# REJECTION!



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UTLREO0&show_article=1

It's important to elect a Republican rather than Democrat who will nominate judges that think the law is bad and has to be "fixed."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

That's what our representative democracy has been reduced to:


"Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts. "

So by now, all three branches of our government have assumed the power to disregard the Constitution at their will.

I'm waiting patiently for the revolution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> That's what our representative democracy has been reduced to:
> 
> "Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts. "
> 
> ...


So, in your opinion, "it is the right of the people to alter ... it" would not include Congress passing laws; like changes to FISA?


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I agree that that is not a good example. That (a good example) would be this little forgotten footnote of American policy that politicians of both parties like to ignore:


> Amendment IV
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

The standing thing is idiotic. I know this is now how the court views it, and they'll likely never change their view on this, but the Constitution says "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states...." I don't see anywhere that says jurisdiction is limited to controversies arising under the Constitution, just cases. If cases and controversies were to mean the same thing, they darn well would have used the same word throughout.

Seems that throughout the SCOTUS history, whenever there is a really hard case they just find a fault with standing. Look at what they did to most of the plaintiffs in DC v Heller.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lots of debates about how the government is divided up and what each can do. Watching C-SPAN you can see the questions about this and that, and what has happened in the past. All this legal stuff is not so simple, which is why lots of them are not in prison. Bush and many other Presidents are not in prison or been in prison because of the powers delegated to the President. What Presidents have legally done in the past makes Bush look like a saint, otherwise he would have been impeached. There is a lot of history we haven't been told about, and some of it rarely comes up.

C-Span is an interesting 2-3 channels to watch.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Notice the wording of the Deceleration of Independence: "life, liberty..." - life comes first. To me that puts the right to life before the right of liberty. I believe the wiretapping should be allowed. The CIA can't listen to any cell phone or email conversation that goes through a switch or router on US territory? So an email sent between two terrorists in Iraq transfers through a Google router based in the US, now that email can't be read? That's absurd. I rather the CIA, although I am sure they have better things to do, read my email than let information of an attack go unread that leads to the deaths of thousands, or for that matter, a single person.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable *Right*s; that among these are *Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; that *to* secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

FrankDC, it has taken a long while, but we finally agree!


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> The standing thing is idiotic. I know this is now how the court views it, and they'll likely never change their view on this, but the Constitution says "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states...." I don't see anywhere that says jurisdiction is limited to controversies arising under the Constitution, just cases. If cases and controversies were to mean the same thing, they darn well would have used the same word throughout.
> 
> Seems that throughout the SCOTUS history, whenever there is a really hard case they just find a fault with standing. Look at what they did to most of the plaintiffs in DC v Heller.


Actually, the way the federal government originally worked, the Supreme Court had to take everything that was appealed to them. Congress can set the jurisdiction of the courts. There was a time when the Supreme Court actually actively lobbied Congress to get control over what cases they would hear. This led to the system of certiorari that we have today.

I do agree with your underlying point. While habeas corpus is normally a useful rule to avoid frivolous litigation, in this case it does appear to create a catch-22 situation.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> Notice the wording of the Deceleration of Independence: "life, liberty..." - life comes first. To me that puts the right to life before the right of liberty.


I forget who famous espouses that belief as well, but some famous political scientist does. I have to disagree. If you look to the end of the Declaration, the signers pledge "to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Notice, they are not willing to pledge their liberty. Also note that in the Declaration the complaints concerning killing are not brought up until the end, and there are considerably fewer of them than the other complaints.

You also have to consider that their thoughts were guided largely by Locke, who claimed tyranny to be worse than anarchy, though violence occurs more often in anarcy.

Finally, they're going to war for liberty. To do so requires that liberty is worth dying for.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

radix023 said:


> Actually, the way the federal government originally worked, the Supreme Court had to take everything that was appealed to them. Congress can set the jurisdiction of the courts. There was a time when the Supreme Court actually actively lobbied Congress to get control over what cases they would hear. This led to the system of certiorari that we have today.
> 
> I do agree with your underlying point. While habeas corpus is normally a useful rule to avoid frivolous litigation, in this case it does appear to create a catch-22 situation.


And if you look at 42 USC 1983, I think one could make the case that Congress was trying to solve the problem (could have said prosecute, but instead says subjects). Sure it was for racial civil rights claims, but I think the wording suggests that Congress has decided it would be beneficial for all constitutional claims to have that standard for standing (and the court pretends to apply it, but I don't think they really do). But even still they want "imminent prosecution," which according to the DC Circuit isn't satisfied even if the Atty General says to the would-be plaintiffs, during the course of litigation, that he will prosecute if they violate the law in question.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

*For God, for Country, and for Yale*

Being listed first does not always imply precedence. Consider Lee Harvey Oswald, who was charged with the murder of Officer Tippett, some boring stuff, and-- at the end-- the assassination of the President of the United States.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> who claimed tyranny to be worse than anarchy, though violence occurs more often in anarchy.


