Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Unwarranted self-regard  (Read 18196 times)

mikefam

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Live free or Die:death is not the worst of evils
Re: Unwarranted self-regard
« Reply #45 on: July 17, 2005, 12:03:26 pm »

laughable  a lot of big words , but the fact is the law is the law and no person or government agency can add to  the law that is written by a Legislature.
   Law is devoid of assumption, that why human beings took to writing the law.

 So I guess Brian your a big fan of case law and you fully support the recent supreme court decision pertaining to eminent domain??
« Last Edit: July 17, 2005, 01:04:33 pm by mikefam »
Logged

BrianMcCandliss

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1121
Re: Unwarranted self-regard
« Reply #46 on: July 17, 2005, 04:02:03 pm »

laughable  a lot of big words , but the fact is the law is the law and no person or government agency can add to  the law that is written by a Legislature.
It's not "adding" anything, to extrapolate logical conlusions via the consistent application of laws to given situations. If the law says that you have the right to bear arms, and the right to be secure in your person against unreasonable searches and siezures-- as well as the right to be free from public scrutiny under the right of privacy, then this equates to the right to carry weapons in a concealed manner. It doesn't need to be stated outright-- it can be extrapolated logically from other existing laws. That's what courts are FOR.


Quote
   Law is devoid of assumption, that why human beings took to writing the law.
An "assumption" is a claim not based on the evidence. Implication, meanwhile, is the logical deduction of a necessary relationship between different pieces of evidence.

Quote
So I guess Brian your a big fan of case law and you fully support the recent supreme court decision pertaining to eminent domain??
Guess again; there's no logical reason to presuppose that "public use" extends to strictly private developments. However I AM a big fan of state soveriegnty and the right of nullification or secession against oppressive federal laws.
Logged

mikefam

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Live free or Die:death is not the worst of evils
Re: Unwarranted self-regard
« Reply #47 on: July 17, 2005, 05:50:57 pm »

Quote
That's what courts are FOR.

the courts are supposed to be an arbitrator between 2 parties claiming injuries  and to decide if An application of the law is constitutional on not  there not supposed to extrapolate anything  there not even supposed to look at parts of law  there supposed to look at the whole law in its entirety.(applying case law) Its your common Law right to be tried by the facts and the facts alone pertaining to the matter at  hand, and to be under the jurisdiction of the Legislature only. the courts and judges have no right to logically extrapolate anything they review the facts and determine the winners and looses. if there is a question of law there "supposed to return the matter to the legislature for input or rectification.
  its because of this idea of extrapolating logical conclusions via consistant application of law that your rights to bear arms your right to be free from unreasonable searches have consistently been violated over periods of time.
 The written words of the legislature is LAW anything else is color of LAW.
Logged

BrianMcCandliss

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1121
Re: Unwarranted self-regard
« Reply #48 on: July 17, 2005, 09:49:19 pm »

Quote
That's what courts are FOR.

the courts are supposed to be an arbitrator between 2 parties claiming injuries  and to decide if An application of the law is constitutional on not  there not supposed to extrapolate anything  there not even supposed to look at parts of law  there supposed to look at the whole law in its entirety.(applying case law) Its your common Law right to be tried by the facts and the facts alone pertaining to the matter at  hand, and to be under the jurisdiction of the Legislature only. the courts and judges have no right to logically extrapolate anything they review the facts and determine the winners and looses. if there is a question of law there "supposed to return the matter to the legislature for input or rectification.
  its because of this idea of extrapolating logical conclusions via consistant application of law that your rights to bear arms your right to be free from unreasonable searches have consistently been violated over periods of time.
 The written words of the legislature is LAW anything else is color of LAW.

FALSE! The court applies the facts AND the law; if there's a jury, then the jury is the trier-of-fact, and the judge is the trier-of-law.
The courts HAVE to logically apply the laws consistently with one another, to the facts of the case, and to arrive at a logical verdict in each particular case. Each case is different, and so the law applies differently.
Try studying some law before speaking about it, because this is pure ignorance.
Logged

mikefam

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Live free or Die:death is not the worst of evils
Re: Unwarranted self-regard
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2005, 09:59:02 am »

Maybe A dictionary is in order for you   "Supposed" I know what courts now do  and I believe it to be unlawful
Logged

BrianMcCandliss

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1121
Re: Unwarranted self-regard
« Reply #50 on: July 18, 2005, 11:30:35 am »

You don't need a dictionary, you need a lawbook on how the courts work-- and HAVE worked for hundreds of years.
You can't just read one law, you have to apply them ALL in logical consistency with one another, to the situation in question; THAT is the court's function.
 
You CAN challenge one law against a higher law-- a Constitution is higher than a statute, which is higher than a court opinion etc, and the higher law will override. Likewise, if the court rules illogically, you can appeal on the grounds of "abuse of discretion."
But I'm not here to educate the ignorant on basic fact-- I'm here to argue the truth.

As for the Supreme Court, the states have the right of nullification of ANY law within their borders; however this was suppressed by Abe Lincoln until further notice. Until this sovereign right is restored, things can ONLY get worse.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2005, 12:00:08 pm by BrianMcCandliss »
Logged

mikefam

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Live free or Die:death is not the worst of evils
Re: Unwarranted self-regard
« Reply #51 on: July 18, 2005, 03:57:20 pm »

You don't need a dictionary, you need a lawbook on how the courts work-- and HAVE worked for hundreds of years.
You can't just read one law, you have to apply them ALL in logical consistency with one another, to the situation in question; THAT is the court's function.
 
You CAN challenge one law against a higher law-- a Constitution is higher than a statute, which is higher than a court opinion etc, and the higher law will override. Likewise, if the court rules illogically, you can appeal on the grounds of "abuse of discretion."
But I'm not here to educate the ignorant on basic fact-- I'm here to argue the truth.

As for the Supreme Court, the states have the right of nullification of ANY law within their borders; however this was suppressed by Abe Lincoln until further notice. Until this sovereign right is restored, things can ONLY get worse.

  YEA ,,, what HE said   ;D
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up