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

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Visiting ESB

 

Counsel, you may very well be correct that many SCOTUS decisions on the Constitution do not reflect the true intent of the founding fathers. However, we both know that in a court of law SCOTUS precedents have controlling weight. You would be doing your client a disservice if you did not base your Constitutional Law arguments on SCOTUS precedents while the other side did.

Of course, and that comes with the territory. My problem is that we have to rely on their interpretation of the "law." If their past decisions work against the client, that precedent creates an unjust outcome unless you can miraculously persuade them to reverse themselves. Which is unlikely. That's the crux of what I'm getting at -- regardless of what OUR interpretation of the Constitution is or even what common sense might tell us, too many of the SC's prior decisions have resulted in injustice.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by endisnighe

 

I honestly do not think that this person is an attorney.

Whomever said hot pink whatever is supposed to be, said person is making too many amateur mistakes to have actually passed the bar of whatever state they are located.

Your comments are spot on as usual endisnighe.

I will no longer waste my time here, because it is plainly obvious that this person has an extremely limited knowledge of law.

I have to agree, my questions were not addressed, and they were on page two, I believe. A real Attorney would know the things he professes to know. A waste of time better spent, me thinks.

It seems to me everyone wants to beat around the bush with laws and legal facts. I really don't care if everyone want complicate things or to be ignorant about such things or a slave though people need to shut their mouths and stop whining about stuff they don't care or know about!

well here are two links about the the 14th Amendment

Part 1

part 2

reply to post by SimpleKnowledge


These are great videos SimpleKnowledge.

It is so refreshing to see so many other people waking up to the truth.
And the truth is that this republic has nearly been taken over by the Federal Government and replaced with a democracy.

*note: I am not taking a democrat versus republican stand.
They are both shills for the CORPORATE party.
They want free markets for the poor and socialism for the wealthy, and when I say wealthy, I am not talking about a million a year.
I am talking about the families that bought into the Federal Reserve system, like maybe Warburg, Rockefeller, Rothschild.
The usual suspects.

It all started with the 14th Amendment and has gone downhill ever since.

I have just finished the first video and I am about to go onto the second.

Star for sure.

Question to the OP regarding the screen name -

Are you affiliated with the punk rock band "The Urinal Mints" ?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
If a lawyer attempts a Summery Judgement (sic); it can easily be defeated.

Maybe, but it depends on the circumstances.

Two criteria must be met before summary judgment may be properly granted: (1) there must be no genuine issues of material fact, and (2) the MOVANT must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue implies that certain facts are disputed. Usually a party opposing summary judgment must introduce evidence that contradicts the moving party's version of the facts. Moreover, the facts in dispute must be central to the case; irrelevant or minor factual disputes will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. Finally, the law as applied to the undisputed facts of the case must mandate judgment for the moving party. Summary judgment does not mean that a judge decides which side would prevail at trial, nor does a judge determine the credibility of witnesses. Rather, it is used when no factual questions exist for a judge or jury to decide...

Read more: Summary Judgment law.jrank.org...

reply to post by Josephus23


Thanks glad to contribute.

To all:

I am planning on holding the "class" at 11:00 Eastern (New York)/ 8:00 Pacific (Los Angeles) Time. I will try to U2U those who U2U'ed me, but the flood control makes this inconvenient.

I hope to see many people there. I am sorry if this time does not work out for everybody, but you cannot please all the people all the time.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


But you can fool most of the people all of the time. Just not all of the people all of the time.

Sorry hpum. I could not help it!

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by ChrisCrikey

 

I specialize in Tax and am licensed in only one state. I would like to keep anonymity so I will not mention the state.

In high school, I remember taking a class called political science, which was like civics. It covered the structure of government and such.

As a tax attorney, I sometimes run across Administrative law issues. Administrative law is the body of law that deals with the law of the Executive Branch of government.

As an aside, you probably learned in Civics that the Executive branch only enforced laws. It was up to the judicial branch to interpret laws and the legislative branch to make laws. Well, I am here to tell you that is not completely true. The executive branch makes more laws than the legislative branch and has courts that interpret laws!

