you type too much shut up now

true..I just read a few words and skip a few and read a few..

the fact of the matter is bush has a cool smirk that makes everything seem right.

PsychoBud']cryo..look into it...that WAS the law, as it was set pre-FDR...as quad showed...lol.

 

I may have been wrong about CURRENT guidelines...but I was on solid ground for original intention.

 

I never was much good beyond the 17th amendment, since I regard all laws passed by congress since the 16th as illegally passed, anyhow, and all laws PERIOD passed in the US after the Thompson VS Erie RR case in 1938 as illegal.

 

• • no need to read this unless you LIKE long informative spam

For those who don't understand this...the Congress of the Union passed the 17th amendment (freeing slaves) with more than half of the legal congress missing...because, according to the Union, the succession of the South was illegal, and the Southern states were still states...this means that enacting congress during this period was illegal under constitutional law, and any laws passed were not valid...in reabsorbing the Confederacy after the Civil War, again, the Union failed to follow constitutional law, and insisted on new elections for Congressional and Senate reps from the Confederate states...without allowing the old reps to finish their terms...plus they aded two States to congress, when a legal congress had not passed on them for statehood..making every act and decision by US Congress since the seccession of the confederate states illegal by the laws in force at the time of the seccession.

 

 

The Tvs E RR case was a US supreme court decision where it was declared by the court that the US government was wholly owned by foreign creditors, and as such, held the status of a foreign held corporation...making all citizens subject to admirality jurisdiction in regards to contracts with the US government and criminally damaging actions...

 

Look up "statute" in Black's Law Dictionary...then look up "colorable"...then "statutory jurisdiction"..then note that no laws in the jurisdiction of "common law" havebeen passed or enacted by any supposedly legal body of government in this country since the T VS E RR decision, civil law has had VOLUMES added to it, internal admirality law has had no change that isn't reflected in international contract law...but a whole new jurisdiction appeared...the statutory jurisdiction...which has no rules for criminal proceedings under it printed in ANY law text in existance (something provided for by the 6th amendment), among other faults...and did not exist before 1938...nor is it provided for under our constitution.

 

 

 

Oh...and cryo...even quad (who is the one who proved me wrong) will admit that under BASIC constitutional law (as framed, without amendments beyond the bill of rights), will tell you flat out...until FDR, my statements were entirely correct. Kindly pseudo-intellectualize your head out of your ass, mate :)

 

Don't mean to prove you wrong or anything... but the state lineup during the civil war was this:

 

Confederate: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia; Total = 9

 

Union: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin; Total = 24

 

Please tell me how more than half the congress can be missing with these numbers, even without including the two "illegal" states. Just a rundown of the numbers here:

Senate is 2 per state, 18 versus 48. North wins.

House is based on population, which the North had much more of (don't know the numbers). North wins.

look into it, NWA...because of the absence of so many of the states due to seccession, many of the representatives from states still members of the union refused to congregate to vote on the 17th Amendment ...public record. The Amendment was passed with less than half of "legal congress" voting...when an amendment is supposed to require a 2/3 majority to be passed.

 

However, I gotta congratulate you on a good eye, for noticing that, man :)

a side note on the terms issue: the only reason that all the presidents before FDR ran for two terms was because it was a precedent set by george washington, just like saying "so help me god" at the end of the presidents inaugural address. its not necessarily in the constitution, but people followed it because the first guy to run the country did it, and it worked pretty well.

 

bud, the secession of the south was illegal, and if you secede, legal or illegal, you are no longer part of america. secession is deemed illegal in the constitution as well, and i guess you COULD say the secedees were states..although they were, as president jefferson davis put, the "confederate states of america" (davis was pres over the confederacy). laws passed by congress during this time were not illegally passed because the only states in the us that existed were present. the states rejoining the union was not so much a "reabsorbing", as you put it...more like a "beg to get back into the union or else were screwed" type thing. the states that were in the confederacy were so fucked because they were neighbors with the enemy, they had no funds, no formal government, and no army. so president lincoln let them rejoin, with a few conditions to purge them of the people who rebelled against the us before, i.e., the senators who would openly vote against any bill put forth by the north. it was at their discression(?) how the states would be re-established, and the states all agreed with it because they wanted to get back in so bad. so nothing the legislative branch enacted in that time was illegal.

 

for the second part of your post, i have no fucking clue what you're talking about, so i wont try to comment on it to sound smart lol

PsychoBud']cryo..look into it...that WAS the law' date=' as it was set pre-FDR[/quote']

 

Prohibition of alcoholic beverages was a law at one point also. If I were to say that alcohol is illegal today, would I not be looked at as a monumental moron? It doesn't matter if that WAS the law, as that's irrelevant. It's ridiculous that this even needs to be pointed out to you. It would be extremely obvious to most people with at least a double digit IQ.

