| Topic: |
Politics > Politics |
| User: |
"george landry" |
| Date: |
25 Jun 2003 01:33:30 PM |
| Object: |
If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
All of these actions by the federal government constitute
acts of war against the United States -- again Treason. It
is just a question of time before the shooting starts. Are
you ready?
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited,
and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
26 Jun 2003 06:48:10 PM |
|
|
(george landry) wrote in message news:<2390a86a.0306251033.543e00fc@posting.google.com>...
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
I can still do the same things I was able to do on September 10th
without risk of criminal prosecution, George.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
Since when were those laws unconstitutional?
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "george landry" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
27 Jun 2003 07:16:03 AM |
|
|
When you have a conflict between a statute and the supreme law
of the land -- the Constitution -- you follow the Constitution.
Law enforcement took an oath to the Constitution, not illegal
statutes.
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited,
and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
mejercit@hotmail.com (Michael Ejercito) wrote in message news:<6930a3c6.0306261548.70f1677@posting.google.com>...
percula@mailandnews.com (george landry) wrote in message news:<2390a86a.0306251033.543e00fc@posting.google.com>...
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
I can still do the same things I was able to do on September 10th
without risk of criminal prosecution, George.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
Since when were those laws unconstitutional?
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
28 Jun 2003 09:36:56 AM |
|
|
"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6930a3c6.0306280037.7f50f156@posting.google.com...
percula@mailandnews.com (george landry) wrote in message
news:<2390a86a.0306270416.4507d663@posting.google.com>...
When you have a conflict between a statute and the supreme law
of the land -- the Constitution -- you follow the Constitution.
Law enforcement took an oath to the Constitution, not illegal
statutes.
Courts determine whether a law is unconstitutional, purauant to a
claim filed by someone with legal standing to sue.
Often, people deliberately violate an unconstitutional (in their eyes) law
with the INTENT to challenge it.
--
The people who wrote these words are now running this country. Doesn't
anyone care?
'And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific
genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically
useful tool.'
-page 72, REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
27 Jun 2003 08:19:27 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jun 2003 05:16:03 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
When you have a conflict between a statute and the supreme law
of the land -- the Constitution -- you follow the Constitution.
Law enforcement took an oath to the Constitution, not illegal
statutes.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Patriot Act and
the Homeland Security laws are unconstitutional.
Others assume that these laws are permissable.
In case of a disagreement, we submit our reasons to the courts - and
they decide.
See - Marbury v Madison.
A case you frequently cite as good law.
So you can't very well claim now that it isn't.
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited,
and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
mejercit@hotmail.com (Michael Ejercito) wrote in message news:<6930a3c6.0306261548.70f1677@posting.google.com>...
(george landry) wrote in message news:<2390a86a.0306251033.543e00fc@posting.google.com>...
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
I can still do the same things I was able to do on September 10th
without risk of criminal prosecution, George.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
Since when were those laws unconstitutional?
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "george landry" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
27 Jun 2003 03:51:11 PM |
|
|
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<2ngofv4635o2nh1eecet6kmd4h5ejplfst@4ax.com>...
On 27 Jun 2003 05:16:03 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
When you have a conflict between a statute and the supreme law
of the land -- the Constitution -- you follow the Constitution.
Law enforcement took an oath to the Constitution, not illegal
statutes.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Patriot Act and
the Homeland Security laws are unconstitutional.
Others assume that these laws are permissable.
In case of a disagreement, we submit our reasons to the courts - and
they decide.
See - Marbury v Madison.
A case you frequently cite as good law.
So you can't very well claim now that it isn't.
Until the court decides, you follow the supreme law of the land, the
Constitution, not the statute that is in question.
EXCERPT FROM TOP SECRET "OPERATION CABLESPLICE," THAT IS BEING CIRCULATED
TO TOP UN AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
B. Electronic/Computer Systems: Electronic computer systems, bulletin
boards, and information superhighway in general is an area of considerable
importance to efforts to combat the activities of The Disrupter Movement.
The ability of opponents to utilize computer bulletin boards to pass
information and educate
people must be met with an active program of disinformation and attack.