That might be true only if you don't count all of the violence that the government commits (which is pretty much everything it does).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I forget who famous espouses that belief as well, but some famous political scientist does. I have to disagree. If you look to the end of the Declaration, the signers pledge "to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Notice, they are not willing to pledge their liberty. Also note that in the Declaration the complaints concerning killing are not brought up until the end, and there are considerably fewer of them than the other complaints.
> 
> You also have to consider that their thoughts were guided largely by Locke, who claimed tyranny to be worse than anarchy, though violence occurs more often in anarcy.
> 
> Finally, they're going to war for liberty. To do so requires that liberty is worth dying for.


JEOPARDY!!!!!! YAY!

I'll take basic poli-sci trivia for $100

Famous political scientist espousing the precedence of high order rights.

Who is Thomas Jefferson? 

Seriously, I'm guessing you are probably referring to Ayn Rand. I don't think TJ has been read directly in curricula since the late 60s. That would be far to dangerous. I mean if people read TJ himself they might discover what it really means and then how could we confuse our citizens with such logic as "notice they did not pledge their liberty." 

Como se dici, Liberty or Death? One cannot pledge both one's life and one's liberty. Once an individual chooses life/death, their liberty cannot be taken. Your honor and your fortune go on without you after your death.

To say our Life, our Liberty, our Happiness, our Fortunes and our Honor would have sounded pretty stupid wouldn't it for men that actually were pledging THEIR LIVES? It's the difference between asking a largely academic question in 2008 and asking a few guys with muskets defying the sovereign power of the known world at the time. Academic not meaning to marginalize your interest, but that post Civil-War the question is academic. TJs enlightenment on high order individual rights no longer matters "officially." Something about "all personal interests. all individual interests. all economic interests are now subordinate to the federal government." Forgive the incorrect quote. I don't have it handy. But if high order rights are exercised through the ownership of private property as TJ suggests those two realities are simply incompatible.

disclaimers: in my perception, in my humble opinion, I could be wrong (ha! LOL)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Phinn said:


> That might be true only if you don't count all of the violence that the government commits (which is pretty much everything it does).


Here, Here! So very true.

anecdte: I recently had a discussion on XBRL FR which is being implemented by the SEC and soon XBRL GL by the IRS for business documents related to audit. Someone remarked, "technical standards blah blah blah no enforcement." I answered that it depends on if the standards-setting body has guns or not.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> JEOPARDY!!!!!! YAY!
> 
> I'll take basic poli-sci trivia for $100
> 
> ...


Not John Locke ("life, liberty & property" or "life, health, liberty, or possessions.")?


ksinc said:


> Seriously, I'm guessing you are probably referring to Ayn Rand. I don't think TJ has been read directly in curricula since the late 60s.


That would be depressing if it were true for everybody.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Phinn said:


> That might be true only if you don't count all of the violence that the government commits (which is pretty much everything it does).


Go talk to some people who've lived under both. I've known a few, and I had a professor (very conservative professor btw) who taught courses in Argentina; they've all said that there was more security under tyranny.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> JEOPARDY!!!!!! YAY!
> 
> I'll take basic poli-sci trivia for $100
> 
> ...


No, not TJ. I wasn't talking about the concept of high order rights, but the belief that we can find a ranking system of rights through observation of the order in which they appear in our defining texts. He was either a prof at Gtown or jsut happened to have all of his writings published by Gtown University, I can't remember.

You seem to be saying if you're pledging your life there is no need to pledge your liberty, but they felt it necessary to pledge their property and their honor, seems like liberty is conspicuously absent to me.

Oh, and we read TJ. We read drafts of his too. Drafts that said things that appear nowhere in the final versions, and the correspondance involved in their deletion (basically other people telling him to back off with his morals if he wants them on board).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> You seem to be saying if you're pledging your life there is no need to pledge your liberty, but they felt it necessary to pledge their property and their honor, seems like liberty is conspicuously absent to me.


sheesh, you give obtuse a bad name


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> sheesh, you give obtuse a bad name


Well, you didn't exaclty make yourself clear. Seems to me that was the first and clearest thing you said, then you made some allusion to fascism that didn't seem to really fit, I suppose suggesting that if they did pledge liberty too they would have given it all away?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Well, you didn't exaclty make yourself clear. Seems to me that was the first and clearest thing you said, then you made some allusion to fascism that didn't seem to really fit, I suppose suggesting that if they did pledge liberty too they would have given it all away?


this was unclear?

"Como se dici, Liberty or Death? One cannot pledge both one's life and one's liberty."

YOU can NOW because you do NOT really have any liberty.

Allusion to fascism? You lost me there. If you are reading looking for allusions perhaps that is the problem. I'm widely regarded for my candor.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

On the facism, I thought you were making a joke with "all personal interests. all individual interests. all economic interests are now subordinate to the federal government" alluding to the fascist idea of everything is within the state and all individual interests are subordinate to the state.

