McCain Shocker!

[Fubeca]

Barbelith, you still haven't told me how old you are. I would like to know if I'm dealing with an adult or some young kid who has not experienced any of the real world yet.

28 years old, getting his Masters at either Brown,UC Berkley, or some other college in another country...working at Starbucks...or does his own artwork and tries to sell it...parts his hair down the leftside...and wears a size 10.5 shoe unless he lives in the UK then I have no idea what size he is in EU.

How'd I do?

 

[barbelith]

You've been dancing around every question thrown at you for over a 100 pages and you question my credibility.

I have answered you multiple times. You simply don't like my answer. But you know I'm absolutely right, which is why you've continually failed to address the question of eliminating the Bill of Rights in favor of trying to save face. Which just makes you look silly when you constantly demand an answer you've already been given.

And no, I don't think extremists who hate half the country have any credibility. Sorry.

 

[hoodonit00]

. Your right to property is not a right to my property nor a right to every type of property in existence.

How can you say this with a straight face when your candidate for President is a Socialist who wants to take my property and give it to someone else.

 

[Adoptedscot]

Okay peeps, you have been told time and time again.
By all means discuss issues but NO personal attacks/commments please.Keep it civil

Thank you
shell
x

 

[barbelith]

I know what it says.

Apparently not, because the excerpt I provided utterly demolishes your interpretation of the decision. Adios!

 

[Fubeca]

How the hell else is he supposed to attract the lightning to kill it. Sometimes I think you guys just aren't paying any attention.

Banni maybe you can get Barbe to give me some specific examples...?

 

[Fubeca]

I have answered you multiple times. You simply don't like my answer. But you know I'm absolutely right, which is why you've continually failed to address the question of eliminating the Bill of Rights in favor of trying to save face. Which just makes you look silly when you constantly demand an answer you've already been given.

And no, I don't think extremists who hate half the country have any credibility. Sorry.

Can you link me to those multiple answers?

 

[hoodonit00]

I have answered you multiple times. You simply don't like my answer. But you know I'm absolutely right, which is why you've continually failed to address the question of eliminating the Bill of Rights in favor of trying to save face. Which just makes you look silly when you constantly demand an answer you've already been given.

And no, I don't think extremists who hate half the country have any credibility. Sorry.

Psst. There are and were more people here saying that you aren't answering the questions you were asked. You just can't give an example of how your right have been taken away.

 

[hoodonit00]

Okay peeps, you have been told time and time again.
By all means discuss issues but NO personal attacks/commments please.Keep it civil

Thank you
shell
x

Holy cow, we still have a mod with us. I have to get up for work at 6, but this is like an addiction. Barbelith, I can't quit you.

 

[Fubeca]

Okay peeps, you have been told time and time again.
By all means discuss issues but NO personal attacks/commments please.Keep it civil

Thank you
shell
x

I've been good haven't I Shell? You feminist moderator you...KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!

 

[devilof76]

The application of your "logic" is arbitrary. It is only opinion that the lack of a modifier implies no modifier. Your right to property is not a right to my property nor a right to every type of property in existence.

This is getting old. The lack of a modifier implies the modifier 'all'.

And within the context of natural rights philosophy, out of which the concept of property rights evolved, the individual's property was the only referent of the term. There is no such thing as a right to someone else's property. It's a contradiction in terms.

It does. Hamilton wrote about it at length. Judicial review has been taken to include interpretation of the constitutionality of law since the birth of the court.

Again, the use of the term 'interpretation' simply means application. The Constitution is a fixed document. It is useless if it's meaning can be subject to change. The function of judicial review is to determine the constitutionality of legislation, not of the fundamental law.

How could the document itself be used to determine it's own constitutionality? That would be completely circular.

In your opinion. You seem to have trouble with opinions.

My trouble is with humility, actually.

 

[hoodonit00]

28 years old, getting his Masters at either Brown,UC Berkley, or some other college in another country...working at Starbucks...or does his own artwork and tries to sell it...parts his hair down the leftside...and wears a size 10.5 shoe unless he lives in the UK then I have no idea what size he is in EU.

How'd I do?

Awesome. My name is Scott, I'm 40 years old have 2 teenage daughters and 2 stepdaughters. Married happily for the second time. 6' tall, 260 pound macinist in Pa.

 

[barbelith]

You just can't give an example of how your right have been taken away.

I'm going to address this one issue and then you and I are done. I have already answered this question approximately four million times but I will be very specific and use small words.

If the president declares me an enemy combatant, he can indefinitely imprison me without leveling charges. This is the destruction of habeas corpus. The end.

 

[Fubeca]

Awesome. My name is Scott, I'm 40 years old have 2 teenage daughters and 2 stepdaughters. Married happily for the second time. 6' tall, 260 pound macinist in Pa.

Hey my name is Scott Too!!!!

 

[hoodonit00]

I'm going to address this one issue and then you and I are done. I have already answered this question approximately four million times but I will be very specific and use small words.

If the president declares me an enemy combatant, he can indefinitely imprison me without leveling charges. This is the destruction of habeas corpus. The end.

You still haven't told me how old you are. You didn't use small enough words. I still don't understand the rights you yourself have lost.

 

[Fubeca]

I'm going to address this one issue and then you and I are done. I have already answered this question approximately four million times but I will be very specific and use small words.

If the president declares me an enemy combatant, he can indefinitely imprison me without leveling charges. This is the destruction of habeas corpus. The end.

Can you and I Start now?

 

[hoodonit00]

Can you and I Start now?

 

[Adoptedscot]

Holy cow, we still have a mod with us. I have to get up for work at 6, but this is like an addiction. Barbelith, I can't quit you.

YOU CANNOT HIDE !!!!

I've been good haven't I Shell? You feminist moderator you...KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!

I'm no bra burner, but I will

x

 

[Fubeca]

If the president declares me an enemy combatant, he can indefinitely imprison me without leveling charges. This is the destruction of habeas corpus. The end.

5th Amendment:
“ 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.”

Georgy didn't write that!

 

[barbelith]

The lack of a modifier implies the modifier 'all'.

In your opinion.

And within the context of natural rights philosophy, out of which the concept of property rights evolved, the individual's property was the only referent of the term.

This is a discussion of legality. It is your opinion (there's that word again) that natural law cannot be abrogated by state law. And actually every item you choose to categorize as a natural law is also your opinion.

The Constitution is a fixed document. It is useless if it's meaning can be subject to change.

This is again your opinion - and a subject worth of discussion. But it's not how our legal system operates and therefore the objection is irrelevant here.

How could the document itself be used to determine it's own constitutionality?

Which document?

My trouble is with humility, actually.

Yeah, I think we've both got that going on. If it helps, I don't carry a grudge once the conversation ends.