1. One means of countering the effectiveness of such opposition efforts is
the simple expedient of overloading their bulletin boards. A single operator
with one
computer can set a program in motion that will send out thousands of
messages. The sheer volume of such messages is more then the content. Most
people will give up rather then read through hundreds and thousands of
messages.
2. A second means of countering the opposition's use of computer technology
is through the careful placing of disinformation agents. Such agents can
take two forms:
a. Agents may be placed who will simply argue against the opposition, using
delaying and confusing tactics such as constantly demanding references and
"proof" of allegations, referring to obscure and difficult to find documents
as evidence that the opposition is wrong, and generally forcing the
opposition to waste
tremendous amounts of time simply defending itself from spurious and
irrelevant attacks.
Other
b. Other agents have been placed with a more subtle purpose mind. Such
agents would take on the persons WA attitudes of members of The Disrupters
Movement, but would present the opposition case in ways that will ultimately
discredit them. The necessary effort to correct. the messages posted by
these agents, and the resulting appearance of disarray within their camp
should present considerable opportunities for further assaultson The
Disrupters Movement.
3. In cases of computer networks where it is highly imperative that the
efforts of The Disrupters be neutralized, coordinated assaults can be
arranged using
aliases and multiple membership ID's to present a wide array of negative and
meddlesome messages.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
25 Jun 2003 03:05:59 PM |
|
|
On 25 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
More precisely - laws found unconstitutional by courts - are null and
void under the constitution. Marbury held that COURTS have the final
call.
So if a court thinks the law is ok, and you do not - your view does
not prevail.
Don't forget to add that part about the holding of Marbury - courts
get the final say as to what is or is not constitutional.
..
All of these actions by the federal government constitute
acts of war against the United States -- again Treason. It
is just a question of time before the shooting starts. Are
you ready?
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited,
and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
25 Jun 2003 08:36:49 PM |
|
|
Bill Ding wrote:
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> apparently
entered a coma as a result of insufficient neural activity and
collapsed upon the keyboard, his nose pressing enough keys to write:
On 25 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
More precisely - laws found unconstitutional by courts - are null and
void under the constitution. Marbury held that COURTS have the final
call. Whatever the government says is good enough for me is good enough
for me.
So if a court thinks the law is ok, and you do not - your view does
not prevail.
Don't forget to add that part about the holding of Marbury - courts
get the final say as to what is or is not constitutional.
Ah, the tirebyter's back... finally got out, did you? Still haven't
learned anything though... still copying entire messages to respond
with a few ill-chosen words... still licking the hand that slaps
you... good doggie.
If you want to see something funny, catch him trying to talk economics in (I think it is)
alt.politics.usa
Of all the frictional resistances, the one that most retards human movement is ignorance...
-- Nikola Tesla
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jak Ecksteen" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
26 Jun 2003 01:37:41 PM |
|
|
Brian <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote:
Bill Ding wrote:
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> apparently
entered a coma as a result of insufficient neural activity and
collapsed upon the keyboard, his nose pressing enough keys to write:
On 25 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
More precisely - laws found unconstitutional by courts - are null and
void under the constitution. Marbury held that COURTS have the final
call. Whatever the government says is good enough for me is good enough
for me.
So if a court thinks the law is ok, and you do not - your view does
not prevail.
Don't forget to add that part about the holding of Marbury - courts
get the final say as to what is or is not constitutional.
Ah, the tirebyter's back... finally got out, did you? Still haven't
learned anything though... still copying entire messages to respond
with a few ill-chosen words... still licking the hand that slaps
you... good doggie.
If you want to see something funny, catch him trying to talk economics in (I think it is)
alt.politics.usa
Seen it. His understanding can be summed up from a quote: "I admit I'm
worse off, but that's okay..."
Sure it is. Good doggie.
Of all the frictional resistances, the one that most retards human movement is ignorance...
