[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed Source: LF URL Source: [None] Published: Jul 9, 2015 Author: tpaine Post Date: 2015-07-09 10:39:45 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 70876 Comments: 255 The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment AMENDMENT 28. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 214. #9. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Yes, I have a comment (or two.) Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. "Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of SCOTUS. We now have a "living breathing" Constitution. Just five tyrants of SCOTUS have already interpreted the Founders intent any way they want (emotionally), and changed federal law (without Congressional or State consent.) What exactly would stop SCOTUS from repealing the 2A? Congress?? "Public outrage? HA! Precedence has been set. Paine, I admire your commitment to the Fairy Tale that is the "US Constitution," but recent Presidents have ignored it; Congress has ignored it; And SCOTUS ignores it....In other words: "It's dead, Jim." that SCOTUS Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09   12:57:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: Liberator, tpaine (#9) Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:03:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: nolu chan (#87) I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   22:19:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: tpaine (#94) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. No. It led you to make an ass of yourself. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:53:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: nolu chan (#98) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. No. It led you to make an ass of yourself. Sigh, another silly, uncalled for pejorative flame.. -- Very unprofessional for a guy trying to pass himself off as one.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   23:01:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: tpaine (#101) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien? nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   2:16:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #117. To: nolu chan, gatlin, Y'ALL (#109) I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. You affirmed such a power, and provided an example of how such an amendment could be worded. You did not indicate that you would not advocate the power to so amend. It's unfortunate you didn't post that revision. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. --- "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502>> Well, we're not in court, but I do have a pure heart. As for empty heads, I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-10   11:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #141. To: tpaine (#117) Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien? Of course, you must run and hide from my questions as your dingbat legal theory emanating from the tpaine court of the imagination ineluctably deems that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. I answered your question. Why must you hide from mine? Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   19:50:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #146. To: nolu chan (#141) I answered your question. Yep, you answered the question that lead to this thread. Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. - - Fine.. Here's another: --- Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze? To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable. (In a Constitutional sense) Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims. I do not ineluctably deem that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. Your turn, -- answer mine. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-10   21:37:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #147. To: tpaine (#146) Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Well, bless your heart. I can see how desperate you are to see what else I have written on the right to keep and bear arms, but you seem to be too incompetent to read any of that and must rely on assertions spewed from your imagination. Here, read about the right to keep and bear arms. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25 #25. To: misterwhite (#24) Seems pretty clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed the second amendment only protects militia-type arms in relation to a militia, doesn't it? It seems clear that the Supremes indicated that in 1939. More recently, they indicated "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008) Note however, this quote from the article. After Heller, there is not much left of Miller. FWIW, my personal opinion is that Scalia's Opinion in Heller is correct. Oddly, Second Amendment scholars have largely ignored Miller. While individual and collective right theorists alike claim Miller supports their position, most provide only a perfunctory account of the case. The few exceptions focus on the text of the opinion, rather than the history of the case, and the context in which it was decided. All conclude Miller is an impenetrable mess. Miller has been sharply narrowed by Heller. Miller does very little. Heller at 625. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Heller at 592 c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ....” Heller at 579-581 1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5 Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-04   18:22:48 ET nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   22:29:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #148. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#147) Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Nolu chan never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-07-10   22:33:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #153. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#148) I posted to: nolu chan,----- Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. AKA Stone --- nolu chan never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution. Here's what Chan posted about that subject: -- He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. Now I have no idea WHY my remark above raised such a hissy fit, -- but obviously, that is what Chan posted. As I said before, this discussion is getting bizarro. Why in hell does my opinion, -- that amendments cannot alienate away our basic rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, --- that they would be unconstitutional, -- become such a divisive issue? tpaine  posted on  2015-07-11   11:29:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #179. To: tpaine (#153) [tpaine #153] I posted to: nolu chan,----- Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. I have not revised my answer. You asked if the 2nd Amendment could be repealed. My answer has consistently been that it could be repealed by another amendment, in the same manner that the 18th was repealed by the 21st. You did not here ask if I favored or opposed such repeal. I have not changed my mind on that either. I just not comport with the fantasy argument you have been cut and pasting for a decade. The RKBA is protected by the 2nd Amendment and the right is an individual right. The 2nd Amendment did not grant a right to anyone, but recognized a pre-existing right, inhering to the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights Amendment II Right to keep and bear arms This right has been fully incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts,See McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as a "central component" of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra. As the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated against the states, it applies equally to the states due to the 14th Amendment. If it were not (or before it was) incorporated, that would not confer a delegation of sovereign power to state to mess with the RKBA. The right was individual and I do not see when the people have ever chosen to delegate away their RBKA power in any state. It is not delegated away by silence in the organic law. As Jim Rob summed you up, inflicting pain is your game. You strive to be a pain in the ass and see if you can get a reaction. To: tpaine Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-11   22:43:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #180. To: nolu chan (#179) Your game has not changed in over 10 years. You spout utter nonsense and attempt to frustrate others until a flame war erupts. Then you try to report someone and have them banned. You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. -- It's usually the other way around. --- As you well know. As Jim Rob summed you up, inflicting pain is your game. You strive to be a pain in the ass and see if you can get a reaction. Whatever. -- You're repeating yourself again. --- Get some new lines... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-11   22:58:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #183. To: tpaine (#180) You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. To: tpaine Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-11   23:22:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #185. To: nolu chan (#183) Why are you repeatedly reposting that tired old post from JR? Feel free, but dream on if you really imagine it proves anything... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-11   23:42:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #186. To: tpaine (#185) Why are you repeatedly reposting that tired old post from JR? Feel free, but dream on if you really imagine it proves anything... I guess you should keep reading it until it becomes clearer. [tpaine] You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. Perhaps if I emphasize the obvious a bit more. To: tpaine Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson You poor thing. Jim Rob would not take your abuse report seriously. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-12   2:17:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #188. To: nolu chan, poor thing, uses JR for support. (#186) You poor thing. Jim Rob would not take your abuse report seriously. You poor thing, trying to imply that filing 'abuse reports' at that time on FR meant attempting to get someone banned. --- Hell, for a while there, it was the sites sport, as everyone competed to see who could get the mods to 'delete' your opponents personally offensive remarks. To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-12   11:29:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #189. To: tpaine (#188) To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=29#29 To: Eagle Eye I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-13   14:03:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #190. To: nolu chan, trying to prove his point by citing JR at FR (#189) To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred. And for proof, read the thread below, cited by Chan. www.freerepublic.com/focu...t/650379/posts?page=29#29 To: Eagle Eye I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? If you really read the thread you would know, --- not many.. ---- At this point in my FR 'career', JR was really on my case, and working himself up to permanently banning a number of us 'disruptors'. Which he eventually did... I urge anyone to read the whole thread for context. It was a very fun time for most of us at FR ---- Except for JR and his band of sick sycophants. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-13   17:09:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #191. To: tpaine (#190) I urge anyone to read the whole thread for context. It was a very fun time for most of us at FR ---- Except for JR and his band of sick sycophants. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts tpaine vanity whine 'Flame war' or Constitutional debate? vanity ^ | 3/20/02 | tpaine Posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine On the afternnoon of 3/18 Texaggie79 and I got into a type of discussion that is becoming all too common at FR. In an effort to defend his position as a drug warrior, tex decided to attack the motives of his percieved enemies, 'the libertarians'. --- Here is that thread: Cannabis Cafes Set To Open All Around Britain As Law Changes Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648477/posts?q=1&&page=201 Posts #205/206 are one of our more typical exchanges. -- Shortly after our disagreement ended, -- on that thread. Later that same evening, I had just responded to a concealed carry question at #15, - on this thread: Sheriff says 'gun nut' concealing the truth Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648911/posts ---- When my correspondent asked if I was still 'harrassing' texaggie. --- I denied any such intent, -- and Tex immediately posted the URL of the cannibus tread as his 'proof' of being harrassed. Thus, Tex set off another 'flame war' between us on the same subject as the previous post. Eventually, others on the thread protested his hijack of the thread. -- In response, I tried to show that texaggies constitutional position was not only against drugs, but could also be applied against guns. -- Just as this point was about to be established, -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' . 'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid-discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control. No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation. I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange. And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods. I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer. -- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions.. TOPICS: Cheese, Moose, Sister; Free Republic Policy/Q&A; Humor KEYWORDS: Navigation: use the links below to view more comments. first 1-50, 51-100, 101-125 next last 1 posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=17#17 To: tpaine You should be flamed just for starting a whole bleeping thread for your edification. What was wrong with leaving your WOD battle where it was? Gotta have a thread with your name on the top or something? I don't care that you posted this turkey in cheese-ville. 17 posted on 3/20/2002, 5:55:00 PM by Cyber Liberty http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=24#24 To: tpaine And you with there wondering why "discussions" with you always turn to flame-fests. You are either stupid or just self-absorbed to the point that you have no idea how ridiculous you look. Buh bye. I have some hot dogs to go steam. 24 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:08:38 PM by Cyber Liberty http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=29#29' To: Eagle Eye I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? = = = = = = = = = = A tpaine victory http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=36#36 To: tpaine You and Tex completely ruined that thread. You dragged in an unrelated ongoing argument and ended up taking the thread completely off topic. What was particularly galling was that you continued your flame war even after Mr. March, the subject of the article, made an appearance on the thread and even went as far as asking you to stop. You pissed him off so bad that now he is banned for using vulgar language. 36 posted on 3/20/2002, 7:35:31 PM by Sandy http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=37#37 To: Sandy I was about to respond [belatedly, I admit] to him, and offer encouragement, etc, when he blew up. I am sorry that you think, -- that I was at fault beyond that. -- I don't see it that way at all. I'm responsible for what I actually do or say. - Not for anyones perceived opinions about my actions. 37 posted on 3/20/2002, 8:03:49 PM by tpaine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=40#40">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=40#40 To: tpaine I'll ask John to start a new topic called "Whine and Cheese" just for you. Thanks, Jim 40 posted on 3/20/2002, 9:33:42 PM by Jim Robinson And the unanswered question remains, How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? And you were obviously referring to your antics on yet some previous thread. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-13   20:19:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #192. To: nolu chan (#191) 13/14 years ago, I posted: --- -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' . 'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid- discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control. No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation. I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange. And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods. I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer. -- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions. 1 posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine Shortly after, I received this post from JR.. To: tpaine --- I'll ask John to start a new topic called "Whine and Cheese" just for you. Thanks, Jim ----- 40 posted on 3/20/2002, 9:33:42 PM by Jim Robinson And, if memory serves, JR suspended me for another short period, right after that.. And the unanswered question remains, How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? I answered, just above, that I have no idea 'how many times'. -- Look it up if it's important to you. -- That seems to be your major obsession the last few days, trying to convict be of some 'crime' over at FR, 13 years ago. Get a life. Find a new hobby. -- Or rave on, and continue your obsessive- compulsive behaviour. It's becoming funny/weird. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-13   20:52:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #193. To: tpaine (#192) Get a life. Find a new hobby. -- Or rave on, and continue your obsessive- compulsive behaviour. It's becoming funny/weird. http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=10#C10 #10. To: sysadmin, gatlin, Y'ALL (#5) I also thank TC for his contributions to help improve LP. I noticed he tried to talk some common sense to a couple of stalkers and agitators to have them see the error in their ways. I doubt it worked and I will not know since I have them on bozo. Gatlin There was an article TPR recently posted purely to instigate a flame war. I pinged you with a request to move it to the Biker Bar. --- Gatlin I saw that and fixed the title accordingly. TPR has been warned that one more incident and he's busted down to a lower posting level. --- sysadmin Gatlin keeps posting barely disguised remarks referring to me as a "stalker" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. tpaine posted on 2015-01-06 18:47:32 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=16#C16 #16. To: Palmdale, sysadmin, Y'ALL (#14) Palmdale keeps posting barely disguised silly words referring to me as "pt/tp" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. Pthe tpoor ptattle ptale... ---- Palmdale tpaine posted on 2015-01-06 19:09:14 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=17#C17 #17. To: tpaine, Palmdale, All (#16) Palmdale keeps posting barely disguised silly words referring to me as "pt/tp" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. If I were to start issuing formal warnings to every person here who uses "silly words" in their comments I'd have time for nothing else. People make fun of each other and call each other names here at least a dozen times before breakfast and it continues throughout the day. It is part and parcel of political debate even face-to-face in many instances, and it is very easy to fall into that habit when dealing with anonymous, faceless opponents online. (Frankly I believe in most cases the people doing the name calling are saying more about themselves than the persons being targeted.) However, I will keep an eye out for reports of anything that rises to the level of being truly objectionable. As always, if you guys (or anyone else) really want to get into it with each other that's no skin off my nose but please take it to the Biker Bar where it belongs. sysadmin posted on 2015-01-06 20:39:31 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=18#C18 #18. To: sysadmin (#17) Sorry about the silly words. I'll try to be less of a tpettifogger starting at some unspecified date in the near future. Palmdale posted on 2015-01-06 20:48:34 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=19#C19 #19. To: Palmdale (#18) Sorry about the silly words. I'll try to be less of a tpettifogger starting at some unspecified date in the near future. OK, thanks -- just don't graduate to silly walks or we'll be in real trouble! sysadmin posted on 2015-01-06 20:57:28 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=20#C20 #20. To: tpaine (#16) To: Palmdale, sysadmin, Y'ALL Palmdale keeps posting barely disguised silly words referring to me as "pt/tp" purely to instigate a flame war. I'm pinging you with a request to give him a warning. Pthe tpoor ptattle ptale... ---- Palmdale You are just insufferable. Stop whining. SOD posted on 2015-01-06 21:21:18 ET Everybody else tries to instigate flame wars with you, but you remain resolute in keeping the peace. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-13   21:07:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #194. To: nolu chan (#193) (Edited) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-13   21:24:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #195. To: tpaine (#194) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud. Yes, everybody else is unstable. You poor baby. You accuse everyone of trying to start a flame war with you. On this thread you started your modus operandi at your #39 to TooConservative. You continued your modus operandi at your #79 to myself, nolu chan. I have been documenting your pulling this same stunt at this site and other sites. By doing it with me (again), you invited the rebuttal. Sometimes the truth hurts. I am not flaming you, I am coldly, almost robotically, destroying your whines. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=39#C39 #39. To: TooConservative, Y'ALL (#8) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional, and that officials of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our various levels of gov'ts could give their opinions to that effect, and refuse to implement such and act, as per their oaths of office Do you contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war? Nolu is correct. Every portion of the Constitution can be amended. Or it could be abolished entirely. What a silly clickbait vanity thread. What a silly, click-baiting reply. -- Take your attempts to start a flame war elsewhere. tpaine posted on 2015-07-09 15:33:25 ET http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=79#C79 #79. To: nolu chan (#73) Nolu Chan -- The Court majority found a fundamental right to same-sex marriage somewhere in the due process clause, in a manner similar to how it found a right to abortion. --- I disagree with their "interpretation" of the Constitution, but it is not legislation. Were it legislation, it could be overturned by Congress with more legislation. We agree... A Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case. We disagree. -- There is nothing in our constitution itself that supports your opinion. -- Your lengthy postings of opinions by other authorities are just that, --- opinions. They do not prove your case. Your posting your wingnut nonsense certainly does not prove your point. Your pejorative comments lead me to believe you want to end this discussion in a flame war. -- No thanks... tpaine posted on 2015-07-09 21:45:58 ET http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=82#C82 #82. To: tpaine (#79) Your pejorative comments lead me to believe you want to end this discussion in a flame war. -- No thanks... A flame war does not consist of mildly perjorative comments. I am expressing my disdain for your blather. nolu chan posted on 2015-07-09 21:55:09 ET http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=89#C89 #89. To: nolu chan (#75) [...] As I've noted before, you seem to want to end this discussion (because you realise you can't what - 'win'?) with a flame war. --- No sale.. tpaine posted on 2015-07-09 22:05:19 ET This is the #75 that you respond to by saying I want to end this discussion with a flame war. What you characterize as an entry in a flame war bears repeating to show your desperation. #75. To: tpaine, tomder55 (#53) The constitutionality of the 18th was challenged in 1920. The SCOTUS declined to issue an opinion on that specific issue, and left it at that, whereupon damn near everyone ignored the 'amendment, until it was repealed. This claim is false, as previously explained thoroughly on the other thread. The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Counsel did not argue the the amendment was unconstitutional, he argued that, due to its content, it was ordinary legislation and not an amendment at all. And, as ordinary legislation, the court had the authority to strike it down, according to this creative argument. Trust tpaine to bloviate endlessly about crap he has not seen or read. On brief: In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution. The briefs were ridiculed in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, Vl XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 322. This is the Yale Law Journal, not tpaine's court of the imagination. The briefs presented against the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment are addressed more to what the opposing interests thought ought to be, than to any issues which may properly be termed legal in character. When read, these briefs in many cases seem to be arguments of counsel who were employed to find arguments, and must, therefore, do so, even though they knew the arguments to be untenable. The most effective statements presented to the Court were those submitted in behalf of a number of states as amici curiae, in the cases of Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co. v. Gregory and Rhode Island v. Palmer. These briefs bear the name of Mr. Charles E. Hughes. The argument was characterized in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 333. This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root. [...] Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.” The 18th Amendment was an amendment, not common legislation. In 264 Federal Reporter 186, on the Feigenspan case, the headnotes read, 1. Eighteenth Amendment, with respect to its subject-matter, held within the power to amend given by article 5, and valid. 2. Every grant of power to the federal government, whether by the Constitution as orlglnally framed or by subsequent amendment, necessariy diminished powers of the several st.ates, and that an amendment takes away a pollce power previously In the state dpes not render It invalid. 3. That a constitutional amendment is in effect legislation controlling the conduct of private individuals, in that it ordains a final permanent law prohibiting certain acts, not alterable at the will of a majority, does not render it invalid. 4. The provision of Const. art. 5, authorizing Congress to propose amendments "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary," does not require that a joint resolution proposing an amendment shall expressly declare that it is deemed necessary. 5. Congress alone, of all departments of the federal government, is intrusted with the power of proposing amendments to the Constitution, and the form of resolutions by which it proposes an amendment is not subject to judicial investigation. 6. In Const. art. 5, providing that a proposed amendment shall be valid "when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states," when that mode shall be proposed by Congress, the word "Legislature" means the then recognized representative law-making bodies of the states, and the validity of an amendment ratified by the requisite number of such Legislatures cannot be affected by state laws providing for, or permitting, a referendum vote on legislative acts. 7. Eighteenth Amendment, § 2, providing that "the Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislatlon," must be construed, in harmony with its purpose, to expressly authorize effective legislation for enforcement of section 1, which excludes a construction making concurrence of the states necessary to tbe effectiveness of congressional legislation, and such legislation, if enacted, is parramount, and, while it may be supplemented by state legislation, it cannot be defeated by any action or nonaction of the states. In the absence of action by Congress, any state may enact enforcement legislation effective within its borders. 8. National Prohibition Act Oct. 28, 1919, § 1, in providing that "intoxicating liquor" as used in the act, shall be construed to include all liquors, liquids, or compounds containing one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcohol by volume, does not make a definition which may be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional by the courts, but one which it was within the reasonable discretion of Congress to make for the purposes of the act. 9. National Prohibition Act Oct 28, 1919, held not invalid, as taking private property for public use without just compensution, in violation of Fifth Amendment, because, as incidental to the exercise of a lawful power, loss may result to certain species of property. 10. "Amendment" includes additions to, as well as corrections of, matters already treated, and there is nothing in the context of Const. art. 5, providing that Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments, which suggests that it was used in a restricted sense. The Decree in Feigenspan was affirmed by SCOTUS. 253 US 350, 40 Sup Ct 486. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   21:35:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   1:10:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #196. To: nolu chan (#195) (Edited) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud. Yes, everybody else is unstable. What can I say? -- You're certainly overwrought, as evidenced by your last reply.. You poor baby. You accuse everyone of trying to start a flame war with you. On this thread you started your modus operandi at your #39 to TooConservative.--- You continued your modus operandi at your #79 to myself, nolu chan. Who's acting like a poor baby? You are kiddo. I have been documenting your pulling this same stunt at this site and other sites. By doing it with me (again), you invited the rebuttal. Sometimes the truth hurts. I am not flaming you, I am coldly, almost robotically, destroying your whines. Whatever.... But do tell us more about your robotic fantasies.... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   1:33:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #197. To: tpaine (#196) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. But do tell us more about your robotic fantasies.... If you insist on more stories about your legal acumen and the pride you take in your posting history, I am compelled to comply. When Legal Giants Collide http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=133#133 To: bvw Homosexual sodomy is a criminal act This is absolute lunacy. In order for there to be a crime, someone must be injured by either force or fraud. Period. Otherwise no crime has been committed. 133 posted on 12/6/2002, 10:25:27 PM by Jonathon Spectre http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=211#211 To: Illbay Jonathon Spectre said: "In order for there to be a crime, someone must be injured by either force or fraud. Period." False. Period. 193 - roscoe Give JS & I an example of a 'criminal' act we could commit upon *you*, roscoe, -- that would injure you without using force or fraud. - Can you? 196 posted on 12/07/2002 1:05 PM PST by tpaine Sure. You could open a crack house in my neighborhood. How am I defrauded? How am I forced? 209 - illb Hmmm, - I open a 'bootleg' party house in your neighborhood. Unless I'm really stupid, and let my customers disturb the peace, you wouldn't even know we were there, correct? Unless we create a disturbance/cause harm, there is no criminal action committed to affect *you*, billy. -- But if the peace of the neighborhood is being disturbed, you are being *forced* to contend with an undesireable situation, and if it continued your property could also lose value, -a type of *fraud*. - You would have lawful recourse for your injuries. 211 posted on Saturday, December 07, 2002 17:33:37 by tpaine Let's see, disturbing the peace is a form of fraud. Only in tpaineworld. Give JS & I an example of a 'criminal' act we could commit upon *you*, roscoe, -- that would injure you without using force or fraud. I prefer to give examples of what could be done to yukon tpaine without using force or fraud. You could have your pocket picked. You could be plagiarized, but can think of no reason why anyone would. Your second greatest admirer kills you in your sleep to stop the incessant whine (he later gets off on jury nullification). Unaware that you are dead, your greatest admirer comes along and shoots you sixteen times, remarkably with 16 hits that would have been fatal if you had not already been dead. One cannot really injure a dead person, but your greatest admirer has committed a crime. In tpaineworld, how does one commit a crime against another person, with or without violence? You could always violate the laws of nature. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   12:40:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #198. To: nolu chan (#197) --- I am compelled to comply. You reAlly are going off the deep end with your last post, my boy. I'd recommend a mental health counselor, but I don't know any. Please, get help. I'm sorry that you feel I've driven you to this compulsion... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   14:21:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #199. To: tpaine (#198) You reAlly are going off the deep end with your last post, my boy. I'd recommend a mental health counselor, but I don't know any. That one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   14:38:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #200. To: nolu chan (#199) That one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent. Your mistaken opinions about my character have been noted and you are entitled to them, but you really should lighten up, for your own mental health.. I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. But in any case, it is not the end of the world when someone disputes what you INSIST are the way things MUST be. And believe me, I really am concerned about your compulsive and repetitive posts. Please, get help... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   15:24:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #201. To: tpaine (#200) Your mistaken opinions about my character have been noted and you are entitled to them, but you really should lighten up, for your own mental health.. That's one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=224#224 To: Roscoe; Illbay; bvw bvw: Other than you and young Sprout's own imaginations and wanna-be-ism can you give any historical support for your novel definition of crime? No, he can't. 218 - roscoe lies - My comments at #211 stand unrefuted by you three clowns, -- and now, to divert attention away from that fact, you claim that victimless 'crime' law is historically justified. -- This nations constitution was written in an attempt to correct such historical injustice. You boys, and your weird opinions on constitutional law are testimony that much work remains to educate americans on their own liberty. 224 posted on 12/8/2002, 1:59:56 PM by tpaine [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies] Unrefuted, indeed! Observing the Dean of the tpaine School of Law flail about in the dark is more fun than the typical TV sitcom. Nobody could possibly refute your scholarship at criminal law. Americans need to be educated oni the law and you, as leader of the Black Widows, are the one for the job. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   21:32:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #202. To: nolu chan (#201) How weird that you pick 'Roscoe' for your hero. --- But that's fine. --- Just another example of how overwrought and unstable you've become. I still don't understand just what disturbs you so.. The mere fact that we disagree about the constitutionality of amending away our basic human rights, -- shouldn't have set you off to this extent. Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   23:04:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #203. To: tpaine (#202) Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness. You can only try to divert attention from the fact that you are unable to understand why your comments on criminal law are so absurd. Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1907774/posts?page=177#177 To: tpaine; Kevmo Do not take up law as a profession. Your lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law. Before I call this issue dead, I feel I must address this though... You invited me on your property to do business. My concealed weapon does not make me a trespasser. If I invite you on my property with the stipulation that you must not be armed and you are indeed armed without my consent, then you have entered my property without my consent (my consent was conditional on you not being armed) and you would be a trespasser. If I make no mention of such a condition you would not be trespassing until I tell you that you cannot be on my land with weapons and you refused to leave. That's the law (which does not contradict the US Constitution) 177 posted on 10/13/2007, 5:07:03 PM by dpa5923 nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-14   23:16:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #204. To: nolu chan (#203) I still don't understand just what disturbs you so.. The mere fact that we disagree about the constitutionality of amending away our basic human rights, -- shouldn't have set you off to this extent. Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness. Me? Helpless? Dream on boy. You can only try to divert attention from the fact that you are unable to understand why your comments on criminal law are so absurd. You keep repeating your mistaken opinions and attempt to prove them by digging up old threads from FR. --- Do you really imagine this silly tactic is working? Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. www.freerepublic.com/focu...907774/posts?page=177#177 Thanks again for the link. I urge anyone to read the thread for context. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-14   23:43:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #205. To: tpaine (#204) [tpaine #200] I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. I see that you have entered your excuse making phase to explain why you are incapable of discerning what is so boneheaded about your discussion of criminal law quoted in my #197 and #201. Your abject lack of legal knowledge, i.e. not knowing what you were talking about, now leaves you helpless to to do anything but bluster and bloviate. It is fun to watch. While I have not claimed to be a lawyer, you allusion to my purported politically correct law school education is your way of explaining why your own knowledge of law is revealed to be so deficient. It is a crutch to explain the boneheaded nature of your discussion of criminal law. [tpaine #202] Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. [tpaine #204] Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Asked and answered at my #203, "Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness." Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1907774/posts?page=177#177 Thanks again for the link. I urge anyone to read the thread for context. Oh, that's alright, I'll repeat the context. It was that "[y]our lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law." To: tpaine; Kevmo Do not take up law as a profession. Your lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law. Before I call this issue dead, I feel I must address this though... You invited me on your property to do business. My concealed weapon does not make me a trespasser. If I invite you on my property with the stipulation that you must not be armed and you are indeed armed without my consent, then you have entered my property without my consent (my consent was conditional on you not being armed) and you would be a trespasser. If I make no mention of such a condition you would not be trespassing until I tell you that you cannot be on my land with weapons and you refused to leave. That's the law (which does not contradict the US Constitution) 177 posted on 10/13/2007, 5:07:03 PM by dpa5923 As for your general legal acumen, the following is a fun example: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=30#C30 #30. To: robertpaulsen, tolsti, yall (#28) [...] It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it. It is then argued that our inalienable right to self defense does not include using a gun because if it did, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one and they don't; -- which is faulty logic. If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Case closed. [to those with logical, open minds] tpaine posted on 2007-10-30 9:08:50 ET In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's inspired wisdom will rub off. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. As per tpaine, "the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away," I suppose the capital crime cited in the Constitution must refer to a crime committed in Washington, D.C. As for the certified insane having a right to keep and bear arms, some people should not be allowed to keep and bear keyboards. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-15   15:01:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #206. To: nolu chan, continues reposting old threads, in an obsessive effort to 'win' something? (#205) tpaine #200] I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. »I see that you have entered your excuse making phase to explain why you are incapable of discerning what is so boneheaded about your discussion of criminal law quoted in my #197 and #201. Your abject lack of legal knowledge, i.e. not knowing what you were talking about, now leaves you helpless to to do anything but bluster and bloviate. It is fun to watch. --- While I have not claimed to be a lawyer, you allusion to my purported politically correct law school education is your way of explaining why your own knowledge of law is revealed to be so deficient. It is a crutch to explain the boneheaded nature of your discussion of criminal law. Thanks for finally admitting you are not a lawyer, arguing as an authority. -- Thus, your opinions are just that, opinions. I and many others, both here and on other forums, have rejected some of your opinions, as your links to FR and LP have proved. Thanks again do posting them.. As for your general legal acumen, the following is a fun example: libertypost.org/cgi- bin/r...ArtNum=204789&Disp=30#C30 #30. To: robertpaulsen, tolsti, yall (#28) [...] It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it. It is then argued that our inalienable right to self defense does not include using a gun because if it did, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one and they don't; -- which is faulty logic. If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Case closed. [to those with logical, open minds] tpaine posted on 2007-10-30 9:08:50 ET In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's ----- Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at leastcthe last portions of the thread nolu posted. Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-15   16:07:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #207. To: tpaine (#206) It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence, Thanks for finally admitting you are not a lawyer, arguing as an authority. -- Thus, your opinions are just that, opinions. Any claim to be a lawyer by an internet handle is meaningless. Citations to and quotes of competent legal authority are not. My quotes and citations outweigh your brain farts, such as your still hilarious about what acts do, or do not, constitute a crime of one person against another person. It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless...." It is correct to state that the DoI, a political statement, refers to inalienable rights, such as the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except for their slaves, and the inalienable right to life. It is correct to state that the DoI has never been adopted as the law of any jurisdiction. The paramount law of the United States explicitly provides for capital punishment. While you maintain that the right to life is an inalienable right that man can not take away, the law of the land provides for executions. The several states and the United States have executed man and woman, using such methods as firing squad, hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection. The objects of the exercise found their supposed inalienable right was quite alienable. If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Of course, the person ineligible to possess a weapon, or if the weapon was unlawful to possess, would be guilty of illegal possession of a weapon. The right to self-defense does not authorize unlawful possession of a weapon. In the Bernhard Goetz case, he was found not guilty of four counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault in the first degree, but was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (N.Y.P.L. 265.02). Goetz served time as a result of the criminal conviction. People v Pons, Ct App NY, 68 NY2d 264, 266 (1986) In People v Almodovar (62 N.Y.2d 126, supra), where defendant was charged with counts of murder, assault and criminal possession of a weapon, we held that the court correctly refused to charge justification as a defense to criminal possession of a weapon, second degree. There, defendant claimed that he came into possession of the weapon by wresting control of it from the victim who had attacked him with a gun and a screwdriver. We concluded that "the only charge defendant was entitled to on the [possession] count of the indictment was temporary innocent possession" (id., at p 130) and that any benefit "he was entitled to because of the claim of self-defense pertained to the use of a weapon and he received that when the court charged justification in connection with the counts of attempted murder and assault" (id., at pp 130-131). Emphasizing that crimes involving possession of a weapon are distinct from those involving its use, we observed that once "the unlawful possession of the weapon is established, the possessory crime is complete and any unlawful use of the weapon is punishable as a separate crime" (id., at p 130). Juries have consistently found the guilty party to be guilty, contrary to your baseless claim to the contrary. The right to self-defense does not infer a right to unlawful possession of a weapon. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-16   16:26:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #208. To: nolu chan, continuing on with his strange obsession.. (#207) In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's ----- Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at least the last portions of the last thread nolu posted. Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence, You imagine you're 'hitting' me? How idiotic, -- all you're doing is displaying your obsessive weirdness, by posting old threads on which you and I disagreed, most of which you left, unable to prove your points. You're acting like a real crazy guy on FR, 'Roscoe'.. Keep up the good work. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-16   16:52:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #210. To: tpaine (#208) Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. tpaine only wishes I would slink away. I have left him hit from argument like a trapped rat. Whenever tpaine presents his clueless interpretations of the Constitution to an attorney, he is told that he is a fool. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1149329/posts?page=45#45 To: Congressman Billybob It is crystal clear that the Bill of Rights was written to restrain the power and reach of the federal government only. -Billybob- Your own words above confirm that you support the State of California's 'power' to prohibit assault weapons. Congressman Billybob wrote: I haven't said a word about California gun laws. I HAVE said that you are a fool for not understanding that the Constitution means what it says. The supremacy clause of Art VI says that the States are bound to honor our Constitution/BOR's. You are wrong in saying that States are not "restrained" by our BOR's; -- namely, the 2nd Amendment. Case closed. 45 posted on 6/8/2004, 12:24:43 AM by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human be" -- Solzhenitsyn) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1149329/posts?page=46#46 To: tpaine The only "case closed" is your inability to read and understand plain English used in the Constitution. You remain a fool. 46 posted on 6/8/2004, 12:31:09 AM by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies] Congressman Billybob, the late John Armor, was an attorney. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-17   15:09:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #211. To: nolu chan (#210) In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's ---- Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at least the last portions of the thread nolu posted, where both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. tpaine only wishes I would slink away. I have left him hit from argument like a trapped rat. Anyone can read the thread in question, wherein both you and Paulsen quit posting. Whenever tpaine presents his clueless interpretations of the Constitution to an attorney, he is told that he is a fool. Congressman Billybob, the late John Armor, was an attorney. Big deal. Most anyone on FR at that time could also testify that he was a big bag of wind.. --- Just as you experienced yourself.. Please continue your hissy fit display though.. It's really getting amusing.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-17   17:00:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #212. To: tpaine (#211) Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at least the last portions of the thread nolu posted, where both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. One will have to gain entry to tpaine's mind to find a place where anyone has ever slinked away from tpaine in defeat. Here on the tpaine vanity thread, he has been reduced to responding with "yada, yada, yada," because he is unable to debate the merits of his inane legal arguments, or the lack of such merts. So far, tpain has opined that the courts are wrong, the lawyers are wrong, anyone who disagrees with his nonsense is insane, and has cited imaginary comments. As he has been reduced to unintelligible spluttering, it is time for basic history lessons. Today's lesson is Judicial Review, as explained in the constitutional debates prior to ratification. Reality is readily found, tpaine's bloviations are unsupported. JUDICIAL REVIEW: Farrand and Elliot, Constitutional Debates Farrand's Records is a record of the Federal Constitutional Convention, in three volumes. Elliott's Debates is a record of the State Conventions on the Constitution in five volumes. 