training?
Why? Do you think the relevance of my arguments would be altered in the
least if I did or didn't assert such training?

I've got an idea, how about you just deal with the arguments made and see
where the discussion goes?

You might learn something, if you're willing to learn that is.
Attila
2017-01-31 09:40:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:22:44 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:54:42 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Yep, he wants to express his opinions, even though he admits he knows
nothing about the law. Yet complains when others who do know the law want to
share their opinions and correct his errors on the law.
I have yet to see anyone claim to have any legal training whatsoever
anywhere in this conversation. Do you have such training?
Why? Do you think the relevance of my arguments would be altered in the
least if I did or didn't assert such training?
It might lend a shred of credibility to what you say, but probably
not.
Post by Scout
I've got an idea, how about you just deal with the arguments made and see
where the discussion goes?
A discussion which includes those who have no idea what they are
talking about is a demonstration in futility.

Shall we have a discussion about the best surgical technique to be
used in repairing a shattered shoulder? I have no idea what is
involved or how to even start but I am willing to take a stab at it. I
am as qualified to discuss detailed medical procedures as you are to
discuss interpretations and applications of the law.
Post by Scout
You might learn something, if you're willing to learn that is.
From all of this? Doubtful.

--
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
2017-01-30 20:57:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no
basis in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case
law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the
court on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
Really?

We have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courts
that utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's is
working well?

It would be like a baseball team rushing for a first down. It's not in the
rules, it's not even in the game.....but hey as long as the team says they
can do it.......seems to be 'working well'.
Attila
2017-01-30 21:42:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:57:41 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no
basis in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case
law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the
court on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
Really?
Yes, really.
Post by Scout
We have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courts
that utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's is
working well?
Just exactly what are your qualifications to judge whether or not a
case ignores, rewrites, or reinvents the Constitution?
Post by Scout
It would be like a baseball team rushing for a first down. It's not in the
rules, it's not even in the game.....but hey as long as the team says they
can do it.......seems to be 'working well'.
Except this isn't sports when next week or next year few people care
who did what in some game.

A legal ruling in all of it's detail will be available for cite a
hundred years from now.

--
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
2017-01-31 00:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:57:41 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no
basis in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case
law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the
court on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
Really?
Yes, really.
Post by Scout
We have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courts
that utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's is
working well?
Just exactly what are your qualifications to judge whether or not a
case ignores, rewrites, or reinvents the Constitution?
Well, unlike you I'm able to think for myself without having to be told what
to think.

Seems to you assertions of authority are more relevant than the actual
arguments made.

Tells me where your priorities are.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-31 01:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:57:41 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no
basis in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case
law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the
court on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
Really?
Yes, really.
Post by Scout
We have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courts
that utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's is
working well?
Just exactly what are your qualifications to judge whether or not a
case ignores, rewrites, or reinvents the Constitution?
I am as educated and fluent in English as those that wrote the
constitution so I am just as well equipped to understand it as they were.
--
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
2017-01-31 09:32:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:09:24 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:57:41 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no
basis in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case
law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the
court on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
Really?
Yes, really.
Post by Scout
We have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courts
that utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's is
working well?
Just exactly what are your qualifications to judge whether or not a
case ignores, rewrites, or reinvents the Constitution?
I am as educated and fluent in English as those that wrote the
constitution so I am just as well equipped to understand it as they were.
Actually you are not. According to

http://www.usconstitution.net/constframedata.html

there were 30 lawyers among the origional Framers 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.
Attila
2017-01-31 09:24:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:24:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:57:41 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no
basis in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case
law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the
court on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
Really?
Yes, really.
Post by Scout
We have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and courts
that utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you claim that's is
working well?
Just exactly what are your qualifications to judge whether or not a
case ignores, rewrites, or reinvents the Constitution?
Well, unlike you I'm able to think for myself without having to be told what
to think.
Just another self-proclaimed expert.
Post by Scout
Seems to you assertions of authority are more relevant than the actual
arguments made.
When the 'arguments' are no better than wind blowing, yes.
Post by Scout
Tells me where your priorities are.
To poke holes in windbags who set themselves up as experts without a
clue as to what they are actually talking about.

--
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.
Mitchell Holman
2017-01-30 22:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
We have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and
courts that utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you
claim that's is working well?
It works well enough for rulings you like,
like Heller and Citizens United.
Enceladus
2017-01-30 22:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Scout
We have a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land....and
courts that utterly ignore it, rewrite it, and reinvent it, and you
claim that's is working well?
It works well enough for rulings you like,
like Heller and Citizens United.
erading simultaneously as
Post by Mitchell Holman
"Jeri Taylor" and "Tom Ballard" (and having "conversations"
with himself in t.p.g, each alias congratulating the
other on how well "they" were trouncing pro-gun people),
Mitchell has pretty much steered clear of t.p.g, but
I guess the prospect of dancing in fresh blood was too
much for him, so he came back reincarnated as "Diana Trent".
I'm not going to reveal too much about how I caught him
(her? it?) this time, because I don't want to give him
pointers on how I recognize his aliases whenever they
show up, but here's one of the (many) clinchers in the
In his past posts, Mitchell Holman has revealed himself
to be quite a fan of things British, and of British comedy.
Previously, Holman has masqueraded as "Tom Ballard".
There's a British comedy TV series called "Waiting
for God", about an old couple at an atrocious nursing
home. The names of the two primary characters are
Tom Ballard and... (drumroll please) Diana Trent.
Shall we call "Ripley's", or would "Diana" like to admit
the ruse?
----------------------------------------

Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Scout
2017-01-30 21:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basis
in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the court
on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
You can't say, because you have no way of knowing if courts are basing
their decision on existing law or not. You *couldn't* possibly know
that. You're presuming it to be the case, but that's presumptuous.
Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing their
opinion
on what their opinion of the law is.
Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.
That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has the
force of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.
I could have the term wrong - as I have frequently said I am not an
expert.
And as you routinely reveal.
Talk about circular reasoning.
Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that you
can
have an opinion on the law.
I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.
No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you're
not a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're an
opinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.
Oh? Just where am I wrong? What are your qualifications to make this
judgment?
You're wrong when you presume that courts are basing their decisions on
prior law. As I have elaborated, you have no possible way of knowing that.
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
Really? Tell me, how often does the court cite prior law that always says
what they claim it does, and how often do they cite statutes claiming they
say this or that, or even the opinions of other courts claiming the law is
this or that?

I've read a large number of court cases, and almost ALL invoke the opinions
of other courts, which often have NOTHING to do with what exists within
statutory law.
Attila
2017-01-30 21:37:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:00:15 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
Really? Tell me, how often does the court cite prior law that always says
what they claim it does, and how often do they cite statutes claiming they
say this or that, or even the opinions of other courts claiming the law is
this or that?
I've read a large number of court cases, and almost ALL invoke the opinions
of other courts, which often have NOTHING to do with what exists within
statutory law.
An excellent example of how an untrained reader is incapable of
understanding the legal basis for a ruling as well as the value of
such an opinion.

--
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
2017-01-31 00:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:00:15 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
Really? Tell me, how often does the court cite prior law that always says
what they claim it does, and how often do they cite statutes claiming they
say this or that, or even the opinions of other courts claiming the law is
this or that?
I've read a large number of court cases, and almost ALL invoke the opinions
of other courts, which often have NOTHING to do with what exists within
statutory law.
An excellent example of how an untrained reader is incapable of
understanding the legal basis for a ruling as well as the value of
such an opinion.
You speak of yourself, even that you've admitted to being an untrained
reader.

Whereas I have not made my qualifications or lack thereof an issue, because
IMO they should be irrelevant to the validity of my argument.

Seems unless some asserts to be an authority......you simply ignore the
argument no matter how valid it is.
Attila
2017-01-31 09:20:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:26:04 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:00:15 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Other than their citing that prior law in their decisions, of course.
Really? Tell me, how often does the court cite prior law that always says
what they claim it does, and how often do they cite statutes claiming they
say this or that, or even the opinions of other courts claiming the law is
this or that?
I've read a large number of court cases, and almost ALL invoke the opinions
of other courts, which often have NOTHING to do with what exists within
statutory law.
An excellent example of how an untrained reader is incapable of
understanding the legal basis for a ruling as well as the value of
such an opinion.
You speak of yourself, even that you've admitted to being an untrained
reader.
Except I do not try to say what a law means, indicate it is
unconstitutional, or give all sorts of interpretations of laws or
Constitutional Amendments and how they should be applied. Unlike so
many here.
Post by Scout
Whereas I have not made my qualifications or lack thereof an issue, because
IMO they should be irrelevant to the validity of my argument.
Translation - you have none.
Post by Scout
Seems unless some asserts to be an authority......you simply ignore the
argument no matter how valid it is.
And therein lies the rub. As far as legality and the content and
application of law are concerned there are no valid opinions except
the opinions of those formally trained.

Someone can read a book and have an opinion as to whether it is any
good or not. Someone can have an opinion as to whether a politician
is performing well. But when it comes to law it is not possible to
read a law, an amendment, or a legal document and know what it means
or how it is to be applied. It takes a detailed knowledge of prior
court interpretations and where and how to research for those
interpretations as well as the training required to explain just what
the legal language used means in everyday life to speak knowledgeably
on this subject.

For example, exactly what does "due process" mean? Does it apply in a
particular instance? If so, exactly how does it apply? What is
"probable cause"? What is an "unreasonable search"?

The exact meanings of these have been detailed in dozens of court
cases and their legal meanings have been defined far beyond the
ability of any dictionary. It is impossible for someone who is not
trained in finding these cases to point to a particular situation and
say "This violates due process" or "That is an unreasonable search".

It is quite possible to realize this without being a legal expert or
having a legal education. Most of it is obvious, even if it does
steal the thunder from so many headlines and especially publicity
seekers.