-- Nikola Tesla
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
26 Jun 2003 04:04:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:37:41 -0500, Jak Ecksteen
<nededlander@doobie.nl> wrote:
Brian <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote:
Bill Ding wrote:
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> apparently
entered a coma as a result of insufficient neural activity and
collapsed upon the keyboard, his nose pressing enough keys to write:
On 25 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
More precisely - laws found unconstitutional by courts - are null and
void under the constitution. Marbury held that COURTS have the final
call. Whatever the government says is good enough for me is good enough
for me.
So if a court thinks the law is ok, and you do not - your view does
not prevail.
Don't forget to add that part about the holding of Marbury - courts
get the final say as to what is or is not constitutional.
Ah, the tirebyter's back... finally got out, did you? Still haven't
learned anything though... still copying entire messages to respond
with a few ill-chosen words... still licking the hand that slaps
you... good doggie.
If you want to see something funny, catch him trying to talk economics in (I think it is)
alt.politics.usa
Seen it. His understanding can be summed up from a quote: "I admit I'm
worse off, but that's okay..."
In my support of free trade laws? Or my aversion to deficits? If you
think that - you're wrong, of course.
I think you want to point out the limits of what I know about
economics - and you are right about that - because the things I say
disturb you, and as a defense mechanism - you want an excuse to chalk
my comments off ones you need not think about.
The resort to ad hominem is usually a tip-off that the target is
scoring - and has to be rejected to stem the pain of his blows.
You know - a lot of these things have as much to do with psychology as
with economics. Consider the quote you attributed to me above.
Wide disparity in income may make most people unhappy. Such that
reducing the disparity might improve happiness - even if it did shrink
the pie a bit.
That's a comment about psychology - beyond the reach of economics,
presumably.
A UCLA psychologist, Allan Parducci, had an interesting theory that
people are happier if they don't experience extremely good events. A
person who has some great thing happen - can be worse off than someone
who never won the lottery, or had a brief affair with Myrna Loy (the
ultimately lovable woman, according to those who knew her). After
Myrna Loy - won't other girls never give you all that much a thrill?
You would have been better off never having met her. That's the
theory.
Because that rare great event - makes one less happy with everything
else that happens in life.
So making the pie smaller - might well be a good idea, in some cases.
Right now we see all these fabulously rich people - in 400 foot yachts
- and are unhappy with our perfectly comfortable lives. Maybe we would
be a happier society if we were like Japan - fewer rich folks
constantly in the news making us unhappy with our own lives. Even if
we had 8000 less per year income.
That's a real possibility - don't you agree? And one that goes beyond
what economists tell us.
So yes - I am sufficiently clever to know about such things.
But I know a bit about economics too - a small bit admittedly. I read
the papers. And laugh heartily every time another test of supply-side
economics finds it to be just what former President Bush called it -
voodoo economics. It was the REPUBLICANS who demanded dynamic scoring
of tax cuts - and who have egg on their fact now that the Joint
Committee on Taxation has concluded that the recently proposed tax
cuts - will likely reduce economic output.
Funny - no?
Sure it is. Good doggie.
Allan Parducci - clever theory.
Here is something consistent with it - measures of average happiness
in a society - measured with public opinion polls asking - how happy
are you - I guess - but also measuring things such as percentage of
people walking around with smiles on their faces - find that happiness
rises with per capita income - up to ten thousand dollars. After that
additional per capita income - seems to have no benefit in extra
happiness.
So again - maybe a smaller pie - is ok.
Think deeply - shallowness is boring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jak Ecksteen" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
26 Jun 2003 04:58:23 PM |
|
|
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> yapped:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:37:41 -0500, Jak Ecksteen
<nededlander@doobie.nl> wrote:
Brian <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote:
Bill Ding wrote:
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> apparently
entered a coma as a result of insufficient neural activity and
collapsed upon the keyboard, his nose pressing enough keys to write:
On 25 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
More precisely - laws found unconstitutional by courts - are null and
void under the constitution. Marbury held that COURTS have the final
call. Whatever the government says is good enough for me is good enough
for me.
So if a court thinks the law is ok, and you do not - your view does
not prevail.
Don't forget to add that part about the holding of Marbury - courts
get the final say as to what is or is not constitutional.
