|
|
| |
| |
"clintonG" <csgallagher@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote:
:|One sentence that those pesky founders wrote and soundly believed in to the
:|point of risking all was that sentence that stated "the people shall have
:|the right to alter or abolish the government as they see fit."
:|
Where exactly is that codified in law?
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 jalison@cox.net wrote:
"clintonG" <csgallagher@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote:
Where exactly is that codified in law?
Is this a quiz? May I play?
"Alter or abolish" is from the Declaration of Independence.
A nice relic, but not law.
The rough draft is here:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/rough.htm
|
| |
| |
<jalison@cox.net> wrote
:|One sentence that those pesky founders wrote and soundly believed in to
the
:|point of risking all was that sentence that stated "the people shall
have
:|the right to alter or abolish the government as they see fit."
Where exactly is that codified in law?
Same place it's deemed in law that rights are granted by the Creator.
The basis of standing and capacity to overturn a 'lawful' monarch, and
'institute' a lawful government- needing, of course, a Constitution, and
happily containing a Bill of Rights.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
"Alter or abolish" is from the Declaration of Independence.
A nice relic, but not law.
The legal document asserting the standing and capacity to overturn a
'lawful' monarch and a notice of intent to do so. It establishes the
institution of a lawful government, which government needs a Constitution
granting power to make authoritative law.
So the question is not whether the endowment is 'law', but what was deemed
for legalistic purposes necessary to even institute a system of laws.
Of course, to some degree they incorporated pre-existing law; civil, common,
Admiralty, ecclesiastical, criminal,.......
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Chas wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
The legal document asserting the standing and capacity to overturn a
'lawful' monarch and a notice of intent to do so.
The Declaration of Independence is not law.
<snip obfuscation>
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Chas wrote:
<jalison@cox.net> wrote
Same place it's deemed in law that rights are granted by the Creator.
Where is that?
The Declaration of Independence is not law.
<snip obfuscation>
|
| |
| |
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
The Declaration of Independence is not law.
Impertinent.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
The Declaration of Independence is not law.
Irrelevant to its' function or authority.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Chas wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
Impertinent.
Nope. Just honest.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Chas wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
The Declaration of Independence is not law.
Irrelevant to its' [sic] function or authority.
What is its authority? Giving the individual states full power to levy
war, conclude peace and/or contract alliances?
|
| |
| |
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
What is its authority?
the people endowed with the Rights granted by the Creator, to form a
government based on the right to self-govern, and not some inherited
prerogative.
Giving the individual states full power to levy
war, conclude peace and/or contract alliances?
Asserting the authority, to the World Court and the Judge of the World, to
form a body which could self-govern; make and enforce law-
The authority and legal standing of the Declaration of Independence is a
necessary precursor authority to even the idea of instituting 'law' without
a King or hereditary nobility vetted by the State Church of Rome.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
It was a list of grievances against one king george.
And not to have to pick another monarch from the approved list, or stand in
rebellion to a lawful government, or defer to a foreign power for approval.
Think of it as a statement of standing and capacity, which defines the
jurisdiction and cites precedent/authority by deeming it a 'self-evident
truth' for evidentiary purposes.
to the World Court and the Judge of the World,
How odd it is then, that we have come to a point where the only "judges"
which matter under the law are secular judges. No imaginary judges have
any power under the law.
We're no longer asserting our independent right to form a legitimate
government which can institute a legal system.
Neat, hunh?
Our government is based on the Constitution, not on the DoI.
The authority to *form* that government is the function of the DoI.
The authority and legal standing of the Declaration of Independence is a
necessary precursor authority to even the idea of instituting 'law'
without
a King or hereditary nobility vetted by the State Church of Rome.
ka-ching!
Chas
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
As the latter creates a tribunal in which they can be enforced, it's a moot
point.
So can the recommendations of the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board be enforced
as well?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
I have exactly no idea what you are getting at here. As you are quite
obviously no genius, you should at least strive to be understood.
Aren't you the one always complaining that you didn't get your hearing?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
How do we secure these rights?
first, one has to justify that they are not granted by man, a permission,
caprice or whimsey of the monarch, but are eternal- deemed; we 'hold' that
these truths are 'self-evident (burden of proof shifts to disproving it in
'legal' contexts- you see the Court's treatment of the solipsistic suits of
the 60's or so; God as Defendant, God as Witness- all that.
Governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
As opposed to the divine right of kings as vetted by the roman church. That
authority could be delegated to a line of nobility, who ruled by class of
blood.
On the other hand, the Creator endowed all men with these self-evident
rights, and the result was a legitimate government, not a rebellion,
insurrection or revolt against lawful authority.
From the consent of the governed, not some mystical, imaginary pipe dream.
The honoring of which is immaterial as hell to you- you're welcome not to
believe in anything you care to- the vast majority of the entire history of
the scope of human experience disagrees with you, and thinks you're silly
for affecting that position notwithstanding.
The Colonial view of the common law recognized not women's sufferage or
desegregation.
Only because *all* people were relegated to their class by their birth
status. A queen was worth any number of common men- foreigners were worth
less yet. Everything was segregated- by all sorts of standards, sometimes
racial, sometimes not.
The common law was not that of the Court- and it was custom and practice
amongst subjects to a monarch.
Chas
|
| |
| |
I have it on good authority that on Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:00:06 -0800,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So can the recommendations of the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board be enforced
as well?
Obsess much?
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Chas wrote:
Problem is, you can never find God [...]
Sure you can. Jeremiah 29:13.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
The Constitution was a mere compact between men, [...]
Speaking of "compacts between men", can't the regulations governing the
licencing of those wishing to practise law in Colorado also be seen as a
compact between men?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Whoops! SERIOUS diction shift.
What happened? You woke up with wood?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Problem is, you can never find God [...]
Which one?
Sure you can. Jeremiah 29:13.
Been there, done that, got the PremiseKeepers' T-shirt. I guess that
Jesus must have been too busy sodomizing young boys on the golf course
that day, as he obviously wasn't available.
Jeremiah is OT.
"Jeremiah" goes on to say:
29:17 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will send upon them the sword,
the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like vile figs, that
cannot be eaten, they are so evil.
29:18 And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with
the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of
the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a
reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them:
29:19 Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which
I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending
them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sort of redefines for us justice and tolerance, eh?
|
| |
| |
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Ken Smith wrote:
Problem is, you can never find God [...]
Which one?
Sure you can. Jeremiah 29:13.
Jeremiah is OT.
"Jeremiah" goes on to say:
29:17 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will send upon them the sword,
the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like vile figs, that
cannot be eaten, they are so evil.
29:18 And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with
the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of
the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a
reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them:
29:19 Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which
I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending
them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sort of redefines for us justice and tolerance, eh?
Not for our Teddi. Heathen deserve all the misery they get, because
Ted's god is a just god, but his brother-in-law doesn't deserve to be
incarcerated for the alleged murder of his illegitimate four-year-old
daughter? If your god is a just god, Ted, your brother-in-law deserves
his fate. Period.
|
| |
| |
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
"Jeremiah" goes on to say:
Sort of redefines for us justice and tolerance, eh?
Jews have never been known for being either inclusive or concerned much with
'justice' outside their group- 'henocentrism', I think they call it.
Much of what Yeshua had to say was about the multi-generational bloodfeuds
and rivalries between the Tribes, much less with the non-Israelites. The
tribes under Judah were even moreso than the Israelites per se.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Chas wrote:
Jews have never been known for being either inclusive or concerned much with
'justice' outside their group- 'henocentrism', I think they call it.
Ethnocentrism?
Much of what Yeshua had to say was about the multi-generational bloodfeuds
and rivalries between the Tribes, much less with the non-Israelites. The
tribes under Judah were even moreso than the Israelites per se.
What Yeshua had to say is hearsay and conjecture.
|
| |
| |
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
Jews have never been known for being either inclusive or concerned much
with
'justice' outside their group- 'henocentrism', I think they call it.
Ethnocentrism?
Kinda- more 'tribal' and exclusive than simple ethnocentrism. The jewish
tribes of the Israelites were/are even more insular than the Israelites as a
whole, and still.
Much of what Yeshua had to say was about the multi-generational
bloodfeuds
and rivalries between the Tribes, much less with the non-Israelites. The
tribes under Judah were even moreso than the Israelites per se.
What Yeshua had to say is hearsay and conjecture.
What is this; a Perry Mason moment?
