It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I've noticed a lot of misconceptions about the law on this board

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by timesacomin
 





The constitution means what it says. The only reason we use case law to determine what the constitution means, is so that people can interpret the constitution to their liking. Basically, case law allows people to break the law. period. end of line.


In Marbury v Madison the Court came to the conclusion that there is an implicit, (meaning they inferred this), grant of power to the courts of judicial review. The Constitution itself makes no mention of judicial review, but this inference by the Court is what has been used to strike down as unconstitutional legislation that is not law. In this regard, case law becomes a very useful tool. Further, common law, one of the great principles upon which our Constitution is based, is all about case law.




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


One of the common misconceptions people have is that they throw around the word "unconstitutional" quite a bit. These people's readings of the Constitution is seldom based on any case law and often conflict with the case law.
\

case law doesn't mean #.... what because they've ruled against the constitution in the past means that we have to continue to let them now???

When the system is broken, I don't think a lawyer is the best person to ask about the law. You need some common sense approaches rather than convoluted legalese...

Jaden



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I can't speak for everyone but I wouldn't turn down an opportunity to learn something valuable.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by timesacomin
 


The constitution means what it says. The only reason we use case law to determine what the constitution means, is so that people can interpret the constitution to their liking. Basically, case law allows people to break the law. period. end of line.

Whats the point of having a constitution if it can be interpreted into anything a judge wants. As every decade goes by, judges stray from the original meaning of the constitution further and further. Where will it end.

I'm sorry, but i cannot comprehend how people can think that the constitution means something other than what it says.

it says what it means, it means what it say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU are doing exactly what you say bugs you about others! It's done all the time on ATS regarding The Constitution! IT IS open to interpratation, anything written is!
ATS'ers are idealouges, just like fundamentalist Christians, they have their interpretations of the Constitution ( language), they declare theirs correct and ALL others wrong! THAT gets you nowhere, you may disagree on interpretations, but you will not allow even the possibility of a different interpretation! LEARN TO THINK FOLKS!


[edit on 27-4-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by A Novel
 


I agree with you. I would add that there is a conspiracy against intellectuals and educated people. In our country if you have a good education and have dedicated yourself to a particular study you are some how thought of as a quack, and/ or out to create wealth for yourself at the expense of others. George Bush made it his hallmark to appeal to to this anti-intellectual movement and capitalized on it big time.

What is wrong with accepting this attorney's gracious attempt to educate us?

Lets talk about Taxes some people say they are not legal.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

The field of Constitutional law is very case law intensive. The constitution is a very brief document, and courts look to the case law to apply it to numerous situations. For example, the 4th amendment protects people against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Well what exactly is an unreasonable search and seizure? Can cops search your car bumper to bumper if they pull you over for a traffic violation? Can cops use infra-red cameras to look into your house without a warrant? You cannot answer these questions by looking to the text of the 4th amendment itself, but the case law provides answers to these questions.


I'm a lawyer as well and would have to disagree with what appears to be acquiescence with whatever the SC holds. Simply because the SC rules one way on a constitutional issue doesn't mean they are following the spirit of the Constitution. My understanding of that document is that it memorializes the primary goals of the Founders -- freedom. The SC has twisted the Constitution, and DontTreadOnMe is correct -- law school dealt with case law, e.g. law as created by the SC. The "commerce clause" is probably the most twisted segment of the Constitution and has been used to create law where there was not even an intent in the clause to touch a particular area of law.

It is actually rather repulsive to witness so many lawyers genuflect upon the mere mention of the Supreme Court and what they've done. They've destroyed, and continue to destroy, the foundation of freedom we once had. With every SC opinion I continue to stand in amazement at how they can "interpret" the Constitution in a way that is, frankly, dishonest. They are simply a gang of dishonest lawyers running our country and destroying what scrap of freedom we have left.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
While I can appreciate your concern that most posting here may be ignorant to the finite details of the law...we still must remember that our founding fathers wished that the laws that govern our dailylives would indeed be able to be understood and dare I say it "debated" among the ignorant masses. Sadly it is the lawyers who take these simple laws and make them so complicated and difficult for the rest of us to comprehend.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


Amen and amen! It is refreshing to hear that there are still lawyers who value freedom, justice and honor over "case law".

