Common Law
Brett Weiss
In most states, these procedures are governed by statute and rule, rather
than common law. Read the code and court rules.
The only course of study I know of to learn these things is law school.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
Derick N. wrote in message <34BFDD...@centuryinter.net>...
>I am interested in learning common law courtroom procedure(pleadings,
>motions, writs, etc.) in a detailed fashion, not just the definitions,
>but the actual form and substance, in order to be able to defend myself
>in court. For example, how is a writ of audita querela worded? How do I
>demand a declaratory judgement from hizonor? When can supersedeas be
>properly applied? Can anyone recommend any good books on the subject or
>courses of study? Web links, etc.? Thanks, D.N.
Steve Gartin
Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common Law, Equity
and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our founding
documents? Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
Steve Gartin
Brenda Johnson
Steve Gartin wrote:
>
> Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common Law, Equity
> and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our founding
> documents? Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
They come from the legislature's constitutionally-established power to
pass laws (when federal) and the states' power to do so as governments.
If you want, I can tell you where babies come from, too.
Brenda
I'm joking (a little)
Dan Evans
>Brett Weiss wrote:
>>
>> In most states, these procedures are governed by statute and rule, rather
>> than common law. Read the code and court rules.
>Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common Law, Equity
>and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our founding
>documents? Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
What "founding documents" are you talking about? The original question
related to state law, which means that the "founding documents" are the
state constitutions, and every one of the 50 states has a different state
constitution.
Dan Evans **********************
*This is not legal advice unless
*you agreed to pay for it.
*http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
Dan Evans
In <34d79...@news7.centuryinter.net>, "Derick N." <over...@centuryinter.net> writes:
>My understanding, as limited as it is, is that there are two primitive
>branches of law:
>
>1. Common Law which derives form the Natural Laws of creation(right to own
>property and dwell safely, etc.), and :
>
>2. Contract Law, in which we may contract away our rights for compensation(I
>trade my labor for your money).
Your understanding is even more limited than you think. Contract law
is a creature of common law, just like torts and property. There is
even a common law of crimes.
And "natural law" is distinctly different than "common law." "Common
law" refers to the system of law created by judges. Some judges said
they were following "natural law," some didn't.
The idea that the laws created by judges are more likely to be "natural"
than the laws created by legislatures has a kind of charming naivete.
>Statutory law is an invention of
>man in order to regulate behavior,
Nonsense. Common law regulates behavior just as much as statutory
law. The common law defined crimes as well as civil suits. (For
example, murder, burglary, and arson were all crimes defined at common
law.)
>and may at times infringe upon our
>constitutional God Given unalienable(read un-lien-able ie. non-negotiable)
>rights, which is why statutes must at times be ammended or can be challenged
>on the basis of their constitutionality.
So can common law. Common law rights and procedures have been
successfully challenged as unconsitutional, just like statutes. For example,
the common law action of libel has been held to be unconstitutional when
applied to a criticism of a public official.
>Admiralty law, as I understand it, is fully statutory,
More nonsense.
>and is the system of
>law we are now subservient to.
Only on the ocean or a navigable river.
>It may contain elements of Common Law, and
>have the appearance of due proccess, but the statutes have become so
>forceful(positive law?), that Common Law rights take a back seat in the
>judicial proccess.
Gibberish.
Derick N.
My understanding, as limited as it is, is that there are two primitive
branches of law:
1. Common Law which derives form the Natural Laws of creation(right to own
property and dwell safely, etc.), and :
2. Contract Law, in which we may contract away our rights for compensation(I
trade my labor for your money).
All other branches stem from these roots. Statutory law is an invention of
man in order to regulate behavior, and may at times infringe upon our
constitutional God Given unalienable(read un-lien-able ie. non-negotiable)
rights, which is why statutes must at times be ammended or can be challenged
on the basis of their constitutionality.
Admiralty law, as I understand it, is fully statutory, and is the system of
law we are now subservient to. It may contain elements of Common Law, and
have the appearance of due proccess, but the statutes have become so
forceful(positive law?), that Common Law rights take a back seat in the
judicial proccess.
I invite and welcome critiques of my hypothesis, as I am a seeker of all
truth, and have learned much from the time I have spent on these groups.
Thank You.
Steve Gartin wrote in message <6b5vsu$b...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common Law, Equity
>and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our founding
>documents? Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
>
>Brett Weiss wrote:
>>
>> In most states, these procedures are governed by statute and rule, rather
>> than common law. Read the code and court rules.
>>
two dogs
>My understanding, as limited as it is, is that there are two primitive
>branches of law:
>
>1. Common Law which derives form the Natural Laws of creation(right to own
>property and dwell safely, etc.), and :
>
>2. Contract Law, in which we may contract away our rights for compensation(I
>trade my labor for your money).
wherever did you get such an idea?
natural law is the law of nature, i.e. water runs downhill
common law is the set of legal principles, originally judge crafted,
forming the basis for all law, be it property, contract, tort; in the
nations having a system of law descended from English colonialism.
England, US, Australiia, India, etc. The founding fathers were lawyers
and knew what common law was, and still is, they were not referring to
some cosmic legal ideal. If you want to know about it read Holmes "The
Common Law" and Blackstone's "Laws of England" centuries old, but
still good stuff. you are way off base.
Roger M. Wilcox
On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:32:18 -0700, Steve Gartin <gar...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common Law, Equity
>and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our founding
>documents?
No.
> Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
From Articles I and II of the Constitution, giving the power to vote on
possible laws (or "statutes") to the Congress, and the power to sign them
into actual law to the President. If you want to get rid of statutes,
you'd have to get rid of the Constitution.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "common law" and
"statutory law" exist completely separate from one another. They do
not. "Common law" is the set of court precedents used to ensure a
reasonably well-functioning society *in* *the* *absence* *of* actual
legislature-written laws. If the common law of Missouri treated the
ownership of marijuana as perfectly o.k., but then the Missouri
legislature passed a bill (which the governor signed into law) prohibiting
the ownership of marijuana, the new law replaces the old common-law
decision(s). You can't go whining to a "common-law court" (all courts
decide both common and statutory laws), and you can't keep your
marijuana just because the Common Law used to say you could.
Now, the law prohibiting the ownership of marijuana MAY violate the
Missouri constitution, but state constitutions (and the U.S. constitution,
for that matter) are not part of the Common Law, either.
--
Roger M. Wilcox (rog...@ix.netcom.com) -- without prejudice UCC 1-207
Unlawful to use this e-mail address for commercial solicitation: 47 USC 227
MSTie # 38808 | http://www.netcom.com/~rogermw ... now in EXTRA bold!
I'm sodium! <*> | "The Truth, as always, is more complicated than that"
Wayne Foote
Derick N. wrote:
> My understanding, as limited as it is, is that there are two primitive
> branches of law:
>
> 1. Common Law which derives form the Natural Laws of creation(right to own
> property and dwell safely, etc.), and :
From my point of view this is incorrect. Your view, however, is
understandable.Many early commentators on the common law have described it as
such. More
recent studies of the evolution of law recognize that this is incorrect.
I question whether there is any naturally occurring right to dwell safely or own
property. These things are better viewed as fundamental necessities (although
some would question whether property ownership by individuals is a necessity)
which we preserve by banding together in a society and creating laws to protect.
The common law is just such a creation. Common law evolved in England to
protect people (not always all of the people) from lawlessness. Lawlessness
generally consisted of injury to the person or seizure of property. (Property
was the most important since land equaled food production and the only real
wealth of the time.) While we speak of common law as being immutable and
permanent, this is incorrect. Common law evolves to meet the needs of society.
Courts applied customary law to set situations. As an example, if during the
reign
of one of the early Norman kings, someone came to you on your land, physically
forced
you to leave, and took possession of your land, you could pay the king to issue
a writ
of trespass vi et armis. That writ would be directed to the sheriff of the
shire in which
your land lay. The sheriff would then command the taker of the land to either
give you the land or appear in court to defend his claim. You would appear
and swear to the judges that he, by force of arms, took your land. If you
could prove your case (I won't go into proof here) the sheriff would throw the
bum out.
A major problem arose because the writs were limited in scope and number.
What if there was no force of arms? What if you had been away at the wars
and they took the land while no one was home? These things were not covered
by the writs. The answer was twofold. First was the concept of a legal
fiction;
you would not be required to prove actual force of arms and he could not deny
it.
Second, new writs were developed. Justice was a big business. The king
charged lots of money for writs. It cost a lot of money to be heard in the
courts.
This evolution continued. Other actions evolved from these original actions.
Negligence is a common law action which evolved over the last couple of
centuries. There is nothing magical about common law. The term common law
merely refers to law which evolved from a certain customary source.
> 2. Contract Law, in which we may contract away our rights for compensation(I
> trade my labor for your money).
>
Our contract law evolved from the customary law of merchants. It could not be
tiedonly to English common law because of the international nature of trade,
even
in those days. It deals with different subjects than the common law.
> All other branches stem from these roots. Statutory law is an invention of
> man in order to regulate behavior, and may at times infringe upon our
> constitutional God Given unalienable(read un-lien-able ie. non-negotiable)
> rights, which is why statutes must at times be ammended or can be challenged
> on the basis of their constitutionality.
As I noted above, common law was often the invention of the king who issuednew
writs meet public demand for new remedies. Equity arose a need to
act where the common law would not. The common law could not force
a person to do certain things, only penalize them for not doing so. Equity
courts
could do these things.
> Admiralty law, as I understand it, is fully statutory, and is the system of
> law we are now subservient to.
This is misinformation put out by the sovereign citizen crew. Admiralty law(as
opposed to admiralty jurisdiction) evolved from customary laws of shipping
and international trade. Admiralty jurisdiction is the territorial limits of
authority of
admiralty courts. This jurisdiction extends to actions on or substantially
connected
to the navigable waters of the US. This includes all crimes, common law torts,
contracts, etc. Congress does legislate in this regard, but that jurisdiction
does not
extend to all of the things we do.
Most of us have little to do with admiralty courts or jurisdiction. Most of our
law and
legislation comes from the state constitutions. The sovereign citizens
conveniently
forget those. The people banded together and constituted states by giving a
central
state government certain powers. Those powers include the power to legislate --
legislate means to make laws. Those states, in turn, banded together to
constitute
a federal government which also has certain legislative powers. While the state
and federal constitutions did adopt certain legal principles (there is little
federal common
law) the people also gave those governments the right to create laws.
> It may contain elements of Common Law, and
> have the appearance of due proccess, but the statutes have become so
> forceful(positive law?), that Common Law rights take a back seat in the
> judicial proccess.
As I said, common law is not rights, but remedies for wrongs which arepurchased
from the king.
--
Wayne Foote
This isn't a legal opinion upon which to rely. For that, hire an attorney.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." M.L. King, Jr.
Robert Gonzalez
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:36:18 -0500, Wayne Foote <wfo...@mint.net> wrote:
>
>
>Derick N. wrote:
>
>> My understanding, as limited as it is, is that there are two primitive
>> branches of law:
>>
>> 1. Common Law which derives form the Natural Laws of creation(right to own
>> property and dwell safely, etc.), and :
>
>From my point of view this is incorrect. Your view, however, is
>understandable.Many early commentators on the common law have described it as
>such. More
>recent studies of the evolution of law recognize that this is incorrect.
Sounds like revisionism here.
Kenneth C. Taylor
Admiralty Law/Maritime Law is generally within the jurisdiction of the Federal
Court and is specifically mentioned in the constitution. Suits in rem: or
personam follow precedence of tort law to a point. Vessel accidents and
collisions, injury to seaman, environmental and international law, carriage of
goods at sea and its insurance etc. Much of the practice of this discipline is
the practice of administrative law interacting with federal agencies
DOT/MARAD/USCG/OHSA etc.
Brenda Johnson wrote:
> Steve Gartin wrote:
> >
> > Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common Law, Equity
> > and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our founding
> > documents? Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
>
> They come from the legislature's constitutionally-established power to
> pass laws (when federal) and the states' power to do so as governments.
> If you want, I can tell you where babies come from, too.
>
> Brenda
> I'm joking (a little)
>
> >
> > Brett Weiss wrote:
> > >
> > > In most states, these procedures are governed by statute and rule, rather
> > > than common law. Read the code and court rules.
> > >
> > > The only course of study I know of to learn these things is law school.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brett
> > >
Justin Schwartz
Steve Gartin (gar...@usa.net) wrote:
: Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common Law, Equity
: and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our founding
: documents? Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
Courts are governed by common law where it applies and has not been
abrogated or modified by statute or by a state or federal Constitutional
limitation. Common law is just judge-made law in Anglo-American systems.
Contract, Tort, and Property are mainly common law in most states.
The "founding documents" you refer to are presumably the Constitution.
This also empowers Congress to legislate, i.e., pass statutes, and
incidentally makes the statutes thus enacted supreme with respect to state
law. The federal courts, actually, the S.Ct, the only one created by the
Constitution (which allows Congress to create inferior courts by statute)
have origibal jurisdiction by the terms Art III over questions of federal
law, including Congressional enactments. So it's manifest from the text as
well as from the intentions of the framers (many of whom, as members of
Congress, participated in enmacting statutes) that statutory law is just fine.
Administrative rulemaking and adjudication by administraive agencies is a
complicated topic, but the Constitution mentions the departments of the
Executive, and courts have interpreted the Constitution to permit agencies
to create rules with the force of law and to adjudicate disputes in ways
that have the effect of creating rules.
--Justin S, Ohio State Law, 3L
Andrew Lazarus
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:33:51 -0000, "Derick N."
>My understanding, as limited as it is, is that there are two primitive
>branches of law:
Much of what you write here is completely wrong, but based on common
[!] misconceptions in the Patriot movement. To look at it from a high
level, the Patriot view of the common law suffers from (1) historical
inaccuracy and (2) systemic false dichotomy, in which all types of law
which aren't common law must somehow be related.
>1. Common Law which derives form the Natural Laws of creation(right to own
>property and dwell safely, etc.), and :
This part is historically inaccurate. As you can see from the
encyclopedia (where I got most of this; I'm not a lawyer), common law
refers to the judge-made law of early English legal history, and to
the rules and precedents that proceeded from this base over the
centuries. Common Law ISN'T distinguished from other types of law as
"more natural". The inadequacies of common law (for example, you
couldn't obtain injunctive relief) led to the establishment of equity
courts (or chancellery courts) as long ago as the 15th Century-- in no
way a recent usurpation.
>2. Contract Law, in which we may contract away our rights for compensation(I
>trade my labor for your money).
>All other branches stem from these roots.
False dichotomy.
>Statutory law is an invention of
>man in order to regulate behavior, and may at times infringe upon our
>constitutional God Given unalienable(read un-lien-able ie. non-negotiable)
>rights, which is why statutes must at times be ammended or can be challenged
>on the basis of their constitutionality.
Totally false. First, although I have seen this before, unalienable is
derived from "alien" (other) and not from "lien" (< ligare, to bind).
"Alien" and "lien" are NOT linguistically related. Check the
dictionary. Anyway, the idea that our Constitutional rights are
God-given just adds to the confusion. The reason that statutes may be
challenged as to their constitutionality is that the Constitution
itself provides that it is superior to statutes that conflict with it,
and not because of Divine decree. Statutes can and routinely do
overrule common law precedents, when the legislature decides to. One
recent example is the law that lets you treat unsolicited merchandise
mailed to you as a gift.
Wayne Foote
Robert Gonzalez wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:36:18 -0500, Wayne Foote <wfo...@mint.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Derick N. wrote:
> >
> >> My understanding, as limited as it is, is that there are two primitive
> >> branches of law:
> >>
> >> 1. Common Law which derives form the Natural Laws of creation(right to own
> >> property and dwell safely, etc.), and :
> >
> >From my point of view this is incorrect. Your view, however, is
> >understandable.Many early commentators on the common law have described it as
> >such. More
> >recent studies of the evolution of law recognize that this is incorrect.
>
> Sounds like revisionism here.
>
In the sense that my comments enumerate generally acceptedcorrections of the
unfounded views of 18th and 19th
legal historians, it is revisionism. In the sense that the comments
describe some of the course of legal changes in England in the
10th through 16th centuries, the earlier commentators were the
revisionists.
Mark Pitcavage
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 18:07:14 -0000, "Derick N."
<over...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>What I don't get is how some of you guys see Common Law as being an
>*invention of men*, instead of what it truly is, a *recognition by men* of
>rights common to all, instead of the few, as in a feudal state. You talk
>about the Common Law as though englishmen manufactured it, when what truly
>happened is that they discovered it and were the first to recognize it.
Of course they manufactured it. You cannot "discover" a philosophical
construct. There is no experiment you can use to accurately replicate
it.
>Sure, some of the issues and applications of primitive Common Law now seem
>arcane, but the Common Law is evolutionary in its growth, and adapts itself
>to the society in which it is practised. My gripe is that my Common Law
>rights are being impinged upon by statutory law. Examples abound. That we as
>americans are loosing ground on every front by legislative encroachments is
>undeniable. We are losing our Common Law rights to pursue life, liberty and
>hapiness, and that bothers me.
I don't think you understand what the common law actually is.
Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org
The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org
Derick N.
Wayne Foote wrote in message <34DB18BD...@mint.net>...
>
>
>Robert Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:36:18 -0500, Wayne Foote <wfo...@mint.net> wrote:
>> Sounds like revisionism here.
>>
>
>In the sense that my comments enumerate generally acceptedcorrections of
the
>unfounded views of 18th and 19th
>legal historians, it is revisionism. In the sense that the comments
>describe some of the course of legal changes in England in the
>10th through 16th centuries, the earlier commentators were the
>revisionists.
>--
>Wayne Foote
>This isn't a legal opinion upon which to rely. For that, hire an attorney.
>"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." M.L. King, Jr.
What I don't get is how some of you guys see Common Law as being an
*invention of men*, instead of what it truly is, a *recognition by men* of
rights common to all, instead of the few, as in a feudal state. You talk
about the Common Law as though englishmen manufactured it, when what truly
happened is that they discovered it and were the first to recognize it.
Sure, some of the issues and applications of primitive Common Law now seem
Andrew Lazarus
>What I don't get is how some of you guys see Common Law as being an
>*invention of men*, instead of what it truly is, a *recognition by men* of
>rights common to all, instead of the few, as in a feudal state. You talk
>about the Common Law as though englishmen manufactured it, when what truly
>happened is that they discovered it and were the first to recognize it.
You have, unfortunately, bought into some mystic notion of Common Law
that is at variance with the actual meaning of the words.
(Incidentally, the Common Law began during the feudal era, a clue that
you are much confused.) From time to time one hears "Natural Law" used
in the sense that you are using common law. If you go to France and
talk about the common law, they will not know what the heck you are
talking about, because they have no legal tradition going by that
name. And since Louisiana state civil law derives from French law
(Napoleonic Code), if you go to Louisiana they won't have a common law
tradition, either. So, yes, it was invented by Englishmen. Some of the
principles of the common law do derive from the sort of "natural law"
ideas you seem to be thinking of, like you should be entitled to
damages if someone trespasses on your property and damages it. Other
principles are remarkably arbitrary.
>Sure, some of the issues and applications of primitive Common Law now seem
>arcane, but the Common Law is evolutionary in its growth, and adapts itself
>to the society in which it is practised. My gripe is that my Common Law
>rights are being impinged upon by statutory law. Examples abound. That we as
>americans are loosing ground on every front by legislative encroachments is
>undeniable. We are losing our Common Law rights to pursue life, liberty and
>hapiness, and that bothers me.
Well, maybe. Why don't you post the Common Law rights that you think
you are losing? The good news is that many of these 'rights' seem to
be a complete fabrication of the "Patriot" movement. One common law
right that you lost recently is being able to run a scam mailing junk
to people and demanding that they either return it or pay for it.
(Since many would have thrown the junk out, you would then dun them.)
This got squashed by a 1970 consumer protection statute. I haven't
heard anybody clamoring for its return.
Robert Gonzalez
On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 23:42:12 GMT, Mark Pitcavage <spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 18:07:14 -0000, "Derick N."
><over...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>What I don't get is how some of you guys see Common Law as being an
>>*invention of men*, instead of what it truly is, a *recognition by men* of
>>rights common to all, instead of the few, as in a feudal state. You talk
>>about the Common Law as though englishmen manufactured it, when what truly
>>happened is that they discovered it and were the first to recognize it.
>
>construct. There is no experiment you can use to accurately replicate
>it.