--
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
2017-01-30 21:31:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no basis in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the court on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Yet the system works, and has worked well .
You can't say, because you have no way of knowing if courts are basing
their decision on existing law or not. You *couldn't* possibly know
that. You're presuming it to be the case, but that's presumptuous.
True, but today there are so many trained people watching the courts,
especially in major cases, ready, willing, and able to jump on any
case that strays from what they see as the straight and narrow that
someone would throw up a flag. Or file a suit, as they deem proper.
Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing their opinion
on what their opinion of the law is.
Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.
That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has the
force of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.
I could have the term wrong - as I have frequently said I am not an
expert.
And as you routinely reveal.
So what? Does that invalidate any thing I have said? Which is
basically that the opinions of untrained individuals do not matter -
only court decisions are enforceable.

I take it you somehow disagree?
Talk about circular reasoning.
Meanwhile, please tell me when you became a court of law, such that you can
have an opinion on the law.
I have no such opinion. I am simply relating how courts work.
No, you're not, because you don't know. You're not a lawyer and you're
not a legal scholar. You're not even a political scholar. You're an
opinionated mouth whose opinions are based on nothing but your beliefs.
Oh? Just where am I wrong? What are your qualifications to make this
judgment?
You're wrong when you presume that courts are basing their decisions on
prior law. As I have elaborated, you have no possible way of knowing that.
But those who would know are watching every important case. Plus ever
court ruling must cite the basis for that ruling. Anyone who
disagrees is free to file a lawsuit.

--
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
2017-01-30 21:35:36 UTC
Permalink
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for the
government to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?
That
would seem to discriminate against people without children and the
rich
respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within the
government, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't clear
on it's intent.
The child tax credit is unconstitutional? Amazing!
What's so amazing? Do you think a child should be taxed?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-30 23:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for the
government to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?
That
would seem to discriminate against people without children and the
rich
respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within the
government, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't clear
on it's intent.
The child tax credit is unconstitutional? Amazing!
What's so amazing?
That you think the child tax credit is unconstitutional.
Post by Scout
Do you think a child should be taxed?
How is that question relevant (children aren't taxed)?
W
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-31 00:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for the
government to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?
That
would seem to discriminate against people without children and the
rich
respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within the
government, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't clear
on it's intent.
The child tax credit is unconstitutional? Amazing!
What's so amazing?
That you think the child tax credit is unconstitutional.
Post by Scout
Do you think a child should be taxed?
How is that question relevant (children aren't taxed)?
W
Kids watch TV and have internet and telephones and those are taxed.
--
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
2017-01-31 00:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for the
government to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?
That
would seem to discriminate against people without children and the
rich
respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within the
government, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't clear
on it's intent.
The child tax credit is unconstitutional? Amazing!
What's so amazing?
That you think the child tax credit is unconstitutional.
Tell you what, why don't you show me in the Constitution where the federal
government has a power to impose a negative tax on some people?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Do you think a child should be taxed?
How is that question relevant (children aren't taxed)?
If they aren't taxed, then how can parents get a 'credit' for them?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-31 00:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for the
government to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?
That would seem to discriminate against people without children and the
rich respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within the
government, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't
clear on it's intent.
The child tax credit is unconstitutional? Amazing!
What's so amazing?
That you think the child tax credit is unconstitutional.
Tell you what, why don't you show me in the Constitution where the
federal government has a power to impose a negative tax on some people?
Firstly, we weren't debating the power of the federal government. We
were debating the meaning of the equal protection clause, which applies
to the states as well. So, let's stay on topic.

Many states have child tax credits as well. You argue that the equal
protection is so clear, that such a tax credit violates the clause.
That's absurd and amazingly so!
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Do you think a child should be taxed?
How is that question relevant (children aren't taxed)?
If they aren't taxed, then how can parents get a 'credit' for them?
Really? The parents are taxed and the parents get a credit for each
dependent child. The term "child tax credit" is shorthand for the
credit the parents get. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt
and assume you were being snarky rather than stupid.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-31 02:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for the
government to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?
That
would seem to discriminate against people without children and the
rich
respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Not in the least. Just because some people, including those within the
government, have issues applying the concept doesn't mean it isn't clear
on it's intent.
The child tax credit is unconstitutional? Amazing!
What's so amazing?
That you think the child tax credit is unconstitutional.
Tell you what, why don't you show me in the Constitution where the
federal government has a power to impose a negative tax on some people?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Do you think a child should be taxed?
How is that question relevant (children aren't taxed)?
If they aren't taxed, then how can parents get a 'credit' for them?
The tax credit, of course, is based on the parents' *income* being
taxed. They get a credit based on having children.

Tell us you don't favor the mortgage interest deduction.
Scout
2017-01-30 21:37:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:43:40 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:07:39 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:51:58 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:20:09 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:26:00 -0500, #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.
No, the only 'law' needed would be the whim of the court to assert there
is.
No, any court findings must be based upon existing law
And yet we regularly see court findings that aren't based on existing law,
and indeed can't even be found within the law.
If you read the opinion you will see they are all based upon prior
existing law or the Constitution.
Ok, show me.

Show me that every ruling ever made by every US court was based only upon
prior existing statutory law or the Constitution.

------> Insert your proof here.
Scout
2017-01-30 21:49:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:09:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:35:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested in
upholding the law.
Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell out
every law.
No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areas in
which the government can enact law.
Laws can now be enacted in any area.
And that, is EXACTLY the problem.

Remember the 10th Amendment?

Tell us again how the courts, base their rulings only on existing law.

Let me guess, this is where you claim to need a court to tell you what that
Amendment says.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:03:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:49:02 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:09:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:35:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested in
upholding the law.
Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell out
every law.
No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areas in
which the government can enact law.
Laws can now be enacted in any area.
And that, is EXACTLY the problem.
Why?
Post by Scout
Remember the 10th Amendment?
Yep.
Post by Scout
Tell us again how the courts, base their rulings only on existing law.
The courts base their rulings on existing law.
Post by Scout
Let me guess, this is where you claim to need a court to tell you what that
Amendment says.
Or any other amendment.

--
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
2017-01-30 21:50:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:09:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:35:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested in
upholding the law.
Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell out
every law.
No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areas
in
which the government can enact law.
Laws can now be enacted in any area.
Not by just any legislature. As badly as federalism has been
diminished, nonetheless the federal Congress cannot enact laws dictating
who may - or must - be appointed to state courts, for example. As an
unapologetic statist, you certainly think otherwise.
True - each legislative body has a rigidly defined area of
responsibility.
And when did the Judicial branch's defined areas of responsibility include
making law?
Just Wondering
2017-01-31 02:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
when did the Judicial branch's defined areas of responsibility
include making law?
That's what the whole body of common law is - judge-made law, every
single bit of it. It's been going on for hundreds of years.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-31 02:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
when did the Judicial branch's defined areas of responsibility
include making law?
That's what the whole body of common law is - judge-made law, every
single bit of it. It's been going on for hundreds of years.
I wish I could say I'm surprised he doesn't understand that, but I'm not.
Attila
2017-01-31 09:55:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:05:28 -0700, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
when did the Judicial branch's defined areas of responsibility
include making law?
That's what the whole body of common law is - judge-made law, every
single bit of it. It's been going on for hundreds of years.
The court does not make new law but it does interpret and expand
existing law. Sometimes those interpretations and expansions appear
to be new law but they are all based upon prior existing law.

--
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
2017-01-31 09:53:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:50:01 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:09:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:35:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested in
upholding the law.
Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell out
every law.
No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areas
in
which the government can enact law.
Laws can now be enacted in any area.
Not by just any legislature. As badly as federalism has been
diminished, nonetheless the federal Congress cannot enact laws dictating
who may - or must - be appointed to state courts, for example. As an
unapologetic statist, you certainly think otherwise.
True - each legislative body has a rigidly defined area of
responsibility.
And when did the Judicial branch's defined areas of responsibility include
making law?
Never, as you know.

--
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
2017-01-30 21:51:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:07:09 -0700, Just Wondering
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:09:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:35:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested in
upholding the law.
Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell out
every law.
No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areas
in
which the government can enact law.
Laws can now be enacted in any area.
Remember the 10th Amendment. If it's not spelled out....then the
government
has NO authority to regulate within such an area.
That is the federal government that has enumerated powers. All others
are reserved to the states.
Or to the people, which means state governments also have limited powers.
In theory, but "the people" cannot pass laws or enforce them.
Revolutionary war......people doing both of those.
Attila
2017-01-31 09:57:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:51:11 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:07:09 -0700, Just Wondering
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:09:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:35:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested in
upholding the law.
Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell out
every law.
No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areas
in
which the government can enact law.
Laws can now be enacted in any area.
Remember the 10th Amendment. If it's not spelled out....then the
government
has NO authority to regulate within such an area.
That is the federal government that has enumerated powers. All others
are reserved to the states.
Or to the people, which means state governments also have limited powers.
In theory, but "the people" cannot pass laws or enforce them.
Revolutionary war......people doing both of those.
Replacing a government through force of arms is hardly a legal
process. It would have nothing to do with 'the people' either passing
laws or enforcing them.

--
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
2017-01-30 21:53:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:48:21 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:08:43 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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
Entire legal system?
Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the United
States of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?
See Marbury v. Madison, as I said.
Where exactly in the Constitution do a I find the clause "Maybury v.
Madison"?
My copy doesn't seem to have any such clause.
You are willing to go to any length to be argumentative aren't you?
No, I asked where it's accepted by the Constitution, you cited a header, and
I couldn't find it in my copy of the US Constitution.
Even if it makes you appear to be a fool?
Just showing that your mouth is running, but you don't know what you're
talking about.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:05:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:53:00 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:48:21 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:08:43 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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
Entire legal system?
Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the United
States of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?
See Marbury v. Madison, as I said.
Where exactly in the Constitution do a I find the clause "Maybury v.
Madison"?
My copy doesn't seem to have any such clause.
You are willing to go to any length to be argumentative aren't you?
No, I asked where it's accepted by the Constitution, you cited a header, and
I couldn't find it in my copy of the US Constitution.
It is accepted by the courts and legal system. The Constitution,
being a document, can't 'accept' anything.
Post by Scout
Even if it makes you appear to be a fool?
Just showing that your mouth is running, but you don't know what you're
talking about.
--
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
2017-01-30 21:54:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:27:46 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:08:43 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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
Entire legal system?
Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the United
States of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?
See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -
it doesn't 'accept' anything.
"In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the
first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress
void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."
http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison
Argue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to do
with accepting or rejecting it - they do.
An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but when
an act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stops that?
Another court decision or a new act of Congress.
Sorry, court can simply ignore Congress by 'interpreting' their act to say
whatever it is the court wants it to.