IMO what has been most detremental of all to this nation is the loss of the principle of "checks and balances" in all branches of government.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


I could not agree with you more. The constitution was written as a historical guideline to help the future American generations remember how freedom was won and is maintained. The document itself is a limiting document that explicitly defines the powers granted to the federal government, our rights as citizens, our country's sovereignty and most other powers are left to both the state governments and the PEOPLE. The SC WAS tasked with interpreting that constitution and dispensing justice appropriately. Remember, in the beginning the two different political parties disagreed only on the interpretation of the constitution; one party wanted a liberal, open end interpretation to the document, while the other group wanted a literal interpretation.

Today we are witnessing the greatest gross misuse of "ad hoc" interpretation of our constitution by the SC that it almost makes me red with rage. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that is what i see in our supreme court; It used to be that true veterens of law and practicing law fought for the honored position as supreme court justice, to enact 'blind justice.' Today we have the most dishonorable and frankly most biased SC I have ever witnessed. The fact that we would seat a "wise latino woman," who has a history of prejudice, to the highest court in the land is, by all accounts, insanity.

Now we wait for the next SC pick, and God only knows who they are going to pull out of the wood work.

Now that corporations have similar rights to HUMAN BEINGS, does that make us as expendable as corporations? Think about it...



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 


Correction, it is the COURTS that take these laws and twist them so many ways we wonder if it is even written in english. You see the "loop-hole effect" in case law is why so many cases are heard regarding virtually the same topic, but often have different rulings that add or retract from the existing case law. This means case law is ever changing, by nature chaotic, and often does not satisfy the logic used in it's creation. A law must be binding, unwaverng, and broad sweeping; any who violate the law must be punished accordingly and equally, else law itself is lawless.

That is the problem today in so many cases, and the justices in ALL courts have their opinions known regarding case law; it is not blind justice. You see Judge 'A' hears case 'C' and makes a ruling of 'X' to the existing case law 'Z' regarding the trial. That ruling is added to the previous rulings involving case law 'Z.' Then Judge 'B' hears case 'D,' a very similar case to case 'C,' and makes a ruling of 'Y,' which overturns the ruling of 'X' made by the previous justice.

That is the easiest way i can describe why case law cannot and should not be considered law, but rather what it was originaly intended for; to help interpret specific cases in which the constitution cannot define a clear ruling. Case law is a suggestion, and should not be considered true law.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I fully agree with you
I havent used this site long enough to be profficent in its workings, but ill help anyway I can. I have to say though its VERY important that ATS users know the law and how it affects them and their loved ones. I havent read the entire thread but I will after this post.

Star&Flag hotpink

creaton91eh



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Reply to post by Josephus23
 


Yes point to them...please do not use wikipedia as a reference. So you're just another web bot believer. If you live by that then how is it exactly you are still living? This earth was blown to pieces years ago. Like I have stated before I have seen so many posts and threads by people in the last couple of years saying to stock up on food because life as we know it will be over within a week that ATS alone could solve world hunger issues.

Yes their are some very intelligent, well thought out threads, but most of them do not make it to the front page. All the BS doom and gloom/web bot predictions/ NWO/ fema trains/ nibiru/ 2012 threads make it to the top threads. And on top of that people debunk them with good, logical, information and sources yet people ignore those posts and carry on the subject. So go ahead and tear my logic apart.

One of my favorite all time threads was when a known hoaxer posted a thread saying fema trains were being set in san fran and once again all the crazies jumped on board. However I do give credit to 20% of ats members for being intellectual and one of those actually took a trip, investigated, took pictures, and completely disproved the whole fema train thing. Complete ownage.

Sorry for taking this whole thread off topic I just think its such a sad situation when an intelligent person is bombarded by wikipedia gangsters.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I appreciate the offer Pink, but I would rather decline for being as this is a conspiracy oriented web site AND that no one has so far mentioned your supposed field of expertise, AND that being the ultimate conspiracy and it's subsequent conspiratorial law, which is INCOME TAXATION.

We as working Americans have not yet paid all of our labor taxes for this calendar year to the US Govt., for we are now required to labor for 5 months of the year, explicitly for the US Government and their collection agency called the IRS, before we are actually PAID !

This is a form of enslavement.

The fact that a government entity can dictate and divert your payments for your labor before you are even paid.