>
America was founded on the principle that we have rights by virtue of our
existance and that these right are NOT invented.
Try again
>>Sure, some of the issues and applications of primitive Common Law now seem
>>arcane, but the Common Law is evolutionary in its growth, and adapts itself
>>to the society in which it is practised. My gripe is that my Common Law
>>rights are being impinged upon by statutory law. Examples abound. That we as
>>americans are loosing ground on every front by legislative encroachments is
>>undeniable. We are losing our Common Law rights to pursue life, liberty and
>>hapiness, and that bothers me.
>
Mark Pitcavage
On 7 Feb 98 02:47:38 GMT, go...@ux1.cyberenet.net (Robert Gonzalez)
wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 23:42:12 GMT, Mark Pitcavage <spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
>>On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 18:07:14 -0000, "Derick N."
>><over...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What I don't get is how some of you guys see Common Law as being an
>>>*invention of men*, instead of what it truly is, a *recognition by men* of
>>>rights common to all, instead of the few, as in a feudal state. You talk
>>>about the Common Law as though englishmen manufactured it, when what truly
>>>happened is that they discovered it and were the first to recognize it.
>>
>>Of course they manufactured it. You cannot "discover" a philosophical
>>construct. There is no experiment you can use to accurately replicate
>>it.
>>
>
>America was founded on the principle that we have rights by virtue of our
>existance and that these right are NOT invented.
>
>Try again
If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist independently.
Steve Gartin
All of the State Constitutions also guarantee a Republican form of
Government and the Common Law as was established by our Ancestors in
Great Britan before the Revolution. Mine is Colorado, but I have seen
the same language in several other State Constitutions, Montana,
California, Ohio, and Georgia come immediately to mind. Check yours,
you will probably find it in the Ordering Clause or the PreAmble as well
as dispersed throughout, especially in describing the rule of law.
There are real good resources on line for interrogating your State
Constitution, as well as the Federal Constitution.
Dan Evans wrote:
>
> In <6b608t$b...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Steve Gartin <gar...@usa.net> writes:
>
> >Brett Weiss wrote:
> >>
> >> In most states, these procedures are governed by statute and rule, rather
> >> than common law. Read the code and court rules.
>
> >Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common Law, Equity
> >and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our founding
> >documents? Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
>
> What "founding documents" are you talking about? The original question
> related to state law, which means that the "founding documents" are the
> state constitutions, and every one of the 50 states has a different state
> constitution.
>
ut...@bantot.net
Sounds like this guy belongs to the militia....tsk-tsk-tsk...
Robert Gonzalez
On 3 Feb 1998 13:37:30 GMT, Dan Evans <eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com> wrote:
>In <6b608t$b...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Steve Gartin <gar...@usa.net> writes:
>
>>Brett Weiss wrote:
>>>
>>> In most states, these procedures are governed by statute and rule, rather
>>> than common law. Read the code and court rules.
>
>>Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common Law, Equity
>>and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our founding
>>documents? Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
>
>What "founding documents" are you talking about? The original question
>related to state law, which means that the "founding documents" are the
>state constitutions, and every one of the 50 states has a different state
>constitution.
>
Discussing anything with YOU is pointless since you're too fixated on the
idea the govt is supreme.
Robert Gonzalez
It would be impossible to prove to YOU that ANYTHING not govt controled
or sanctioned exists.
Robert Gonzalez
On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 15:59:57 -0800, ut...@bantot.net <ut...@bantot.net> wrote:
>Sounds like this guy belongs to the militia....tsk-tsk-tsk...
If you're between 18 and 45, you are too unless you currently hold public
office or are in the military
Robert Miller
>>America was founded on the principle that we have rights by virtue of our
>>existance and that these right are NOT invented.
>>
>>Try again
>
>If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist independently.
>
Where do you think you come from?
The elements in your body were created in an unimaginable event.
Over billions of years creating the iron in your blood. That star
eventually goes Nova or Super Nova and those chemicals condence into
a new Sun, our Sol. The matter in the disk of our solar system
becomes a system of 9 planets and the evolutionary process take place.
Over 4 billion years it may have taken on this planet alone.
When you look up at the Universe at night you are looking at something
that allowed for the proper conditions for you to be created, to then
look up at the Universe.
This Universe has become self-Cognizant.
You can not say it happend randomely out of the chaos because
that would violate known laws of thermodynamics and entropy or
even times arrow. chaos always tends towards chaos. You don't
have chaotic systems creating ordered systems like living organisms
especially highly complicated organisms like people with a mind and a
will to go to the stars.
Rights come from the same place we came from. If you can't handle
that you need to go on a walkabout and think about it.
Robert Miller
The people always get the government they deserve!
Steve Gartin
Bravo! Well stated Robert!
The STATE has made great progress in controlling the thoughts of the
little sheeple. Imagine, a STATE granting and defining "Rights." Our
ForeFathers would have some belly laughs on that one. Here we are right
back where we were - and even more strictly controlled and regulated
than our revolutionary Ancestors. Has anyone seen Rip Van Winkle
lately?
Steve Gartin
We know the People are supreme, under God. Don't give up telling them
the truth Robert - some of 'em are listening! Most folks live fairly
comfortably until the "authorities" assault them. Then they get mad as
hell, wail about "injustice" for a while and eventually realize that
nothing changes until the People make it change. Declare Peace!
Jon Beaver
"Derick N." <over...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>
>What I don't get is how some of you guys see Common Law as being an
>*invention of men*, instead of what it truly is, a *recognition by men* of
>rights common to all, instead of the few, as in a feudal state. You talk
>about the Common Law as though englishmen manufactured it, when what truly
>happened is that they discovered it and were the first to recognize it.
I understand your point. You are saying something to the effect that
there are principles of justice so common to civilized society that no
government of the people has a right to abridge them, and that no man
has a duty to obey purported laws that contravene them. I understand.
But this is not what is referred to in legal parlance as "The Common
Law." You can continue to use the term if you wish, but you will
continually run into confusion because people will think you are
referring to that body of English decisional (and statutory law, at
least to the extent that it had become firmly incorporated in the
traditions of the decisional law) that existed at the time of the
Americal Revolution. To be sure, the English common law incorporated
many of the ideas that you refer to and forms the basis of our legal
system. Many of them were incorporated in the Consitution.
>
>Sure, some of the issues and applications of primitive Common Law now seem
>arcane, but the Common Law is evolutionary in its growth, and adapts itself
>to the society in which it is practised. My gripe is that my Common Law
>rights are being impinged upon by statutory law. Examples abound. That we as
>americans are loosing ground on every front by legislative encroachments is
>undeniable. We are losing our Common Law rights to pursue life, liberty and
>hapiness, and that bothers me.
Take the situation where Someone sells land to A and then sells it to
B and disappears with all of the money. Who owns the land? The
"common law" rule was "first in time is first in right" and A is the
owner. B has to find Someone, if he can, and try to get his money
back. Later we decided that there were too many people being cheated,
so we established land registeries where we could "record" our deeds
so anybody else could tell that Someone had already sold the land.
But what if A doesn't record his deed -- what good is the registery
then? So we had to have a rule that says that A only owns the land
if he records his deed (unless, maybe, B didn't record his either).
So, I see your point. At common law, you used to have a right to take
a deed from Someone and keep it a secret so Someone could cheat as
many people as he wanted. Under modern statutes in all states you
have lost that right. Bummer. Now, you don't have to obey that law.
You can insist that under the "common law" your unrecorded prior deed
gives you a right to occupy that land and do what ever you want on it.
You might even claim the right to resist when the Sheriff comes to
make you obey the new law. But I should remind you that somewhere
around the 1860's some other guys had the same idea, and they got
their asses kicked.
-Jon Beaver
Steve Gartin
Wow! Good point! Well stated! Just because those guys got their asses
kicked does not make them wrong, or the Kickers right. I think the same
controversy rages today. . . are we subject to the STATE,
or to the People,
or to God?
Recognition of the unalienable rights of the People is a good start -
then we could talk without fear of death or unlawful incarceration. You
will find a large percentage of the prison populace is "political" and
"administrative" prisoners; not common law criminals at all. Having
spent time in jail for "contempt" of court, I had the opportunity to
research from the "inside" of their "human farms." If 10% of the prison
populace are "real" criminals, I would find it surprising. Most of the
men in jail are there unlawfully and unjustly, IF you are to consider
the Consitution as the Rule of Law; as I believe is right, true and
proper in this Republic. BUT. . . . .They are STILL kicking our asses!
How long the People will put up with it is the paramount question.
Mark Pitcavage
On 8 Feb 98 01:21:05 GMT, go...@ux1.cyberenet.net (Robert Gonzalez)
wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 06:36:07 GMT, Mark Pitcavage <spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
>>On 7 Feb 98 02:47:38 GMT, go...@ux1.cyberenet.net (Robert Gonzalez)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 23:42:12 GMT, Mark Pitcavage <spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 18:07:14 -0000, "Derick N."
>>>><over...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What I don't get is how some of you guys see Common Law as being an
>>>>>*invention of men*, instead of what it truly is, a *recognition by men* of
>>>>>rights common to all, instead of the few, as in a feudal state. You talk
>>>>>about the Common Law as though englishmen manufactured it, when what truly
>>>>>happened is that they discovered it and were the first to recognize it.
>>>>
>>>>Of course they manufactured it. You cannot "discover" a philosophical
>>>>construct. There is no experiment you can use to accurately replicate
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>America was founded on the principle that we have rights by virtue of our
>>>existance and that these right are NOT invented.
>>>
>>>Try again
>>
>>If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist independently.
>>
>
>It would be impossible to prove to YOU that ANYTHING not govt controled
>or sanctioned exists.
Gosh, in other words, you can't.
Mark Pitcavage
On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 20:17:30 GMT, star...@rabun.net (Robert Miller)
wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 06:36:07 GMT, spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark
>Pitcavage) wrote:
>
>
>>>America was founded on the principle that we have rights by virtue of our
>>>existance and that these right are NOT invented.
>>>
>>>Try again
>>
>>If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist independently.
>>
>Where do you think you come from?
>The elements in your body were created in an unimaginable event.
>Over billions of years creating the iron in your blood. That star
>eventually goes Nova or Super Nova and those chemicals condence into
>a new Sun, our Sol. The matter in the disk of our solar system
>becomes a system of 9 planets and the evolutionary process take place.
>Over 4 billion years it may have taken on this planet alone.
>When you look up at the Universe at night you are looking at something
>that allowed for the proper conditions for you to be created, to then
>look up at the Universe.
>This Universe has become self-Cognizant.
>
>You can not say it happend randomely out of the chaos because
>that would violate known laws of thermodynamics and entropy or
>even times arrow. chaos always tends towards chaos. You don't
>have chaotic systems creating ordered systems like living organisms
>especially highly complicated organisms like people with a mind and a
>will to go to the stars.
>
>Rights come from the same place we came from. If you can't handle
>that you need to go on a walkabout and think about it.
You are completely nuts. And, let me say, that you are also
completely and grotesquely ignorant of the "known laws of
thermodynamics."
Ronald Cole
spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) writes:
> If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist independently.
It's been done so many times by so many people that I believe the onus
is on you to refute them. Bastiat says:
Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person,
his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic
requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is
completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For
what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And
what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his
person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group
of men have the right to organize and support a common force to
protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective
right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on
individual right. And the common force that protects this
collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any
other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus,
since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person,
liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -
for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the
person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
<http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~ronald/patriot/the_law.html>
Now, let's see your counterargument...
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ron...@ridgecrest.ca.us> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My PGP fingerprint: E9 A8 E3 68 61 88 EF 43 56 2B CE 3E E9 8F 3F 2B
Mark Pitcavage
On 09 Feb 1998 13:19:52 -0800, Ronald Cole
<ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
Counterargument? Where was the original argument? The person you
quote simply -asserts- that they exist (see his first sentence). He
does not prove that they exist.
Robert Miller
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 01:07:17 GMT, spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark
Pitcavage) wrote:
snip
>>This Universe has become self-Cognizant.
>>
>>You can not say it happend randomely out of the chaos because
>>that would violate known laws of thermodynamics and entropy or
>>even times arrow. chaos always tends towards chaos. You don't
>>have chaotic systems creating ordered systems like living organisms
>>especially highly complicated organisms like people with a mind and a
>>will to go to the stars.
>>
>>Rights come from the same place we came from. If you can't handle
>>that you need to go on a walkabout and think about it.
>
>You are completely nuts. And, let me say, that you are also
>completely and grotesquely ignorant of the "known laws of
>thermodynamics."
>
Tell me you are a liberal. You say I'm nuts because if I not nuts
then you must be! right?
Somebody show you a different and correct way to look at or think
about something. You can't handle it! of calling names! and other
personal attacks. Would it be unfair to you to keep this debate on a
logical level?
For example which parts of Thermodynamics do I misunderstand? You
can give me any bull because my father has Masters in applied math and
has taught the subject.
One simple question. Are you familiar with the concept of "Times
Arrow"? What does it mean?
>
>Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org
Dan Evans
In <87g1ls5...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>, Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> writes:
>
>spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) writes:
>> If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist independently.
>
>It's been done so many times by so many people that I believe the onus
>is on you to refute them. Bastiat says:
And Aristotle said that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved
around the earth. Finding a quote by some ignorant person does not
"prove" anything, except the universal existence of slipshod thinking.
Now, PROVE that "natural rights" exist independently of human laws.
Damien Falgoust
Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) writes:
>> If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist independently.
>It's been done so many times by so many people that I believe the onus
>is on you to refute them. Bastiat says:
> Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person,
> his liberty, and his property.
Why? Because Bastiat says so? This isn't an argument, it's an
assertion
> These are the three basic
> requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is
> completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For
> what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And
> what is property but an extension of our faculties?
Which really only says that the protection of said rights is a good
idea, not that they exist independently of human thought.
(snip the rest of Bastiat's argument -- since the whole premise rests
on the above points)
>Now, let's see your counterargument...
You'd need to provide an argument first...
----------------------------------------
Damien Falgoust
University of Texas School of Law -- 2L
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3578/
If replying, remove the spam filter from my e-mail address!
Ronald Cole
eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
> Finding a quote by some ignorant person does not "prove" anything,
> except the universal existence of slipshod thinking.
>
> Now, PROVE that "natural rights" exist independently of human laws.
I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.
Ronald Cole
spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) writes:
> Counterargument? Where was the original argument? The person you
> quote simply -asserts- that they exist (see his first sentence). He
> does not prove that they exist.
I don't know you. Please prove that you exist.
Robert Gonzalez
On 10 Feb 1998 18:19:26 -0800, Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
>> Finding a quote by some ignorant person does not "prove" anything,
>> except the universal existence of slipshod thinking.
>>
>> Now, PROVE that "natural rights" exist independently of human laws.
>
Self Evident, no "proof" necessary
>I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.
>
Center for Constitutional Law
Mark Pitcavage wrote in message
<6bguu8$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>On 7 Feb 98 02:47:38 GMT, go...@ux1.cyberenet.net (Robert
Gonzalez)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 23:42:12 GMT, Mark Pitcavage
<spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 18:07:14 -0000, "Derick N."
>>><over...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What I don't get is how some of you guys see Common Law as
being an
>>>>*invention of men*, instead of what it truly is, a
*recognition by men* of
>>>>rights common to all, instead of the few, as in a feudal
state. You talk
>>>>about the Common Law as though englishmen manufactured it,
when what truly
>>>>happened is that they discovered it and were the first to
recognize it.
>>>
>>>Of course they manufactured it. You cannot "discover" a
philosophical
>>>construct. There is no experiment you can use to accurately
replicate
>>>it.
>>>
>>
>>America was founded on the principle that we have rights by
virtue of our
>>existance and that these right are NOT invented.
>>
>>Try again
>
>If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist
independently.
>
Look up "Natural law" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
Center for Constitutional Law
Justin Schwartz wrote in message
<6bbh2b$4...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>...
>Steve Gartin (gar...@usa.net) wrote:
>: Why aren't the Courts governed by common law? Isn't Common
Law, Equity
>: and Admiralty the only jurisdictions mentioned in our
founding
>: documents? Where do the "statutes" and "rules" come from?
>
>Courts are governed by common law where it applies and has not
been
>abrogated or modified by statute or by a state or federal
Constitutional
>limitation. Common law is just judge-made law in Anglo-American
systems.
>Contract, Tort, and Property are mainly common law in most
states.
>
>The "founding documents" you refer to are presumably the
Constitution.
>This also empowers Congress to legislate, i.e., pass statutes,
and
>incidentally makes the statutes thus enacted supreme with
respect to state
>law. The federal courts, actually, the S.Ct, the only one
created by the
>Constitution (which allows Congress to create inferior courts
by statute)
>have origibal jurisdiction by the terms Art III over questions
of federal
>law, including Congressional enactments. So it's manifest from
the text as
>well as from the intentions of the framers (many of whom, as
members of
>Congress, participated in enmacting statutes) that statutory
law is just fine.
>
(snip)
"Just fine" ????? Well of course in it's proper context, but
not in the context of it's applicability to American Citizens of
the several states of the Union, which are not a part of
Congresses legislative territory, whether such legislation is
administratve or not. If the legislative authority of Congress
extended to "we the people", the the American Revolution was no
more than a transfer of SUBJECTS (slaves) from the King of
England to Congress.
Center for Constitutional Law
Robert Gonzalez wrote in message
<34e14...@news.cyberenet.net>...
>On 10 Feb 1998 18:19:26 -0800, Ronald Cole
<ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>>eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
>>> Finding a quote by some ignorant person does not "prove"
anything,
>>> except the universal existence of slipshod thinking.
>>>
>>> Now, PROVE that "natural rights" exist independently of
human laws.
>>
>
>Self Evident, no "proof" necessary
>
Robert,
As to the denial of the existence, force and effect of Natural
Law, I have to believe that Dan Evans is playing devil's
advocate and just toying with you. Dan is a member of the Bar.
Go to his WEB site and read his credentials and even some of his
writtings. If he truly believes that which he writes on these
NGs, one may draw one or more of several conclusions:
1. His credentials are false.
2. He cheated his way through law school and on the Bar Exam.
3. His retention of facts is damaged.
4. He is a clone or other such creation of the state and truly
has no Natural Rights.
5. He is just plain dishonest.
I can say this because any lawyer knows that Natural Law is the
Supreme foundation of all law, with which all law must be in
compatibility. That is one of the very first lessons (facts)
encountered in the formal study of law in American schools. Any
practicing attorney who denies that is either a liar or simply
incompetent.
As for common law, it is not the "creation" of any body or
entity. It is a compilation of procedures and precedents based
upon it's "common" applicability to all. What differentiates
the common law from statutory law, and why the founding fathers
instituted common law as the only Judicial jurisdiction (Article
3, S2, C1 "law and equity") applicable to the people, is the
common laws compatibility with Natural Law, which in turn
Supremely secures the rights of the people in the Laws of
Nature, which are immutable, and thus are SECURED, except by the
revisions of ONLY God himself. The supremacy clause is the SEAL
on such SECURITY.
The "criminal" principles of law in the common law are
compatible with Natural Law in that a crime requires a living
victim (as opposed to an inanimate statute), damage and or
injury occurring to that victim or his property, and finally, a
complaint on behalf and in concurrence by/of/with that victim
(mens rea, corpus delicti, and habeas corpus). Such a crime is
an offense of Law, whereas most statutes (except those regarding
the public safety), which creates a victimless crime, has no
offensibility but can only be "violated"; For a statute cannot
complain, nor suffer damage or injury, therefore the violation
of a statute is not an offense of Law. Thus, the addage, "Where
there is no victim, there is no crime".
Now in the case of clones, or other test-tube or state create
persons, they are bound by their creator, the state, and then
relative to them every word that Dan Evans has ever written is
true. However, for the Natural born person whose life is a
direct creation and decendency of the Almighty Creator God,
Natural Rights are Supreme and unalienable.
Wayne Foote
Center for Constitutional Law wrote:(snip)
> (snip)
>
> "Just fine" ????? Well of course in it's proper context, but
> not in the context of it's applicability to American Citizens of
> the several states of the Union, which are not a part of
> Congresses legislative territory, whether such legislation is
> administratve or not. If the legislative authority of Congress
> extended to "we the people", the the American Revolution was no
> more than a transfer of SUBJECTS (slaves) from the King of
> England to Congress.
