Arizona to Secede? - Page 7

yizuman · 05-24-2010, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

uh............................ I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself. Think very hard about what you just said there.

A Judge is supposed to enforce the law, not make up laws. At least that's supposed to be my understanding. Police officers, the Prosecutor and Judges are supposed to UPHOLD the law and the Constitution that they are sworn to protect.

Yiz

souggy · 05-24-2010, 09:57 AM

Wirelessly posted

If you guys were still under British rule, obviously you guys would have equal representation in the British Parliament.

souggy · 05-24-2010, 10:03 AM

Wirelessly posted

LOL.

If you think the military or the police is suppose to uphold the Constitution or any other documents equally as important in the world, you got another thing coming.

yizuman · 05-24-2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Wirelessly posted

If you guys were still under British rule, obviously you guys would have equal representation in the British Parliament.

As if.

Have you read the news lately? Some Grandma got ticketed for picking up someone else's dog poop other than her own dog's poop.

Quote:

A great-grandmother in England will not have to pay a fine after she was ticketed for picking up the wrong dog's poop.

Pam Robson, 60, was given the equivalent of a $75 fine in January after Sunderland Council wardens said she failed to pick up after her Labrador, Derik, and instead picked up another dog's mess, the BBC reports. Suderland is in northern England.

"He said it was the wrong mess and that he was going to issue me with a fine for £50," she told the BBC. "I picked up the other mess too and put it in the bag but he said I'd still be fined."

She was told she would be taken to court if she didn't pay, but after Robson went to her member of parliament and a lawyer, the case was dropped.

The Sunderland City Council said while "officers at the time were satisfied that an offence had been committed" they "will not be pursing the non-payment."

Source: Woman ticketed for picking up wrong dog poop | Weird | News | Toronto Sun

Silly UKers. In fact, there's worse stories going on in the UK that gives me chills.

Yiz

souggy · 05-24-2010, 10:14 AM

Wirelessly posted

What does being fined got to do with the reasons behind the Revolutionary War?

The very same law can be passed in the States. At least the woman in the article could vote that could change British politics; our ancestors didn't have a say in British politics.

yizuman · 05-24-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Wirelessly posted

LOL.

If you think the military or the police is suppose to uphold the Constitution or any other documents equally as important in the world, you got another thing coming.

One day, to quote Dick Cheney "The US Constitution is just a G Damn piece of paper", the Constitution as we know it will one day disappear and replace with Totalitarian rule, a One World Government, as it were.

Yiz

yizuman · 05-24-2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Wirelessly posted

What does being fined got to do with the reasons behind the Revolutionary War?

The very same law can be passed in the States. At least the woman in the article could vote that could change British politics; our ancestors didn't have a say in British politics.

You said Equal Representation and what they did to the Grandma doesn't show that. That's a fascist behavior.

Yiz

souggy · 05-24-2010, 10:27 AM

Wirelessly posted

Um, she does have equal representation, that's why she's a British citizen with voting power. She can vote for a politican to overturn such law; the judge can make a decision to enforce it or not.
As long she still have the rights to vote, she has representation.

Fascist or not, it still got nothing to do with why the Thirteen Colonies revolted. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevent the States from becoming a fascist state or a plutocracy anyway. The reason why the Thirteen Colonies revolted is because they didn't have seats in the British Parliament. They were not equal to British subjects on the Isles.

yizuman · 05-24-2010, 10:28 AM

souggy,

So what has the UK education system been teaching you as to why we broke off with the British?

Just curious,

Yiz

**Jiro** · 05-24-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yizuman

A Judge is supposed to enforce the law, not make up laws. At least that's supposed to be my understanding. Police officers, the Prosecutor and Judges are supposed to UPHOLD the law and the Constitution that they are sworn to protect.