Seems the only reign on the Courts are themselves, at least according to
your views.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:09:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:54:27 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:27:46 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:08:43 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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
Entire legal system?
Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the United
States of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?
See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -
it doesn't 'accept' anything.
"In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the
first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress
void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."
http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison
Argue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to do
with accepting or rejecting it - they do.
An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but when
an act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stops that?
Another court decision or a new act of Congress.
Sorry, court can simply ignore Congress by 'interpreting' their act to say
whatever it is the court wants it to.
A decision is always subject to reversal by a higher court. If the
court is SCOUS Congress can always pass a new law.
Post by Scout
Seems the only reign on the Courts are themselves, at least according to
your views.
Nope. There are always checks and balances.

I have noticed how people seldom question a decision they support but
only those they oppose. Interesting isn't 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.
Scout
2017-01-30 21:59:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:08:43 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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
Entire legal system?
Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the United
States of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?
See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -
it doesn't 'accept' anything.
"In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the
first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress
void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."
http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison
Argue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to do
with accepting or rejecting it - they do.
An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but when
an act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stops
that?
Such as? Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with the
Constitution.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollution

Please indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, ie federal
government, to regulate smoke.

Without Constitutional authority, how can the Supreme Court accept federal
regulation by any federal agency?

Oh, that's right, they acted in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution,
specifically the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America.

Now....who stops them?
Bret Cahill
2017-01-30 22:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:08:43 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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
Entire legal system?
Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the United
States of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?
See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -
it doesn't 'accept' anything.
"In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the
first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress
void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."
http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison
Argue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to do
with accepting or rejecting it - they do.
An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but when
an act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stops
that?
Such as? Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with
the Constitution.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollution
Please indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, ie
federal government, to regulate smoke.
Don't be a clown. That decision was about whether or not regulations
set forth pursuant to a *law* were in fact consistent with the *law*.
The constitutionality of the law was not being challenged. The
plaintiffs said the regulations violated the law.

I really don't believe you're capable of this.
Enceladus
2017-01-30 22:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
I really don't believe you're capable of this.
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<***@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227


Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Enceladus
2017-01-30 22:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
I really don't believe you're capable of this.
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<***@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227


Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Scout
2017-01-31 00:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:08:43 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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
Entire legal system?
Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the United
States of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?
See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -
it doesn't 'accept' anything.
"In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the
first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress
void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."
http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison
Argue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to do
with accepting or rejecting it - they do.
An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but when
an act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stops
that?
Such as? Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with
the Constitution.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollution
Please indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, ie
federal government, to regulate smoke.
Don't be a clown. That decision was about whether or not regulations set
forth pursuant to a *law* were in fact consistent with the *law*. The
constitutionality of the law was not being challenged. The plaintiffs
said the regulations violated the law.
And exactly what law did those regulations violate?

Be sure the cite and quote the specific law they felt was violated.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-31 02:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:08:43 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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
Entire legal system?
Please point out where it's accepted by the Constitution of the United
States of America.....or does that have no place in our legal system?
See Marbury v. Madison, as I said. The Constitution is a document -
it doesn't 'accept' anything.
"In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the
first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress
void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution."
http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison
Argue with the court system, not me. After all, I have nothing to do
with accepting or rejecting it - they do.
An act of congress that is inconsistent with the constitution, but when
an act of the court is inconsistent with the Constitution, who stops
that?
Such as? Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with
the Constitution.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollution
Please indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, ie
federal government, to regulate smoke.
Don't be a clown. That decision was about whether or not regulations
set forth pursuant to a *law* were in fact consistent with the *law*.
The constitutionality of the law was not being challenged. The
plaintiffs said the regulations violated the law.
And exactly what law did those regulations violate?
It's in the very first paragraph of the story *you* linked, clown. I'm
not copying it here; go back and read the story *you* linked, clown.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-30 23:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with
the Constitution.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollution
Please indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, ie
federal government, to regulate smoke.
"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"

one of those foregoing powers being

"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States"

Quoting Justice Scalia:

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
Scout
2017-01-31 00:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with
the Constitution.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollution
Please indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, ie
federal government, to regulate smoke.
"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"
one of those foregoing powers being
"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States"
So....They are buying the smoke from another state?

Exactly where is the interstate commerce in smoke?

Can you show me where one state bought smoke from another?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-31 00:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with
the Constitution.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollution
Please indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, ie
federal government, to regulate smoke.
"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"
one of those foregoing powers being
"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States"
So....They are buying the smoke from another state?
Exactly where is the interstate commerce in smoke?
Can you show me where one state bought smoke from another?
If you read - instead of snipped - Scalia's reasoning, you would realize
there is no commerce involved. But, there is an activity that
substantially affects interstate commerce. Again, quoting Scalia:

"activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not
themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate
them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone [...] Congress’s
regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not themselves
part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause"
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-31 01:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with
the Constitution.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollution
Please indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, ie
federal government, to regulate smoke.
"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"
one of those foregoing powers being
"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States"
So....They are buying the smoke from another state?
Exactly where is the interstate commerce in smoke?
Can you show me where one state bought smoke from another?
The EPA concerns its self with things that you do in your own back
yard.... They are NOT commerce.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Kevrob
2017-01-31 00:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
Give an example of an act of a court being inconsistent with
the Constitution.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0429/Supreme-Court-OKs-EPA-rules-for-cutting-cross-state-air-pollution
Please indicate for me the Constitutional authority for the EPA, ie
federal government, to regulate smoke.
"Congress shall have power to ... make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers,"
one of those foregoing powers being
"to regulate Commerce ...] among the several States"
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
I think the federal governments' expansion of power due to the
commerce clause and the N&P clause has gone too far, but regulation
of pollution of interstate waterways (the Ohio, Mississippi, the
Missouri, the Colorado and other "navigable waters") and of waters
that make up international boundaries under the treaty power, notably
the Great Lakes, the Rio Grande, etc, are one of the national
governments basic duties. Treating the atmosphere we all have to
breathe, which respects state boundaries even less than water
in lakes and rivers, as a federal responsibility also makes sense.
Smog created in one state wafts into another, with the receiving state
having no jurisdiction over a polluter in the creating state.

The alternative would be interstate compacts, which often need federal
approval, anyway.

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

[quote]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into
any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,
or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger
as will not admit of delay.

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Compact_Clause

Kevin R

(Not a lawyer, but I do have a B.A. in Political Science
and History. I had to learn this stuff in school.)
Attila
2017-01-30 22:00:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:46:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:09:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:35:50 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:47:12 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
And that should be of great concern to anyone that is interested in
upholding the law.
Why? It would be impossible to amend the constitution to spell out
every law.
No, but it could certainly be Amended to spell out the specific areas in
which the government can enact law.
Laws can now be enacted in any area.
Not by just any legislature. As badly as federalism has been
diminished, nonetheless the federal Congress cannot enact laws dictating
who may - or must - be appointed to state courts, for example. As an
unapologetic statist, you certainly think otherwise.
True - each legislative body has a rigidly defined area of
responsibility. No state can pass a law that is effective in another
state and no city can pass a law that covers the entire state.
That is obvious.
Remember the 10th Amendment. If it's not spelled out....then the government
has NO authority to regulate within such an area.
That is the federal government that has enumerated powers. All others
are reserved to the states.
Now....where exactly in the Constitution do I see an enumerated authority
for the federal government to regulate.....the environment, for example.
Since I am not a legal scholar I have no idea.
Truer words seldom spoken, and almost never so candidly.
Which is why I restrict my comments to the mechanism of the courts and
I am not stupid enough to think I can read a law and know how it is to
be legally applied. That is why law books exist and standard wording
in legal documents.
You don't have any expertise regarding the mechanism of the courts, either.
I know enough so I don't quote some law or amendment and then make
grandiose claims about how it does or doesn't apply or where it is
unconstitutional. Unlike many here.
But such powers are obviously accepted to exist.
petitio principii
--
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
2017-01-30 22:01:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:50:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:11:54 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
Great, then you can show me the specific language in Article 3 that does
what the courts assert.
I am not an attorney
The shut the fuck up.
There you go again.
By your own standards you lack everything necessary to read and interpret
the law and thus your opinion is meaningless.
Where have I read and interpreted any law? My comments have been
restricted to how the courts operate and not the content of any
particular ruling.
Sorry, but you've made countless assertions on the law, the legality of the
Courts to do whatever they want, and how their rulings are all supported by
existing statutory law.

Now, you claim that you didn't do that, you know nothing about the law, or
even the rulings of the courts.