But Pink, If anything, you would come to the aid of all of us here on ATS as well as that of ALL tax paying Americans by pointing out the Illegalities of the system of supposed tax laws instead of perpetuating the status quo.

Consisting upon stale case studies that are of of little or no relevance to the benefit of all tax paying Americans come next April 15th.

Especially as more and more tax paying Americans are actually losing their homes due to unemployment.

There is a well known attorney, a member of the Order of the Coif, for that matter, out of Louisiana, named Tom Cryer, who took the IRS to court, in defense of himself, after being charged with two counts of tax evasion and succeeded.

In order for his case and argument to convince the jury he conveyed:

For one, Income as defined by the Constitution cannot be altered by congressional decisions/authority such as the 16th Amendment and remains as originally as pertinent only to profits and not gross income/receipts as we are told by the IRS.

This is exactly why corporations earning BILLIONS of Dollars such as EXXON, do NOT pay any taxes and what the common man doesn't understand this .....YET.

This is a conspiracy website and if you stand and defend the IRS and perpetuating their fraudulent system of obfuscation and illegal laws to steal from the entirety of working class Americans then you are no better than any of these thieving money grubbing politicians that only rob the poor to benefit themselves as Millionaires, of which most of our politicians categorically fall.

I can already read, and I don't really need someone to interpret written words called "the law" that are purposely obfuscated to confuse and manipulate the common man by defining the true meaning of said words, subject to interpretation, within the laws themselves.

So Pink, step up to the plate and become part of the solution OR remain part of the problem.

Plain and Simple.

'Nuff said.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I haven't read the entire thread just a few posts on the first page. However I contend that you must first prove your claim that what you teach is in fact law and not just administrative corporate policy. I also contend you may not be a lawyer but an attorney and an attorney at law not an attorney in fact.

I don't know you so don't have any idea about what you know. However in my experience most attorneys have a very narrow view of what they consider "the law" which is mainly what they were taught in so called law school and even when shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary tend to just dismiss it as nonsense.

I contend the courts you practice in are not article 3 courts and not even lawful courts they are commercial military administrative courts.

I would be willing to debate all this with you however if you just start dismissing things as non-sense despite the hard evidence then I will not continues, however if you are willing to actually try and honestly refute any evidence I submit that is fine.

I know what you most likely believe and that is what you were taught but belief does not make law and even practising your belief does not necessarily make law and judges rulings do not make law contrary to popular belief.

If you like we can start with what you believe to be your license. Can you tell us what state you think you are licensed in and what governmental body issued you a license?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


One of the common misconceptions people have is that they throw around the word "unconstitutional" quite a bit. These people's readings of the Constitution is seldom based on any case law and often conflict with the case law.


I can't speak for everyone but when SCOTUS decisions like Wickard v Filburn come down the pike, I no longer have any respect for the SCOTUS nor consider their decisions as binding or applicable to my life. Wickard v Filburn was a blatantly unconstitutional decision, it went against the provisions, rules, statutes, amendments, etc of the Constitution.

The Commerce Clause regulates commerce that is directly between the states. No reading by anyone can change that into the Commerce Clause regulating private production and consumption by an individual strictly within one state.


Can you honestly say that decision was Constitutional just because 5+ SCOTUS judges, some appointed by FDR to stack the deck and get his legislation seen as Constitutional, say it was?

If so have you thought out the logical ramifications of this decision? That it could be used to ban all manner of farming by individuals, all manner of photography, knitting, making food at home instead of going out for dinner, etc, etc, etc.


The "judicial" system is just another entity where the elite, the rich and powerful, have their way while the small and powerless get stripped of their unalienable rights.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
I'm a lawyer as well and would have to disagree with what appears to be acquiescence with whatever the SC holds. Simply because the SC rules one way on a constitutional issue doesn't mean they are following the spirit of the Constitution.

+1. I'd say Kelo v. New London is a good example of that - trampling 5th Amendment property rights & expanding the govt's power to take personal property if it's rationally related to the public interest. Yikes!

Bush v. Gore was also very sketchy, not that I supported either one of those characters. Souter's dissent just made some good points about Bush's lack of standing, for one thing.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Wonderful idea....i would like to ask you about fleet law and do you feel it is deceitful.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I have to say, this actually sounds like a great idea! I've been around ATS for awhile now but finally decided to sign up and your thread was interesting enough for me to make my first post (after 6 months of lurking, lol). Anyway, I hope to see more on your thread soon!