 

PsychoBud'] Kindly pseudo-intellectualize your head out of your ass' date=' mate [/quote']

 

Looks like you should take your own advice, dipshit. Stop using lame excuses/explanations to avoid looking like the moron that you are. If your "knowledge" of something so elemental is that outdated and false, it would be wise to "pseudo-intellectualize your head out of your ass" and go read a 5th grade history textbook. Then again, the brain-dead drones on this forum wouldn't know the difference between fact and fiction anyway.

Quad...I'd debate the legality (obviously) of that statement...I'm no lawyer, but by the legal theories put forth in common law at the time (when law was more a matter of common sense than precedent, like it is today), it seems to me that if you claim that the seccession was illegal, and those states were still legally states, then they had a right to representation. Since their representation was not present, and a good portion of the states that DID have representatives present had representatives that abstained from voting the issue, then legally, they didn't have the nesseccary number of votes to pass an amendment.

 

I will admit, however, that IF you concede that congress had a legal quorum at the time, they DID get the needed percentage of votes...if, and only if you discount abstainees as "null votes" under the proxy vote rule by party....I simply don't concede that they had a legal quorum under their own statements (and I'm hardly the only one...look at the number of PhDs involved in the legal end of the patriot movement for proof...and some of their writings...but PLEASE ignore the idiot rednecks that include themselves in the movement...they give patriots the same kind of name that fundies give the intelligent Christians out there...lol)

 

 

I won't deny that the US government disagrees with me...but they'd kind of have to, in order to maintain a pose of legal existance, wouldn't they?

 

 

Some things to note, though...look up the meaning of a gold bordered national flag...the flag is supposed to be unbordered except in specific uses, for specific meanings. The gold bordered flag began flying over, and inside, US courtrooms after the civil war. Look up "colorable", "statutory", "statute", "admirality jurisdiction", "civil jurisdiction", "criminal jurisdiction", "common law", and "statutory jurisdiction" in Black's Law Dictionary (the US Supreme Court declared BLD to be "THE" definitive guide in legal definitions...thus the "may" will be interpereted as "shall" decision in constitutional law...another thing you can look up easily)..Then look at the 6th amendment, and the descriptions of legal jurisdictions under Federal Law.

 

 

I know for a fact that alot of the theory many people laugh off as "patriot movement bullshit" are in fact correct, because I've personally used some of them to get minor statutory cases continued into oblivion (where they just drop off the court maps, and I never hear about them again, and they never appear on my record...most of these are traffic violations, and such, though), or flat out dismissed.

 

 

Cryo..prohibition was, firstly, adopted after the point that I contend the US government rendered itself an illegal body, and secondly, was never a point of constitutional law..it was a congressional act, under the same body of federal laws that govern the controlled substances act. As I said, my point was regarding constitutional law to begin with, and I flatly admitted to being weak on such law anywhere after the 17th amendment...I can name and quote a FEW post 17th amendment constitutional laws, and even occasionally supply a precedent setting decision related to one. I overlooked the fact that it WAS adopted as an amendment after FDR, which quad called me on, I confirmed, and admitted I'd failed to check facts, and was wrong. I was very MUCH aware that in practice, it's not done...my mistake was in thinking it was a statutory law passed by act of congress, and not one passed into amendment form...any majority vote by congress present at the vote can overturn a statutory law passed by them...or even a Supreme Court decision can do this...but overturning or modifying an amendment requires a 2/3 vote of all congressional reps (among other things)...so I'd been under the (mistaken) impression that the guidelines to presidential terms remained as they were originally put forth in the constitution, with only the need for an "exception" by congress such as was done for Wilson and several other earlier presidents.

 

If you know ANYTHING about law, you know there's a HUGE difference between what is true under "law" and what is true in practice..loopholes in laws are written in for a reason, and history has repeatedly shown how they are used, and have been. The so-called "moronic" mistake I made was in assuming that the law enacted after FDR was the same law enacted several times before, when a president had run more than two terms...which was NOT a constitutional law, but a law in a lesser body of laws...oh well, I should have checked on that before assuming...BFD, everyone makes mistakes, and I admitted mine, when it was pointed out and confirmed.