Time for you to make with cites, your empty unsupported assertion and
rhetoric just isn't going to cut it anymore.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:29:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:01:45 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:50:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:11:54 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
Great, then you can show me the specific language in Article 3 that does
what the courts assert.
I am not an attorney
The shut the fuck up.
There you go again.
By your own standards you lack everything necessary to read and interpret
the law and thus your opinion is meaningless.
Where have I read and interpreted any law? My comments have been
restricted to how the courts operate and not the content of any
particular ruling.
Sorry, but you've made countless assertions on the law, the legality of the
Courts to do whatever they want, and how their rulings are all supported by
existing statutory law.
How about some specific references to where I have made an "assertion
on the law"? I admit I disagree that the courts can do whatever they
want. They are bound by existing law.
Post by Scout
Now, you claim that you didn't do that
Mostly I didn't.
Post by Scout
, you know nothing about the law
As far as being legally trained, no I am not. Nor do I assert that I
can simply read a law and know what it legally says or how it is
legally applied.
Post by Scout
, or
even the rulings of the courts.
As far as rulings are concerned I have only stated that they must be
based upon existing law or prior court rulings.
Post by Scout
Time for you to make with cites, your empty unsupported assertion and
rhetoric just isn't going to cut it anymore.
You can make general accusations and demand specific and detailed
responses. Good luck with that.

--
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
2017-01-30 22:02:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:52:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:15:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:55:09 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.
So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a Constitutional
Amendment?
That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally different
situation.
So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendment to
change the Constitution.
Not at all. That requirement is accepted by the entire legal
community.
Cite.

Facts, I want to see some from you.

Otherwise, you're just flapping your lips.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:33:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:02:28 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:52:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:15:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:55:09 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.
So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a Constitutional
Amendment?
That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally different
situation.
So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendment to
change the Constitution.
Not at all. That requirement is accepted by the entire legal
community.
Cite.
Facts, I want to see some from you.
Otherwise, you're just flapping your lips.
It has been used as part of other cases without dissension for over
200 years. Argue with that.

--
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
2017-01-30 22:03:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:32:35 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:13:17 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
Then show me the specific language there that does what the court
asserts.
Read the decision.
Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?
There you go again.
Asking you to back up your bullshit?

I suppose as long as you keep producing it, I'm going to keep asking you to
back it up.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:34:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:03:10 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:32:35 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:13:17 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
in
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.
Then show me the specific language there that does what the court
asserts.
Read the decision.
Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?
There you go again.
Asking you to back up your bullshit?
I suppose as long as you keep producing it, I'm going to keep asking you to
back it up.
Please do so. You are simply highlighting your stupidity in ignoring
case law.

--
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
2017-01-30 22:03:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:34:48 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:16:59 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:46:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:17:21 -0500, "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.
Then why are you so opinionated about the law?
By opinionated you seem to mean I understand how the law actually
works,
You claim to know how the law works....then you regularly turn around and
refuse to obey how you claim the law works.
What does that mean? What is 'obey how (I) claim the law works'?
Maybe you need to take some time to study your own arguments and comments?
Attila
2017-01-30 22:03:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:06:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional
for the government to have a child tax credit or a progressive
income tax? That would seem to discriminate against people
without children and the rich respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Discrimination of protected classes is prohibitted. Some
protected classes are determined by law. Some are decided
by courts, and those are the ones not so clear.
Only the courts define protected classes for the Equal Protection
clause. The protected classes determined by law apply to discrimination
by private parties (e.g., restaurants and employers).
The equal protection clause admits of no "classes" of people. To group
people into "classes" for disparate treatment under the law violates the
equal protection clause.
Is the child tax credit unconstitutional? After all, the government
grouped people into two classes: those with children and those without.
The entire tax system is unconstitutional since it groups people
according to income.

Is Social Security unconstitutional because it discriminates against
the young by dividing the population according to age?

--
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.
Mike Kuhn
2017-01-30 22:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:06:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional
for the government to have a child tax credit or a progressive
income tax? That would seem to discriminate against people
without children and the rich respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Discrimination of protected classes is prohibitted. Some
protected classes are determined by law. Some are decided
by courts, and those are the ones not so clear.
Only the courts define protected classes for the Equal Protection
clause. The protected classes determined by law apply to discrimination
by private parties (e.g., restaurants and employers).
The equal protection clause admits of no "classes" of people. To group
people into "classes" for disparate treatment under the law violates the
equal protection clause.
Is the child tax credit unconstitutional? After all, the government
grouped people into two classes: those with children and those without.
The entire tax system is unconstitutional since it groups people
according to income.
It is income, not people, that is being taxed.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 22:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
It is income, not people
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 Mike Kuhn
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 Mike Kuhn
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.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:06:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional
for the government to have a child tax credit or a progressive
income tax? That would seem to discriminate against people
without children and the rich respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Discrimination of protected classes is prohibitted. Some
protected classes are determined by law. Some are decided
by courts, and those are the ones not so clear.
Only the courts define protected classes for the Equal Protection
clause. The protected classes determined by law apply to discrimination
by private parties (e.g., restaurants and employers).
The equal protection clause admits of no "classes" of people. To group
people into "classes" for disparate treatment under the law violates the
equal protection clause.
Is the child tax credit unconstitutional? After all, the government
grouped people into two classes: those with children and those without.
The entire tax system is unconstitutional since it groups people
according to income.
It is income, not people, that is being taxed.
But it is people who are paying it.

A non-legal discussion of what is or is not law or legal results in
more fiction that the average library contains.

--
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.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-30 23:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:06:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional
for the government to have a child tax credit or a progressive
income tax? That would seem to discriminate against people
without children and the rich respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Discrimination of protected classes is prohibitted. Some
protected classes are determined by law. Some are decided
by courts, and those are the ones not so clear.
Only the courts define protected classes for the Equal Protection
clause. The protected classes determined by law apply to discrimination
by private parties (e.g., restaurants and employers).
The equal protection clause admits of no "classes" of people. To group
people into "classes" for disparate treatment under the law violates the
equal protection clause.
Is the child tax credit unconstitutional? After all, the government
grouped people into two classes: those with children and those without.
The entire tax system is unconstitutional since it groups people
according to income.
Amazing!
Post by Attila
Is Social Security unconstitutional because it discriminates against
the young by dividing the population according to age?
That would be absurd, just like the argument that the entire tax system
is unconstitutional.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:19:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:30:07 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:06:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional
for the government to have a child tax credit or a progressive
income tax? That would seem to discriminate against people
without children and the rich respectively.
Not all forms of discrimination are prohibitted.
Right, Scout? Doesn't that make "equal protection" not so clear?
Discrimination of protected classes is prohibitted. Some
protected classes are determined by law. Some are decided
by courts, and those are the ones not so clear.
Only the courts define protected classes for the Equal Protection
clause. The protected classes determined by law apply to discrimination
by private parties (e.g., restaurants and employers).
The equal protection clause admits of no "classes" of people. To group
people into "classes" for disparate treatment under the law violates the
equal protection clause.
Is the child tax credit unconstitutional? After all, the government
grouped people into two classes: those with children and those without.
The entire tax system is unconstitutional since it groups people
according to income.
Amazing!
Isn't it?
Post by Attila
Is Social Security unconstitutional because it discriminates against
the young by dividing the population according to age?
That would be absurd, just like the argument that the entire tax system
is unconstitutional.
Yep, it sure is. That is not uncommon in a non-legal discussion of
the law, how it is applies, or what is legal.

--
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
2017-01-30 22:07:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:06:58 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:40:40 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:13:17 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
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.
Then show me the specific language there that does what the court asserts.
Read the decision. They are the experts with the opinion that
actually counts.
Being an expert in a corrupt invalid system isn't of any use to anyone
when that corrupted system is put back under the actual constitution and
the shadow constitution and shadow government is dumped. In case you
haven't noticed, Liberals and their ilk are no there to expand the
shadow government. We will be moving back to the actual constitution
that you didn't change from all the pretend court written constitution
replacement decisions.
You need to understand the actual document NOT the court made rulings
outside the constitution. The judicial system will collapse as the
constitution is corrupted and all those pseudo intellectuals will be
useless because they rely on a corrupted system that will be out dated
and non functional.
None of that is at all accurate or makes any sense.
Unless you can see reality.
Tell us again.... who is President?
Trump.
Who is running congress?
Define "running".
Why are the court systems and constitutional issues so fucked up?
Calls for an opinion. How many days do you have?

--
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
2017-01-30 22:08:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:24:21 -0700, Just Wondering
So someone looks at a law. They write a book about
what it says. Who cares? Someone else can write
a different book about that same law saying something
entirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?
Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of these
opinions actually means anything?
Courts care, sometimes they care a lot.
There are many books written pretty much that way, which
Restatements of the Law
https://www.ali.org/publications/
American Jurisprudence, 2d
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/American-Jurisprudence-2d/p/100027544
Corpus Juris Secundum
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/Corpus-Juris-Secundumreg/p/100001060
There are more books in major law libraries where
someone writes a book about what the law says than
there are books containing statutes and case law.
Yes, and all of these are written by legal professionals and trained
experts. I was obviously talking about books written by someone who
simply reads something and then thinks he is an instant expert who
knows all about it.
Give us an example. I doubt you can.
Read some of the examples here about how something is unconstitutional
and then provides a quote from the Constitution to 'prove' 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.
Mike Kuhn
2017-01-30 22:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:24:21 -0700, Just Wondering
So someone looks at a law. They write a book about
what it says. Who cares? Someone else can write
a different book about that same law saying something
entirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?
Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of these
opinions actually means anything?
Courts care, sometimes they care a lot.
There are many books written pretty much that way, which
Restatements of the Law
https://www.ali.org/publications/
American Jurisprudence, 2d
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/American-Jurisprudence-2d/p/100027544
Corpus Juris Secundum
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/Corpus-Juris-Secundumreg/p/100001060
There are more books in major law libraries where
someone writes a book about what the law says than
there are books containing statutes and case law.
Yes, and all of these are written by legal professionals and trained
experts. I was obviously talking about books written by someone who
simply reads something and then thinks he is an instant expert who
knows all about it.
Give us an example. I doubt you can.
Read some of the examples here about how something is unconstitutional
and then provides a quote from the Constitution to 'prove' it.
No, I asked you for examples of books, not Usenet posts.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 22:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
No, I asked you for examples of books
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 Mike Kuhn
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 Mike Kuhn
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.
checkered demon
2017-01-30 22:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
No, I asked you for examples of books
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 Mike Kuhn
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 Mike Kuhn
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.
Attila
2017-01-30 22:11:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:34:48 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:16:59 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:46:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:17:21 -0500, "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.
Then why are you so opinionated about the law?
By opinionated you seem to mean I understand how the law actually
works,
You claim to know how the law works....then you regularly turn around and
refuse to obey how you claim the law works.
What does that mean? What is 'obey how (I) claim the law works'?
So do I go by your assertion, or by your actions?
Whatever floats your boat. You will go by whatever you can argue
about the most, just as you always do.
<chuckle> And you are different...uh, how, exactly?
unlike the yahoos who keep saying the courts are wrong and give
long-winded examples of what they say the law actually says and means.
IOW, people who can actually show that the law doesn't say what the courts
say, claim or invent it to mean.
Anyone can have such opinions. Those opinions are all meaningless
unless it is a court rendering a legal opinion. No opinion about any
law has any meaning at all and is anything more than a waste of space
unless that is a legal opinion rendered by a court and thus a part of
the legal system.
Yea, I can see why you would disagree with people who actually look at the
law rather than swallowing the crap that comes from the courts.
So someone looks at a law. They write a book about what it says. Who
cares? Someone else can write a different book about that same law
saying something entirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?
Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of these opinions
actually means anything?
In legal scholarship as in other subjects, a consensus emerges. I don't
know about other nations' courts, but if you read some American
appellate decisions, the works of scholars are often cited in addition
to earlier court decisions.
Scholars who have actually formally studied the law and it's
application. Not just some yahoo off the street with an opinion on
the latest court ruling he doesn't like.