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
YOU are doing exactly what you say bugs you about others! It's done all the time on ATS regarding The Constitution! IT IS open to interpratation, anything written is!
ATS'ers are idealouges, just like fundamentalist Christians, they have their interpretations of the Constitution ( language), they declare theirs correct and ALL others wrong! THAT gets you nowhere, you may disagree on interpretations, but you will not allow even the possibility of a different interpretation! LEARN TO THINK FOLKS!


[edit on 27-4-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by OldDragger]


The constitution is written in plain and easy to understand language. If you try to interpret it into something other that what is clearly written you're just being dishonest. Very little is actually open to interpretation unless you support some agenda which goes against what it plainly says.

Take the 2nd for a minute. It has probably been the subject or more 'interpretation' than any other part. Why, because some people don't like it so they attempt to claim it means something other than what it actually says.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

'Well regulated' in that time meant to be well trained or prepared, not our modern meaning of controlled or restricted. This is not an interpretation on my part, that is how the phrase is used in places such as the federalist papers and various quotes.


Now considering that the founders admitted to not wanting a standing army and the common knowledge that the militia was composed of common folk, not enlisted soldiers, we can come to the logical conclusion that a well prepared militia is of the people. The only way to be well prepared is to train and practice. Since we are talking of a militia, weapons must play a part besides tactics and other training.

Then "the people". Some claim it doesn't actually mean the people even though that's what it clearly says. Nowhere else in the constitution does it say the people and mean anything other than the people. Nowhere else is it claimed that it means anything else, so why in the 2nd do people claim it means the state? Because they have an agenda.

"Shall not be infringed". Pretty clear there. But not for some, they just ignore that "shall not" and instead interpret it to mean 'if we deem you eligible under our current interpretation."






[edit on 27-4-2010 by Primordial]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by A Novel
 


Please do not be offended, but you asked me to do this.



how sad is it that a lawyer trying to help people understand law for FREE gets less credibility than the web bot that people must pay for and has never been right. Seriously sad..


This is a non-sequitur relating to the argument presented, which literally means "it does not follow".

As a matter of fact, all of your statements concerning the web bot, and most of your other "evidence" presented are non-sequiturs, because they do not follow the premise of the argument.
They are simply a way to overgeneralize anyone critical of the OP, and it sets up what is THE all time favorite of logical fallacies here on ATS (see below).

How can you say that I, or anyone who disagrees with the OP, is a believer in the web bot?
And to follow that line of Socratic questioning...
What does the web bot have to do with anything that we are debating on this thread?

I will not restate the definition of a non-sequitur, because it seems to be a favorite of yours, along with the argument against the man, or the logical fallacy known as argument ad hominem.

I will also not define this logical fallacy, because I would think that anyone who has been on ATS for any length of time is WELL acquainted with this fallacy (answer from above statement regarding THE all time favorite logical fallacy on ATS)



Once again though an educated person comes forth and the brains of ats come in and flame it. Kind of sad, but at least it makes it easy for the government to find all the crazies together on one site.


Argument ad hominem and yet another non-sequitur.



Probably would have been taken more seriously if somehow you linked being a lawyer and law to 2012, aliens, nibiru, and the end of the world.


You like to use the non-sequitur attached onto an ad hominem resulting from an over generalization and a hasty generalization.

How does any of the previous quote relate to the OP?

That is, unless you are trying to insult someone.



This should be a lesson to anyone that wants to post anything intelligent on a site where the over all average IQ is 80.


So, I think that what you are doing should be BLATANTLY apparent to several of the readers by now.

Since you are a member, then are YOU contributing this problem that you seem to want to address?
Maybe if you left the company of those that you wish to insult then that average IQ would rise, dramatically.

Here is a link to logical fallacies.

This is all based on the initial premise stated by you here.



how sad is it that a lawyer trying to help people understand law for FREE gets less credibility...


If you want to address the problems that many, many members apparently have with the OP, then I suggest that you address the actual problems...

Rather than stating hasty generalizations, and over-generalizations...

Which just happen to be yet two more logical fallacies.

[edit on 4/27/2010 by Josephus23]



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join