1 Farrand 21-22: [James Madison] 8. Resd. that the Executive and a convenient number of the National Judiciary, ought to compose a council of revision with authority to examine every act of the National Legislature before it shall operate, & every act of a particular Legislature before a Negative thereon shall be final; and that the dissent of the said Council shall amount to a rejection, unless the Act of the National Legislature be again passed, or that of a particular Legislature be again negatived by of the members of each branch. 9. Resd. that a National Judiciary be established to consist of one or more supreme tribunals, and of inferior tribunals to be chosen by the National Legislature, to hold their offices during good behaviour; and to receive punctually at stated [22] times fixed compensation for their services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution, that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals shall be to hear & determine in the first instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hear and determine in the dernier resort, all piracies & felonies on the high seas, captures from an enemy; cases in which foreigners or citizens of other States applying to such jurisdictions may be interested, or which respect the collection of the National revenue; impeachments of any National officers, and questions which may involve the national peace and harmony. Note: dernier resort means last resort. - - - - - 1 Farrand 97: [Elbridge Gerry] (First) Clause (of Proposition 8th) relating to a Council of Revision taken into consideration. Mr. Gerry doubts whether the Judiciary ought to form a part of it [nc - a Council of Revision], as they will have a sufficient check agst. encroachments on their own department by their exposition of the laws, which involved a power of deciding on their Constitutionality. - - - - - 2 Farrand 27: [Governeur Morris and Roger Sherman] (The next. —) "To negative all laws passed by the several States (contravening in the opinion of the Nat: Legislature the articles of Union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of ye Union") Mr. Govr. Morris opposed this power as likely to be terrible to the States, and not necessary, if sufficient Legislative authority should be given to the Genl. Government. Mr. Sherman thought it unnecessary, as the Courts of the States would not consider as valid any law contravening the Authority of the Union, and which the legislature would wish to be negatived. - - - - - 2 Farrand 28: [James Madison] In R. Island the Judges who refused to execute an unconstitutional law were displaced, and others substituted, by the Legislature who would be willing instruments of the wicked & arbitrary plans of their masters. A power of negativing the improper laws of the States is at once the most mild & certain means of preserving the harmony of the system. - - - - - 2 Farrand 93: [James Madison] He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. A law violating a treaty ratified by a preexisting law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 131: [Samuel Adams] Your excellency's first proposition is, "that it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated to Congress are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised." This appears, to my mind, to be a summary of a bill of rights, which gentlemen are anxious to obtain. It removes a doubt which many have entertained respecting the matter, and gives assurance that, if any law made by the federal government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution, and inconsistent with the constitution of this state, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 196: [Oliver Elsworth] If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 443: [George Nicholas] Upon what principle is it contended that the sovereign power resides in the state governments? The honorable gentleman has said truly, that there can be no subordinate sovereignty. Now, if there cannot, my position is, that the sovereignty resides in the people ; they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare. This Constitution stands upon this broad principle. - - - - - 2 Elliott 445: [James Wilson] As far as I can understand the idea of magistracy in every government, this seems to be a proper arrangement; the judicial department is considered as a part of the executive authority of government. Now, I have no idea that the authority should be restricted so as not to be able to perform its functions with full effect. I would not have the legislature sit to make laws which cannot be executed. It is not meant here that the laws shall be a dead letter: it is meant that they shall be carefully and duly considered before they are enacted, and that then they shall be honestly and faithfully executed. This observation naturally leads to a more particular consideration of the government before us. In order, sir, to give permanency, stability, and security to any government, I conceive it of essential importance, that its legislature should be restrained; that there should not only be what we call a passive, but an active power over it for, of all kinds of despotism, this is the most dreadful, and the most difficult to be corrected. With how much contempt have we seen the authority of the people treated by the legislature of this state! and how often have we seen it making laws in one session, that have been repealed the next, either on account of the fluctuation of party, or their own impropriety. This could not have been the case in a compound legislature; it is therefore proper to have efficient restraints upon the legislative body. These restraints arise from different sources. I will mention some of them. In this Constitution, they will be produced, in a very considerable degree, by a division of the power in the legislative body itself. Under this system, they may arise likewise from the interference of those officers who will be introduced into the executive and judicial departments. They may spring also from another source — the election by the people; and finally, under this Constitution, they may proceed from the great and last resort — from the people themselves. I say, under this Constitution, the legislature may be restrained, and kept within its prescribed bounds, by the interposition of the judicial department. - - - - - 4 Elliott 553: [John Marshall] These, sir, are the points of federal jurisdiction to which he objects, with a few exceptions. Let us examine each of them with a supposition that the same impartiality will be observed there as in other courts, and then see if any mischief will result from them. With respect to its cognizance in all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, he says that, the laws of the United States being paramount to the laws of the particular states, there is no case but what this will extend to. Has the government of the United States power to make laws on every subject? Does he understand it so? Can they make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims, between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. They would not consider such a law as coming under their jurisdiction. They would declare it void. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-20   18:27:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #213. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#212) (Edited) --- nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed --- Nolu wrote this proposed amendment that follows, and claims that it would be constitutional.. The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment AMENDMENT 28. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Since posting this thread, I'm flat amazed at how many self described 'conservatives' agree with Nolu, that a tyranny of a (super?) majority could repeal the 2nd Amendment, in a supposedly constitutional manner. Now, of course, nolu is still posting opinions from courts and 'expert' authorities that agree with his opinions. -- None of which, in my opinion, have proved his point. - -- (Although in his last post, oddly enough, he quotes from opinions that agree with points I have made, previously). -- His other efforts, to smear me, --- only reinforce, in my opinion, nolu' s obsessive and almost fanatical delusion that the majority rules in this Republic. We formed this Republic under the rule of law, Constitutional law, to protect individual rights. -- Passing amendments that repealed individual rights would in effect, nullify our constitutional principles.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-20   20:19:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #214. To: tpaine (#213) [tpaine #213 to nolu chan #212] Now, of course, nolu is still posting opinions from courts and 'expert' authorities that agree with his opinions. tpaine feels a need to put derisive quotation marks around expert when referring back to James Madison, Elbridge Gerry, Governeur Morris, Roger Sherman, and Samuel Adams at the Federal constitution convention, and Oliver Ellsworth, George Nicholas, James Wilson, and John Marshall at the State conventions in debate about the Constitution. Those are the experts I quoted at my #212. Here on the tpaine vanity thread, he has been reduced to responding with "yada, yada, yada," because he is unable to debate the merits of his inane legal arguments, or the lack of such merits. Again, tpaine has opined that the courts are wrong, the legal experts are wrong. tpaine is amazed the a Constitution of the people, which permits amendment, can be amended by the people, without the approval of tpaine or his imaginary “deemers.” In all the years he has been excreting his mental dumps upon the net, he has not cited recognized legal authority to support his absurdities. As he has been reduced to unintelligible spluttering, it is time to continue the basic history lessons. Today's lesson continues Jurisdiction and Judicial Review. - - - Henry St. George Tucker, Lectures on Constitutional Law, for the use of the Law Class at the University of Virginia, Lecture VII, pp. 205-207. 205 A citizen of Pennsylvania sues a Virginian in the federal court of this state in a case, in which the constitutional question of the right to sue is involved. Judgment is rendered against the Virginian. He appeals to his state for redress. Virginia decides that the law or judgment is unconstitutional, and that there was no right to sue. The judgment then must be suspended till three fourths approve it. With this state of things the Pennsylvanian is dissatisfied. He appeals to his state, which decides that there was a right to sue. He then demands an enforcement of the judgment, until three fourths of the states pronounce it wrong. Thus Virginia denies that there is any right to sue unless three fourths of the states determine otherwise. On the other hand, Pennsylvania, with equal rights, insists that there is a right to sue until three fourths of the states determine otherwise. Both cannot be. For one or the other must be overruled by one more than one fourth. Which shall it be ? A casuist even would be puzzled to decide. It is earnestly contended, indeed, that the right of the states to determine, for themselves, every question of constitutional law, and to decide whether the compact is broken, is inseparable from its sovereignty. This is, indeed, most true, where no umpire is appointed to decide the question. But where parties standing in antagonist relations appoint an umpire, they cannot question or renounce his decision. Bona fides demands their compliance with it. Now, as will be presently shewn, the judiciary have been appointed by the states to decide all questions arising under the constitution. They do therefore constitute the umpire between the states and the United States, and between the several states of the confederacy and their citi- - - - - - [206] zens, and both parties are conclusively bound by its decisions. Nor can there be danger in such an umpirage. Selected for their virtues and ability, and lifted above all fear or favour or affection, they merit confidence from all; but as they are citizens of the states and attached peculiarly to them, the states have surely little reason for distrust: And if we could suspect them of any leaning which does not spring from honest conviction, we should surely apprehend a leaning to the states. Let us see then in whom are the judicial powers of the government vested by the constitution. The third article, section 1st, declares that they “shall be vested in ONE supreme court, and in such inferior courts as congress may from time to time ordain vand establish.” And in the 2d section it provides, that the judicial power shall extend to ALL cases arising under the constitution,” so that the decision of ALL cases arising under the constitution, is vested in the supreme court, and such inferior courts, &c. But if the constitution of the United States vests the power to decide a question arising under the constitution in the supreme court, there can be no constitutional appeal from its decision; for if there could, it would no longer be supreme. For the power to decide (which is the judicial power), is a power to determine a question or dispute;(o) and the vesting that power in one supreme court, is a negative of the power of any other body to controvert its determination. For if the judgment of the supreme court may be controverted by another court, then it is clear that the court is not supreme, and that its judgment has not determined [or put an end to] the question, although, the power to determine it is given by the constitution. The judgments then of the supreme court, “in cases arising under the constitution,” must be final and conclusive. This, indeed, seems to be admitted as to all other tribunals;(p) and I think I have shewn there can be no other appeal, except that which consists in a rejection of the “cancelled obligations of the violated compact, and a resort to original rights, and the law of self-preservation.” What then are “cases arising under the constitution?” Are questions of constitutional law, and questions of the (o) Walker’s Dictionary. (p) Review p. 80, para. 2. - - - - - [207] jurisdiction of the supreme court such cases? If so, they are comprehended by the judicial power which is vested in the supreme court, and its decisions thereupon are final and conclusive. Now, it would not seem to admit of doubt that all questions of constitutional law, whether respecting the true meaning and intention of the instrument, or the extent and character of the several powers granted to the federal government, or any department thereof, are questions arising under the constitution; and all cases between proper parties, which depend upon such questions, are, therefore, cases arising under the constitution. To all such cases it is declared that the jurisdiction shall extend. When, therefore, the court is in possession of such a case, the determination of which depends upon a constitutional question, it must of necessity determine that question, if it determines the case; and that determination, we have endeavoured to shew, must be final and conclusive. This is emphatically the case as to the subject of jurisdiction,(q) and, therefore, the judgment of the supreme court, on a question of jurisdiction, however erroneous it may seem, is final and conclusive, and cannot be controverted by any other court or organ of the government. The supreme court itself, indeed, may, in a subsequent case, reconsider the question and overrule the precedent; but until they do so, it must be held to be final and conclusive, and can in no wise be lawfully resisted. The states may, indeed, amend the constitution, but until amended there seems to be no mode of getting rid of an obnoxious precedent, but by the act of the court itself in overruling it. (q) “It is admitted,” says the reviewer very truly, “that every court must necessarily determine every question of jurisdiction before it, and, so far, it must of course be the judge of its own powers. If it be a court of the last resort, its decision is necessarily final, so far as those authorities are concerned which belong to the same system of government with itself.” nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-21   15:32:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 214.         There are no replies to Comment # 214. End Trace Mode for Comment # 214. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com