You misunderstand the basic function of the constitution. The
constitutionis the mechanism by which "We the People" constituted a
federal government.
"We the People" delegated powers to the United States by the
constitution.
That is crystal clear from the Bill of Rights (10th amend. - "The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.")
It was not a transfer of subjects, but a transfer of power from one
sovereign
(the King and parliament) to another (the United States government.)
Powers delegated to the legislature (Congress) are listed in art. I,
Sec. 8.
They include the power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United
States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof." This is pretty broad. Also,
this "legislative territory" argument is pretty well under cut by the
constitution's
repeated references to uniformity of laws throughout the states.
--
Wayne Foote
This isn't a legal opinion upon which to rely. For that, hire an
attorney.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." M.L. King, Jr.
Andrew Lazarus
On 11 Feb 1998 11:28:00 -0700, "Center for Constitutional Law"
<tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
>As for common law, it is not the "creation" of any body or
>entity. It is a compilation of procedures and precedents based
>upon it's "common" applicability to all.
This is completely false. Someone used the word "common law" and the
fringe-iest fringe of the Patriot movement goes off into some mystical
swoon.
True or false: There is no "common law" in France.
In any event, many of the principles of our common law are amazingly
arbitrary, and have applicability only through force of custom.
> What differentiates
>the common law from statutory law, and why the founding fathers
>instituted common law as the only Judicial jurisdiction (Article
>3, S2, C1 "law and equity") applicable to the people, is the
>common laws compatibility with Natural Law, which in turn
>Supremely secures the rights of the people in the Laws of
>Nature, which are immutable, and thus are SECURED, except by the
>revisions of ONLY God himself. The supremacy clause is the SEAL
>on such SECURITY.
This is completely false. Equity is distinct from common law, so your
claim is internally incoherent. The modification of common law by
statute dates back to at least the 13th Century. Just because you
don't LIKE statutes doesn't mean they neither exist nor control.
And note the same Constitution provides for Congress to pass statutes,
and after the ratification of the Constitution, they PASSED lots of
statutes. From the very beginning. So your fantasy collides with
history, and loses badly.
>The "criminal" principles of law in the common law are
>compatible with Natural Law in that a crime requires a living
>victim (as opposed to an inanimate statute), damage and or
>injury occurring to that victim or his property, and finally, a
>complaint on behalf and in concurrence by/of/with that victim
>(mens rea, corpus delicti, and habeas corpus).
So murder isn't a crime! No living victim! Deifinitely no living
concurring victim, either! A truly novel argument for your confrere Mr
McVeigh! And destroying an inanimate statue isn't a crime either. Very
strange! And then you sprinkle this bullshit with some Latin,
including "habeas corpus", which doesn't make a shred of sense in this
context, but which you vaguely recall has something to do with
criminals.
>Thus, the addage, "Where
>there is no victim, there is no crime".
You made this adage up.Can you explain the illegality of heresy,
blasphemy, fornication, and adultery way-back in medieval times, when
the common law was being created? In fact, you made all your statement
about common law up, and you weren't particularly intelligent or
consistent when you did so.
Center for Constitutional Law
Andrew Lazarus wrote in message
<34e22e38...@news.dnai.com>...
>>As for common law, it is not the "creation" of any body or
>>entity. It is a compilation of procedures and precedents
based
>>upon it's "common" applicability to all.
>
ANDY:
>This is completely false. Someone used the word "common law"
and the
>fringe-iest fringe of the Patriot movement goes off into some
mystical
>swoon.
>
>True or false: There is no "common law" in France.
>
France ???
ANDY:
>In any event, many of the principles of our common law are
amazingly
>arbitrary, and have applicability only through force of custom.
>
Please explain "arbitrary" and who is "amazed" ? What is "force
of custom" ?
CENTER:
>> What differentiates
>>the common law from statutory law, and why the founding
fathers
>>instituted common law as the only Judicial jurisdiction
(Article
>>3, S2, C1 "law and equity") applicable to the people, is the
>>common laws compatibility with Natural Law, which in turn
>>Supremely secures the rights of the people in the Laws of
>>Nature, which are immutable, and thus are SECURED, except by
the
>>revisions of ONLY God himself. The supremacy clause is the
SEAL
>>on such SECURITY.
>
ANDY:
>This is completely false. Equity is distinct from common law,
so your
>claim is internally incoherent. The modification of common law
by
>statute dates back to at least the 13th Century. Just because
you
>don't LIKE statutes doesn't mean they neither exist nor
control.
>
The phrase "law and equity" is merely a quote from the Clause.
No one is discussing equity at the moment except you. Statutory
modification of the common law, as you note, still does not
alter the lawful principles of the common law. What are you
attempting to convey ?
ANDY:
>And note the same Constitution provides for Congress to pass
statutes,
>and after the ratification of the Constitution, they PASSED
lots of
>statutes. From the very beginning. So your fantasy collides
with
>history, and loses badly.
>
Again, you are vague, what is your point ? Of course it did,
Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.17., over the legislative territory of
Washington D.C. and a 10 mile radius thereof. What's your point
?
CENTER:
>>The "criminal" principles of law in the common law are
>>compatible with Natural Law in that a crime requires a living
>>victim (as opposed to an inanimate statute), damage and or
>>injury occurring to that victim or his property, and finally,
a
>>complaint on behalf and in concurrence by/of/with that victim
>>(mens rea, corpus delicti, and habeas corpus).
>
ANDY:
>So murder isn't a crime! No living victim! Deifinitely no
living
>concurring victim, either! A truly novel argument for your
confrere Mr
>McVeigh!
Do/can you read ? "a complaint on behalf..."
ANDY:
>And destroying an inanimate statue isn't a crime either. Very
>strange!
Do/can you read ? "damage and or injury occurring to that
victim or his property..."
ANDY:
>And then you sprinkle this bullshit with some Latin,
>including "habeas corpus", which doesn't make a shred of sense
in this
>context, but which you vaguely recall has something to do with
>criminals.
>
>>Thus, the addage, "Where
>>there is no victim, there is no crime".
>
LOL !!! That is a pitful statement. You stand nakedly stupid
before the world. Even your club fed lawyers and law students
are laughing at this one. Look up the legal definition of
crime. It will reference those "bullshit Latin sprinkles". Look
them up Lazarus, and rise from the mental grave if ignorance you
so proudly write from.
>You made this adage up.Can you explain the illegality of
heresy,
>blasphemy, fornication, and adultery way-back in medieval
times, when
>the common law was being created? In fact, you made all your
statement
>about common law up, and you weren't particularly intelligent
or
>consistent when you did so.
>
Dumb. Theres nothing else to say. Plain old dumb. You need to
do some more research and less guessing before you puke out your
dumb baseless opinions and guesses.
Damien Falgoust
"Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
(snip)
>I can say this because any lawyer knows that Natural Law is the
>Supreme foundation of all law, with which all law must be in
>compatibility. That is one of the very first lessons (facts)
>encountered in the formal study of law in American schools. Any
>practicing attorney who denies that is either a liar or simply
>incompetent.
(snip)
Which demonstrates how little you know about the formal study of law.
Natural law is most certainly NOT taught as fact, and indeed is rarely
brought up except to criticize it as a slipshod method of legal
reasoning. Why? Because literally *anything* can be proven by simply
saying "it is just" or "it is moral" or "it is inalienable."
And how am I qualified to speak on what is taught in the formal study
of law at American law schools? Check my sig....
Damien Falgoust
go...@ux1.cyberenet.net (Robert Gonzalez) wrote:
>>> Now, PROVE that "natural rights" exist independently of human laws.
>Self Evident, no "proof" necessary
Which is just your assertion. There's no reason for other people to
believe you; you can't "prove" that you are right or wrong.
Of course, the flatness of the earth was once thought to be
self-evident as well -- no "proof" necessary....
Center for Constitutional Law
Wayne Foote wrote in message <34E1F82C...@mint.net>...
>
>
>Center for Constitutional Law wrote:(snip)
>
>> (snip)
>>
>> "Just fine" ????? Well of course in it's proper context, but
>> not in the context of it's applicability to American Citizens
of
>> the several states of the Union, which are not a part of
>> Congresses legislative territory, whether such legislation is
>> administratve or not. If the legislative authority of
Congress
>> extended to "we the people", the the American Revolution was
no
>> more than a transfer of SUBJECTS (slaves) from the King of
>> England to Congress.
>
>You misunderstand the basic function of the constitution. The
>constitutionis the mechanism by which "We the People"
constituted a
>federal government.
>"We the People" delegated powers to the United States by the
>constitution.
Basic Function of the Constitution. That should be FUNCTIONS
should it not ? An initial one time function of the
Constitution was the establishment of the United States
Government, which did not exist prior to ratification, when only
the American form of Republican government existed. (BTW, in
understanding this fact, one may also see and understand the
fact of the plural nature of the name United States: While the
"united States" did exist before the Constitution's
ratification, the "united States" did not.)
That was a one time "basic function" which took place, and is
history. There is still the on going functions which the
Constitution created and delegated to the United States
government. It's functions to protect and serve it's masters,
We the People, are set out in Article one, not as powers, but as
limitations on it's power.
The Constitution is a limitation on the powers of government.
Look up the word limitation. That means that the Constitution's
basic function was to set up and control a servant and
protectorant of the united States and We the People thereof. It
did not set up the United States government as an overseer,
ruler, or commander, but rather as a mere servant.
>That is crystal clear from the Bill of Rights (10th amend. -
"The powers
>not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited
>by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the
>people.")
The Bill of Righs is the Bill of Rights of the people, not of
the government.
>It was not a transfer of subjects, but a transfer of power from
one
>sovereign
>(the King and parliament) to another (the United States
government.)
>
You can be no wronger than your laast sentence. Here's another
armchair scholar like Lazarus, with his Wayne Foote in his
mouth.
What there was, was a TRANSFORMATION of power, from the power to
force the will of the government upon the people, to the power
of the people to force it's will upon the government. Read that
again Wayne. Let it sink in.
There is a huge difference there. Furthermore, if there was a
transfer of power at all, it most certainly was not as you say
it was. (Do you truthfully believe what you wrote ?) The
transfer of power which occurred as a result of the American
Revolution was from the King to "We the People", not to (the
United States government.) as you seem to want to have us
believe.
Wayne, did not you realize when you wrote this stuff that (the
United States government.) did not (at the birth of America)
even exist until AFTER the Constitution was ratified. So how
could there be a transfer of power from the King to the non
existant U.S. government. I'm sorry man, but you shouldn't even
be in this conversation.
>Powers delegated to the legislature (Congress) are listed in
art. I,
>Sec. 8.
>They include the power "To make all laws which shall be
necessary and
>proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and
all other
>Powers vested by this constitution in the government of the
United
>States,
>or in any Department or Officer thereof." This is pretty
broad. Also,
>this "legislative territory" argument is pretty well under cut
by the
>constitution's
>repeated references to uniformity of laws throughout the
states.
>
Legislative territory is not an "argument" as you say. It is a
fact of Constitutional origin. And whereas the Constitution
stands, by it's Supremacy Clause as the "supreme Law of the
land", no part of it may be "under cut", especially by some self
contradictory references as you infer.
Your paperback knowledge of the Constitution and your dime store
understanding of it's "basic function" was a waste of valuable
time. Please do some reading, comprehending, and logical
analysis before responding to that which you are not prepared
for..
But, PLEASE don't waste my time with any more of that
couch-potatoe history and logic. It is wasted on all but very
very stupid, who may WANT to believe that junk, because they are
too stupid to rule their own lives, and may NEED a master to
guide them.
Jol Silversmith
In article <6bu4rc$h...@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Center for Constitutional
Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
[...]
> ANDY:
> >And note the same Constitution provides for Congress to pass statutes,
> >and after the ratification of the Constitution, they PASSED lots of
> >statutes. From the very beginning. So your fantasy collides with
> >history, and loses badly.
>
> Again, you are vague, what is your point ? Of course it did,
> Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.17., over the legislative territory of
> Washington D.C. and a 10 mile radius thereof. What's your point
> ?
Once again, it's the lie that clause 17 is a limitation on the the powers
of the federal government. Repeating lies does not make them become true.
The clause is one of eighteen granting powers of the Congress, and does
not restrict the other clauses granting powers to Congress. Courts have
repeatedly dismissed this claim as absurd:
Defendant's first motion is styled "motion to dismiss for lack of
exclusive legislative jurisdiction." . . . Defendants argue that Clause
17 limits the legislative power of Congress such that the only
geographical areas over which Congress may legislate, or may exercise
its power of taxation, are those areas described in Clause 17. This
position is contrary to both the natural reading of the Constitution and
the case law. Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power
of the states. "[T]he word 'exclusive' was employed to eliminate any
possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of
Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states." . . .
Similarly, it is clear that the power of the Congress to collect taxes,
created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, [FN2] is
an independent power which is not limited by the other specific powers
enumerated in Section 8. . . . It is thus readily apparent that
Congress' power to tax extends beyond the exclusive legislative
districts contemplated by Clause 17. Defendants' motion to dismiss
based on Clause 17 is denied.
United States v. Sato, 704 F.Supp. 816, 818 (N.D. Ill. 1989).
--
Jol A. Silversmith __________________________ silv...@law.harvard.edu
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/index.html _______ jasi...@ix.netcom.com
Opinions are my own, and should not be construed as legal advice, etc.
Andrew Lazarus
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:01:25 GMT, star...@rabun.net (Robert Miller)
wrote:
> You
>can give me any bull because my father has Masters in applied math and
>has taught the subject.
He must be terribly disappointed.
>One simple question. Are you familiar with the concept of "Times
>Arrow"? What does it mean?
Do you remember the "Pierce Arrow"? What does it mean?
Andrew Lazarus
On 11 Feb 1998 23:29:00 -0700, "Center for Constitutional Law"
<tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>True or false: There is no "common law" in France.
>France ???
A simple yes-or-no question, and you are stumped. Perhaps you are not
such an awesome Constitutional and Common Law expert after all.
>ANDY:
>>In any event, many of the principles of our common law are
>amazingly
>>arbitrary, and have applicability only through force of custom.
>Please explain "arbitrary" and who is "amazed" ? What is "force
>of custom" ?
By "force of custom", I meant that the common law was a codification
of traditional practice, and that some of these practices were adhered
to more as a tradition than because they were "natural" or "obvious".
Do you think that primogeniture is obvious? How about the status of
women under the law in medieval times?
>The phrase "law and equity" is merely a quote from the Clause.
>No one is discussing equity at the moment except you. Statutory
>modification of the common law, as you note, still does not
>alter the lawful principles of the common law. What are you
>attempting to convey ?
Center, if one of the lawful principles of the common law is
overturned by statute, it's over. What are YOU attempting to convey?
>ANDY:
>>And note the same Constitution provides for Congress to pass
>statutes,
>>and after the ratification of the Constitution, they PASSED
>lots of
>>statutes. From the very beginning. So your fantasy collides
>with
>>history, and loses badly.
>Again, you are vague, what is your point ? Of course it did,
>Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.17., over the legislative territory of
>Washington D.C. and a 10 mile radius thereof. What's your point
B.S. Does the law against counterfeiting hold only in Washington,
D.C.? If not, then we have an example of a statute that doesn't fit
your (bogus) rules.
Also, you haven't made any argument on jurisdiction before. If the
common law is so supreme, why could it be violated or changed by
statute even in Washington?
Your thinking is a confused meddle, which you wish to keep because (1)
you don't like taxes and (2) you show strong evidence of clinical
paranoia, which is of course a self-reinforcing disease.
>CENTER:
>>>The "criminal" principles of law in the common law are
>>>compatible with Natural Law in that a crime requires a living
>>>victim (as opposed to an inanimate statute), damage and or
>>>injury occurring to that victim or his property, and finally,
>a
>>>complaint on behalf and in concurrence by/of/with that victim
>>>(mens rea, corpus delicti, and habeas corpus).
>ANDY:
>>So murder isn't a crime! No living victim! Deifinitely no
>living
>>concurring victim, either! A truly novel argument for your
>confrere Mr
>>McVeigh!
I did you the credit of reading what you actually wrote, and not what
I admit I thought you meant. Your sentence refers to a LIVING victim,
and to damage and/or injury occurring to THAT victim. So in your
sentence, according to the rules of English, the victim must be alive.
>... Look up the legal definition of
>crime. It will reference those "bullshit Latin sprinkles". Look
>them up Lazarus, and rise from the mental grave if ignorance you
>so proudly write from.
Mens rae and corpus delicti are pertinent but I'm waiting for you to
connect "habeas corpus" to the *definition* of a crime.
>>>Thus, the addage, "Where
>>>there is no victim, there is no crime".
>>You made this adage up.Can you explain the illegality of
>heresy,
>>blasphemy, fornication, and adultery way-back in medieval
>times, when
>>the common law was being created? In fact, you made all your
>statement
>>about common law up, and you weren't particularly intelligent
>or
>>consistent when you did so.
>Dumb. Theres nothing else to say. Plain old dumb. You need to
>do some more research and less guessing before you puke out your
>dumb baseless opinions and guesses.
Your adage, to help you out, is probably based on a conflation of
'crime' and 'tort'. You still give no source.
You had nothing to say on heresy, blasphemy, fornication, and adultery
as crimes for hundreds of years.
You know nothing about habeas corpus. You could refute my claim with
one verifiable quotation, and you don't.
Who is baseless opinions and guesses? You're ***bluffing***, and all
Usenet can see it.
Wayne Foote
Center for Constitutional Law wrote:
> Wayne Foote wrote in message <34E1F82C...@mint.net>...
> >
> >
> >Center for Constitutional Law wrote:(snip)
> >
> (snip)
> >> extended to "we the people", the the American Revolution was
> no
> >> more than a transfer of SUBJECTS (slaves) from the King of
> >> England to Congress.
> >
> >You misunderstand the basic function of the constitution. The
> >constitutionis the mechanism by which "We the People"
> constituted a
> >federal government.
> (snip)
>
> Basic Function of the Constitution. That should be FUNCTIONS
> should it not ? An initial one time function of the
> Constitution was the establishment of the United States
> Government, which did not exist prior to ratification, when only
> the American form of Republican government existed.
What is this, a grammar lesson. The BASIC function was the
constitution of a government. That is the time frame for your
imaginary adoption of the common law. Keep your timing
straight with the issues at hand.
> That was a one time "basic function" which took place, and is
> history. There is still the on going functions which the
> Constitution created and delegated to the United States
> government. It's functions to protect and serve it's masters,
> We the People, are set out in Article one, not as powers, but as
> limitations on it's power.
I agree that the federal government is a government of limited power.
The powers it has were delegated by the people to the fed.
> The Constitution is a limitation on the powers of government.
> Look up the word limitation. That means that the Constitution's
> basic function was to set up and control a servant and
> protectorant of the united States and We the People thereof. It
> did not set up the United States government as an overseer,
> ruler, or commander, but rather as a mere servant.
Almost right. Tthe constitution constituted a government of limited
powers. It continues to delineate the ambit of those powers. In
the areas where the powers have been dilegated, the government is
superior in power.
>
>
> >That is crystal clear from the Bill of Rights (10th amend. -
> "The powers
> >not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited
> >by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
> or to the
> >people.")
>
> The Bill of Righs is the Bill of Rights of the people, not of
> the government.
Evidently your logical powers are somewhat limited. If the
BofRstates that there was a delegation of powers, it would be safe to
assume there was a delegation. Do I need to make it clearer?
> >It was not a transfer of subjects, but a transfer of power from
> one
> >sovereign
> >(the King and parliament) to another (the United States
> government.)
> >
>
> What there was, was a TRANSFORMATION of power, from the power to
> force the will of the government upon the people, to the power
> of the people to force it's will upon the government. Read that
> again Wayne. Let it sink in.
Funny, the constitution says there was a delegation.
Which do we believe, you or the constitution?
> (snip) The
> transfer of power which occurred as a result of the American
> Revolution was from the King to "We the People", not to (the
> United States government.) as you seem to want to have us
> believe.
>
> Wayne, did not you realize when you wrote this stuff that (the
> United States government.) did not (at the birth of America)
> even exist until AFTER the Constitution was ratified. So how
> could there be a transfer of power from the King to the non
> existant U.S. government.
You are the one who established the transfer dating here with your
comment about the transfer of subjects(slaves). While the process
of transferring powers took a few years, (from 1776 to the final
ratification of the constitution) it occurred. Even during the interim,
many powers were delegated by the people to the state governments.