First, I've had to google como se dici. I speak a handful of languages, but spanish (I presume from googling, I could be wrong - it appears it means "How do you say") isn't one of them. Liberty or death? Patrick Henry only supports that liberty was held above life. I still say they could have pledged both if they were willing to - turncoats would be punished with enslavement, something of that nature.

So, who were you loosely quoting with the interests are subordinate bit?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> On the facism, I thought you were making a joke with "all personal interests. all individual interests. all economic interests are now subordinate to the federal government" alluding to the fascist idea of everything is within the state and all individual interests are subordinate to the state.
> 
> First, I've had to google como se dici. I speak a handful of languages, but spanish (I presume from googling, I could be wrong - it appears it means "How do you say") isn't one of them. Liberty or death? Patrick Henry only supports that liberty was held above life. I still say they could have pledged both if they were willing to - turncoats would be punished with enslavement, something of that nature.
> 
> So, who were you loosely quoting with the interests are subordinate bit?


No, that's not a joke. That's actually the USA since ~1862. That's a quote from the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and Gen. Sherman's Brother explaining Lincoln's new policies. Economics drive process is not a new thing. Search my post in the Churchill thread.

ONLY Patrick Henry, huh? Is that what they teach you? Sad. Many men died under that 'slogan'.

https://www.ultimateflags.com/usahist/donttreadwhite.html


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

I didn't say only Patrick Henry, I said Patrick Henry only supports.

Anyways, I'm unfamiliar with that quotation and at any I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the US today. Perhaps some personal, individual, and economic interests are held subordinate, but not all are.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I didn't say only Patrick Henry, I said Patrick Henry only supports.
> 
> Anyways, I'm unfamiliar with that quotation and at any I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the US today. Perhaps some personal, individual, and economic interests are held subordinate, but not all are.


Well, if you looked at the role private property rights played in the decision to declare Independence and as a basis for our other recognized rights, then you compare that with the statement "All private interests, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be subordinate now to the interest of the Government." There is only one plausible conclusion. The destruction of State rights and individual rights was realized along with the legalized plunder after that policy statement. Look at the eminent domain cases in the past few years for more recent examples. Again, economics drive process. If you can really accept and learn to always analyze things from that perspective you will be far ahead of your peers and even their mentors. To each in their own time, however. Good luck with your study of the subject!

For a field project: buy some land and try to build something on it yourself. See what happens!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, if you looked at the role private property rights played in the decision to declare Independence and as a basis for our other recognized rights, then you compare that with the statement "All private interests, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be subordinate now to the interest of the Government." There is only one plausible conclusion. The destruction of State rights and individual rights was realized along with the legalized plunder after that policy statement. Look at the eminent domain cases in the past few years for more recent examples. Again, economics drive process. If you can really accept and learn to always analyze things from that perspective you will be far ahead of your peers and even their mentors. To each in their own time, however. Good luck with your study of the subject!
> 
> *For a field project: buy some land and try to build something on it yourself. See what happens!*


My friends and I built a treehouse in the wooded area near our homes when we were kids. We had paintball guns to protect our "fortress", and we never paid any taxes. Does that count?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Again, economics drive process. If you can really accept and learn to always analyze things from that perspective you will be far ahead of your peers and even their mentors.


For once we agree on something. Some people complain about how one of the professors is more concerned with the economics of court decisions than with the "law." I was probably the only one glad for it. I do it in class, and I suppose I'll do it in my work, but I hate to do it when I don't have to. It feels a little dirty.

Eminent domain can go either way. Largely it's done adversely, but in some small towns it basically goes, "we need this land, how much do you want for it," and then they give them whatever they ask for. When it's done like that, I don't see it as subordination of the individual right, but rather working together for an agreed greater good.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> My friends and I built a treehouse in the wooded area near our homes when we were kids. We had paintball guns to protect our "fortress", and we never paid any taxes. Does that count?


Did you have a permit? No.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> For once we agree on something. Some people complain about how one of the professors is more concerned with the economics of court decisions than with the "law." I was probably the only one glad for it. I do it in class, and I suppose I'll do it in my work, but I hate to do it when I don't have to. It feels a little dirty.
> 
> Eminent domain can go either way. Largely it's done adversely, but in some small towns it basically goes, "we need this land, how much do you want for it," and then they give them whatever they ask for. When it's done like that, I don't see it as subordination of the individual right, but rather working together for an agreed greater good.


And; who determines which way it goes? 

I'm still sitting in on a case with one of our foundations. It really destroys any last bit of faith in so-called public servants. They give prostitutes a bad name. It's just shameful. The lawyers live like Trump while stealing from the weak and the poor. Fortunately, we are neither. It reminds me of dealing with the Ford dealer. They just keep hoping eventually you will get tired and give in.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> And; who determines which way it goes?


Well, that's the problem. I'm just saying, there is a way to exercise eminent domain right.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Did you have a permit? No.


No permit. We just walked over and took the land. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> No permit. We just walked over and took the land. :icon_smile:


Oh, so you're a racist?!

calm down ... native american indian joke!


----------