 

YOU, on the other hand, seem to think you can come even CLOSE to even with me on an intellectual level,a nd are doing your level best to prove me an idiot..all you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole every time you try, though...I've been studiing the aspects of law that interest me for about 12 years now...granted, that's pretty limited areas of law, and I'd never pass a bar, but it's clearly a hell of a lot more exposure to legal texts than you've ever had.

 

Try again...I'm waiting :)

wtf? spam? its legal here.

Oh, and Cryo, as an aside...the reason I got interested in the aspects of law I'm interested in to begin with might interest you...I served a completely voluntary term with the US Army...after I got out on the early out program being offered after Storm (I got out after 3 years and 11 months, when my enlistment was for four years and 13 weeks), they first tried to deny my my G.I. Bill benefits, even though I'd fully paid my portion of the input for them, under the basis that I hadn't completed my enlistment satisfactionally, despite having a full honorable discharge, and several decent ranked awards for meritorious service, then they tried to deny me any VA resources when I started having toruble with things my family doc suspected were dersert storm syndrome related (the called "Gulf War Syndrome")..they eventually started treating me..but to this day, they refuse to assign a service related disorder rating, despite having me on several meds for life, and confirmed diagnosies of several Storm related problems..so I have to pay for my treatments, AND they absolutely refuse to recognize me as having any disablility rating...which means they don't cover local ER visits related to the issues I have from exposure in storm, they don't pay for ANY treatments, anywhere, and they don't have to release my medical records to private doctors, so I have the option of getting private treatment, since it's at my own expense anyhow. (This is only an issue because my insurance won't provide reimbursement for VA costs or VA prescribed meds...and therefore considers me inelgible for coverage on any issue that sends me to a private doctor that the doctor states MIGHT be related to my DSS problems...which is apparantly everything outside of broken bones and objects embedded in my flesh)

 

In that light, it's kind of understandable that I'd develop an interest in reasearching a set of legal theories stating that our government aren't just scoundrels, but they're knowingly and illegally holding power they don't have any right to, doesn't it?

psychobud lies exposed in flames section, everyone read especially where he gets caught in a lie

lol...again...what lie? I asked a guy from a tech company to put a good word in for me when I start hunting a full timer after graduating...you expect me to work a part time job after completing my degree? What kind of moron would do THAT?

 

Quit claiming a victory you didn't manage to win, veil ;)

OMP you have to understand something, bush has that dumb smirk on him. how can you go wrong with a person who points at a camer says "bring it on" and then smirks ??? Bush can declare hussien forgiven and release him to north korea and then smirk and i'll be ok with it. hehehehhehe. I must admit dean also has a dumb look that is appealing.

 

Yeah, i mean, whats wrong with a "person" that says:

There ought to be limits to freedom

or cannot see any difference between the words HOSTILE and HOSTAGE!

 

no nothing wrong with such a person.... if he was making licencse plates... not as a pres.

PsychoBud']

Cryo..prohibition was...

 

Wow, you are one colossal moron. I didn't bring up prohibition to get into a debate with you. I used it to illustrate a point I was making. I guess you missed that because you are, after all, quite slow. Also, where did you get the impression that I was debating ANYTHING with you?

 

[

PsychoBud]If you know ANYTHING about law' date=' you know there's a HUGE difference between what is true under "law" and what is true in practice..loopholes in laws are written in for a reason, and history has repeatedly shown how they are used, and have been. The so-called "moronic" mistake I made was in assuming that the law enacted after FDR was the same law enacted several times before, when a president had run more than two terms...which was NOT a constitutional law, but a law in a lesser body of laws...oh well, I should have checked on that before assuming...BFD, everyone makes mistakes, and I admitted mine, when it was pointed out and confirmed. [/quote']

 

You sure love trying to obfuscate your way out of looking like a fool. That may work on the majority of dipshits on this forum, but I see right through it, so spare yourself the paragraphs. Oh, and just for future reference, your style of debate is also known as "jewspeak." If you've ever debated a self-righteous, pompous jew, you'll know that they employ the same tactics as the ones you display. So, if you want to have at least a modicum of respectability despite your stupid and erroneous arguments, it would probably be a good idea not to cloak your bullshit in jewspeak.

 

PsychoBud']YOU' date=' on the other hand, seem to think you can come even CLOSE to even with me on an intellectual level,a nd are doing your level best to prove me an idiot..all you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole every time you try, though....[/quote']

 

An average high school freshman could come close to your "intellectual" level. It isn't hard to be a pseudo-intellectual. Hell, look at hollywood. Your grasp of the English language is atrocious, your logic, or lack thereof, is off-base in so much of the crap you post, that it's laughable. I'm not "trying" to prove that you're an idiot, you're doing that for me.