Read your state constitution. Those constitutions were a model for
the federal constitution, particularly the Massachusetts constitution.
> >this "legislative territory" argument is pretty well under cut
> by the
> >constitution's
> >repeated references to uniformity of laws throughout the
> states.
> >
>
> Legislative territory is not an "argument" as you say. It is a
> fact of Constitutional origin. And whereas the Constitution
> stands, by it's Supremacy Clause as the "supreme Law of the
> land", no part of it may be "under cut", especially by some self
> contradictory references as you infer.
Now there is a statement lacking in logic or a point.
> Your paperback knowledge of the Constitution and your dime store
> understanding of it's "basic function" was a waste of valuable
> time. Please do some reading, comprehending, and logical
> analysis before responding to that which you are not prepared
> for..
Actually, my constitution studies started in earnest as a history major,
continued throughout law school and for more than a decade of
practicing law.
You appear to be one of those slick, semi-educated demagogues who
tries to pass himself off as more important by pretending to be some
sort
of educational institution. Your constitutional analysis is wishful
thinking
foisted off on people who want to believe that they can ignore history
and
the law of the land. It is clowns like you who lead poor unsuspecting
people
into running afoul of the tax and motor vehicle laws with the result
that they
(not you) go to jail. I have defended people who have been duped by the
garbage you are spouting here. In some cases the constitution saves
them, but not by any means you propose.
I've also seen the poor folks trying to defend themselves with your
"admiralty
jurisdiction" and "common law" bullshit. You do them a great
disservice.
Hey, folks, if you want to go to jail, follow the advice of the Center
for
Constitutional Law.
Ronald Cole
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
> Which demonstrates how little you know about the formal study of law.
> Natural law is most certainly NOT taught as fact, and indeed is rarely
> brought up except to criticize it as a slipshod method of legal
> reasoning. Why? Because literally *anything* can be proven by simply
> saying "it is just" or "it is moral" or "it is inalienable."
It's that kind of (fallacious) socialist reasoning that Bastiat argues
perverts the proper purpose of law.
> And how am I qualified to speak on what is taught in the formal study
> of law at American law schools? Check my sig....
So, if Bastiat is so terribly wrong, then why don't *you* tell us what
the proper purpose of law is...
Damien Falgoust
Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
>> Which demonstrates how little you know about the formal study of law.
>> Natural law is most certainly NOT taught as fact, and indeed is rarely
>> brought up except to criticize it as a slipshod method of legal
>> reasoning. Why? Because literally *anything* can be proven by simply
>> saying "it is just" or "it is moral" or "it is inalienable."
>It's that kind of (fallacious) socialist reasoning that Bastiat argues
>perverts the proper purpose of law.
Oh really? How do you *prove* something is moral? You can't. It's
impossible. All you can do is *assert* something is moral, or quote
someone else who *asserts* it is moral. And assertions are not proof!
>> And how am I qualified to speak on what is taught in the formal study
>> of law at American law schools? Check my sig....
>So, if Bastiat is so terribly wrong, then why don't *you* tell us what
>the proper purpose of law is...
First of all, I was just responding to your assertion that natural law
is taught "as fact" in formal legal study. Seeing as I'm in the
middle of the formal study of law at one of the nation's better law
schools, I can say with great confidence that this is *not* taught,
and that therefore your statement was flatly wrong.
As to your question: The purpose of the law is amorphous. It is a
tool to shape the kind of society we live in. The thing is, there's
no "right" or "wrong" answer to what the law is, or should be --
there's only "better" or "worse," and which label attaches to any
given law or set of laws hinges an awful lot on the individual's
background, beliefs, and personal outlook.
In other words, law is entirely a creation of man, a creation that
serves the end of trying to make the world a better place to live. Of
course, different people have radically different ideas of what a
"better place" means. So we debate and try to convince each other
that our way is right and the other guy's way is wrong. And as
creature of man's creation, the law isn't pegged to any independent
notions of morality -- rather, it's pegged to a bunch of individual's
notions of morality. Which is why the appeal to morality is such an
empty one: it's more effective to explain *why* people find a given
thing good or bad, than to just say "it's moral/immoral" as though
that ends the discussion.
Center for Constitutional Law
Damien Falgoust wrote in message
<6btpba$9pg$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>"Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>>I can say this because any lawyer knows that Natural Law is
the
>>Supreme foundation of all law, with which all law must be in
>>compatibility. That is one of the very first lessons (facts)
>>encountered in the formal study of law in American schools.
Any
>>practicing attorney who denies that is either a liar or simply
>>incompetent.
>(snip)
>
>Which demonstrates how little you know about the formal study
of law.
>Natural law is most certainly NOT taught as fact, and indeed is
rarely
>brought up except to criticize it as a slipshod method of legal
>reasoning. Why? Because literally *anything* can be proven by
simply
>saying "it is just" or "it is moral" or "it is inalienable."
What about the science of Physics. Even some who pass through
the schools of law, exit out the other side with less than a
complete understanding that which they have been exposed to. It
is difficult to teach those uninitiated the underlying
foundation of all Law, for they lack the basic wisdom required
to assimilate the arcane purities of Natural Law. In other
words, like most clones who grow up without the benefit of
experience's life-wisdom (common sense), they must go strictly
by the book. Problem is, if it's not in the book they can't
perceive it. Your statement, aside from being inaccurate is
also typical.
>
>And how am I qualified to speak on what is taught in the formal
study
>of law at American law schools? Check my sig....
>----------------------------------------
>Damien Falgoust
>University of Texas School of Law -- 2L
So what are you, the janitor ?
Center for Constitutional Law
Wayne Foote wrote in message <34E37A90...@mint.net>...
OH OH ! Looks like I step on that crown jewel, the famous
"lawyer's ego". I don't care what experience and or school you
went to Wayne Foote in the mouth. You still don't know jack
about what you're attempting to discuss here. Your reply
contained no factual refutations, only the ranting of one who is
embarassed by the exposure of his professional inadequacies.
I do believe it was you who said, "It was not a transfer of
subjects, but a transfer of power from one sovereign (the King
and parliament) to another (the United States government.).
Not too bright for a lawyer.
Ronald Cole
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
> As to your question: The purpose of the law is amorphous. It is a
> tool to shape the kind of society we live in. The thing is, there's
> no "right" or "wrong" answer to what the law is, or should be --
> there's only "better" or "worse," and which label attaches to any
> given law or set of laws hinges an awful lot on the individual's
> background, beliefs, and personal outlook.
>
> In other words, law is entirely a creation of man, a creation that
> serves the end of trying to make the world a better place to live. Of
> course, different people have radically different ideas of what a
> "better place" means. So we debate and try to convince each other
> that our way is right and the other guy's way is wrong. And as
> creature of man's creation, the law isn't pegged to any independent
> notions of morality -- rather, it's pegged to a bunch of individual's
> notions of morality. Which is why the appeal to morality is such an
> empty one: it's more effective to explain *why* people find a given
> thing good or bad, than to just say "it's moral/immoral" as though
> that ends the discussion.
You're a Socialist with no moral compass because you argue from a
faulty premise ("law is entirely a creation of man ... that serves the
end of trying to make the world a better place to live"). Here, let
me just quote a little Bastiat for you (since you clearly haven't
bothered to read it when I cited it):
"A Confusion of Terms
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the
distinction between government and society. As a result of this,
every time we object to a thing being done by government, the
socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
"We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are
opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the
socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a
state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against
equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to
accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the
state to raise grain.
"The Influence of Socialist Writers
"How did politicians ever come to believe this weird idea that the law
could be made to produce what it does not contain - the wealth,
science, and religion that, in a positive sense, constitute
prosperity? Is it due to the influence of our modern writers on public
affairs?
"Present-day writers - especially those of the socialist school of
thought - base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They
divide mankind into two parts. People in general - with the exception
of the writer himself - form the first group. The writer, all alone,
forms the second and most important group. Surely this is the weirdest
and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!
"In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing that
people have within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation
to action. The writers assume that people are inert matter, passive
particles, motionless atoms, at best a kind of vegetation indifferent
to its own manner of existence. They assume that people are
susceptible to being shaped - by the will and hand of another person -
into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic,
and perfected.
"Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs hesitates
to imagine that he himself - under the title of organizer, discoverer,
legislator, or founder - is this will and hand, this universal
motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold
these scattered materials - persons - into a society.
"These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the
gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the
trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms,
just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into
groups, series, centers, sub- centers, honeycombs, laborcorps, and
other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks,
saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer
need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For
this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and
school laws.
"The Socialists Wish to Play God
"Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social
combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have
any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand
that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The
popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist
leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent
Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try
his experiments upon.
"In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the
full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals - the farmer
wastes some seeds and land - to try out an idea.
"But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees,
between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his
elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the
socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and
mankind!
"It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon
society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This
idea - the fruit of classical education - has taken possession of all
the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these
intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the
legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay
and the potter.
"Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of
action in the heart of man - and a principle of discernment in man's
intellect - they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal
gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two
gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the
legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they
would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of
knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.
"The Socialists Despise Mankind
"According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has
bestowed upon certain men - governors and legislators - the exact
opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the
sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the
legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness,
the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn
toward vice, the legislators are attracted towards virtue. Since they
have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand
the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for
those of the human race.
"Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you
will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea - the
child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them,
you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter,
receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power
of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends
toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by
the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought
everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power
called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that
designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and
authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind."
And to think that you paid good money to have your head filled with
the ancient crap spewed by Saint-Just, Robespierre, Billaud-Varennes,
Le Pelletier, Rousseau, Napoleon, Raynal, Mably, Condillac, and
Fenelon...
Bastiat said it best:
"Life, faculties, production - in other words, individuality, liberty,
property - this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful
political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human
legislation, and are superior to it.
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made
laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and
property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first
place.
"... nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the
organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the
substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common
force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and
lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to
maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us
all."
Lyle Rooff
Robert Miller <star...@rabun.net> wrote in article
<34dfbf9...@news1.alterdial.uu.net>...
You
| can give me any bull because my father has Masters in applied math and
| has taught the subject.
|
Are we to understand that a Masters Degree is a genetically inheritable
trait? If not,how does his education affect your ability to discuss the
topic at hand?
Damien Falgoust
"Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Which demonstrates how little you know about the formal study
>of law.
>>Natural law is most certainly NOT taught as fact, and indeed is
>rarely
>>brought up except to criticize it as a slipshod method of legal
>>reasoning. Why? Because literally *anything* can be proven by
>simply
>>saying "it is just" or "it is moral" or "it is inalienable."
>What about the science of Physics. Even some who pass through
>the schools of law, exit out the other side with less than a
>complete understanding that which they have been exposed to.
What about physics? You made the following claim in reference to
natural law: "That is one of the very first lessons (facts)
encountered in the formal study of law in American schools." I
pointed out that this was a false statement; far from it, natural law
is NOT taught as fact, nor is it a particularly large part of formal
legal study (indeed, most professors only trot it out to criticize
it).
Bottom line: you made a false statement, and now you're trying to
weasel out of it.
> It
>is difficult to teach those uninitiated the underlying
>foundation of all Law, for they lack the basic wisdom required
>to assimilate the arcane purities of Natural Law. In other
>words, like most clones who grow up without the benefit of
>experience's life-wisdom (common sense), they must go strictly
>by the book. Problem is, if it's not in the book they can't
>perceive it. Your statement, aside from being inaccurate is
>also typical.
What statement? That natural law isn't a part of the formal study of
law -- that it isn't the first thing taught when you walk in the door?
That statement was demostrably true. Ask any law student. And quit
trying to squirm out of your falsehood.
As to natural law: it's a lousy argument when one appeals to morality
because morality can be used to support virtually any position.
Something is moral or immoral only because somebody *asserts* it's
moral or immoral. And assertions aren't proof.
>>----------------------------------------
>>Damien Falgoust
>>University of Texas School of Law -- 2L
>So what are you, the janitor ?
Smart ass. I'm a second year law student, as if that wasn't
abundantly obvious.
----------------------------------------
Damien Falgoust
University of Texas School of Law -- 2L
Damien Falgoust
Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
>> As to your question: The purpose of the law is amorphous. It is a
>> tool to shape the kind of society we live in. The thing is, there's
>> no "right" or "wrong" answer to what the law is, or should be --
>> there's only "better" or "worse," and which label attaches to any
>> given law or set of laws hinges an awful lot on the individual's
>> background, beliefs, and personal outlook.
>>
>> In other words, law is entirely a creation of man, a creation that
>> serves the end of trying to make the world a better place to live. Of
>> course, different people have radically different ideas of what a
>> "better place" means. So we debate and try to convince each other
>> that our way is right and the other guy's way is wrong. And as
>> creature of man's creation, the law isn't pegged to any independent
>> notions of morality -- rather, it's pegged to a bunch of individual's
>> notions of morality. Which is why the appeal to morality is such an
>> empty one: it's more effective to explain *why* people find a given
>> thing good or bad, than to just say "it's moral/immoral" as though
>> that ends the discussion.
>You're a Socialist with no moral compass because you argue from a
>faulty premise ("law is entirely a creation of man ... that serves the
>end of trying to make the world a better place to live"). Here, let
>me just quote a little Bastiat for you (since you clearly haven't
>bothered to read it when I cited it):
(snip Bastiat)
Gee, my friends -- especially those left of center -- would be very
interested in knowing that I'm a "Socialist with no moral compass."
In the past week alone I've had discussions with them where I argued
*against* government-sponsered affirmative action programs in higher
education and *against* minimum wage laws. Heck, if you do a Dejanews
search on my name you'll find that I'm quite opposed to big
government.
Neither do you address my essential point. True, I stated that law is
a creation of man, with a goal of making the world a better place.
However, you snipped my crucial followup: "Of course, different people
have radically different ideas of what a "better place" means." Which
is true. My point is that appeals to morality are ultimately empty;
in the end, it is mankind who decides what law is best for him. If
that means that most people like a big government, there's nothing
immmoral about that. There may be policy reasons why a large
government is a bad thing -- that is, there may be bad effects of a
large government -- but the size of the government isn't "immoral" in
sense independent of human thought.
The only reason something is "immoral" is because humans have decided
for one reason or another that it is immoral. Not because of any
"morality" that exists independent of human philosophical thought.
And that's why the appeal to morality is the emptiest argument around
-- it cannot be proven, and can be used to support any given position.
Patrick Henry
Why would one need to prove the existence of something that exists AS A MATTER OF LAW? Those of us
who live here in one of the several United States have had this question settled for us by law.
The foundation upon which this country and all of its laws rests is the Unanimous Declaration of the
thirteen united States of America. This "declaration" relied upon international law for its
authority and validity, and international law in turn is builded upon the principles of natural law.
The founders DECLARED in that document that ALL Rights come from our Creator. And that they are
unalienable--not subject to being taken away by that which we in turn created--government. They then
proceeded to build an entire legal and political system based upon that premise, and the premise--by
those actions--became a FACT of LAW in this country.
Dan Evans wrote:
> In <87g1ls5...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>, Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> writes:
> >
> >spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) writes:
> >> If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist independently.
> >
> >It's been done so many times by so many people that I believe the onus
> >is on you to refute them. Bastiat says:
>
> And Aristotle said that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved
> around the earth. Finding a quote by some ignorant person does not
> "prove" anything, except the universal existence of slipshod thinking.
>
> Now, PROVE that "natural rights" exist independently of human laws.
>
> Dan Evans **********************
> *This is not legal advice unless
> *you agreed to pay for it.
> *http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
Dan Evans
>Dan Evans wrote:
>
>> In <87g1ls5...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>, Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> writes:
>> >
>> >spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) writes:
>> >> If they aren't invented, prove to me that they exist independently.
>> >
>> >It's been done so many times by so many people that I believe the onus
>> >is on you to refute them. Bastiat says:
>>
>> And Aristotle said that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved
>> around the earth. Finding a quote by some ignorant person does not
>> "prove" anything, except the universal existence of slipshod thinking.
>>
>> Now, PROVE that "natural rights" exist independently of human laws.
>The foundation upon which this country and all of its laws rests is the Unanimous Declaration of the
>thirteen united States of America. This "declaration" relied upon international law for its
>authority and validity, and international law in turn is builded upon the principles of natural law.
>
>The founders DECLARED in that document that ALL Rights come from our Creator.
At the beginning of each piece of legislation enacted by the Congress of the
United States, you will find a declaration of Congressional findings of "fact."
These "facts" may include things that are extremely questionable, such as that
the depiction of violence on television causes societal violence. Are all of
these Congressional declarations now PROOF of those claims?
The premise of "natural law" is that there is a system of "law" that
exists independent of statutes, court decisions, and other documentary
evidence of man-made law. It is completely inconsistent to a proof of
natural law to claim that a man-made document *proves* the existence of
those laws. Your claim that the Declaration of Independence proves the
existence of "natural law" (or makes a proof unnecessary) is therefore
inconsistent with the claim that natural law exists.
A "proof" of a natural law is either a repeatable demonstration of a
phyiscal law, or a rigorous logical proof from stated axioms or postulates.
You can prove the law of gravity by picking up an object and letting go
of it. You can also prove that gravity acts inversely to the square of the
distance between the bodies by astromical measurements. You can even
prove that 1+1=2 by making a series of assumptions about how numbers
should work and then developing a system of arithmetic from those
assumptions. (Russell Whitehead demonstrates this is *Principia
Mathematica*.)
The statement that "all people have the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness" is simply incapable of proof. It is an assumption,
and statement of faith, not a "law" that can be proved or disproved.
And it is not universal. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church
taught the world that earthly happiness was not important, and that
a concern for earthly pleasure was a sin. You can say that they were
wrong, but how do you "prove" it? Maybe they were right, and we are
wrong, and we are all going to hell?
> And that they are
>unalienable--not subject to being taken away by that which we in turn
>created--government. They then proceeded to build an entire legal and
>political system based upon that premise, and the premise--by
>those actions--became a FACT of LAW in this country.
Sorry to disillusion you, but the Declaration of Independence has
great historical and political significance, but currently has no
legal significance. It created no legally enforceable right for any
individual.
And, if it did have any legal significance, it was superseded by the
Constitution.
And any rights embodied in the Constitution could be changed by a
constitutional amendment.
Now, if the states got together and repealed the First Amendment,
you could be morally outraged, but you would have no legal remedy.
And, if a "law of nature" had been violated, then nature would
respond in some way. The skies would turn dark, there would be a
plague of locusts, lightening would strike the proponents of the
amendment, or something.
You can tell when you encounter a true natural law because nature
responds, or you encounter an insurmountable obstacle.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing
travels faster than light. Natural laws. Deprivation of liberty does
not have any natural consequences. Some of the most ruthless and
despotice tyrants in history led full, comfortable lives, and died of
natural causes. If they violated a natural law, why did not nature
react?
Reality is tough. Deal with it.
Jon Beaver
"Lyle Rooff" <mcc...@wwics.com> wrote:
Some universities are now accredited to grant hereditary degrees.
Didn't you know?
-Jon Beaver
Damien Falgoust
Patrick Henry <lgl_re...@axs2k.net> wrote:
>Why would one need to prove the existence of something that exists AS A MATTER OF LAW? Those of us
>who live here in one of the several United States have had this question settled for us by law.
If something exists "as a matter of law," it exists because humans
invented it. That is, it does not exist independent of human thought.
This should be self-evident: humans make the laws, ergo if something
exists as a matter of law it is wholly human-created.
>The foundation upon which this country and all of its laws rests is the Unanimous Declaration of the
>thirteen united States of America. This "declaration" relied upon international law for its
>authority and validity, and international law in turn is builded upon the principles of natural law.
Wrong-o! The Declaration of Independence is a facinating political
document, and certainly embodies values that most Americans hold dear,
but it does NOT have any legal effect. You can't assert a right in
the Declaration like you can one in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
All of this country's laws rest on the Constitution, not the
Declaration.
And guess what? The Constitution can be amended. The right to, say,
free speech can be taken away by the amendment process. That is, it
is the construct of human thought. The right does not exist
independently of human philosophy. And what humans create, humans can
also take away. (Not that I'm advocating taking it away, BTW...)
>The founders DECLARED in that document that ALL Rights come from our Creator. And that they are
>unalienable--not subject to being taken away by that which we in turn created--government. They then
>proceeded to build an entire legal and political system based upon that premise, and the premise--by
>those actions--became a FACT of LAW in this country.