--
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.
Mike Kuhn
2017-01-30 22:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:34:48 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:16:59 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:46:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:17:21 -0500, "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.
Then why are you so opinionated about the law?
By opinionated you seem to mean I understand how the law actually
works,
You claim to know how the law works....then you regularly turn around and
refuse to obey how you claim the law works.
What does that mean? What is 'obey how (I) claim the law works'?
So do I go by your assertion, or by your actions?
Whatever floats your boat. You will go by whatever you can argue
about the most, just as you always do.
<chuckle> And you are different...uh, how, exactly?
unlike the yahoos who keep saying the courts are wrong and give
long-winded examples of what they say the law actually says and means.
IOW, people who can actually show that the law doesn't say what the courts
say, claim or invent it to mean.
Anyone can have such opinions. Those opinions are all meaningless
unless it is a court rendering a legal opinion. No opinion about any
law has any meaning at all and is anything more than a waste of space
unless that is a legal opinion rendered by a court and thus a part of
the legal system.
Yea, I can see why you would disagree with people who actually look at the
law rather than swallowing the crap that comes from the courts.
So someone looks at a law. They write a book about what it says. Who
cares? Someone else can write a different book about that same law
saying something entirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?
Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of these opinions
actually means anything?
In legal scholarship as in other subjects, a consensus emerges. I don't
know about other nations' courts, but if you read some American
appellate decisions, the works of scholars are often cited in addition
to earlier court decisions.
Scholars who have actually formally studied the law and it's
application. Not just some yahoo off the street with an opinion on
the latest court ruling he doesn't like.
In some cases the scholars cited work in areas other than the law.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kuhn
Post by Attila
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:34:48 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:16:59 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:46:10 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:17:21 -0500, "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.
Then why are you so opinionated about the law?
By opinionated you seem to mean I understand how the law actually
works,
You claim to know how the law works....then you regularly turn around and
refuse to obey how you claim the law works.
What does that mean? What is 'obey how (I) claim the law works'?
So do I go by your assertion, or by your actions?
Whatever floats your boat. You will go by whatever you can argue
about the most, just as you always do.
<chuckle> And you are different...uh, how, exactly?
unlike the yahoos who keep saying the courts are wrong and give
long-winded examples of what they say the law actually says and means.
IOW, people who can actually show that the law doesn't say what the courts
say, claim or invent it to mean.
Anyone can have such opinions. Those opinions are all meaningless
unless it is a court rendering a legal opinion. No opinion about any
law has any meaning at all and is anything more than a waste of space
unless that is a legal opinion rendered by a court and thus a part of
the legal system.
Yea, I can see why you would disagree with people who actually look at the
law rather than swallowing the crap that comes from the courts.
So someone looks at a law. They write a book about what it says. Who
cares? Someone else can write a different book about that same law
saying something entirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?
Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of these opinions
actually means anything?
In legal scholarship as in other subjects, a consensus emerges. I don't
know about other nations' courts, but if you read some American
appellate decisions, the works of scholars are often cited in addition
to earlier court decisions.
Scholars who have actually formally studied the law and it's
application. Not just some yahoo off the street with an opinion on
the latest court ruling he doesn't like.
In some cases the scholars cited work in areas other than the law.
My point is that these people have earned the right to make cites and
have them considered. A court can read a cite and apply it in any way
the court sees fit.


--
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
2017-01-30 22:16:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:24:21 -0700, Just Wondering
So someone looks at a law. They write a book about
what it says. Who cares? Someone else can write
a different book about that same law saying something
entirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?
Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of these
opinions actually means anything?
Courts care, sometimes they care a lot.
There are many books written pretty much that way, which
Restatements of the Law
https://www.ali.org/publications/
American Jurisprudence, 2d
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/American-Jurisprudence-2d/p/100027544
Corpus Juris Secundum
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/Corpus-Juris-Secundumreg/p/100001060
There are more books in major law libraries where
someone writes a book about what the law says than
there are books containing statutes and case law.
Yes, and all of these are written by legal professionals and trained
experts. I was obviously talking about books written by someone who
simply reads something and then thinks he is an instant expert who
knows all about it.
Somehow, I don't see you writing such books. Yet, you sure seem to feel you
know all about the law, the courts and our entire legal system.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:43:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:16:37 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:24:21 -0700, Just Wondering
So someone looks at a law. They write a book about
what it says. Who cares? Someone else can write
a different book about that same law saying something
entirely different. Which is correct? Either? Both?
Neither? Who decides? Who cares since none of these
opinions actually means anything?
Courts care, sometimes they care a lot.
There are many books written pretty much that way, which
Restatements of the Law
https://www.ali.org/publications/
American Jurisprudence, 2d
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/American-Jurisprudence-2d/p/100027544
Corpus Juris Secundum
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/Corpus-Juris-Secundumreg/p/100001060
There are more books in major law libraries where
someone writes a book about what the law says than
there are books containing statutes and case law.
Yes, and all of these are written by legal professionals and trained
experts. I was obviously talking about books written by someone who
simply reads something and then thinks he is an instant expert who
knows all about it.
Somehow, I don't see you writing such books. Yet, you sure seem to feel you
know all about the law, the courts and our entire legal system.
I am not an author nor would I even consider writing a book about a
field I know nothing about. Unlike so many people.

I know almost nothing about the law and have said so repeatedly. I do
know just enough to know I cannot read a law and know what it legally
means or how to legally apply it and more than I could read a medical
textbook and perform surgery.

I do not know "all about" anything but I do have some basic knowledge.
For example, courts cannot make new laws, they can only interpret and
apply existing law as it applies to a case they are trying. The
checks and balances exist through the ability of a higher court to
modify or reverse any court ruling.

This is just basic knowledge.

--
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
2017-01-30 22:19:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:38:09 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:24:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 02:59:20 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really.
Yes, really. The LAW said marriage was between a man and a woman.
The court IGNORED the law, and made up their own definition.
Even when the legislature made the law utterly clear and extremely
specific,
the court simply refused to accept the law in favor of their own vision of
what the law should be.
So clearly they do indeed redefine the words of the law to suit
themselves.
Just as they invent powers, authority, etc that they were never granted.
I am not going to get into a debate about any particular law.
Right, because you can't. Instead you wish make sweeping claims about vast
stretches of the law, yet you refuse to discuss any particulars at all.

If you can't debate the particulars....then your broad claims are
irrelevant, because you wont back them up by discussing the particulars of
your claims.
Attila
2017-01-31 10:56:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:19:30 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:38:09 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:24:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 02:59:20 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really.
Yes, really. The LAW said marriage was between a man and a woman.
The court IGNORED the law, and made up their own definition.
Even when the legislature made the law utterly clear and extremely
specific,
the court simply refused to accept the law in favor of their own vision of
what the law should be.
So clearly they do indeed redefine the words of the law to suit
themselves.
Just as they invent powers, authority, etc that they were never granted.
I am not going to get into a debate about any particular law.
Right, because you can't.
That is absolutely correct - I can't because I am not qualified to
argue any point of law and neither are you.
Post by Scout
Instead you wish make sweeping claims about vast
stretches of the law, yet you refuse to discuss any particulars at all.
How many times must I say I cannot comment on such specifics because I
am not qualified to do so? Just what part of that is beyond your
comprehension? Are the words too big for you?

My comments have been and will continue to be generalities about the
interpretation and application of the law IN GENERAL because I cannot
and will not address any specifics because I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO DO
SO. The SYSTEM and not specific interpretations or applications.
Post by Scout
If you can't debate the particulars....then your broad claims are
irrelevant, because you wont back them up by discussing the particulars of
your claims.
I am willing to discuss the particulars of my claims because I have
not and will not make any claims about legal application or
interpretation of any particular case or any particular law beyond
pointing out that a legal decision must be based upon prior law or
prior court findings.

A court can interpret laws in a new way but it cannot create new law.


--
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
2017-01-30 22:22:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:11:54 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Great, then you can show me the specific language in Article 3 that
does
what the courts assert.
I am not an attorney
The shut the fuck up.
You're not an attorney, nor any kind of legal scholar at all, so heed your
own advice.
Except, I haven't you need to be an attorney or any kind of legal scholar to
discuss and debate the law.

Attila, on the other hand, has done so.

Without legal credentials he asserts are necessary, why is he even voicing
his 'ignorant'* opinion.

* - ignorant by his own standards and admissions.

I was just throwing his own words back in his face.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-30 22:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:11:54 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:48:19 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Great, then you can show me the specific language in Article 3 that
does
what the courts assert.
I am not an attorney
The shut the fuck up.
You're not an attorney, nor any kind of legal scholar at all, so heed
your own advice.
Except, I haven't you need to be an attorney or any kind of legal
scholar to discuss and debate the law.
Attila, on the other hand, has done so.
I don't recall his having said any such thing.
Enceladus
2017-01-30 22:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
I don't recall his having said any such thing.
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<***@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227


Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Scout
2017-01-30 22:23:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:15:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:55:09 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.
So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a Constitutional
Amendment?
That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally different
situation.
So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendment
to change the Constitution.
Marbury v Madison effected no change to the Constitution.
Then show me the language in the Constitution that grants such a power to
the Judicial Branch.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-30 22:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:15:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:55:09 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.
So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a Constitutional
Amendment?
That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally different
situation.
So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendment
to change the Constitution.
Marbury v Madison effected no change to the Constitution.
Then show me the language in the Constitution that grants such a power
to the Judicial Branch.
How many times are you going to keep asking for the same thing I've
already given at least four times?

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

Challenges to the constitutionality of laws arise under the
Constitution. This is clear and beyond challenge.
Scout
2017-01-31 00:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:15:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:55:09 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.
So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a Constitutional
Amendment?
That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally different
situation.
So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendment
to change the Constitution.
Marbury v Madison effected no change to the Constitution.
Then show me the language in the Constitution that grants such a power
to the Judicial Branch.
How many times are you going to keep asking for the same thing I've
already given at least four times?
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
Challenges to the constitutionality of laws arise under the Constitution.
This is clear and beyond challenge.
True, but that doesn’t give the Courts any power over the Constitution much
less make the courts the official stewards of the meaning of the
Constitution.

Certainly gives them no authority to alter the Constitution by their
rulings.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-31 00:53:09 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
Post by Scout
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
Challenges to the constitutionality of laws arise under the
Constitution. This is clear and beyond challenge.
True, but that doesn’t give the Courts any power over the Constitution
much less make the courts the official stewards of the meaning of the
Constitution.
How are courts supposed to rule on cases that arise under the
Constitution without interpreting the Constitution?
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-01-31 01:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Scout
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
Challenges to the constitutionality of laws arise under the
Constitution. This is clear and beyond challenge.
True, but that doesn’t give the Courts any power over the Constitution
much less make the courts the official stewards of the meaning of the
Constitution.
How are courts supposed to rule on cases that arise under the
Constitution without interpreting the Constitution?
They reject the case on the grounds that the law is NOT in their
jurisdiction since the law is obviously flawed and NOT constitutional.

By definition an unconstitutional law can't be addressed by the Federal
Government or Federal courts so they have to reject it as outside
federal jurisdiction and that forces the Federal congress to address the
problems that caused the law to NOT pass jurisdictional muster.
--
That's Karma

The constitution is there to stop others from violating your rights, NOT
to allow you to deny other people their rights.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-31 02:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:15:56 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:55:09 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Agreed. It takes a ratified Amendment.
So when exactly was Marbury v. Madison ratified as a Constitutional
Amendment?
That case was not made by congress but by a court. Totally different
situation.
So much for your bullshit assertion that it takes a ratified Amendment
to change the Constitution.
Marbury v Madison effected no change to the Constitution.
Then show me the language in the Constitution that grants such a power
to the Judicial Branch.
How many times are you going to keep asking for the same thing I've
already given at least four times?
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
Challenges to the constitutionality of laws arise under the
Constitution. This is clear and beyond challenge.
True, but that doesn’t give the Courts any power over the Constitution
much less make the courts the official stewards of the meaning of the
Constitution.
Of course it does. I already stated this: when plaintiffs sue claiming
that a law is unconstitutional, and the respondents - the government -
go to court to say that the law is constitutional, that is precisely a
case "arising under this Constitution", and the courts are expected to
make the decision. Constitutional, or unconstitutional - who decides?
The courts, as stipulated in Article III Section 2.

It is plain English.
Scout
2017-01-30 22:25:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:44:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:19:44 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:57:30 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:36:34 -0500, "Scout"
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.
Then show me the existing law within Art 3 of the Constitution that
supports
Marbury v. Madison.
Read the decision
That's YOUR job.
No, it isn't.
It is if it's your cite, which it is. I didn't ask you what Court decision
established that policy, I asked you what existing law within Art 3
supported that case. After all, you claimed it is supported by the language,
so let's see it.

If you need to read the case to figure out what that Constitutional language
is, then that's your homework.

Oh, but that's right, you don't do evidence, proofs, or anything like that.

As long as you assert it, that's all that's needed. Right?
Attila
2017-01-31 11:11:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:25:27 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:44:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:19:44 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:57:30 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:36:34 -0500, "Scout"
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.
Then show me the existing law within Art 3 of the Constitution that
supports
Marbury v. Madison.
Read the decision
That's YOUR job.
No, it isn't.
It is if it's your cite, which it is. I didn't ask you what Court decision
established that policy, I asked you what existing law within Art 3
supported that case. After all, you claimed it is supported by the language,
so let's see it.
I am not qualified to do such research, especially since it was done
by the origional court. I am also not qualified to decide a case
that has been accepted for 200 years has no legal standing,

It would take a fool to do either of those.
Post by Scout
If you need to read the case to figure out what that Constitutional language
is, then that's your homework.
Oh, but that's right, you don't do evidence, proofs, or anything like that.
As long as you assert it, that's all that's needed. Right?
--
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
2017-01-30 22:27:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:13:17 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Then show me the specific language there that does what the court
asserts.
Read the decision.
Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?
The decision isn't "in" the Constitution - it is based upon it.
Then show me the Constitutional language that confers such power to the
Judicial Branch.
They are the experts with the opinion that
actually counts.
And if there is no specific language that allows their opinion
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
Keyword: Under.

I see NOTHING that allows any Judicial power over or including the
Constitution.

So, I ask again. Where is it?
Bret Cahill
2017-01-30 22:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:13:17 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Then show me the specific language there that does what the court
asserts.
Read the decision.
Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?
The decision isn't "in" the Constitution - it is based upon it.
Then show me the Constitutional language that confers such power to the
Judicial Branch.
I did, below.
Post by Scout
They are the experts with the opinion that
actually counts.
And if there is no specific language that allows their opinion
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
Keyword: Under.
I see NOTHING that allows any Judicial power over or including the
Constitution.
It's right there. You can't understand it, again.
Enceladus
2017-01-30 23:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
You can't understand it, again.
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<***@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227


Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Enceladus
2017-01-30 23:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
You can't understand it, again.
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<***@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227


Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Scout
2017-01-31 00:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:13:17 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Then show me the specific language there that does what the court
asserts.
Read the decision.
Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?
The decision isn't "in" the Constitution - it is based upon it.
Then show me the Constitutional language that confers such power to the
Judicial Branch.
I did, below.
Post by Scout
They are the experts with the opinion that
actually counts.
And if there is no specific language that allows their opinion
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
Keyword: Under.
I see NOTHING that allows any Judicial power over or including the
Constitution.
It's right there. You can't understand it, again.
Under.....being below the Constitution and not including it.

So tell me again where the Courts find their power over the Constitution.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-31 02:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:13:17 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:49:00 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:18:40 -0500, "Scout"
wrote in
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.
Then show me the specific language there that does what the court
asserts.
Read the decision.
Where in the Constitution do I find that 'decision'?
The decision isn't "in" the Constitution - it is based upon it.
Then show me the Constitutional language that confers such power to the
Judicial Branch.
I did, below.
Post by Scout
They are the experts with the opinion that
actually counts.
And if there is no specific language that allows their opinion
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
Keyword: Under.
I see NOTHING that allows any Judicial power over or including the
Constitution.
It's right there. You can't understand it, again.
Under.....being below the Constitution and not including it.
Stop it, clown. This is you injecting your nonsensical preferred
meaning. The distinction is not there.
Scout
2017-01-30 22:28:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:24:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 02:59:20 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really.
I posted a bit hastily...
Yes, really. The LAW said marriage was between a man and a woman.
The court IGNORED the law, and made up their own definition.
The court did not ignore the law. They said the law violated the
Constitution. They did not in any way make up a definition.
And exactly how did it violate the Constitution?

Be aware that I will hold you to your answer, and may offer counterpoints
showing the inconsistency in what you claim.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-30 22:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:24:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 02:59:20 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really.
I posted a bit hastily...
Yes, really. The LAW said marriage was between a man and a woman.
The court IGNORED the law, and made up their own definition.
The court did not ignore the law. They said the law violated the
Constitution. They did not in any way make up a definition.
And exactly how did it violate the Constitution?
They said it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Enceladus
2017-01-30 23:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
They said it violated the equal protection clause
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<***@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227


Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Enceladus
2017-01-30 23:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
They said it violated the equal protection clause
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<***@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227


Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Scout
2017-01-31 00:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:24:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 02:59:20 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really.
I posted a bit hastily...
Yes, really. The LAW said marriage was between a man and a woman.
The court IGNORED the law, and made up their own definition.
The court did not ignore the law. They said the law violated the
Constitution. They did not in any way make up a definition.
And exactly how did it violate the Constitution?
They said it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Yea, and people say a lot a bullshit. Doesn't make it true.

But fell free to show that other gay couples were allowed to be married in
that state.

If not, where is the lack of equal protection?

But if you're going to assert that they should be allowed to marry
anyone.....then SO SHOULD ANYONE ELSE.

Father marries daughter
Brother marries sister
Mother gets married to multiple men.

I mean don't they have an equal right to be married to whomever they want?

Somehow I fully expect a double standard and discrimination in your
answer....if you chose to answer at all.
Kevrob
2017-01-31 00:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Father marries daughter
Brother marries sister
Incest can cause serious health problems in the offspring
of such a union, and unless it is guaranteed to be a childless
one, the state's police power would be relied upon to pass laws
to prevent that.

There's also a serious problem of consent when a child "marries" a parent.
Post by Scout
Mother gets married to multiple men.
Plural marriage, when all consenting adults agree to it, isn't
my cup of tea, but if that's what floats one's boat, I wouldn't
necessarily dismiss it without strong arguments against it -
other than religious ones.
Post by Scout
I mean don't they have an equal right to be married to whomever they want?
Somehow I fully expect a double standard and discrimination in your
answer....if you chose to answer at all.
Kevin R
Bret Cahill
2017-01-31 02:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:24:13 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 02:59:20 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really.
I posted a bit hastily...
Yes, really. The LAW said marriage was between a man and a woman.
The court IGNORED the law, and made up their own definition.
The court did not ignore the law. They said the law violated the
Constitution. They did not in any way make up a definition.
And exactly how did it violate the Constitution?
They said it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Yea, and people say a lot a bullshit. Doesn't make it true.
The justices found that it did violate the clause. Looks like "equal
protection" and "due process" *ARE* too vague, contrary to your claims
of comprehensibility. At least, too vague for you...
Post by Scout
But fell free to show that other gay couples were allowed to be married
in that state.
You're clowning around again. It wasn't about a comparison with "other
gay couples"; just "couples who wish to marry."
Post by Scout
If not, where is the lack of equal protection?
See above.

Any, we're in agreement: there was no "redefinition" being done.
Scout
2017-01-30 22:30:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:46:28 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:26:39 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 23:16:19 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:39:46 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:24:25 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
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.
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.
What court has said this?
Once again, Attila asserts we are governed by the Courts rather than the
Constitution.
Wrong yet again.
Not at all. He pointed out that language of the 9th Amendment says
something
is Unconstitutional, and you assert the opinion of the court matters more
than the Constitution.
Your "opinion is meaningless."

Feel free to file suit with the court to have them rule that your opinion
has meaning.

Until you get such a ruling, why waste everyone's time voicing opinions that
are meaningless by your own standards?
Attila
2017-01-31 11:17:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:30:50 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:46:28 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:26:39 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 23:16:19 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:39:46 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:24:25 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty
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.
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.
What court has said this?
Once again, Attila asserts we are governed by the Courts rather than the
Constitution.
Wrong yet again.
Not at all. He pointed out that language of the 9th Amendment says
something
is Unconstitutional, and you assert the opinion of the court matters more
than the Constitution.
Your "opinion is meaningless."
Feel free to file suit with the court to have them rule that your opinion
has meaning.
Until you get such a ruling, why waste everyone's time voicing opinions that
are meaningless by your own standards?
Just how would you know any of that since you clipped my entire post
in order to further your agenda? I have mention this before - I do
not like my comments censored or altered. If you cannot leave my
entries alone and present them complete and unaltered further
discussion is futile and frankly would not be missed by me. I can
always actually accomplish something else such as watching paint dry.

Your call either way.

--
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
2017-01-30 22:32:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:45:25 -0700, Just Wondering
There are actually rules for interpreting/construing laws, for
example
courts must if possible give words their ordinary and usual meaning.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really. It is still a legal contract between two parties.
One of whom is a man and the other a woman. Calling a same-sex
relationship a marriage required redefining marriage.
Or a reinterpretation of existing law, which can be done by courts.
See Brown vs Board of Education or R v W for two familiar examples of
a court reexamining existing law and prior decisions to reach a
different conclusion.
So the law didn't change.....only the opinion of the court.

If the opinion of the court is always based on existing law, and the law
hasn't changed.....how can the opinion of the Court?

I notice a massive logical hole in your argument.
Attila
2017-01-31 11:03:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:32:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:45:25 -0700, Just Wondering
There are actually rules for interpreting/construing laws, for
example
courts must if possible give words their ordinary and usual meaning.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really. It is still a legal contract between two parties.
One of whom is a man and the other a woman. Calling a same-sex
relationship a marriage required redefining marriage.
Or a reinterpretation of existing law, which can be done by courts.
See Brown vs Board of Education or R v W for two familiar examples of
a court reexamining existing law and prior decisions to reach a
different conclusion.
So the law didn't change.....only the opinion of the court.
Exactly. This happens frequently.
Post by Scout
If the opinion of the court is always based on existing law, and the law
hasn't changed.....how can the opinion of the Court?
Because circumstances and definitions change over time. What is
acceptable at one point becomes unacceptable at another point. Smoking
laws are good example. Many existing laws regulating smoking were
reinterpreted in light of new medical findings and new acceptability
of smoking. It was not always necessary to change the laws, just the
application and interpretation of them.

If that isn't enough for you see Brown vs Board of Education or R v
W. Both are examples of exactly that.
Post by Scout
I notice a massive logical hole in your argument.
Where the law is concerned logic does not always apply. That is
difficult for some people to grasp.

--
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
2017-01-30 22:34:39 UTC
Permalink
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.
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.
Only so far as they are to abide by the Constitution. They have
no basis to change, alter, modify or otherwise revise the language,
meaning and intent of the law found there.
Many provisions of the Constitution are vague and ambiguous.
Only when you can't be bothered to read and understand them.

Heck, even the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution was written for
the common man.

Which means you should have no problems reading and understanding it without
being a legal expert.

Oh, but that's right, that's only the opinion of the Court, so clearly that
isn't relevant.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-30 22:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
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.
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.
Only so far as they are to abide by the Constitution. They have
no basis to change, alter, modify or otherwise revise the language,
meaning and intent of the law found there.
Which they haven't done.
Post by Scout
Many provisions of the Constitution are vague and ambiguous.
Only when you can't be bothered to read and understand them.
You do not have the necessary education and background and reasoning
ability to understand constitutional phrases written by men whose use of
language was not the same as contemporary usage. You are making a great
pretense to knowledge you don't have.
Enceladus
2017-01-30 23:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Which they haven't done.
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<***@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227


Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Enceladus
2017-01-30 23:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Which they haven't done.
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.136.236.132Subject: Marxism
Should Be Reconsidered By All Political PartiesFrom: Bret Cahill
<***@yahoo.com>
Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227


Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Scout
2017-01-31 00:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Scout
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.
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.
Only so far as they are to abide by the Constitution. They have
no basis to change, alter, modify or otherwise revise the language,
meaning and intent of the law found there.
Which they haven't done.
Post by Scout
Many provisions of the Constitution are vague and ambiguous.
Only when you can't be bothered to read and understand them.
You do not have the necessary education and background and reasoning
ability to understand constitutional phrases written by men whose use of
language was not the same as contemporary usage.
Please present your education history, certifications, diplomas, degrees,
licenses and entire work history.

After all, I need to see if you have the necessary education and background
and reasoning ability to make the comment you just did.
Bret Cahill
2017-01-31 02:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Scout
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.
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.
Only so far as they are to abide by the Constitution. They have
no basis to change, alter, modify or otherwise revise the language,
meaning and intent of the law found there.
Which they haven't done.
Post by Scout
Many provisions of the Constitution are vague and ambiguous.
Only when you can't be bothered to read and understand them.
You do not have the necessary education and background and reasoning
ability to understand constitutional phrases written by men whose use
of language was not the same as contemporary usage.
Please present your education history, certifications, diplomas,
degrees, licenses and entire work history.
No, this is about your credentials, not mine. You don't have any. You
have admitted this in the past. Thus, your status to be arguing this is
indeed no higher than any other informed lay person, and I contend it's
substantially less.
Just Wondering
2017-01-31 08:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
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.
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.
Only so far as they are to abide by the Constitution. They have
no basis to change, alter, modify or otherwise revise the language,
meaning and intent of the law found there.
Many provisions of the Constitution are vague and ambiguous.
Only when you can't be bothered to read and understand them.
Heck, even the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution was written
for the common man.
Which means you should have no problems reading and understanding it
without being a legal expert.
Oh, but that's right, that's only the opinion of the Court, so clearly
that isn't relevant.
If you are entitled to due process before being deprived of your
liberty, what process are you due?

What are your privileges and immunities as a citizen of your state?

Where is the authority for the USA to own any real property, except for
10 square miles plus military bases?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-31 08:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
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.
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.
Only so far as they are to abide by the Constitution. They have
no basis to change, alter, modify or otherwise revise the language,
meaning and intent of the law found there.
Many provisions of the Constitution are vague and ambiguous.
Only when you can't be bothered to read and understand them.
Heck, even the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution was written
for the common man.
Which means you should have no problems reading and understanding it
without being a legal expert.
Oh, but that's right, that's only the opinion of the Court, so clearly
that isn't relevant.
If you are entitled to due process before being deprived of your
liberty, what process are you due?
What are your privileges and immunities as a citizen of your state?
Where is the authority for the USA to own any real property, except for
10 square miles plus military bases?
What's your opinion of scooter as a scholar of the Constitution and of
the law? Forget about any personal beefs you and I may have had - I
just want to know what you think of scooter's legal "scholarship" [sic].
Just Wondering
2017-01-31 09:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
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.
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.
Only so far as they are to abide by the Constitution. They have
no basis to change, alter, modify or otherwise revise the language,
meaning and intent of the law found there.
Many provisions of the Constitution are vague and ambiguous.
Only when you can't be bothered to read and understand them.
Heck, even the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution was written
for the common man.
Which means you should have no problems reading and understanding it
without being a legal expert.
Oh, but that's right, that's only the opinion of the Court, so clearly
that isn't relevant.
If you are entitled to due process before being deprived of your
liberty, what process are you due?
What are your privileges and immunities as a citizen of your state?
Where is the authority for the USA to own any real property, except for
10 square miles plus military bases?
What's your opinion of scooter as a scholar of the Constitution and of
the law? Forget about any personal beefs you and I may have had - I
just want to know what you think of scooter's legal "scholarship" [sic].
I don't think Scout or anyone else here, you and I included, is enough
of a legal scholar to write with any authority on any of the legal
issues being discussed. But I'm just here for my own entertainment.
Attila
2017-01-31 14:57:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:19:55 -0700, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
What's your opinion of scooter as a scholar of the Constitution and of
the law? Forget about any personal beefs you and I may have had - I
just want to know what you think of scooter's legal "scholarship" [sic].
I don't think Scout or anyone else here, you and I included, is enough
of a legal scholar to write with any authority on any of the legal
issues being discussed. But I'm just here for my own entertainment.
If I may interject here for a moment I would like to reiterate that I
am decidedly not any kind of a legal scholar. I have had some limited
experience in working with contracts (not drawing them up - just
insuring the proper contracts were in place and signed) and all of my
comments have been on one very narrow focus. It is no more possible
for a person without the proper training to read a law and understand
how it is legally interpreted and applied than it is to simply read a
textbook and start performing surgery.