Yiz

1. there are no police officers, prosecutors, or any such at Supreme Court. only 9 judges
2. any decision made at the Supreme Court is absolute and final. there's no appeal process
3. Supreme Court Judges are the supreme arbiters of Constitution
4. Supreme Court is basically the last one in the line thus they are "The Law"
5. Police officer and prosecutors are not supposed to uphold the US Constitution. They uphold their state laws and state constitution... which both are in agreement with US Constitution and federal laws. They are state enforcer, not federal enforcer. That's why we have 3-letters federal agencies like FBI, ATF, DEA, etc. If the state law is disagreement with federal law - the Supreme Court will strike it down.
6. nobody said Supreme Court makes law... that's Legislative Branch's job but Supreme Court interprets the law and sets the precedents

souggy · 05-24-2010, 10:30 AM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by yizuman

souggy,

So what has the UK education system been teaching you as to why we broke off with the British?

Just curious,

Yiz

I am not British.

Steinhauer · 05-24-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

uh............................ I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself. Think very hard about what you just said there.

ok ... let me think about what Yizuman said .... he's right!

**Jiro** · 05-24-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

ok ... let me think about what Yizuman said .... he's right!

so you support the overthrow of Judiciary Branch?

Steinhauer · 05-24-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

1. there are no police officers, prosecutors, or any such at Supreme Court. only 9 judges
2. any decision made at the Supreme Court is absolute and final. there's no appeal process
3. Supreme Court Judges are the supreme arbiters of Constitution
4. Supreme Court is basically the last one in the line thus they are "The Law"
5. Police officer and prosecutors are not supposed to uphold the US Constitution. They uphold their state laws and state constitution... which both are in agreement with US Constitution and federal laws. They are state enforcer, not federal enforcer. That's why we have 3-letters federal agencies like FBI, ATF, DEA, etc. If the state law is disagreement with federal law - the Supreme Court will strike it down.
6. nobody said Supreme Court makes law... that's Legislative Branch's job but Supreme Court interprets the law and sets the precedents

actually that is incorrect.

The three boxes. What are they?

1) The Ballot Box
2) The Jury Box
3) ???

**Jiro** · 05-24-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

actually that is incorrect.

The three boxes. What are they?

1) The Ballot Box
2) The Jury Box
3) ???

um... there's no such thing at Supreme Court

Steinhauer · 05-24-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

so you support the overthrow of Judiciary Branch?

Only if they pass an unconstitutional law and impose their will against that of the people.

It would not be overthrowing the Judicial Branch ... it would be restoring the Constitution of the United States ... ah .. those subtle differences.

**Jiro** · 05-24-2010, 10:39 AM

Supreme Court 101

Quote:

With rare exceptions, each side is allowed 30 minutes argument and up to 24 cases may be argued at one sitting. Since the majority of cases involve the review of a decision of some other court, there is no jury and no witnesses are heard. For each case, the Court has before it a record of prior proceedings and printed briefs containing the arguments of each side.

During the intervening recess period, the Justices study the argued and forthcoming cases and work on their opinions. Each week the Justices must also evaluate more than 130 petitions seeking review of judgments of state and federal courts to determine which cases are to be granted full review with oral arguments by attorneys.

Steinhauer · 05-24-2010, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

um... there's no such thing at Supreme Court

Georgia v. Brailsford

**Jiro** · 05-24-2010, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Only if they pass an unconstitutional law and impose their will against that of the people.

It would not be overthrowing the Judicial Branch ... it would be restoring the Constitution of the United States ... ah .. those subtle differences.

DC Gun Ban. Japanese Internment Camp. 18th Amendment. New Orleans gun siezure during Hurricane Katrina.

these were against the people's will and the Constitution. so where's the overthrow? *looking around*

souggy · 05-24-2010, 10:44 AM

Wirelessly posted

How can you restore the Constitution when no two person have the same interpretation?

Steinhauer · 05-24-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

DC Gun Ban. Japanese Internment Camp. 18th Amendment. New Orleans gun siezure during Hurricane Katrina.

these were against the people's will and the Constitution. so where's the overthrow? *looking around*

Tea anyone?

When the Supreme Court fails to uphold the Constitution, what is the next step (there is one - and one I don't like to mention).

After repeals do not work .....

**Jiro** · 05-24-2010, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Tea anyone?

When the Supreme Court fails to uphold the Constitution, what is the next step (there is one - and one I don't like to mention).

which is why people like you are in the minority. a very very tiny minority. thanks God *wipe my forehead*

Steinhauer · 05-24-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

which is why people like you are in the minority. a very very tiny minority. thanks God *wipe my forehead*

Not really. Have you been paying attention at all?