 

PsychoBud']I've been studiing the aspects of law that interest me for about 12 years now...granted' date=' that's pretty limited areas of law, and I'd never pass a bar, but it's clearly a hell of a lot more exposure to legal texts than you've ever had[/quote']

 

You have no idea how much exposure I've had to "legal texts." However, you get an A+ at talking out of your ass. In-depth study of constitutional law is not required to know the very basic fact of how many terms a president is allowed to serve. I'm not sure what "studiing" is, but if it's anything like "studying," then it looks like you have some work to do.

You're all a bunch of Master-Debaters.

cryogenic, you and i owned psychobud.. check out where i owned him under flames section

point one) yes...you brought up prohibition to illustrate a point...by using something on a completely different level to illustrate another dissimilar subject...usually referred to as "comparing oranges and apples"...my point wasn't to debate, but to point out that you can't compare one to the other, since they're under completely different controlling circumstances. Similar to comparing a federal tax evasion case to a treason case.

 

point two) pointless insults now? Never once in a debate class did I hear the term "jewspeak"..and I know I was caught out being wrong, admitting it DOES avoid "looking like a fool", which I had no problem doing...everyone drops the ball once in a while...like I said "BFD...I was caught out, and owned up to it"...your point?

 

point three) apparantly you're of a lower intelligence level than the average high school freshman, then. And if my logic os so off base...why don't you simply show me where, in the method of your choosing, instead of resorting to jr high insults? Probably once again, because you can't.

 

point four) what IS your point here? That I have a couple habitual misspellings I've never bothered breaking the habit of using? OK...if that makes you feel superior, go for it...I KNOW I misspell certain things every damned time I write or type on the fly, I just never cared enough to bother correcting it anywhere it didn't really matter in my eyes...yes, I rely on spell check alot for "official letters" and resumes, and such. So? That's why you don't see me harping on people here for constantly spelling "their" as "there" or "theyre".

However, you made ONE valid point...I DON'T know how much exposure to legal texts you have had, but, as I said, it's clearly less than the limited and specific amount I've had. (Which, as I said, sure as FUCK doesn't qualify me to pass a bar, or debate law with an actual lawyer, but comes in handy for occasionally mucking up the works in a courtroom when I feel the need to...good enough for me).

 

 

Veil...where was I owned? I haven't seen it...nor has anyone but yourself and cryo, apparantly <grin>

PsychoBud']point one) yes...you brought up prohibition to illustrate a point...by using something on a completely different level to illustrate another dissimilar subject...usually referred to as "comparing oranges and apples"...

 

Ok, now this is just getting fucking sad. You have effectively removed any semblance of doubt that you are indeed a complete fucking idiot. The fact that I have to explain the obvious to you is akin to talking to a child. Let me put this in a way that you may understand.

 

I brought up an example with no intention of it being related to the subject at hand. I used it to illustrate a point that was unrelated to the constitution "debate." The point was that just because a law was a law at one point, that doesn't make up for your blatant ignorance of a fact that even elementary kids know. Because something was the law at one point a long time ago is completely irrelevant.

 

 

PsychoBud']pointless insults now? Never once in a debate class did I hear the term "jewspeak

 

Well, maybe you should take off your tin-foil hat, think about this for a while, and maybe you'll eventually conclude that this term isn't exactly mainstream, for obvious reasons.

 

PsychoBud']point three) apparantly you're of a lower intelligence level than the average high school freshman' date=' then. And if my logic os so off base...why don't you simply show me where, in the method of your choosing, instead of resorting to jr high insults? Probably once again, because you can't.[/quote']

 

Here's the thing, sparky, I don't waste my time trying to engage in an intelligent debate with mentally deficient twerps who barely have a grasp of English. You could pass for a mestizo immigrant with some of the shit you write. Go ahead and believe that you're smarter than me and that I'm the one who can't compete with your dazzling "intellect." Idiotic blowhards like yourself are always in denial as far as the truth is concerned.

psychobud

 

words like carrying and studying are spelled with the letter y not the letter i

 

also in another post you repeatedly refered to your freshman year of college as frosh at least 2 times

Yum, gotta love those novels.

lol heres the post where psychobud calls it frosh

 

http://www.myg0t.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2309&page=2

 

 

heres the post quoted

 

PsychoBud']nice...good performance. Better than mine, frosh year...I got put on academic probation winter semester, because I tried to carry 18 credits that were mostly homework-intensive gened credits at western, and 9 credits at the community college's night school (A+ cert course, and begginning CCNA prep course)...even without working at the time, 5 credits english, 5 credits math, 5 credits entry level progging, 3 credits Japanese (never took a second semester of Jap...too fucking hard!), plus two "entry level" 5 credit tech courses at the clown college were just too fucking much to handle..couldn't cut class, and had at least an hour's homework per class per night, and no leeway allowing me to pull a single all-nighter, and get a week's worth of work done in one stretch.

 

Like I said...frosh year IS a total bitch.

PsychoBud']look into it, NWA...because of the absence of so many of the states due to seccession, many of the representatives from states still members of the union refused to congregate to vote on the 17th Amendment ...public record. The Amendment was passed with less than half of "legal congress" voting...when an amendment is supposed to require a 2/3 majority to be passed.

 

However, I gotta congratulate you on a good eye, for noticing that, man :)

 

Before you tell me to look into things and before you continue the arguing with everyone else, I suggest you read up on which amendment freed the slaves. If you believe everything after the 17th amendment is "illegal," then you must believe that the 1st through 16th were legal. Included in this list is... you guessed it: Amendment 13

 

Article XIII.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

Proposal and Ratification

 

The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-eighth Congress, on the 31st day of January, 1865, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 18th of December, 1865, to have been ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven of the thirty-six States. The dates of ratification were: Illinois, February 1, 1865; Rhode Island, February 2, 1865; Michigan, February 2, 1865; Maryland, February 3, 1865; New York, February 3, 1865; Pennsylvania, February 3, 1865; West Virginia, February 3, 1865; Missouri, February 6, 1865; Maine, February 7, 1865; Kansas, February 7, 1865; Massachusetts, February 7, 1865; Virginia, February 9, 1865; Ohio, February 10, 1865; Indiana, February 13, 1865; Nevada, February 16, 1865; Louisiana, February 17, 1865; Minnesota, February 23, 1865; Wisconsin, February 24, 1865; Vermont, March 9, 1865; Tennessee, April 7, 1865; Arkansas, April 14, 1865; Connecticut, May 4, 1865; New Hampshire, July 1, 1865; South Carolina, November 13, 1865; Alabama, December 2, 1865; North Carolina, December 4, 1865; Georgia, December 6, 1865.

 

Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865.

 

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Oregon, December 8, 1865; California, December 19, 1865; Florida, December 28, 1865 (Florida again ratified on June 9, 1868, upon its adoption of a new constitution); Iowa, January 15, 1866; New Jersey, January 23, 1866 (after having rejected the amendment on March 16, 1865); Texas, February 18, 1870; Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected the amendment on February 8, 1865); Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on February 24, 1865).

 

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Mississippi, December 4, 1865.

 

This is taken from the House of Representatives website, so don't bother arguing with it.

 

Amendment 17 was the amendment regarding senators being elected and the filling of senate vacancies. You mean to tell me you think senators being elected by the people is illegal and that appointing a senator when a seat is vacant is also illegal?

 

Oh, and you never did this:

 

Evaluate the integral:

Easiest way to do type this out is this way

0 to 2^(1/2) dy

0 to 3y dx

x^2+3y^2 to 8-x^2-y^2 dz

in the order of dzdxdy

function of 1

lol nwa nice :D

yes sp0rk...might be out of date, but freshmen were regularly referred to as "froshies" in the HS I began in (no idea if this was strictly local, or not), and I got in the habit of referring to freshman year as "frosh year" due to it...not a typo, just personal peccadillo.

 

Yes, I KNOW about the spelling...as I said, they are habitual misspellings...LONG habit, which I never bothered correcting AS habits...I will likely spell those words those ways until the day I die, along with my other habitual misspellings (like I constantly call athlon procs "athelons", even in speech, and several other almost ritual mess ups)...doesn't matter how often I'm corrected on them, I still do them. Everyone has a quirk along these lines...my wife insists on spelling "John" as "Jhon", for example.

 

Thanks for the corrections, but they won't do any good...same misspellings will appear every damned time I type or write those words, unless I use a spell checker :)

 

 

NWA...the amendment content isn't what I regard as illegal..the passing of it by a congress that didn't have the nesseccary members present or voting is what renders it illegal. Volume of 12, constant of 1, and I'll get back to you with integral...I've got to rework it again...I tossed the paper I did it on AGES ago, using an arbitrary constant, since you didn't provide a derivative equasion originally, and expected me to arbitrarily assign 1 as the "obvious" equasion.

BTW...cryo and veil... NWA just gave a great example of exactly what "owning" someone is :)

 

you didn't come anywhere close, boys.

 

WD NWA :) credit where credit is due, man ;)