--
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
2017-01-31 01:47:41 UTC
Permalink
There are actually rules for interpreting/construing laws, for example
courts must if possible give words their ordinary and usual meaning.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really. It is still a legal contract between two parties.
One of whom is a man and the other a woman. Calling a same-sex
relationship a marriage required redefining marriage.
Or a reinterpretation of existing law, which can be done by courts.
This was not reinterpreting existing law, it was creating a new fact
that had not previously existed in reality.
Attila
2017-01-31 11:08:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:47:41 -0700, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
There are actually rules for interpreting/construing laws, for example
courts must if possible give words their ordinary and usual meaning.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really. It is still a legal contract between two parties.
One of whom is a man and the other a woman. Calling a same-sex
relationship a marriage required redefining marriage.
Or a reinterpretation of existing law, which can be done by courts.
This was not reinterpreting existing law, it was creating a new fact
that had not previously existed in reality.
You are free to have that personal opinion, but unfortunately for you
it is legal opinions that matter to the courts, and it is legal
opinions that the courts will consult and cite in making decisions and
it is those decisions that are legally binding.

They care little about personal opinions.

--
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.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-31 01:51:06 UTC
Permalink
There are actually rules for interpreting/construing laws, for example
courts must if possible give words their ordinary and usual meaning.
They usually do. It is all English. They don't make up words or
redefine them.
They most certainly do.
After all, they recently redefined marriage.
Not really. It is still a legal contract between two parties.
One of whom is a man and the other a woman. Calling a same-sex
relationship a marriage required redefining marriage.
... in your opinion. Kennedy explained why he believed he wasn't
redefining marriage in the opinion.
Just Wondering
2017-01-31 01:55:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no
basis in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case
law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the
court on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing their
opinion
on what their opinion of the law is.
Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.
That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has the
force of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.
They're usually called orders, or judgments.
I should have been a little more specific: when it's an appellate
court, and when they make a determination of constitutionality either
way, it's a holding. There may also be an order, such as sending it
back to the trial court.
Appellate decisions are usually called opinions, although they're actual
orders and not just opinions. At both trial court and appellate level,
a court's analysis contains holdings and dicta. Holdings are those
parts necessary to an adjudication of the case, while dicta are things
the judge wants to say that aren't necessary to the decision.
Mike Kuhn
2017-01-31 02:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:31:36 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:58:24 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 03:13:42 -0700, Just Wondering
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.
Which merely goes to show that the opinions of the court need no
basis in
law. They simply have to assert it's there and *poof* it now case
law.
Otherwise known as the made up invention from the opinion of the
court on
what the law is.
The court is charged with basing opinions on the law.
According to you the law is whatever the courts say it is.
What it means is whatever the court says it means but that
interpretation is supposed to be based upon prior existing law.
You acknowledge there is no enforcement mechanism for that. It's
nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
Thus you're telling us that the court is charged with basing their
opinionon what their opinion of the law is.
Thai is why it is called a legal opinion.
That's not what it's called. It's called a *holding*, and it has the
force of law, even though it sometimes is lawless.
They're usually called orders, or judgments.
I should have been a little more specific: when it's an appellate
court, and when they make a determination of constitutionality either
way, it's a holding. There may also be an order, such as sending it
back to the trial court.
Appellate decisions are usually called opinions, although they're actual
orders and not just opinions. At both trial court and appellate level,
a court's analysis contains holdings and dicta. Holdings are those
parts necessary to an adjudication of the case, while dicta are things
the judge wants to say that aren't necessary to the decision.
The opinion of the court is all of the verbiage, including examination
of prior cases and dicta. The essential element is the holding. It's
usually stated early in the syllabus of the opinion. Here are two, for
District of Columbia v. Heller, and Texas v. Johnson

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Look for "held:" including the colon.
Just Wondering
2017-01-31 08:53:43 UTC
Permalink
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?
The only 'interpretation' that is valid is based on the actual
language,
meaning, and intent of what it written.
The meaning of the actual language is often not clear (e.g., what is
"equal protection").
Which word do you not understand?
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for the
government to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?
That
would seem to discriminate against people without children and the rich
respectively.
The answer someone gave about those people NOT being protected... is
false. ALL PEOPLE are covered by the "equal protection" otherwise it
wouldn't be equal would it?
You managed to nail down their lie. The lie that only special people
are protected by that equal protection. We are all "the people".
"nor deny to *any person within its jurisdiction* the equal protection
of the laws."
If a law is applied to one person it is applied equally to all persons.
Anything less would be discrimination.
Tall fat ugly blind old..... we are all protected by the same words
"equal protection".
There's also this gem: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." If
one citizen is privileged not to pay a certain tax, and immune from
penalty for not paying the tax, are not all citizens equally privileged
and immune from the tax?
<chortle> Nice gag.
Here's how it works. If a citizen of New Jersey doesn't have to pay
some type of tax on his shore house at Cape May, then a citizen of
Pennsylvania who also owns a shore house at Cape May can't be subject to
the tax.
Now here's what it *doesn't* mean. It doesn't mean that if New Jersey
chooses to enact shall-issue concealed carry permits, that Pennsylvania
is obliged to follow suit; nor does it mean that a concealed carry
permit in one state is valid in another.
Why not, since it does mean that a valid marriage license in one state
is valid in all states? What makes a marriage license different from a
gun license?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-31 09:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
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?
The only 'interpretation' that is valid is based on the actual
language,
meaning, and intent of what it written.
The meaning of the actual language is often not clear (e.g., what is
"equal protection").
Which word do you not understand?
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for the
government to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?
That
would seem to discriminate against people without children and the rich
respectively.
The answer someone gave about those people NOT being protected... is
false. ALL PEOPLE are covered by the "equal protection" otherwise it
wouldn't be equal would it?
You managed to nail down their lie. The lie that only special people
are protected by that equal protection. We are all "the people".
"nor deny to *any person within its jurisdiction* the equal protection
of the laws."
If a law is applied to one person it is applied equally to all persons.
Anything less would be discrimination.
Tall fat ugly blind old..... we are all protected by the same words
"equal protection".
There's also this gem: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." If
one citizen is privileged not to pay a certain tax, and immune from
penalty for not paying the tax, are not all citizens equally privileged
and immune from the tax?
<chortle> Nice gag.
Here's how it works. If a citizen of New Jersey doesn't have to pay
some type of tax on his shore house at Cape May, then a citizen of
Pennsylvania who also owns a shore house at Cape May can't be subject to
the tax.
Now here's what it *doesn't* mean. It doesn't mean that if New Jersey
chooses to enact shall-issue concealed carry permits, that Pennsylvania
is obliged to follow suit; nor does it mean that a concealed carry
permit in one state is valid in another.
Why not, since it does mean that a valid marriage license in one state
is valid in all states?
It ought to mean that, but no court held that it did.

Concealed carry isn't remotely comparable to marriage licenses, of
course. Marriage is considered a right of citizenship; concealed carry
isn't. Even Heller recognized that.

You should try to do better. That was really a lame effort.
Just Wondering
2017-01-31 09:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
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?
The only 'interpretation' that is valid is based on the actual
language,
meaning, and intent of what it written.
The meaning of the actual language is often not clear (e.g., what is
"equal protection").
Which word do you not understand?
The two, taken together. For example, is it constitutional for the
government to have a child tax credit or a progressive income tax?
That
would seem to discriminate against people without children and the rich
respectively.
The answer someone gave about those people NOT being protected... is
false. ALL PEOPLE are covered by the "equal protection" otherwise it
wouldn't be equal would it?
You managed to nail down their lie. The lie that only special people
are protected by that equal protection. We are all "the people".
"nor deny to *any person within its jurisdiction* the equal protection
of the laws."
If a law is applied to one person it is applied equally to all persons.
Anything less would be discrimination.
Tall fat ugly blind old..... we are all protected by the same words
"equal protection".
There's also this gem: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." If
one citizen is privileged not to pay a certain tax, and immune from
penalty for not paying the tax, are not all citizens equally privileged
and immune from the tax?
<chortle> Nice gag.
Here's how it works. If a citizen of New Jersey doesn't have to pay
some type of tax on his shore house at Cape May, then a citizen of
Pennsylvania who also owns a shore house at Cape May can't be subject to
the tax.
Now here's what it *doesn't* mean. It doesn't mean that if New Jersey
chooses to enact shall-issue concealed carry permits, that Pennsylvania
is obliged to follow suit; nor does it mean that a concealed carry
permit in one state is valid in another.
Why not, since it does mean that a valid marriage license in one state
is valid in all states?
It ought to mean that, but no court held that it did.
Concealed carry isn't remotely comparable to marriage licenses, of
course. Marriage is considered a right of citizenship; concealed carry
isn't. Even Heller recognized that.
The right to keep and bear arms is. But some state legislators don't care.
Loading...