The founders ASSERTED that those rights come from the Creator. And
they built a system of government around that assertion. And that's a
good thing. But just because the founders asserted that they come
from the Creator, and just because the founders called them
"inalienable," does not make them so. The founders could not prove
the independent existence of these rights any more than you can.
Thus, their prose isn't a statement of what exists independent of
human thought, but rather political rhetoric designed to inspire the
nation.
Ronald Cole
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
> Gee, my friends -- especially those left of center -- would be very
> interested in knowing that I'm a "Socialist with no moral compass."
> In the past week alone I've had discussions with them where I argued
> *against* government-sponsered affirmative action programs in higher
> education and *against* minimum wage laws. Heck, if you do a Dejanews
> search on my name you'll find that I'm quite opposed to big
> government.
Again I'll quote from that which you will not read:
"Socialism Is Legal Plunder
"Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by
the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this
accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight
against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."
"But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in
a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is
upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to
practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all
other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when
once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against
socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear
your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call
upon them for help.
"To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the
making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the
Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal
plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is
illogical - in fact, absurd - to assume otherwise."
> Neither do you address my essential point. True, I stated that law is
> a creation of man, with a goal of making the world a better place.
> However, you snipped my crucial followup: "Of course, different people
> have radically different ideas of what a "better place" means." Which
> is true. My point is that appeals to morality are ultimately empty;
> in the end, it is mankind who decides what law is best for him. If
> that means that most people like a big government, there's nothing
> immmoral about that. There may be policy reasons why a large
> government is a bad thing -- that is, there may be bad effects of a
> large government -- but the size of the government isn't "immoral" in
> sense independent of human thought.
With all your education, you still don't understand the purpose and
proper role of law and government...
<http://www.ridgenet.net/~ronald/patriot/the_law.html>
> The only reason something is "immoral" is because humans have decided
> for one reason or another that it is immoral. Not because of any
> "morality" that exists independent of human philosophical thought.
> And that's why the appeal to morality is the emptiest argument around
> -- it cannot be proven, and can be used to support any given position.
Morality has nothing to do with the fact that individuality, liberty,
and property preceded all human legislation and are superior to it.
Center for Constitutional Law
Damien Falgoust wrote in message
<6c0l72$qdg$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>
>>dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien
Falgoust) writes:
>>> Which demonstrates how little you know about the formal
study of law.
>>> Natural law is most certainly NOT taught as fact, and indeed
is rarely
>>> brought up except to criticize it as a slipshod method of
legal
>>> reasoning. Why? Because literally *anything* can be proven
by simply
>>> saying "it is just" or "it is moral" or "it is inalienable."
>
As is typical of incompetent reasoning and it's resulting
replys, you have created your own argument and then proceed as
though someone else had made it.
What I actually said was "Natural Law is the Supreme foundation
of all law, with which all law must be in compatibility. That
is one of the very first lessons (facts) encountered in the
formal study of law in American schools".
The "fact" spoken of is the fact that "Natural Law is the
Supreme foundation of all law, with which all law must be in
compatibility".
Not that "Natural law is...taught as fact", as you incorrectly
implied. The 2 statements, mine and yours, are quite different
in meaning, Mr. 2L. Unless one denies the existance of Natural
Law, any fool already knows it's a fact. That needs no
teaching, except to clones.
You also very neatly side step the issue of the actual
statement, that it is taught, that "Natural Law is the Supreme
foundation of all law". Now I don't know about the U. of T.
Law School
(Texas itself is weird in all lawful and legal respects) but
others do teach as I said.
Furthermore you characterize Natural Law as "a slipshod method
of legal reasoning". Well Mr. 2L, you should know also that the
word "legal" can not apply to Natural Law, but rather it applies
to statutory (man-made) law. Consequently, one who would
attempt to apply the Supreme Law as a "method of reasoning",
subservient to itself (legal), as the term legal so indicates,
that individual is a bit ill informed in the first place, and
possessed of defective reasoning capacities anyway.
Statutory law is subservient to Natural Law. Tail cannot wag
the dog, and reality cannot be bent to fit your desires.
That reality being that a reliance upon Natural Rights is the
ultimate security against legal enslavement of the people. That
enslavement being at the hands of the peoples own servants, the
state, and the state's non public safety laws. Such statutes
create crimes without victims, and compel performances and
omissions, without the considerations of reasonable and
equitable considerations in reciprocity, for those people who
are coerced and deceived into the subjectivity and under the
purview of such statutes. This is generally accomplished by
sanctions, similar in form and intent to your flawed
legitimizing and rationalizations, which you have offered and
attempted to present here.
Finally, you assail thusly, "Because literally *anything* can be
proven by simply saying "it is just" or "it is moral" or "it is
inalienable."
In light of this statement of yours, can you please explain to
me what form of Law is being referenced in the Declaration of
Independence when "inalienable rights" are being alluded to ?
Is it man's law, or is it Natural Law ?
Which ever it is, it is that form of Law upon which our organic
documents and all that they embody, are built and founded upon.
Yours and others, attempts to legitimize statutory law to an
elevation of supremacy, to the mininmalization of the truly
Supreme role of Natural Law in American Law is both subversive
and grossly dishonest. Dishonest because a "2L" should already
be possessed of this understanding of LAW. If not, then,
incompetency is the ultimate default.
Center for Constitutional Law
Dan Evans wrote in message <6c4cv8$b...@netaxs.com>...
>In <34E4CC43...@axs2k.net>, Patrick Henry
<lgl_re...@axs2k.net> writes:
>
>>Dan Evans wrote:
>>
>Your claim that the Declaration of Independence proves the
>existence of "natural law" (or makes a proof unnecessary) is
therefore
>inconsistent with the claim that natural law exists.
>
Dan,
You should be ashamed. I gave you credit for having more sense
than you are displaying in your response here.
You completely avoided (as is your customary practice) that
which was stated, and for which you have no refuting reply.
Patrick said:
>The foundation upon which this country and all of its laws
rests is the Unanimous
>Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. This
"declaration" relied upon >international law for its authority
and validity, and international law in turn is builded upon >the
principles of natural law.
>
>The founders DECLARED in that document that ALL Rights come
from our Creator.
Read it carefully, Dan. Patrick Henry was not attempting to
PROVE the existence of Natural Law, any fool knows that Natural
Law exists. Why don't you answer to what was written, instead
of trying to derail the discussion, and redirect it to something
not being argued ?
The point is that "The founders DECLARED in that document that
ALL Rights come from our Creator.", not from Congress' statutes,
except for clones and other state created test tube babies.
Now if you argue as one of those state creations, then and only
then, are you correct in ascerting that Congress' statutes are
YOUR supreme law. That would apply then to YOU, but not any
Natural individual, whose Natural birth endows unalienable
Rights. Look up the words "unalienable" and "inalienable". It
may help you understand what America is all about, since you
obviously have no idea.
Those inalienable rights spoken of in the DOI are Natural
Rights. Dictionaries will also explain the meaning of "Natural"
if you don't understand that. Furthermore, Natural Rights are
governed by Natural Law ONLY, not by the laws of man (statutes).
"Natural Law" too, you may look up in the reference of your
choice.
Point being that Natural Law supercedes ALL law, and Natural
rights can not be taken or diminshed by statutes, where the
individual insists that those rights be respected.
They may be waived, as in the VOLUNTARY signing of government
documents, such as the SSN application, the 1040, and the W4
among many others, but a waiver of Rights which places one under
the subjectivity of the laws (statutes) surrounding such a
document and it's circumstances, in no way takes away or reduces
the force of one's supreme Natural Rights, even though such
waiver TEMPORARILY precludes their ascertion, where the
individual is unaware of their existence. It is this
unawareness and ignorance of Rights which your reply seeks to
keep out of the view of those whom you and the IRS profit from.
One need only rescind his signature to abolish the (usually
undisclosed) nexus and resulting statutory subjectivity created
by the colorable-VOLUNTARY signing. That is the importance of
understanding one's own Natural Rights. By your subtrifugle
clap trap and smoke screening of the issue of Natural Rights, it
is also that understanding which you, and most other tax
profiteering lawyers, seek to obscure.
Finally, read Patricks first sentence above. What in that
sentence do you disagree with ?
Center for Constitutional Law
Damien Falgoust wrote in message
<6c4k2g$5pe$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>Patrick Henry <lgl_re...@axs2k.net> wrote:
>
>>Why would one need to prove the existence of something that
exists AS A MATTER OF >>LAW? Those of us
>>who live here in one of the several United States have had
this question settled for us by >>law.
DAMIEN:
>
>And guess what? The Constitution can be amended. The right
to, say,
>free speech can be taken away by the amendment process. That
is, it
>is the construct of human thought. The right does not exist
>independently of human philosophy. And what humans create,
humans can
>also take away. (Not that I'm advocating taking it away,
BTW...)
>
(snip)
You say "what humans create, humans can also take away". The
Constitution does not create or grant rights. It merely
recognizes, protects, and secures the inherent rights (Natural
Rights) that Natural born individuals have. Humans did not
create man or the rights he Naturally has, like say, freedom of
speech. That is so basic an understanding that your arguing
otherwise is pure folly.
>The founders ASSERTED that those rights come from the Creator.
And
>they built a system of government around that assertion. And
that's a
>good thing. But just because the founders asserted that they
come
>from the Creator, and just because the founders called them
>"inalienable," does not make them so.
It does, however make, as you yourself here attest, "a system of
government around that assertion" so. That system of government
SO built around that assertion, by the supremeacy clause, does
not afford statutes to undo what was built.
>The founders could not prove the independent existence of these
rights any more than you >can.
One need not prove the existence of these rights anymore than
one need not prove the the fact that, as you said, "they built a
Wesley Serra
In article <6c59uk$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
>of all law, with which all law must be in compatibility. That
>is one of the very first lessons (facts) encountered in the
>formal study of law in American schools".
If that is what you meant, then you are even more incoherent than Damian
thought. Far from teaching it as "one of the very first lessons
(facts)", the formal study of law (as opposed to theology) is completely
unfamiliar with anything called "natural law". Cite one single course, in
one single (accredited) law school, that teaches "natural law". You
won't, because there is none except in your fevered imagination.
>The "fact" spoken of is the fact that "Natural Law is the
>Supreme foundation of all law, with which all law must be in
>compatibility".
Not only is this not a "fact", it is not even a workable principle. Why?
The answer is obvious to everyone who isn't a "Center for Constitutional
Law" - because too many different people have too many different ideas as
to what "natural law" is, or whether there is such a thing in the first
place.
>Not that "Natural law is...taught as fact", as you incorrectly
>implied. The 2 statements, mine and yours, are quite different
>in meaning, Mr. 2L. Unless one denies the existance of Natural
>Law, any fool already knows it's a fact. That needs no
>teaching, except to clones.
Just as the Earth being flat was a fact, and the Ptolemaic firmament was a
fact, and maggots coming from dead meat was a fact . . . . I clearly do
not believe in the existence of "natural law" as you mean it. Prove it to
me. If it's such an obvious "fact", you should have no problem.
>You also very neatly side step the issue of the actual
>statement, that it is taught, that "Natural Law is the Supreme
>foundation of all law". Now I don't know about the U. of T.
>Law School (Texas itself is weird in all lawful and legal respects) but
>others do teach as I said.
Strange. When I was in law school (Georgetown '76) your "thought" would
have provoked gales of laughter. Over my career, I have taught at five
law schools (adjunct, as I practice full time). It's not taught anywhere
I've been. Perhaps you'll cite one place . . . no, we've tried that
already.
>Furthermore you characterize Natural Law as "a slipshod method
>of legal reasoning". Well Mr. 2L,
That's the second time you've made fun of Damian for being 2L. What do
you do, chief? From what law school (institution and year, please) did
you graduate, so as to know so well what is taught there? For that
matter, what's your *name*?
>you should know also that the
>word "legal" can not apply to Natural Law, but rather it applies
>to statutory (man-made) law. Consequently, one who would
>attempt to apply the Supreme Law as a "method of reasoning",
>subservient to itself (legal), as the term legal so indicates,
>that individual is a bit ill informed in the first place, and
>possessed of defective reasoning capacities anyway.
Complete gibberish. Not even wrong, because "wrong" implies that there is
reasoning in which a fault can be identified.
[Snip lengthy "paragraph" of similar content.]
>Finally, you assail thusly, "Because literally *anything* can be
>proven by simply saying "it is just" or "it is moral" or "it is
>inalienable."
>In light of this statement of yours, can you please explain to
>me what form of Law is being referenced in the Declaration of
>Independence when "inalienable rights" are being alluded to ?
>Is it man's law, or is it Natural Law ?
As has been pointed out before, the Declaration is a political document,
not a legal one. Please cite a single case - you have 222 years of them
to pick from - which uses a provision of the Declaration as the basis for
a legal conclusion. It is brilliant, stirring rhetoric, but it is not
law.
>Which ever it is, it is that form of Law upon which our organic
>documents and all that they embody, are built and founded upon.
>Yours and others, attempts to legitimize statutory law to an
>elevation of supremacy, to the mininmalization of the truly
>Supreme role of Natural Law in American Law is both subversive
>and grossly dishonest. Dishonest because a "2L" should already
>be possessed of this understanding of LAW. If not, then,
>incompetency is the ultimate default.
Incoherence is the ultimate subterfuge. Equally "profound", and equally
meaningless.
--
Wesley Serra Nothing you can't spell will ever work.
wse...@panix.com - Will Rogers.
PGP public key available from SLED or by finger
Joey Smith
>>The foundation upon which this country and all of its laws
>rests is the Unanimous
>>Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
Did you mean to spell United with a small "u"? If so, we need to take this
up when Congreff meets again.
>This
>"declaration" relied upon >international law for its authority
>and validity
Where does it say that? Seems like for its authority and validity it relied
upon the fact that Britain couldn't enforce its will across the Atlantic.
and international law in turn is builded upon >the
>principles of natural law.
Says who but you? Do you have any authority for this proposition from any
source which is even marginally credible? If so, let's see it.
>>The founders DECLARED in that document that ALL Rights come
>from our Creator.
>
>Read it carefully, Dan. Patrick Henry was not attempting to
>PROVE the existence of Natural Law, any fool knows that Natural
>Law exists.
The problem is that no one is agreed upon just what the natural law is, and
HE doesn't tell us very much about it.
>Why don't you answer to what was written, instead
>of trying to derail the discussion, and redirect it to something
>not being argued ?
>
>The point is that "The founders DECLARED in that document that
>ALL Rights come from our Creator.", not from Congress' statutes,
>except for clones and other state created test tube babies.
Ah, so tonight's topic is Biblical anarchy . . .
>Now if you argue as one of those state creations, then and only
>then, are you correct in ascerting that Congress' statutes are
>YOUR supreme law. That would apply then to YOU, but not any
>Natural individual, whose Natural birth endows unalienable
>Rights. Look up the words "unalienable" and "inalienable". It
>may help you understand what America is all about, since you
>obviously have no idea.
So why did the Founders even bother with a Constitution? Again, HE doesn't
tell us what the natural law is, and the Founders, recognizing this
excruciatingly fundamental fact, came forth with a basic body of laws to
govern (initially) the states' interaction.
>Those inalienable rights spoken of in the DOI are Natural
>Rights. Dictionaries will also explain the meaning of "Natural"
>if you don't understand that.
Ah, that source of all advanced knowledge, the Dictionary. I assume
somewhere in here we will get to Blacks.
>Furthermore, Natural Rights are
>governed by Natural Law ONLY, not by the laws of man (statutes).
>"Natural Law" too, you may look up in the reference of your
>choice.
>
>Point being that Natural Law supercedes ALL law, and Natural
>rights can not be taken or diminshed by statutes, where the
>individual insists that those rights be respected.
Used to be that was the case. Not anymore. For example, the lion used to be
the king of the forest. Now, give any rube a rifle and that rube can
abrogate natural law with a single shot. So much for natural law. Perhaps
the real question is whether natural law has any meaning in modern times?
Probably not.
>They may be waived, as in the VOLUNTARY signing of government
>documents, such as the SSN application, the 1040, and the W4
>among many others, but a waiver of Rights which places one under
>the subjectivity of the laws (statutes) surrounding such a
>document and it's circumstances, in no way takes away or reduces
>the force of one's supreme Natural Rights, even though such
>waiver TEMPORARILY precludes their ascertion, where the
>individual is unaware of their existence.
Yeah, well if you waive the right to participate in this nation, that is a
sword that cuts both ways, so get the hell out. Go to New Guinnea where
natural law still rules. But if you want to stay here, you inherently
consent to our laws. But if you will not consent, we will not stop you from
leaving -- really, there are lots of ways to leave the country.
>It is this
>unawareness and ignorance of Rights which your reply seeks to
>keep out of the view of those whom you and the IRS profit from.
Gibberish, typical gibberish.
>One need only rescind his signature to abolish the (usually
>undisclosed) nexus and resulting statutory subjectivity created
>by the colorable-VOLUNTARY signing.
That's right -- it is called EXPATRIATION which you can easily accomplish by
RENOUNCING your citizenship and then LEAVING THE COUNTRY. However, if you do
this you are no longer welcome so kindly please get the hell out.
>That is the importance of
>understanding one's own Natural Rights. By your subtrifugle
>clap trap and smoke screening of the issue of Natural Rights, it
>is also that understanding which you, and most other tax
>profiteering lawyers, seek to obscure.
Crap au natural. What you want to do is to renounce your citizenship and
thus your obligations to U.S. society, but you want to hand around and have
all the benefits. This means you are a freeloading bum. The fact that you
are attempting to wrap your freeloading bum-ness with the flag is doubly
sickening.
Again, if you don't like the spirit of 1998, why don't you take your spirit
of 1776 -- as you see it -- to New Guinnea where they need it.
-- JS
Damien Falgoust
Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
>> Gee, my friends -- especially those left of center -- would be very
>> interested in knowing that I'm a "Socialist with no moral compass."
>> In the past week alone I've had discussions with them where I argued
>> *against* government-sponsered affirmative action programs in higher
>> education and *against* minimum wage laws. Heck, if you do a Dejanews
>> search on my name you'll find that I'm quite opposed to big
>> government.
>Again I'll quote from that which you will not read:
I have read it. It just doesn't support what you say it does. Just
because Bastiat says stuff like "But it is upon the law that socialism
itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not
illegal plunder." doesn't mean that my point that morality is a
construct of man -- that it exists independent of human thought --
makes me a socialist. Indeed, my views are if anything diametrically
opposed to socialism.
>> Neither do you address my essential point. True, I stated that law is
>> a creation of man, with a goal of making the world a better place.
>> However, you snipped my crucial followup: "Of course, different people
>> have radically different ideas of what a "better place" means." Which
>> is true. My point is that appeals to morality are ultimately empty;
>> in the end, it is mankind who decides what law is best for him. If
>> that means that most people like a big government, there's nothing
>> immmoral about that. There may be policy reasons why a large
>> government is a bad thing -- that is, there may be bad effects of a
>> large government -- but the size of the government isn't "immoral" in
>> sense independent of human thought.
>With all your education, you still don't understand the purpose and
>proper role of law and government...
><http://www.ridgenet.net/~ronald/patriot/the_law.html>
The text of which is nothing more than Bastiat's assertion that the
law exists to serve some kind of higher morality. That's not proof.
Just because Bastiat thinks so, doesn't automatically make it so. All
this proves is what I've been saying all along: that morality doesn't
exist independent of human thought, and that the only way to "prove"
something is moral is to, in essence, say "because I (or someone else)
said so." Frankly, I'd rather law be based on something a bit more
tangible than that. Give me a strong policy argument over an appeal
to morality any day of the week.
>> The only reason something is "immoral" is because humans have decided
>> for one reason or another that it is immoral. Not because of any
>> "morality" that exists independent of human philosophical thought.
>> And that's why the appeal to morality is the emptiest argument around
>> -- it cannot be proven, and can be used to support any given position.
>Morality has nothing to do with the fact that individuality, liberty,
>and property preceded all human legislation and are superior to it.
Morality has *everything* to do with it. Let's take liberty: say a
law is proposed to increase free speech by permitting perjury. Most
poeple would support preventing such a expansion of personal liberty.
There are two ways to make this argument: you can say "lying is
morally wrong" or you can say "permitting perjury breaks down the
integrity of the judicial process. I find the second argument far
more persuasive. Don't you? Furthermore, the other side can argue
"free speech is a moral cause" blue in the face. See? Morality can
be used to support *any* position.