Ah, the tirebyter's back... finally got out, did you? Still haven't
learned anything though... still copying entire messages to respond
with a few ill-chosen words... still licking the hand that slaps
you... good doggie.
If you want to see something funny, catch him trying to talk economics in (I think it is)
alt.politics.usa
Seen it. His understanding can be summed up from a quote: "I admit I'm
worse off, but that's okay..."
In my support of free trade laws? Or my aversion to deficits? If you
think that - you're wrong, of course.
I think you want to point out the limits of what I know about
economics - and you are right about that - because the things I say
disturb you, and as a defense mechanism - you want an excuse to chalk
my comments off ones you need not think about.
The resort to ad hominem is usually a tip-off that the target is
scoring - and has to be rejected to stem the pain of his blows.
You know - a lot of these things have as much to do with psychology as
with economics. Consider the quote you attributed to me above.
Wide disparity in income may make most people unhappy. Such that
reducing the disparity might improve happiness - even if it did shrink
the pie a bit.
That's a comment about psychology - beyond the reach of economics,
presumably.
A UCLA psychologist, Allan Parducci, had an interesting theory that
people are happier if they don't experience extremely good events. A
person who has some great thing happen - can be worse off than someone
who never won the lottery, or had a brief affair with Myrna Loy (the
ultimately lovable woman, according to those who knew her). After
Myrna Loy - won't other girls never give you all that much a thrill?
You would have been better off never having met her. That's the
theory.
Because that rare great event - makes one less happy with everything
else that happens in life.
So making the pie smaller - might well be a good idea, in some cases.
Right now we see all these fabulously rich people - in 400 foot yachts
- and are unhappy with our perfectly comfortable lives. Maybe we would
be a happier society if we were like Japan - fewer rich folks
constantly in the news making us unhappy with our own lives. Even if
we had 8000 less per year income.
That's a real possibility - don't you agree? And one that goes beyond
what economists tell us.
So yes - I am sufficiently clever to know about such things.
But I know a bit about economics too - a small bit admittedly. I read
the papers. And laugh heartily every time another test of supply-side
economics finds it to be just what former President Bush called it -
voodoo economics. It was the REPUBLICANS who demanded dynamic scoring
of tax cuts - and who have egg on their fact now that the Joint
Committee on Taxation has concluded that the recently proposed tax
cuts - will likely reduce economic output.
Funny - no?
Sure it is. Good doggie.
Allan Parducci - clever theory.
Here is something consistent with it - measures of average happiness
in a society - measured with public opinion polls asking - how happy
are you - I guess - but also measuring things such as percentage of
people walking around with smiles on their faces - find that happiness
rises with per capita income - up to ten thousand dollars. After that
additional per capita income - seems to have no benefit in extra
happiness.
So again - maybe a smaller pie - is ok.
Think deeply - shallowness is boring.
Ah, you admit it. It is a problem, but the stupidity of your pratings
is tantamount to verbal slapsick, and helps overcome the shallowness,
which is a plus.
Keep up the good work! You can simultaneously engage in your
self-fulfilling masochistic fantasies and entertain the rest of us.
Good doggie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
25 Jun 2003 10:15:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:36:49 -0400, Brian <olinshooter@erols.com>
wrote:
Bill Ding wrote:
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> apparently
entered a coma as a result of insufficient neural activity and
collapsed upon the keyboard, his nose pressing enough keys to write:
On 25 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
More precisely - laws found unconstitutional by courts - are null and
void under the constitution. Marbury held that COURTS have the final
call. Whatever the government says is good enough for me is good enough
for me.
So if a court thinks the law is ok, and you do not - your view does
not prevail.
Don't forget to add that part about the holding of Marbury - courts
get the final say as to what is or is not constitutional.
Ah, the tirebyter's back... finally got out, did you? Still haven't
learned anything though... still copying entire messages to respond
with a few ill-chosen words... still licking the hand that slaps
you... good doggie.
If you want to see something funny, catch him trying to talk economics in (I think it is)
alt.politics.usa
I'm a novice in economics, no doubt about that. And I know for a fact
that I have said some really lame things about it.
And I am sure I will say more laughable things about it in the future.
Then people will correct me - and I will learn.
Usenet is the best educational device yet invented.
We all make mistakes. For instance, did you see that Milton Friedman
recently admitted monetarism sucks as a guide for policy?
If he can blow it big time, surely I will blow it double big time.
We learn.
This is a good thing.
Of all the frictional resistances, the one that most retards human movement is ignorance...
-- Nikola Tesla
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Hubert" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
26 Jun 2003 07:08:14 AM |
|
|
Can't you read? Or, could it be that you are a government operative
trying to create confusion.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<m10kfvgcqgtqii80miedten9kkipksp03v@4ax.com>...
On 25 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
More precisely - laws found unconstitutional by courts - are null and
void under the constitution. Marbury held that COURTS have the final
call.
So if a court thinks the law is ok, and you do not - your view does
not prevail.
Don't forget to add that part about the holding of Marbury - courts
get the final say as to what is or is not constitutional.
.
All of these actions by the federal government constitute
acts of war against the United States -- again Treason. It
is just a question of time before the shooting starts. Are
you ready?
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited,
and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
26 Jun 2003 06:45:52 PM |
|
|
(Bob Hubert) wrote in message news:<7f64d521.0306260408.24211082@posting.google.com>...
Can't you read? Or, could it be that you are a government operative
trying to create confusion.
So what process is used to determine a laws constitutionality?
It starts either by a lawsuit from a plaintiff harmed by a law, a
petition for an injunction from a plaintiff alleging irreparable harm
from the enforcement of such a law, a motion from a criminal defendant
to dismiss a criminal indictment citing unconstitutionality, or an
appeal of a criminal defendant convicted by the law in question.
Judges decide on the motions, and it goes from there.
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
26 Jun 2003 07:53:26 AM |
|
|
On 26 Jun 2003 05:08:14 -0700, (Bob Hubert)
wrote:
Can't you read? Or, could it be that you are a government operative
trying to create confusion.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Yes. And how do we distinguish an unconstitutional law from a
constitutional one? According to the case cited - Marbury v Madison -
that decision is left, in the final analysis, to the courts.
Thus if you have a view that a statute is not constitutional, but the
court has a different view, the view of the court prevails.
Your team continually cites Marbury as authoritative. Thus you must
agree with the preceding paragraph. Since that is one of the things
Marbury holds.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
Correct. And which laws are unconstitutional? Those courts say are
unconstitutional. Thus a law upheld by courts, but considered
unconstitutional by you, are not unconstitutional, and are binding on
you - and on everyone else.
See - Marbury v Madison on the preeminent role of courts in
determining which laws are unconstitutional.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<m10kfvgcqgtqii80miedten9kkipksp03v@4ax.com>...
On 25 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
More precisely - laws found unconstitutional by courts - are null and
void under the constitution. Marbury held that COURTS have the final
call.
So if a court thinks the law is ok, and you do not - your view does
not prevail.
Don't forget to add that part about the holding of Marbury - courts
get the final say as to what is or is not constitutional.
.
All of these actions by the federal government constitute
acts of war against the United States -- again Treason. It
is just a question of time before the shooting starts. Are
you ready?
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited,
and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: If Bush Really Wanted to Stop "Terrorism" |
26 Jun 2003 03:08:16 PM |
|
|
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <porgy@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<m10kfvgcqgtqii80miedten9kkipksp03v@4ax.com>...
On 25 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0700, (george landry)
wrote:
He would eliminate the cause, imperialism. He is purposely
jeapordizing the vital interests of our country (9-11), so
that the robber barons can improve their bottom line, and
he can turn America into a police state -- Treason.
The Congress is also guilty of Treason with their passage
of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts. Incidentally,
these acts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
This has been codified by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs
Madison.
More precisely - laws found unconstitutional by courts - are null and
void under the constitution. Marbury held that COURTS have the final
call.
So if a court thinks the law is ok, and you do not - your view does
not prevail.
Don't forget to add that part about the holding of Marbury - courts
get the final say as to what is or is not constitutional.
You should forward this on to Dictator Gephardt who said he'd just
pass executive orders if he doesn't like what the SCOTUS says.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