You want eye-witnesses to cross-examine; documents/transcriptions,
videotape?
Or do you think there's a 4000 year old conspiracy to deceive you into
singing out loud and eating pie?
Chas
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Been there, done that, got the PremiseKeepers' T-shirt.
You don't get saved just by putting on a T-shirt.
I guess that Jesus must have been too busy sodomizing young boys on the
golf course that day, as he obviously wasn't available.
I guess that you didn't reach out to Him by faith, because He absolutely
responds to faith.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
You don't get saved just by putting on a T-shirt.
You don't get "saved," period. Christianity is a fraud. But I had
to learn it the hard way -- by getting mired in (and finally, escaping)
the cult.
I guess that Jesus must have been too busy sodomizing young boys on the
golf course that day, as he obviously wasn't available.
I guess that you didn't reach out to Him by faith, because He absolutely
responds to faith.
Which is why we are celebrating *THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY* of Cam
Brown's incarceration today, right? If he absolutely responds to faith,
then it is self-evident that *YOU* didn't have enough to get His
attention. ;)
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote
Jews have never been known for being either inclusive or concerned much
with
'justice' outside their group- 'henocentrism', I think they call it.
Kinda- more 'tribal' and exclusive than simple ethnocentrism. The jewish
tribes of the Israelites were/are even more insular than the Israelites as a
whole, and still.
Much of what Yeshua had to say was about the multi-generational
bloodfeuds
and rivalries between the Tribes, much less with the non-Israelites. The
tribes under Judah were even moreso than the Israelites per se.
What is this; a Perry Mason moment?
You want eye-witnesses to cross-examine; documents/transcriptions,
videotape?
Just a sufficient quantum of credible evidence. For good or ill,
what Jesus actually said is lost in the mists of antiquity, and he's too
busy being dead to tell us anything of consequence today.
After all, if he were alive and could prove it, I'd imagine that
Carol and Moe and me (and possibly, even Ted!) would certainly listen
intently to what he had to say.
Or do you think there's a 4000 year old conspiracy to deceive you into
singing out loud and eating pie?
Naaahhh, with a lot of Christian preachers, it's more about having
sex with young children.
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
|
| |
| |
I have it on good authority that on Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:58:45 -0600,
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
[...]
Sort of redefines for us justice and tolerance, eh?
Not for Ted. He skips over those parts.
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
There is only One. (And you know Who He is, even though you know Him not.)
In your dreams.
Because they have not hearkened to the Word of the Lord. Would that include
Ken Smith? And Carol Lee Smith? This is NOT His will for you, because as He
says in verse 11, He has thoughts of peace for you, and not of evil. So you
might as well get with the program, and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour,
so that you might avail yourself of His Peace. Otherwise, verses 17 and 18
are for you, when the terrible day of the Lord comes.
There are many, many religious people on this planet who think you are
wrong and that their religion is correct.
I am an equal opportunity doubter. Your claims are no more credible than
theirs.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
What do you know about the relationship of the OT to the NT?
They are both chock full of contradictions and falsehoods?
|
| |
| |
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
What do you know about the relationship of the OT to the NT?
They are both chock full of contradictions and falsehoods?
BBBZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!! No kewpie doll for you. But then, you have to have
God's Spirit's in order to understand them properly, so to you they won't
make any sense until you receive His Spirit.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
What do you know about the relationship of the OT to the NT?
BBBZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!! No kewpie doll for you. But then, you have to have
God's Spirit's in order to understand them properly, so to you they won't
make any sense until you receive His Spirit.
TeddiBeer's our resident stark, raving Osama-class religious lunatic.
Kind of like Steve Winter, minus the personality. He used to leave
the really weird religious rants to his mentor Doug Gilliland, but he's
had to take up the slack in recent months. :)
|
| |
| |
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<vctmo0t678515djke3r6r92el9ll6ser3d@4ax.com>...
An Associate dean!!!!!!!!!
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i1historical.htm
[Excerpt]
This is just a parody. Here's more from that publication.
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - Likely candidate for Governor of California,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, vowed today at a press conference to kill both
those who vote for him and those who don't equally.
"I em unt outsider. I vill kill any person I feel like when I am
Fuhror... I mean, Governor, of the Great State of Hollywood," said the
action movie star.
|
| |
| |
|