Damien Falgoust
"Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>>Why would one need to prove the existence of something that
>>>exists AS A MATTER OF LAW? Those of us
>>>who live here in one of the several United States have had
>>>this question settled for us by law.
>DAMIEN:
>>
>>And guess what? The Constitution can be amended. The right
>to, say,
>>free speech can be taken away by the amendment process. That
>is, it
>>is the construct of human thought. The right does not exist
>>independently of human philosophy. And what humans create,
>humans can
>>also take away. (Not that I'm advocating taking it away,
>BTW...)
>>
>(snip)
>You say "what humans create, humans can also take away". The
>Constitution does not create or grant rights. It merely
>recognizes, protects, and secures the inherent rights (Natural
>Rights) that Natural born individuals have. Humans did not
>create man or the rights he Naturally has, like say, freedom of
>speech. That is so basic an understanding that your arguing
>otherwise is pure folly.
And why does man have freedom of speech "naturally"? In the absence
of government, or with a government that doesn't protect the right to
free speech, I posit that the right to free speech doesn't exist.
Afther all, it's all well and good to say "I have this right" but if
you can't exercise it is that statement really meaningful? Do you
really have that right, at least in any "real world" kind of way?
>>The founders ASSERTED that those rights come from the Creator.
>And
>>they built a system of government around that assertion. And
>that's a
>>good thing. But just because the founders asserted that they
>come
>>from the Creator, and just because the founders called them
>>"inalienable," does not make them so.
>It does, however make, as you yourself here attest, "a system of
>government around that assertion" so. That system of government
>SO built around that assertion, by the supremeacy clause, does
>not afford statutes to undo what was built.
Never said it did. But absent the first amendment, do you really
think you have the right to free speech? Absent the fourth amendment,
do you really have the right to be free of searches and seizures?
Got news for you: the Bill of Rights is the construct of men. Absent
them penning the document (and the government abiding by that
document), you just don't have the rights contained therein.
>>The founders could not prove the independent existence of these
>rights any more than you >can.
>One need not prove the existence of these rights anymore than
>one need not prove the the fact that, as you said, "they built a
>system of government around that assertion".
Non sequitur. I said the right exists because the founders thought
they should: i.e., the rights exist because a bunch of men thought
it'd be a good idea if government protected them. They don't exist
independent of human thought. If the founder's didn't put them in the
Bill of Rights, the rights wouldn't exist. Period.
Damien Falgoust
"Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
(snip)
>What I actually said was "Natural Law is the Supreme foundation
>of all law, with which all law must be in compatibility. That
>is one of the very first lessons (facts) encountered in the
>formal study of law in American schools".
And, as I said, this "fact" is NOT one of the first lessons
encountered in the formal study of law at American law schools.
Indeed, it's not one of the lessons taught *at all* at American law
schools.
UT is a fully ABA-accreditted law school. Furthermore, it generally
ranks in the top 15-20 law schools in the country (depending on whose
poll you look at) out of what I think is 170-odd total law schools.
Law school curriculums, especially in the first year (you said it was
a "first lesson"), are remarkably uniform. Let's face it: your
statement is an out-and-out falsehood.
Put another way -- can you name any accreditted American law school
that teaches what you say?
>The "fact" spoken of is the fact that "Natural Law is the
>Supreme foundation of all law, with which all law must be in
>compatibility".
And it's not a fact. It's an assertion on your part.
(snip)
>You also very neatly side step the issue of the actual
>statement, that it is taught, that "Natural Law is the Supreme
>foundation of all law". Now I don't know about the U. of T.
>Law School
>(Texas itself is weird in all lawful and legal respects) but
>others do teach as I said.
While Texas has a few unusual quirks, it's law isn't materially
different from other state's law. Furthermore, UT is a "national" law
school -- state law is de-emphasized, with a more "general" approach
taken. Why? Because unlike more local-focused law schools, UT grads
get jobs nationwide (I'm going to NYC, for instance, although in all
fairness most grads stay in Texas). And again, UT is fully
ABA-accreditted. It's curriculum isn't materially different from any
other law schoo.
So tell me again -- what are these "others" that teach as you say?
(snip incoherence)
>Finally, you assail thusly, "Because literally *anything* can be
>proven by simply saying "it is just" or "it is moral" or "it is
>inalienable."
>In light of this statement of yours, can you please explain to
>me what form of Law is being referenced in the Declaration of
>Independence when "inalienable rights" are being alluded to ?
>Is it man's law, or is it Natural Law ?
The DoI isn't a legal document. It's political rhetoric. Important
rhetoric to be sure, but no more a basis of law than Paine's "Common
Sense."
And as to the "law" "referenced" in the DoI -- again, it's just
political reference. Jefferson can assert all he wants that rights
are "inalienable" or that God's law supports the American cause; at
the end of the day, it's still just Jefferson's assertions. It's
useful for rallying the troops and letting Britain know that we're
pissed off and are therefore leaving the empire, but it doesn't create
anything legally enforceable.
(snip more incoherence)
Brett Weiss
Wesley:
Don't forget, the "Center for Constitutional Law" isn't a center, it's
merely a screen name, and an examination of his past posts shows that he
knows absolutely nothing about either the Constitution or the law.
Don't waste your time.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
Ronald Cole
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
> I have read it. It just doesn't support what you say it does. Just
> because Bastiat says stuff like "But it is upon the law that socialism
> itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not
> illegal plunder." doesn't mean that my point that morality is a
> construct of man -- that it exists independent of human thought --
> makes me a socialist. Indeed, my views are if anything diametrically
> opposed to socialism.
You don't understand what socialism is, then.
> The text of which is nothing more than Bastiat's assertion that the
> law exists to serve some kind of higher morality. That's not proof.
> Just because Bastiat thinks so, doesn't automatically make it so. All
> this proves is what I've been saying all along: that morality doesn't
> exist independent of human thought, and that the only way to "prove"
> something is moral is to, in essence, say "because I (or someone else)
> said so." Frankly, I'd rather law be based on something a bit more
> tangible than that. Give me a strong policy argument over an appeal
> to morality any day of the week.
Bastiat clearly states that your "some kind of higher morality" is
what you yourself claim to seek: "the elimination of injustice".
Allowing legislators to ultimately and properly define right and wrong
for a society is "legislating morality". Preferring these "strong
policy" statements implies that you accept the socialist premises
Bastiat clearly explained.
"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his
liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of
life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent
upon the preservation of the other two.... If every person has the
right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his
property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to
organize and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for
existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right. And the
common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have
any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as
a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force
against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then
the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to
destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."
Please tell me in what way this isn't tangible enough for you. Is it
because you desire "positive law" like the socialists do?
> Morality has *everything* to do with it. Let's take liberty: say a
> law is proposed to increase free speech by permitting perjury. Most
> poeple would support preventing such a expansion of personal liberty.
> There are two ways to make this argument: you can say "lying is
> morally wrong" or you can say "permitting perjury breaks down the
> integrity of the judicial process. I find the second argument far
> more persuasive. Don't you? Furthermore, the other side can argue
> "free speech is a moral cause" blue in the face. See? Morality can
> be used to support *any* position.
You may have read Bastiat's words, but you didn't understand what he
was saying...
"The purpose of law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact,
it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own.
Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes
upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a
religious faith or creed - then the law is no longer negative; it acts
positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for
their own initiatives."
So, if there were "real" liberty, one wouldn't need a law to increase
free speech. Besides, "permitting perjury breaks down the integrity
of the judicial process" is a premise, and not an argument.
<http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html>
"When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they
impose nothing but a mere negation, they oblige him only to abstain
from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty
nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive;
they defend equally the rights of all."
Damien Falgoust
Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
>> I have read it. It just doesn't support what you say it does. Just
>> because Bastiat says stuff like "But it is upon the law that socialism
>> itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not
>> illegal plunder." doesn't mean that my point that morality is a
>> construct of man -- that it exists independent of human thought --
>> doesn't make me a socialist. Indeed, my views are if anything diametrically
>> opposed to socialism.
>You don't understand what socialism is, then.
Socialism -- 1. a theory of the ownership and operation of the means
of production and distribution by society, with all members sharing in
the work and the products; 2. a political movement for establishing
such a system. (Webster's)
I'd say I understand it pretty well, and that my beliefs run counter
to the above definition.
>> The text of which is nothing more than Bastiat's assertion that the
>> law exists to serve some kind of higher morality. That's not proof.
>> Just because Bastiat thinks so, doesn't automatically make it so. All
>> this proves is what I've been saying all along: that morality doesn't
>> exist independent of human thought, and that the only way to "prove"
>> something is moral is to, in essence, say "because I (or someone else)
>> said so." Frankly, I'd rather law be based on something a bit more
>> tangible than that. Give me a strong policy argument over an appeal
>> to morality any day of the week.
>Bastiat clearly states that your "some kind of higher morality" is
>what you yourself claim to seek: "the elimination of injustice".
False quote. I don't say that above. "Injustice" is just an
amorphous a term as "morality."
>Allowing legislators to ultimately and properly define right and wrong
>for a society is "legislating morality". Preferring these "strong
>policy" statements implies that you accept the socialist premises
>Bastiat clearly explained.
It does nothing of the kind. Let's look at Bastiat:
>"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his
>liberty, and his property.
Mere assertion
>These are the three basic requirements of
>life,
Mere assertion
>and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent
>upon the preservation of the other two.... If every person has the
>right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his
>property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to
>organize and support a common force to protect these rights
>constantly.
Argument assuming the truth of the above mere assertions
>Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for
>existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right.
Mere assertion
>And the
>common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have
>any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as
>a substitute.
Mere assertion
>Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force
>against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then
>the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to
>destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."
Argument assuming the truth of the above mere assertions
>Please tell me in what way this isn't tangible enough for you. Is it
>because you desire "positive law" like the socialists do?
It's not tangible enough because it's nothing more than Bastiat's
assertions and arguments deriving from those assertions. That's not
proof that morality exists independent of human thought; all that is
proof of is what Bastiat thinks.
>> Morality has *everything* to do with it. Let's take liberty: say a
>> law is proposed to increase free speech by permitting perjury. Most
>> poeple would support preventing such a expansion of personal liberty.
>> There are two ways to make this argument: you can say "lying is
>> morally wrong" or you can say "permitting perjury breaks down the
>> integrity of the judicial process. I find the second argument far
>> more persuasive. Don't you? Furthermore, the other side can argue
>> "free speech is a moral cause" blue in the face. See? Morality can
>> be used to support *any* position.
>You may have read Bastiat's words, but you didn't understand what he
>was saying...
And I don't think you understand what *I'm* saying....
>"The purpose of law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact,
>it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own.
Mere assertion.
>Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
A logical point, but irrelevant. I might as well say that potence is
achieved only when impotence is absent (and yes, I picked that example
just for you ;-) )
>"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes
>upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a
>religious faith or creed - then the law is no longer negative; it acts
>positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for
>their own initiatives."
Depends. Are the legislators elected? Then what's the problem?
Nobody gets *everything* they want. We don't get to dictate our own
individual utopian view of society. Rather, we elect representatives
and follow the policy choices that *most* people want.
>So, if there were "real" liberty, one wouldn't need a law to increase
>free speech.
How do you figure? How does "real" liberty exist in the absence of
laws (e.g., in an anarchy)?
>Besides, "permitting perjury breaks down the integrity
>of the judicial process" is a premise, and not an argument.
><http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html>
A premise is part of an argument. The simplest form of argument is
major premise - minor premise - conclusion. This one's a little more
complicated than that, but if you want me to follow through with the
conclusion, here it is: the harm that perjury does outweighs the
freedom it encroaches upon, and therefore perjury laws should be kept
in place.
>"When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they
>impose nothing but a mere negation, they oblige him only to abstain
>from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty
>nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive;
>they defend equally the rights of all."
Yet another assertion. Just because someone said something doesn't
make it empirically true.
Paul
Center for Constitutional Law wrote in message
<6c5e3o$i...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
> . . .
>
>Point being that Natural Law supercedes ALL law, and Natural
>rights can not be taken or diminshed by statutes, where the
>individual insists that those rights be respected.
>
My friend, at the risk of my being termed a fool as you indicate in the part
of the post I snipped, what is the point of this? If any Constitutional
"scholar" agrees, he or she is in the very definite minority and probably
isn't viewed as a credible scholar by any but the fringe. If any court in
modern history has ever even come close to agreeing, it is an aberration and
probably dicta. No modern court is going to accept anything based on this
premise or any assertion that somehow one waives something by signing a
government form. This is pretty much a dead end legally, so why waste time
on it?
Timothy I. McCrory
Joey Smith wrote:
>
> >>The foundation upon which this country and all of its laws
> >rests is the Unanimous
> >>Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
>
> Did you mean to spell United with a small "u"? If so, we need to take this
> up when Congreff meets again.
>
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/DECLINDP.HTM
--
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory
Web Site - Kay County Patriots
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Center for Constitutional Law
Joey Smith wrote in message
<2FrF.6584$sB.12...@news.internetMCI.com>...
>
>
>Did you mean to spell United with a small "u"? If so, we need
to take this
>up when Congreff meets again.
>
Is Congress spelled with "ff" ? If you will look in the United
States Code Annotated, the volume containing the Organic Laws,
you will notice that the Constitutions heading is spelled out
same way it is on the original document: "Constitution for the
united States of America". Yes the lower case "u" is merely an
adjective. At the time the document was drafted and finalized,
the upper case proper noun "United States" did not exist. It's
existance was not a fact until the first moment following
ratification.
Do they just send you IRS subversives out into the field with no
formal training in the subjects you are ass-igned to discredit ?
Appears they just fill your blank clone minds with the same
brainwash they wish the rest of the slaves to live by, and here
you come, a phony clone troll, regurgitating your stupidity all
over the NG.
I SAID:
>Point being that Natural Law supercedes ALL law, and Natural
>rights can not be taken or diminshed by statutes, where the
>individual insists that those rights be respected.
IRS TROLL-CLONE SAID:
>Used to be that was the case. Not anymore. For example, the
lion used to be
>the king of the forest. Now, give any rube a rifle and that
rube can
>abrogate natural law with a single shot. So much for natural
law. Perhaps
>the real question is whether natural law has any meaning in
modern times?
>Probably not.
OK. Now I see where you are coming from: America is a nation
where might is right, and rule of law is enforced by the gun,
not by rights and justice. Your admission is the only truth
I've seen from you. I'm amazed at your admission and agreement
! The IRS will probably dock your compensation (excuse me
INCOME), or at least whip your ass for using that forbidden
commodity, TRUTH. WOW !
I SAID:
>
>Point being that Natural Law supercedes ALL law, and Natural
>rights can not be taken or diminshed by statutes, where the
>individual insists that those rights be respected.
>They may be waived, as in the VOLUNTARY signing of government
>documents, such as the SSN application, the 1040, and the W4
>among many others, but a waiver of Rights which places one
under
>the subjectivity of the laws (statutes) surrounding such a
>document and it's circumstances, in no way takes away or
reduces
>the force of one's supreme Natural Rights, even though such
>waiver TEMPORARILY precludes their ascertion, where the
>individual is unaware of their existence.
IRS TROLL-CLONE SAID:
>That's right -- it is called EXPATRIATION which you can easily
accomplish by
>RENOUNCING your citizenship and then LEAVING THE COUNTRY.
However, if you do
>this you are no longer welcome so kindly please get the hell
out.
>Crap au natural. What you want to do is to renounce your
citizenship and
>thus your obligations to U.S. society, but you want to hand
around and have
>all the benefits. This means you are a freeloading bum. The
fact that you
>are attempting to wrap your freeloading bum-ness with the flag
is doubly
>sickening.
>
>Again, if you don't like the spirit of 1998, why don't you take
your spirit
>of 1776 -- as you see it -- to New Guinnea where they need it.
>
The only way I could "get the hell" out is if you and your IRS
bretheren, **who are DEFINED relative to Devinity**, by your
opposition to the free exercise of God's given rights to man,
would leave with me, for it is you and them who are the masters
of that which one knows to be the hell of slavery. You may have
to ask your bastard masters what that means, since you
clone/trolls, by all indication of your postings, are probably
the stupidest group of users on the net.
If one speaks of the truth, which you seek to obscure with your
IRS lies and deceit, your response is to invite them to leave
the country ? You don't seem to understand that if every
American who hates you and the IRS, and your form of
enslavement, were to leave the country, only you and the rest of
the IRS devils would remain. Even the Indians would leave their
beloved stolen land. You don't have the slightest idea what
America is all about. The key words are "personal freedom".
Not "submissive slavery".
As for my "obligations to U.S. society", since like yourself I
am not a chatel of the (upper case) United States, I have no
such obligation, nor do I partake of the benefits thereof.
Owing to your ignorance of the subject, I presume that the
benefits of which you speak are things such as my use of the
interstate public highway system, protection from foreign
invasion, FREE SPEECH, ETC. Well let me remind your dumb ass of
a couple of facts:
1. Myself, and no other other Americans, have an "obligation" to
PAY the United States government for the services and
protections which we created the United States to perform as
it's purpose for existing. We did not create the U.S. to be our
master. Quite the opposite. Such performance is it's DUTY to
it's masters, the people. In other words, the Constitution by
which We created the United States is NOT contract for a
COMMERCIAL exchange, our life substances for it's performance of
duties. DUH !
True, the United States is a corporation, but untrue that "We
the People" are (except by VOLUNTARY waiver of rights) engaged
in commerce with that corporation. While the United States is
incorporated, the united States of America are not, and never
have been.
What you and some other fools on this NG seem to think is that
the inventor creates an intelligent robot to serve his needs,
and then by the edict of the robot the creator becomes the
robot's servant, by virtue of rules made BY the robot. How damn
stupid can you get ? Never mind I don't want to know the answer
to that one.
2. The country was established to the ends that "We the People"
should not have to serve the "King". To insure that "We the
People" were never to be servants of the government, the
commerce clause was written into the Constitution. The
government is to be financed by proceeds from commerce, not from
the rape, plunder, and pilage of the life substances of "We the
People", as your federal mafia bosses so extort.
Your brainwash education does not qualify you to participate in
discussions which are obviously over your head. But then if the
IRS did give it's trolls the truth, we would not even be having
such a discussion, as the 2 are mutually exclusive (truth and
the IRS).
As for your remarks re: "freeloading bum", and "leave the
country", I won't tell you to kiss my ass, your lips are not
clean enough. But you can kiss your own. Just walk up to the
nearest mirror and KISS. I'm sorry you don't even have to do
that, you can see your ass by looking in the mirror. Just KISS
anyway, since your head is already up in there.
Center for Constitutional Law
Paul wrote in message <6c7qd3$ddo$1...@news.iquest.net>...
>
>Center for Constitutional Law wrote in message
><6c5e3o$i...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>
>My friend, at the risk of my being termed a fool as you
indicate in the part
>of the post I snipped, what is the point of this?
Sir, a fool is one who in the face and recognition of reality,
denies that reality and foolishly acts accordingly in disregard
of the Natural consequence of opposing such reality. It is fine
to be incorrect out of ignorance. Ignorance can be disspelled
and dissolved by the reality of truthful knowledge. It is only
when that knowledge is intelligently rejected that one qualifies
as a fool. If you are not so inclined, then you are at no such
risk.
>
>If any Constitutional
>"scholar" agrees, he or she is in the very definite minority
and probably
>isn't viewed as a credible scholar by any but the fringe.
To employ one of the analogies of the pro-tax, pro-slavery,
majority on this NG, I will remind you that once those, who said
the Earth was round, were also "in the very definite minority
and probably [were not] viewed as a credible scholar by any but
the fringe". The notion that majority opinion constitutes
validation is so obviously flawed that I am surprised at it's
use.
>If any court in
>modern history has ever even come close to agreeing, it is an
aberration and
>probably dicta. No modern court is going to accept anything
based on this
>premise or any assertion that somehow one waives something by
signing a
>government form.
Your point is well taken, and I fully agree with every word.
However, I ONLY agree because you did qualify your statement
with the word "MODERN". It is exactly that, the "modern courts"
and their "modern" history as you termed them, which are THE
ABERRATIONS.
The "modern court", instead of the forums of justice they were
created and intended to be, have been converted by greed and
corporate influence peddlers into the tools of the KING.
That, "modern courts" do not rule in favor of the rights of the
people, is no indication of the existence or non existence of
those rights, rather it is only an indication of the "modern
courts" complicity in the statutory enslavement of a once
CONCEPTUALLY (African slaves and Indians) FREE society.
The Constitution has no clauses, save the provision for
amendments, which build in any modernization of features over
time. To be sure the principles of "personal freedom", upon and
for which it was drafted and ratified, are otherwise timeless.
>This is pretty much a dead end legally, so why waste time
>on it?
>
Once again I am in agreement, but ONLY because of the word
"LEGALLY" which is indicative ONLY of statutory law. Your
statement is true, because the intent and established practices,
of the modern Congress and Judiciary, is to elevate statutory
"LEGAL" rule over that of the LAWFUL rule of Natural Rights, as
such were ONCE guaranteed by the Constitutions of America.
Joey Smith
Your Lie # 1: You repeatedly assert that I work for the IRS without having
any proof of that. My numerous other posts in this NG have been in favor of
a National Sales Tax which would effectively abrogate the IRS. How do you
reconcile this? Of course, you can't.
Your Lie # 2: That you could not leave the country. Why not? If this place
is so repressive to you, why don't you leave? The fact is you probably can't
leave because you know that you will not be able to maintain as high a
standard of living here as you could in some banana republic. So, this isn't
about the Constitutional at all (despite your shameless attempts to wrap
yourself with that document and the flag). What this is about is a Freddy
Freeloader who wants all of the benefits from living here but doesn't want
to pay his fair share for it.
Your Lie # 3:
>You don't seem to understand that if every
>American who hates you and the IRS, and your form of
>enslavement, were to leave the country, only you and the rest of
>the IRS devils would remain.
So you say -- do you have any proof of this? Of course not. Your belief in
your self-importance amazes me.
Your admission that you are a freeloading bum (and my proof thereof):
>As for my "obligations to U.S. society", since like yourself I
>am not a chatel of the (upper case) United States, I have no
>such obligation, nor do I partake of the benefits thereof.
>Owing to your ignorance of the subject, I presume that the
>benefits of which you speak are things such as my use of the
>interstate public highway system, protection from foreign
>invasion, FREE SPEECH, ETC.
>1. Myself, and no other other Americans, have an "obligation" to
>PAY the United States government for the services and
>protections which we created the United States to perform as
>it's purpose for existing.
You say "we created" -- how absurd. The Founders, or their forefathers, had
the good sense and will to leave England -- you and your ilk would merely
have stayed in England and bitched about how mistreated you were by the
crown. The Founders were true Heros of the Republic -- not a bunch of
freeloading bums -- and virtually all were successful businesspeople,
landowners, etc.
>In other words, the Constitution by
>which We created the United States is NOT contract for a
>COMMERCIAL exchange, our life substances for it's performance of
>duties.
You are simply wrong (see portions in previous post about if you don't like
it get the hell out).
>True, the United States is a corporation
This is an interesting theory -- what support do you have for it?
>2. The country was established to the ends that "We the People"
>should not have to serve the "King". To insure that "We the
>People" were never to be servants of the government, the
>commerce clause was written into the Constitution.
Another novel theory -- do you have any support for this, either? Or are you
content to stack bizarre theory upon bizarre theory to obtain the most
perverse result you can (which will allow you to freeload bum society)?
>The
>government is to be financed by proceeds from commerce, not from
>the rape, plunder, and pilage of the life substances of "We the
>People", as your federal mafia bosses so extort.
Are you saying that the People could not amend the constitution? This is the
same old stupid argument, shown to be false time after time after time after
time. Is Bob Dole really the vice-president? Is the Senate elected by the
state legislature? Were those who attended the original Constitutional
Convention just kidding when they wrote in all that stuff about amending the
constitution? Are you really this damn dumb?
>Your brainwash education does not qualify you to participate in
>discussions which are obviously over your head. But then if the
>IRS did give it's trolls the truth, we would not even be having
>such a discussion, as the 2 are mutually exclusive (truth and
>the IRS).
Back to your fallback position -- if you can't beat me with logic then claim
that I must be associated with the IRS (although I support the NST and the
abolition of the IRS except for 20 or so agents to monitor the states'
remittance of NST). The information on the back of that feed-sack you've
been reading must have run out.
And, then you so eloquently state -- in a fashion which would make the
Founders proud:
>As for your remarks re: "freeloading bum", and "leave the
>country", I won't tell you to kiss my ass, your lips are not
>clean enough. But you can kiss your own. Just walk up to the
>nearest mirror and KISS. I'm sorry you don't even have to do
>that, you can see your ass by looking in the mirror. Just KISS
>anyway, since your head is already up in there.
You could have gone to the original constitutional convention, but they
wouldn't have let you in the door.
-- JS
Joey Smith
Timothy I. McCrory wrote in message <34E7B0...@idt.net>...
>Joey Smith wrote:
>>
>> >>The foundation upon which this country and all of its laws
>> >rests is the Unanimous
>> >>Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
>>
>> Did you mean to spell United with a small "u"? If so, we need to take
this
>> up when Congreff meets again.
>>
Joey Smith
A self-appointed Patriot (nobody else considers him to be one) ironically
quotes the late Justice Bill Douglas, who pretty much ignored the
constitution in favor of completely judge-made law. But, you wouldn't expect
them to know that, would you?
Dan Evans
>If you will look in the United
>States Code Annotated, the volume containing the Organic Laws,
>you will notice that the Constitutions heading is spelled out
>same way it is on the original document: "Constitution for the
>united States of America". Yes the lower case "u" is merely an
>adjective. At the time the document was drafted and finalized,
>the upper case proper noun "United States" did not exist.
Nonsense. Article I of the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781,
states that "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States
of America". The title "United States of America" therefore existed
before one word of the Constitution was written.
Assuming you are telling the truth about the US Code (and there is no
reason to believe that you are telling the truth, because you are either
lying or mistaken about everything else), you are talking about a
typographical error.
Ronald Cole
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
> Socialism -- 1. a theory of the ownership and operation of the means
> of production and distribution by society, with all members sharing in
> the work and the products; 2. a political movement for establishing
> such a system. (Webster's)
>
> I'd say I understand it pretty well, and that my beliefs run counter
> to the above definition.
I'd say that you only know the dictionary definition. If you really
think that socialism can completely summed up by these 26 words, then
you have successfully pulled the wool over your own eyes.
> >Bastiat clearly states that your "some kind of higher morality" is
> >what you yourself claim to seek: "the elimination of injustice".
>
> False quote. I don't say that above. "Injustice" is just an
> amorphous a term as "morality."
Huh? "The elimination of injustice" are indeed Bastiat's words. I don't
think you actually read "The Law".
> >Allowing legislators to ultimately and properly define right and wrong
> >for a society is "legislating morality". Preferring these "strong
> >policy" statements implies that you accept the socialist premises
> >Bastiat clearly explained.
>
> It does nothing of the kind. Let's look at Bastiat:
>
> >"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his
> >liberty, and his property.
>
> Mere assertion
It's a premise.
> >These are the three basic requirements of
> >life,
>
> Mere assertion
Yet another premise. If you disagree with the premise, then please tell us
why, so that we can get on with it.
> >and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent
> >upon the preservation of the other two.... If every person has the
> >right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his
> >property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to
> >organize and support a common force to protect these rights
> >constantly.
>
> Argument assuming the truth of the above mere assertions
Please demonstrate that the premises are incorrect or flawed, then.
> >Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for
> >existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right.
>
> Mere assertion
An inference.
> >And the
> >common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have
> >any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as
> >a substitute.
>
> Mere assertion
Yet another inference.
> >Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force
> >against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then
> >the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to
> >destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."
>
> Argument assuming the truth of the above mere assertions
This would be one of the many conclusions reached by Bastiat, which is
used as a premise for next argument presented.
> >Please tell me in what way this isn't tangible enough for you. Is it
> >because you desire "positive law" like the socialists do?
>
> It's not tangible enough because it's nothing more than Bastiat's
> assertions and arguments deriving from those assertions. That's not
> proof that morality exists independent of human thought; all that is
> proof of is what Bastiat thinks.
>
> >> Morality has *everything* to do with it. Let's take liberty: say a
> >> law is proposed to increase free speech by permitting perjury. Most
> >> poeple would support preventing such a expansion of personal liberty.
> >> There are two ways to make this argument: you can say "lying is
> >> morally wrong" or you can say "permitting perjury breaks down the
> >> integrity of the judicial process. I find the second argument far
> >> more persuasive. Don't you? Furthermore, the other side can argue
> >> "free speech is a moral cause" blue in the face. See? Morality can
> >> be used to support *any* position.
>
> >You may have read Bastiat's words, but you didn't understand what he
> >was saying...
>
> And I don't think you understand what *I'm* saying....
Yes, I do. You don't accept Bastiat's argument because you think the
premises are incorrect or flawed, but you have yet to demonstrate that
they are.
> >"The purpose of law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact,
> >it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own.
>
> Mere assertion.
No, this is an inference drawn from earlier premises.
> >Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
And this is a conclusion.
> A logical point, but irrelevant. I might as well say that potence is
> achieved only when impotence is absent (and yes, I picked that example
> just for you ;-) )
Peculiar analogy. Is this a Freudian slip equating justice with
potence?
> >"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes
> >upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a
> >religious faith or creed - then the law is no longer negative; it acts
> >positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for
> >their own initiatives."
>
> Depends. Are the legislators elected? Then what's the problem?
> Nobody gets *everything* they want. We don't get to dictate our own
> individual utopian view of society. Rather, we elect representatives
> and follow the policy choices that *most* people want.
You either haven't been paying attention or you are performing the
"confusion of terms" ascribed to Socialists by Bastiat. Legal plunder
is still plunder and therefore wrong, regardless of what *most* people
want.
> >So, if there were "real" liberty, one wouldn't need a law to increase
> >free speech.
>
> How do you figure? How does "real" liberty exist in the absence of
> laws (e.g., in an anarchy)?
More "confusion of terms"...
> >Besides, "permitting perjury breaks down the integrity
> >of the judicial process" is a premise, and not an argument.
> ><http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html>
>
> A premise is part of an argument. The simplest form of argument is
> major premise - minor premise - conclusion.
I see you didn't read this cite, either... you left out "inferences"
between "premises" and "conclusion". It would appear that the
University of Texas School of Law is one that you can bluff your way
through. The degree must not be worth much.
> This one's a little more complicated than that, but if you want me
> to follow through with the conclusion, here it is: the harm that
> perjury does outweighs the freedom it encroaches upon, and therefore
> perjury laws should be kept in place.
Exactly how does perjury encroach on freedom?
> >"When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they
> >impose nothing but a mere negation, they oblige him only to abstain
> >from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty
> >nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive;
> >they defend equally the rights of all."
>
> Yet another assertion. Just because someone said something doesn't
> make it empirically true.
You clearly don't know how to demonstrate Bastiat's premises incorrect
or flawed... You just plain old don't accept them and prefer to
wallow in your own ignorance.
Jol Silversmith
> >If you will look in the United
> >States Code Annotated, the volume containing the Organic Laws,
> >you will notice that the Constitutions heading is spelled out
> >same way it is on the original document: "Constitution for the
> >united States of America". Yes the lower case "u" is merely an
> >adjective. At the time the document was drafted and finalized,
> >the upper case proper noun "United States" did not exist.
>
> Nonsense. Article I of the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781,
> states that "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States
> of America". The title "United States of America" therefore existed
> before one word of the Constitution was written.
>
> Assuming you are telling the truth about the US Code (and there is no
> reason to believe that you are telling the truth, because you are either
> lying or mistaken about everything else), you are talking about a
> typographical error.
And indeed he is lying, as usual.
The heading for the Constitution is in all caps, and states: "CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES." In the preamble, the Constitution is referred to as
the "CONSTITUTION for the United States of America."
--
Jol A. Silversmith __________________________ silv...@law.harvard.edu
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/index.html _______ jasi...@ix.netcom.com
Opinions are my own, and should not be construed as legal advice, etc.
Damien Falgoust
Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>> Socialism -- 1. a theory of the ownership and operation of the means
>> of production and distribution by society, with all members sharing in
>> the work and the products; 2. a political movement for establishing
>> such a system. (Webster's)
>>
>> I'd say I understand it pretty well, and that my beliefs run counter
>> to the above definition.
>I'd say that you only know the dictionary definition. If you really
>think that socialism can completely summed up by these 26 words, then
>you have successfully pulled the wool over your own eyes.
Is that a complete, accurate description? No. But it's a completely
accurate shorthand description.
>> >Bastiat clearly states that your "some kind of higher morality" is
>> >what you yourself claim to seek: "the elimination of injustice".
>>
>> False quote. I don't say that above. "Injustice" is just an
>> amorphous a term as "morality."
>Huh? "The elimination of injustice" are indeed Bastiat's words. I don't
>think you actually read "The Law".
You said that is what "[I myself] claim to seek." That's a false
attribution. I dont' think you actually read my post.
>> >Allowing legislators to ultimately and properly define right and wrong
>> >for a society is "legislating morality". Preferring these "strong
>> >policy" statements implies that you accept the socialist premises
>> >Bastiat clearly explained.
>>
>> It does nothing of the kind. Let's look at Bastiat:
>>
>> >"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his
>> >liberty, and his property.
>>
>> Mere assertion
>It's a premise.
A premise that also happens to be an assertion. A completely
non-provable premise.
>> >These are the three basic requirements of
>> >life,
>>
>> Mere assertion
>Yet another premise. If you disagree with the premise, then please tell us
>why, so that we can get on with it.
Again, it's a non-provable assertion. Apart from Bastiat's own mind,
there's no way to prove the premise true or false. And shaky premises
yeild shaky conclusions.
>> >and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent
>> >upon the preservation of the other two.... If every person has the
>> >right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his
>> >property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to
>> >organize and support a common force to protect these rights
>> >constantly.
>>
>> Argument assuming the truth of the above mere assertions
>Please demonstrate that the premises are incorrect or flawed, then.
I can't, but again neither can you prove them true. Which is the
problem with using mere assertions as your premises.
>> >Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for
>> >existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right.
>>
>> Mere assertion
>An inference.
Excuse me. An inference based on premises that are mere assertions.
>> >And the
>> >common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have
>> >any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as
>> >a substitute.
>>
>> Mere assertion
>Yet another inference.
Based, again, on premises which are mere assertions.
(snip more of the same)
>Yes, I do. You don't accept Bastiat's argument because you think the
>premises are incorrect or flawed, but you have yet to demonstrate that
>they are.
And you have yet to prove that they are correct or not flawed. That's
the problem with using mere assertions as your premises.
(snip more of the same)
>> A premise is part of an argument. The simplest form of argument is
>> major premise - minor premise - conclusion.
>I see you didn't read this cite, either... you left out "inferences"
>between "premises" and "conclusion". It would appear that the
>University of Texas School of Law is one that you can bluff your way
>through. The degree must not be worth much.
"Inference" doesn't appear in the basic argument. The textbook
example is:
Major Premise: A is B
Minor Premise: B is C
Conclusion: A is C
And as to the difficulty of UT Law -- well, let's just see you try to
get in, much less succeed here.
>> This one's a little more complicated than that, but if you want me
>> to follow through with the conclusion, here it is: the harm that
>> perjury does outweighs the freedom it encroaches upon, and therefore
>> perjury laws should be kept in place.
>Exactly how does perjury encroach on freedom?
Limit on free speech. Just like libel laws and consumer fraud laws
are limits on free speech. Just because the benefits of such limits
outweigh the costs to freedom, doesn't mean that it isn't a limit on
freedom.
>> >"When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they
>> >impose nothing but a mere negation, they oblige him only to abstain
>> >from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty
>> >nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive;
>> >they defend equally the rights of all."
>>
>> Yet another assertion. Just because someone said something doesn't
>> make it empirically true.
>You clearly don't know how to demonstrate Bastiat's premises incorrect
>or flawed... You just plain old don't accept them and prefer to
>wallow in your own ignorance.
You clearly don't know how to deomonstrate Bastiat's premises correct
or without flaw...You just plain old accept them without question and
prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.
Are you starting to understand my point?
Ronald Cole
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
> >> >"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his
> >> >liberty, and his property.
> >>
> >> Mere assertion
>
> >It's a premise.
>
> A premise that also happens to be an assertion. A completely
> non-provable premise.
How do you figure?
> Again, it's a non-provable assertion. Apart from Bastiat's own mind,
> there's no way to prove the premise true or false. And shaky premises
> yeild shaky conclusions.
Tell us then, what is the definition of "natural rights"?
> I can't, but again neither can you prove them true. Which is the
> problem with using mere assertions as your premises.
I think it's more than an assertion... It's a definition. Even
Blackstone understood that the English Common Law derived from
natural rights and laws. If you don't agree, then tell us what
"natural rights" are.
> And you have yet to prove that they are correct or not flawed. That's
> the problem with using mere assertions as your premises.
Bastiat was careful in crafting his argument to base his premises on
definitions. Of course, when you change the definitions, you may
invalidate the conclusions. Let's see if we can agree on the
definitions...
> "Inference" doesn't appear in the basic argument. The textbook
> example is:
> Major Premise: A is B
> Minor Premise: B is C
> Conclusion: A is C
We were talking about the construction of Bastiat's argument, which
contains many inferences. Your tossing in these non-sequitors
only confuses the issue.
> >> This one's a little more complicated than that, but if you want me
> >> to follow through with the conclusion, here it is: the harm that
> >> perjury does outweighs the freedom it encroaches upon, and therefore
> >> perjury laws should be kept in place.
>
> >Exactly how does perjury encroach on freedom?
>
> Limit on free speech.
Exactly how does perjury limit free speech?
> You clearly don't know how to deomonstrate Bastiat's premises correct
> or without flaw...You just plain old accept them without question and
> prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.
> Are you starting to understand my point?
If your point is that Bastiat's premises aren't definitions, then
provide alternate definitions...
Damien Falgoust
Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
(snip conversation in reference to Bastiat quote: "Each of us has a
natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his
property." )
>> >It's a premise.
>> A premise that also happens to be an assertion. A completely
>> non-provable premise.
>How do you figure?
Can you PROVE that "each of us has a natural right - from God - to
defend his person, his liberty, and his property." No, you can't.
All you can do is assert it yourself, or point out other people in
history that have asserted it. It is, as I said, a non-provable
premise.
>> Again, it's a non-provable assertion. Apart from Bastiat's own mind,
>> there's no way to prove the premise true or false. And shaky premises
>> yeild shaky conclusions.
>Tell us then, what is the definition of "natural rights"?
The definition is whatever the person asserting natural rights wants
it to be. It's totally pliable because it's totally unprovable. I
could cough up a definition of natural rights, but it'd be just as
meaningless as yours.
>> I can't, but again neither can you prove them true. Which is the
>> problem with using mere assertions as your premises.
>I think it's more than an assertion... It's a definition. Even
>Blackstone understood that the English Common Law derived from
>natural rights and laws. If you don't agree, then tell us what
>"natural rights" are.
You mix up two points here. The first is what I've been arguing all
along: that appeals to natural rights (or morality, etc.) are
meaningless because they are essentially unprovable assertions that
don't exist independent of human thought. Again, I could cough up my
own definition of "natural rights," but it'd be just as meaningless as
Bastiat's.
You confuse the issue by bringing up Blackstone. It is clear that
some law is *based* on some individual's notions of natural law. For
instance, today we have laws against public nudity because some people
find it immoral or distasteful. But that's beside the point. My
point is that to base a law *only on such an argument* is to base it
on something utterly meaningless. For instance, it's far better to
argue for public nudity laws on the basis that their absence leads to
public disturbances, which affect the smooth flow of everyday life,
instead of basing it on an empty appeal to morality.
(snip tangential argument on logic)
>> >Exactly how does perjury encroach on freedom?
>>
>> Limit on free speech.
>Exactly how does perjury limit free speech?
Are you that dense? Perjury is a type of speech, namely speech that
is false and done under oath. By prosecuting perjury, we limit free
speech. But as I said before (and you conveniently snipped without
reference), the costs of that encroachment on freedom are worth the
benefits stemming from it (namely a functional court system).
My point was that in arguing that perjury should trump free speech,
it's a far more persuasive argument to say perjury's costs outweigh
its benefits than it is to make an empty appeal to morality (i.e., we
should outlaw perjury because it is immoral).
>> You clearly don't know how to deomonstrate Bastiat's premises correct
>> or without flaw...You just plain old accept them without question and
>> prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.