Civil Disobedience, that is the next step. It is how segregation laws were defeated.

Did you think I was going to pull a Che Guerva?

**Jiro** · 05-24-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Not really. Have you been paying attention at all?

Civil Disobedience, that is the next step. It is how segregation laws were defeated.

Did you think I was going to pull a Che Guerva?

yup. you gave me a good scare.

the segregation laws were then ruled unconstitutional. That was great - a progress. a step forward to unity and equality.

Secession? Do you think that's a step forward?

**Jiro** · 05-24-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Wirelessly posted

How can you restore the Constitution when no two person have the same interpretation?

that's why we now have 9 judges. the side is won by majority vote.

souggy · 05-24-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's why we now have 9 judges. the side is won by majority vote.

That's why all these revolutionary talks and secession talks don't make a lot of sense.

So yeah... you broke away and restored what you think is right, and ended up suppressing other people's ideas of freedom in place of your own. So how are the people any more free than they were before?

jillio · 05-24-2010, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

love that little humor that Justice Scalia wrote - "I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that."

Got a good chuckle out of that.

Yep, very witty.

jillio · 05-24-2010, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Here, let me take you by your hand and explain what you missed and "thought" you understood.

again.....

ah! permitting secession .... hmmmmm

My foot is absolutely terrific. . save those bandages for yourself.

Now, if I have to define "permitting" ... I will be happy to explain, in nitty gritty detail .. what this man said.

Apparently, it is beyond your level of comprehension as you have demonstrated time after time.

You are a lost cause. You must really enjoy making yourself look less than intelligent.

**TXgolfer** · 05-24-2010, 11:18 AM

[QUOTE=jillio;1587038]Texas signed away their right to secede in the war of 1812.QUOTE]

That is kinda impossible.

But as for a right to secede......Well anyone can. But they may have to fight for it.

jillio · 05-24-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

here - An Ordinance, Declaring the Ordinance of Secession Null and Void March 15, 1866

Narrative History of Texas Annexation

Conclusion - it supported Jillio's statement below

Any more question?

Yep. That was settled several pages ago. It is really a shame that there are people that are so wrapped up in their own little delusional existence that they continue to deny what has been proven over and over. All in an attempt to make themselves appear intelligent and well informed. Sad that they don't realize they are getting exactly the opposite result.

05-24-2010, 09:57 AM	#182 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	Wirelessly posted If you guys were still under British rule, obviously you guys would have equal representation in the British Parliament. __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

05-24-2010, 10:03 AM	#183 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	Wirelessly posted LOL. If you think the military or the police is suppose to uphold the Constitution or any other documents equally as important in the world, you got another thing coming. __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

05-24-2010, 10:14 AM	#185 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	Wirelessly posted What does being fined got to do with the reasons behind the Revolutionary War? The very same law can be passed in the States. At least the woman in the article could vote that could change British politics; our ancestors didn't have a say in British politics. __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

05-24-2010, 10:27 AM	#188 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	Wirelessly posted Um, she does have equal representation, that's why she's a British citizen with voting power. She can vote for a politican to overturn such law; the judge can make a decision to enforce it or not. As long she still have the rights to vote, she has representation. Fascist or not, it still got nothing to do with why the Thirteen Colonies revolted. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevent the States from becoming a fascist state or a plutocracy anyway. The reason why the Thirteen Colonies revolted is because they didn't have seats in the British Parliament. They were not equal to British subjects on the Isles. __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

05-24-2010, 10:28 AM	#189 (permalink)
yizuman Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,370	souggy, So what has the UK education system been teaching you as to why we broke off with the British? Just curious, Yiz __________________

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-24-2010, 10:44 AM	#200 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	Wirelessly posted How can you restore the Constitution when no two person have the same interpretation? __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

05-24-2010, 11:18 AM	#209 (permalink)
TXgolfer Dream Weaver Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Everywhere Posts: 17,560	[QUOTE=jillio;1587038]Texas signed away their right to secede in the war of 1812.QUOTE] That is kinda impossible. But as for a right to secede......Well anyone can. But they may have to fight for it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode