Religions > Atheism > Re: Today's Founder Quote: How far the Judiciary has come to annoy the Constitution by its lack of 'seperaton'
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2003 07:16:38 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Today's Founder Quote: How far the Judiciary has come to annoy the Constitution by its lack of 'seperaton' |
Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|No, it cited case law, which is not legal authority.
And has it has been pointed out to you on a number of cases you are full of
*****.
You make a good pair with that Lentz nut. Too bad neither of you know your
***** from a hole in the ground.
:|Myron was in no way
:|legally bound by previous cases. He could have ignored them, invented
:|Myron's Test if he saw fit to, and used that as the way to split the
:|baby. All perfectky legal.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Today's Founder Quote: How far the Judiciary has come to annoy the Constitution by its lack of 'seperaton' |
14 Sep 2003 05:29:06 PM |
|
|
Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote:
:|
:|> Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|No, it cited case law, which is not legal authority.
:|>
:|> And has it has been pointed out to you on a number of cases you are full
:|> of *****.
:|
:|All that has been pointed out is your agenda.
:|
All that has been pointed out is you are full of *****.
This was your statement which you seemed to have forgotten already:
:|> >:|No, it cited case law, which is not legal authority.
It has been shown you are full of ***** with regards, case law, legal
authority, etc.
SEE:
http://snurl.com/2cek
:|"Congress shall make no law..."
:|
:|First, you've substituted 'government' for 'congress.'
:|
:|Next, you've defined everything that government does as 'law'.
:|
:|Next, you've extended the 14th A so that government includes 'every'
:|conceivable level.
:|
:|With that, you've embarked on your crusade, with a few followers.
:|
:|Only what ou are is another Don Quixote, vanquishing windmils.
:|
:|Laugh. Laugh. laugh.
:|
:|My posts so far have only touched one aspect of 'valid laws.' In order
:|for a law to be 'valid', it must:
:|
:|Be in the proper form
:|Be enforceable
:|Concern people
:|
:|(source: Rules for the Rhodes, By my Great Grand Pappy Bumpy)
:|
:|But any retrenchment on your part to descope 'laws' would be a defeat.
:|And winning on the establishment issue is your sole raison d'etre.
Irrelevant crap is noted.
Also noted is any valid support for your claim is lacking.
SEE:
http://snurl.com/2cek
:|> You make a good pair with that Lentz nut. Too bad neither of you know your
:|> ***** from a hole in the ground.
:|>
:|> >:|Myron was in no way legally bound by previous cases. He could have
:|> >:|ignored them, invented Myron's Test if he saw fit to, and used that as
:|> >:|the way to split the baby. All perfectky legal.
:|>
:|> Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
:|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|> ----- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going
:|> to claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty
:|> extraordinary, irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the
:|> beef?" Where's the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims?
:|> If one is not responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
:|> claim is not worth considering
:|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [
:|> as Homer@nospam said] Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do
:|> you consider it truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial.
:|> Would you rather that people just testified that they believed in the
:|> guilt of the suspect?
:|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|> ---
:|
:|This is about the 6th time I've seen this spam.
:|
:|BI = 9.2
:|
:|Any bets on when you reach the magic number of 20?
Smoke screen is noted, also noted you failed to make support again:
:|Myron was in no way legally bound by previous cases. He could have
:|ignored them, invented Myron's Test if he saw fit to, and used that as
:|the way to split the baby. All perfectky legal.
Thus
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going
to claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty
extraordinary, irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the
beef?" Where's the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims?
If one is not responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
---------------------------------------------------------------------- [
as Homer@nospam said] Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do
you consider it truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial.
Would you rather that people just testified that they believed in the
guilt of the suspect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE:
http://snurl.com/2cek
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Today's Founder Quote: How far the Judiciary has come to annoy the Constitution by its lack of 'seperaton' |
14 Sep 2003 05:32:00 PM |
|
|
Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote:
:|
:|> Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|No, it cited case law, which is not legal authority.
:|>
:|> And has it has been pointed out to you on a number of cases you are full
:|> of *****.
:|
:|All that has been pointed out is your agenda.
:|
All that has been pointed out is you are full of *****.
This was your statement which you seemed to have forgotten already:
:|> >:|No, it cited case law, which is not legal authority.
It has been shown you are full of ***** with regards, case law, legal
authority, etc.
SEE:
http://snurl.com/2cek
:|"Congress shall make no law..."
:|
:|First, you've substituted 'government' for 'congress.'
:|
:|Next, you've defined everything that government does as 'law'.
:|
:|Next, you've extended the 14th A so that government includes 'every'
:|conceivable level.
:|
:|With that, you've embarked on your crusade, with a few followers.
:|
:|Only what ou are is another Don Quixote, vanquishing windmils.
:|
:|Laugh. Laugh. laugh.
:|
:|My posts so far have only touched one aspect of 'valid laws.' In order
:|for a law to be 'valid', it must:
:|
:|Be in the proper form
:|Be enforceable
:|Concern people
:|
:|(source: Rules for the Rhodes, By my Great Grand Pappy Bumpy)
:|
:|But any retrenchment on your part to descope 'laws' would be a defeat.
:|And winning on the establishment issue is your sole raison d'etre.
Irrelevant crap is noted.
Also noted is any valid support for your claim is lacking.
SEE:
http://snurl.com/2cek
:|> You make a good pair with that Lentz nut. Too bad neither of you know your
:|> ***** from a hole in the ground.
:|>
:|> >:|Myron was in no way legally bound by previous cases. He could have
:|> >:|ignored them, invented Myron's Test if he saw fit to, and used that as
:|> >:|the way to split the baby. All perfectky legal.
:|>
:|> Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
:|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|> ----- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going
:|> to claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty
:|> extraordinary, irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the
:|> beef?" Where's the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims?
:|> If one is not responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
:|> claim is not worth considering
:|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [
:|> as Homer@nospam said] Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do
:|> you consider it truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial.
:|> Would you rather that people just testified that they believed in the
:|> guilt of the suspect?
:|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|> ---
:|
:|This is about the 6th time I've seen this spam.
:|
:|BI = 9.2
:|
:|Any bets on when you reach the magic number of 20?
Smoke screen is noted, also noted you failed to make support again:
:|Myron was in no way legally bound by previous cases. He could have
:|ignored them, invented Myron's Test if he saw fit to, and used that as
:|the way to split the baby. All perfectky legal.
Thus
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going
to claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty
extraordinary, irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the
beef?" Where's the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims?
If one is not responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
---------------------------------------------------------------------- [
as Homer@nospam said] Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do
you consider it truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial.
Would you rather that people just testified that they believed in the
guilt of the suspect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE:
http://snurl.com/2cek
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