>> Are you starting to understand my point?
>If your point is that Bastiat's premises aren't definitions, then
>provide alternate definitions...
Premises, definitions...now you're just playing meaningless semantic
word games. Again, my point holds true: even if I provided alternate
defnitions (or premises, or anything else to "prove" natural law),
they'd be just as meaningless as yours. Again, appeals to morality
are ultimately empty because they can be used to support any position.
Wesley Serra
In article <87afbqq...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>,
Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
>> >> >liberty, and his property.
>> >>
>>
>> >It's a premise.
>>
>> A premise that also happens to be an assertion. A completely
>> non-provable premise.
>
>How do you figure?
>
>> there's no way to prove the premise true or false. And shaky premises
>> yeild shaky conclusions.
>
>Tell us then, what is the definition of "natural rights"?
At least for the sake of argument - and actually more than that - I
believe "natural rights" to be a meaningless phrase. Of course I
understand the words. But I also understand the words in the phrases
"invisible target" and "incorporeal armadillo", and that does not mean
that the phrases make any sense. In short, this is because, in the
context of a legal discussion, the word "right" implies something created
by law, while the word "natural" implies something (like gravity)
independent of law.
So: I do not believe in "natural rights". Continue Bastiat's argument
from there.
Andrew Lazarus
On 17 Feb 1998 11:56:44 -0800, Ronald Cole
<ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>I think it's more than an assertion... It's a definition. Even
>Blackstone understood that the English Common Law derived from
>natural rights and laws. If you don't agree, then tell us what
>"natural rights" are.
Please explain how primogeniture and the status of women in the
common-law era derive from "natural rights", or any other aspect of
Anglo-American common law that isn't duplicated in other societies.
To the extent that older authorities base these on natural rights,
they are falling into an error that has been recognized for decades.
These definitions are always self-serving. Check Butterfield, _The
Whig Interpretation of History_.
Dan Evans
In <6bsqjg$f...@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> writes:
[Libels against me deleted.]
>I can say this because any lawyer knows that Natural Law is the
>Supreme foundation of all law, with which all law must be in
>compatibility.
"Natural Law" is in the same class with the "divine right of kings,"
both are assertions by people in power that what they do is what
God wills.
The fact that you believe this shows how incredibly gullible you are.
Some judge, who reached his position through a combination of family
connections and plain old bribery, has to reach a decision in a case and,
unable to come up with any rational explanation for the decision,
announces that it is based on the "Natural Law of God" and you swallow
it all, hook, line, and sinker.
Are you still pulling out teeth and putting them under your pillow
at night whenever you need some spare change?
>That is one of the very first lessons (facts)
>encountered in the formal study of law in American schools.
You've said this before, and have been told that you don't know what
you are talking about. And you still don't know what you are talking
about.
Just for fun, I ran a search on the web to see if there are any law
school catalogs online that refer to "natural law" in a course
curriculum. I found a listing for a course entitled "Jurisprudence"
at the University of Melbourne (not an American school, I know, but
illustrative nevertheless) that was described as follows:
"An introduction to the kinds of questions posed in Jurisprudence and the
various theories which have emerged in response to these questions. In the
first half of the course the principal schools of jurisprudential thought are
analysed: natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, sociological jurisprudence,
Marxism, feminism, critical legal studies. General questions such as the
relationship between law and morality and the nature of legal reasoning
are also discussed. In the second half of the course the theories already
discussed are applied to a number of jurisprudential issues, including the
obligation to obey the law, the justification of punishment, legal paternalism,
justice, the rule of law, and the role of legal theory in legal education."
A few comments:
1. This is an elective course, and there are prerequisites, so it could
not be taken by a first year student and so "natural law" would not be
"the first fact" taught any student.
2. "Natural law" is one of several jurisprudential theories being taught,
along with (gasp!) Marxism. Although it is a "principal" school of thought,
it is hardly the foundation of "all law."
3. "Natural law" is taught first only because it was one of the first
jurisprudential theories articulated in English common law. (Not so
coincidentally, it was also one of the first to be discarded.)
I also found a reference to "natural law" in the course guide to Yale
Law School, but it was an advanced course of European private law,
not American law, and didn't really seem relevant. (In the course
description, "natural law" was still one of many theories of law,
beginning with concepts in Roman law.)
>Any
>practicing attorney who denies that is either a liar or simply
>incompetent.
And how do we know that this is true? Because a moron posting
under a pseudonym tells us so! (Well, that's good enough for me,
by Cracky!)
Matt Leigh
Take Jim Rome's advice: Have a take, do not suck.
If you're really this clueless, here's an example of natural law: the
law of gravity. No one legistlated it, no one controlls it, no one
enforces it (though one could argue that someone has to observe it for
it to exist.)
Now, let's say you decide to break the law of gravity by stepping off a
cliff. What's going to happen? Can any sophistry let you avoid the
inevitable result?
Similarly, there are natural laws that govern the existence of each
individual and "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." The recently deceased Soviet Union is a good example of
what happens when governments attempt to abridge these rights. Notice
that these rights come from the creator. The Constitution was written
to provide a means for the preservation of these natural rights.
Once again, have a take, do not suck.
Ronald Cole
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu.REMOVE.THIS.SPAM.FILTER (Damien Falgoust) writes:
> Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
> Can you PROVE that "each of us has a natural right - from God - to
> defend his person, his liberty, and his property." No, you can't.
> All you can do is assert it yourself, or point out other people in
> history that have asserted it. It is, as I said, a non-provable
> premise.
Listen up: defending his person, his liberty, and his property *is by
definition* his natural rights. You have another definition of natural
rights?
> The definition is whatever the person asserting natural rights wants
> it to be. It's totally pliable because it's totally unprovable. I
> could cough up a definition of natural rights, but it'd be just as
> meaningless as yours.
How about using the definition that has been widely accepted since
before our constitution was ratified? What's wrong with that?
> You mix up two points here. The first is what I've been arguing all
> along: that appeals to natural rights (or morality, etc.) are
> meaningless because they are essentially unprovable assertions that
> don't exist independent of human thought. Again, I could cough up my
> own definition of "natural rights," but it'd be just as meaningless as
> Bastiat's.
So you basically accept the socialist notion that there are no natural
rights because you believe that logical reasoning is an absolute law
which governs the universe: it doesn't exist unless it can be
demonstrably proven.
> You confuse the issue by bringing up Blackstone. It is clear that
> some law is *based* on some individual's notions of natural law. For
> instance, today we have laws against public nudity because some people
> find it immoral or distasteful. But that's beside the point.
I think it's you that's confusing the issue by trying to use an
example involving individuals who have their own definition of
"natural law" instead of the definition that's been accepted for
centuries.
> My point is that to base a law *only on such an argument* is to base
> it on something utterly meaningless. For instance, it's far better
> to argue for public nudity laws on the basis that their absence
> leads to public disturbances, which affect the smooth flow of
> everyday life, instead of basing it on an empty appeal to morality.
Yup, that seductive lure of socialism: false philanthropy. Shout from
the highest rooftops that "society is an artificial creation of the
legislator's genius." Such legislation is the high road to communism:
the battlefield for the fantasies and greed of everyone.
> >Exactly how does perjury limit free speech?
>
> Are you that dense? Perjury is a type of speech, namely speech that
> is false and done under oath. By prosecuting perjury, we limit free
> speech. But as I said before (and you conveniently snipped without
> reference), the costs of that encroachment on freedom are worth the
> benefits stemming from it (namely a functional court system).
You must have been reading the latest SC decision regarding the
"exculpatory no" and 18 USC 1001... The onus of proof is on the
government. How does an "exculpatory no" disrupt the proper
functioning of the court system any more than a "not guilty" plea?
Could it be because perjury involves a violation of an oath?
> My point was that in arguing that perjury should trump free speech,
> it's a far more persuasive argument to say perjury's costs outweigh
> its benefits than it is to make an empty appeal to morality (i.e., we
> should outlaw perjury because it is immoral).
One can avoid the penalty of perjury by simply by not swearing or
affirming an oath to tell the truth.
Swear Not
by George Gordon
A witness who has religious objections to either swearing or affirming to
tell the truth has a right to find some other way to express an obligation
to testify accurately, a federal appeals court ruled on December 19, 1985.
By a 2 - 1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a federal
judge in Idaho to reinstate a Boise man's civil rights suit, which was
dismissed when he refused to either swear or affirm he would testify
truthfully at a pretrial deposition.
The civil rights suit was filed against the state of Idaho and Ada County
by George K. Gordon, who said a state judge sentenced him to jail for 12
days for contempt when he refused to swear or affirm to tell the truth
during proceedings in a civil suit.
Before trial, Gordon was summoned to an out-of-court deposition. He again
refused to swear or affirm he would tell the truth, and U.S. District Judge
Harold Ryan ordered his suit dismissed.
Here are some excerpts from the motion that George Gordon filed before the
Court:
"The question of whether the courts of Idaho can compel a liar to take an
oath to tell the truth and thereby force him to commit perjury is a serious
one. I contend that the answer is no. The 5th Amendment comes into play
here
"Oh, but you say, there is no Fifth Amendment protection to remain silent
in a civil case, therefore refusing to testify or answer questions
concerning this civil examination does not come under the Fifth Amendment
protection and you are right if you say you cannot refuse to answer
questions after judgement in a civil action and I concur.
"But, I did not refuse to answer questions in any examination after
judgement. I refused to swear an oath and I contend that is another issue.
Let's examine the matter further. The Fifth Amendment is designed to
protect a man against self incrimination, testimony against himself. If a
liar is compelled to take an oath and then answer questions, he is then
compelled to commit perjury which is both a criminal felony and entrapment.
"I have told the court that I am a pathological liar. As my authority, I
claim my First Amendment right to freedom of religion. I claim as an
inalienable right to believe my conscience and whatever religious authority
I believe to choose as my guide in this matter. I contend that you cannot
question my religious belief, only the 'sincerity with which I believe it.'
"God tells us 'let God be true though every man be a liar.' Matthew 5:33.
'Again you have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou
shalt not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
5:34 But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is
God's throne; 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by
Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 5:36 Neither shalt thou
swear by thy head, because thou canst make one hair white or black. 5:37
But let your communication be Yea, Yea, Yea; Nay, Nay: for whatsoever is
more than these cometh of evil.' Here is a direct order from Jesus Christ
that we are not to swear. I cannot speak for any other man but it is for
this cause that I cannot swear or take the oath.
"Let us examine one other piece of scripture while we are on the subject of
oaths. James 5:12 'But above all things my brethren, swear not, neither by
heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea
be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.'
"Now, I do not claim to be a Christian. I cannot determine whether I have
that status or not. I cannot believe that I hold such a status. But can I
then disregard a direct order from God himself? God himself has said every
man is a liar. Do you cast me in the dungeon for telling you the truth that
I am a liar?
"I contend that to compel me to tell the truth is like compelling a dog to
crow or a cat to bark. I concede that I have the capacity to tell the
truth. When I write it down or when I decide that I want to tell the truth
of the matter, I have the capacity. But to place me under oath, threat,
duress, and then coerce me to tell the truth, places me in jeopardy of
committing perjury and I claim my inalienable right to be free from such
force pursuant to the Miranda Doctrine. I claim the right to remain silent
when the question asked could result in an answer that could be used
against me in a criminal prosecution.
"Now to the question that I claim I cannot be compelled to answer. The
court asked the defendant this question: "Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth?" I answered the question plainly: 'No.' Do you cast
me into the prison for telling you the truth or for perjury? I am alleged
to be in criminal contempt but the court has not made any judicial
determination as to whether it is because I lied, told the truth, refused
to lie, refused to tell the truth, or for not taking an oath, or for some
other cause not known to me at this time. I contend that before I can
return to court to answer this matter I must have the proper Fifth
Amendment safeguards. I demand all of my rights at all times and I waive
none of them at any time, for any cause or reason, including my right to
time and counsel of my choice pursuant to the Sixth Amendment.
"In conclusion to this question, I contend that this court has compelled
this defendant into a classic Fifth Amendment 'Catch-22' situation in which
the constitutional protection comes into play in this case. It is for this
cause that this criminal conviction must be reversed."
And so it was.
[Reprinted from `Freedom League', January 1986]
Ronald Cole
wse...@panix.com (Wesley Serra) writes:
> In short, this is because, in the context of a legal discussion, the
> word "right" implies something created by law, while the word
> "natural" implies something (like gravity) independent of law.
>
> So: I do not believe in "natural rights". Continue Bastiat's argument
> from there.
Bastiat's natural rights: an individual's rights to defend his life,
liberty, and property, precede all human legislation. That you don't
believe in his "natural rights" says quite a lot about you... Read
<http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~ronald/patriot/the_law.html> to see what
that is.
Gwailo
Matt Leigh wrote:
> Take Jim Rome's advice: Have a take, do not suck.
>
> If you're really this clueless, here's an example of natural law: the
> law of gravity. No one legistlated it, no one controlls it, no one
> enforces it (though one could argue that someone has to observe it for
> it to exist.)
You're falling for a trick of the English language: how the word "law" is
used to descrbe natural phenomena as well as rules for interacting in
society. Suppose we called it the "principle" of gravity, not the "law" --
I think German makes this distinction -- your argument would collapse.
> Now, let's say you decide to break the law of gravity by stepping off a
> cliff.
You can't break the "law" of gravity, no matter how foolish you are or how
hard you try. That suggests that it's not like the laws that apply in human
society.
> What's going to happen? Can any sophistry let you avoid the inevitable
> result?
>
> Similarly, there are natural laws that govern the existence of each
> individual and "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness."
Quoting the Declaration of Independence sounds nice, but the fact that
Thomas Jefferson believed in an 18th century version of natural law is not
proof that it is true. At all.
> The recently deceased Soviet Union is a good example of what happens
> when governments attempt to abridge these rights.
Wonderfully sweeping statement. Why not conclude from the success of Iran
or Saudi Arabia that there is no God but Allah. Does natural law allow a
man to have four wives?
> Notice that these rights come from the creator. The Constitution was
> written
> to provide a means for the preservation of these natural rights.
Are you saying that people who don't believe in God (any god? your god?)
don't have natural rights? How do you know which rights are natural -- does
the Creator tell you?
'Gwailo
Wesley Serra
In article <87u39wh...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>,
Ronald Cole <ron...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> wrote:
>wse...@panix.com (Wesley Serra) writes:
>> In short, this is because, in the context of a legal discussion, the
>> word "right" implies something created by law, while the word
>> "natural" implies something (like gravity) independent of law.
>>
>> So: I do not believe in "natural rights". Continue Bastiat's argument
>> from there.
>
>Bastiat's natural rights: an individual's rights to defend his life,
>liberty, and property, precede all human legislation. That you don't
>believe in his "natural rights" says quite a lot about you... Read
><http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~ronald/patriot/the_law.html> to see what
>that is.
Now, let's see. I explain why I do not accept what you, in an earlier
post to this thread, described as one of Bastiat's premises. You snip a
good part of my explanation, restate the premise I questioned without
amplification, and refer me to . . . Bastiat. Now I understand.
By the way, thank you for observing that my ability to think
independently, and to express my thoughts without constant reference to
a mid-nineteenth century French economist as though he had just
descended from the Mount bearing clay tablets, "says quite a lot about"
me. You should try it.
Center for Constitutional Law
Damien Falgoust wrote in message
<6c5vdg$c6t$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>"Center for Constitutional Law" <tim...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Why would one need to prove the existence of something that
>>>>exists AS A MATTER OF LAW? Those of us
>>>>who live here in one of the several United States have had
>>>>this question settled for us by law.
>
First of all the statement above which you are attributing to me
is not mine. It was written by Patrick Henry, I mere referenced
it one to which you had made a reply.
>>DAMIEN:
>>>
>>>And guess what? The Constitution can be amended. The right
>>to, say,
>>>free speech can be taken away by the amendment process. That
>>is, it
>>>is the construct of human thought. The right does not exist
>>>independently of human philosophy. And what humans create,
>>humans can
>>>also take away. (Not that I'm advocating taking it away,
>>BTW...)
>>>
I SAID:
>>You say "what humans create, humans can also take away". The
>>Constitution does not create or grant rights. It merely
>>recognizes, protects, and secures the inherent rights (Natural
>>Rights) that Natural born individuals have. Humans did not
>>create man or the rights he Naturally has, like say, freedom
of
>>speech. That is so basic an understanding that your arguing
>>otherwise is pure folly.
>
DAMIEN:
>And why does man have freedom of speech "naturally"? In the
absence
>of government, or with a government that doesn't protect the
right to
>free speech, I posit that the right to free speech doesn't
exist.
The Natural Right of free speech is endowed by Natural Birth.
DAMIEN:
>Afther all, it's all well and good to say "I have this right"
but if
>you can't exercise it is that statement really meaningful?
>Do you really have that right, at least in any "real world"
kind of
way?
>
The only reason one "can't exercise it" would be if one had a
physical or mental imparement to keep him from doing so.
Otherwise no government can prevent such exercise except by
force where the speaker decides to invoke his free will to
speak. Your argument is juvenile in it's logic, reasoning, and
substance.
ME & PATRICK HENRY:
>>>The founders ASSERTED that those rights come from the
Creator.
>>And
>>>they built a system of government around that assertion. And
>>that's a
>>>good thing. But just because the founders asserted that they
>>come
>>>from the Creator, and just because the founders called them
>>>"inalienable," does not make them so.
>
>>It does, however make, as you yourself here attest, "a system
of
>>government around that assertion" so. That system of
government
>>SO built around that assertion, by the supremeacy clause, does
>>not afford statutes to undo what was built.
>
DAMIEN:
>Never said it did.
Exactly.
DAMIEN:
>But absent the first amendment, do you really
>think you have the right to free speech? Absent the fourth
amendment,
>do you really have the right to be free of searches and
seizures?
>
Of course we do, except clones and other government create
test-tube people. Where you are attempting to confuse the issue
is in your implication that those amendments are a "grant",
"license", or "permission". They are not. Those amendments are
guarantees of those rights for the master, and a mandate to
secure those rights for the servant (govt).
>Got news for you: the Bill of Rights is the construct of men.
Absent
>them penning the document (and the government abiding by that
>document), you just don't have the rights contained therein.
>
Wrong absent them abiding by that document, one still has the
rights. The failure to abide by the document, even though it
may result in the abbrogation of the right, is a crime, and not
a destruction of the right.
You're a lawyer ??
DAMIEN:
>They don't exist independent of human thought.
What does ? Your statement defines the word "banal".
>If the founder's didn't put them in the Bill of Rights, the
rights wouldn't exist. Period.
This is the dumbest thing I've read so far considering it's
source, a supposidly educated person.
Now, I ask you to prove that Natural Rights do not exist.
Joey Smith
Interesting stuff on natural law. While you're on a roll, please tell me how
*natural law* resolves the following situations:
.
(1) Two cars arrive at an intersection at the same time. How does natural
law dictate which one goes first?
.
(2) What does natural law tell us about how to regulate pornography?
.
(3) Doesn't natural law mandate that we let disease weed out the weak?
.
(4) How would natural law apply to regulate public utilities?
.
(5) How would natural law apply to currency?
.
(6) How would natural law deal with Saddam Hussein?
.
(7) How would natural law deal with casinos? Should they be everywhere or
nowhere?
.
(8) How would natural law regulate alcohol? Allow it or not?
.
(9) Doesn't natural law mean that the stronger party is always right? Why
shouldn't we settle disputes by physical force -- the person that nature has
made smarter or stronger wins, regardless or whether right or wrong?
.
(10) How would natural law apply to securities regulations and antitrust?
.
Since you have obviously thought out all of these problems beforehand, we
are all waiting with baited breath for you to answer us in full.
.
Anybody else have any similar questions they would like answered from the
Naturalists? If you do, please post! We may only benefit from their great
wisdom this once.
-- Joey Smith
Matt Leigh wrote in message <34EB3F...@newton.physics.uiowa.edu>...
>Take Jim Rome's advice: Have a take, do not suck.
>
>If you're really this clueless, here's an example of natural law: the
>law of gravity. No one legistlated it, no one controlls it, no one
>enforces it (though one could argue that someone has to observe it for
>it to exist.)
>
>inevitable result?
>
>Similarly, there are natural laws that govern the existence of each
>individual and "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
>what happens when governments attempt to abridge these rights. Notice
>that these rights come from the creator. The Constitution was written
>to provide a means for the preservation of these natural rights.
>