Totally agree. Basically I am in the same situation.

Originally posted by Goethe
To the OP, while I like this idea, I doubt most everything everyone says anymore.


What type of references do you have to show that you do in fact know what you speak of? Have you passed a bar exam?
Im not trying to be a pain, but if you are in fact a lawyer, youre credibility is already suspect to me. I find your profession filled with useless liars and douchebags who take 1/3rd for their time and do little to no real work.

I believe I told everyone I was licensed in one state and held two law degrees. You are free to think I am just some 12 year old making up a bunch of stuff. As far as your comments about the legal profession, while there are some good lawyers out there, unfortunately there are plenty of bad lawyers out there and your comments have some merit.

Originally posted by Goethe

Id like to know if you have any experience in Constitutional Law?

I have never practiced Constitutional law, but have taken Con Law courses in law school. As a tax attorney, I also sometimes cover Administrative Law issues which can involve the constitution.

Originally posted by Goethe
If you do have some experience in this area, my question is this... How is it constitutional to ban voting for any convicted felon?

Someone out there should correct me if I am wrong, but the 13th amendment allows for slavery or involuntary servitude only if a person has been duly convicted of a crime. If someone can be a prisoner as a result of being duly convicted of a crime, it follows you can also take away other rights like the right to vote.

Originally posted by Goethe
Under the Patriot Act, any crime harming or possibly harming others can be defined as an act of terrorism...

If you commit a crime in an election or politics, you should lose your right to vote, as you tried to steal others voices. But, if youve commited any crime, why should you lose your right to vote?

How is that even remotely constitutional? There is nothing in our founding documents about suspending or ending someones rights like this...

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread and answer

There are many people much more knowledgeable on the Constitution than I who have questioned the constitutionality of the Patriot act. It is probably just a matter of time before Patriot Act cases work their way through the courts.

reply to post by endisnighe


So now you see the light.

Then stand up for your rights. Jah.

Get up stand up.

Stand up for your rights.

Bob Marley R.I.P.

February 6, 1945 – May 11, 1981

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

Someone out there should correct me if I am wrong, but the 13th amendment allows for slavery or involuntary servitude only if a person has been duly convicted of a crime. If someone can be a prisoner as a result of being duly convicted of a crime, it follows you can also take away other rights like the right to vote.

Voting is a privilege and not, by any stretch of the imagination, an inalienable right. All inalienable rights preexist government, and voting obviously comes after, or during, the establishment of government. It is wholly understandable why governments would not want those they imprison to vote. It is even understandable why such a government wouldn't want those they imprison to own arms, however the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right preexisting government, and no government, regardless of what that government might claim, has the right to grant rights people all ready have. As such, it follows that if they have no right to grant rights, they have no right to take them away.

While it might be wholly reasonable to point to a convicted criminal who has used arms to abrogate and derogate the rights of others, and say this person has forfeited their rights, and indeed they have. However, if that forfeit of rights is defined as a prison term where punishment is instituted, and then released for having paid the price of their crime, then the forfeit of rights is no longer an issue. It is no different than when a team forfeits a game. That forfeit does not become perpetual and all rights to play future games denied. Only the game in which was to be played becomes forfeit and future games only have relevance in what that forfeit cost in terms of overall statistics. What I am suggesting is that if one has been imprisoned for a crime, the forfeit of rights should only apply during that time in prison and while on probation, and no longer.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Wrong yet again.

The only reason that voting is considered a privilege is because we are citizens of the Federal Government, due to the un-Constitutional 14th Amendment.

(New Jersey and Ohio did not initially ratify the 14th along with 9 Confederate states.
They were, however, eventually forced to do so as their respective houses were expelled, by gunpoint diplomacy, and then re-appointed with members picked by the lacky's who were bought and paid for by the power grabbing US Congress)

LInk to Reconstruction Acts.

Notice this quote from the link...

Each district was to be headed by a military official empowered to appoint and remove state officials

And this quote...

States were required to ratify the 14th Amendment prior to readmission.

Before we were forced to be citizens of the Federal Government, which gives us the "privilege" to vote. we were citizens of our respective State Governments, each of which were a Sovereign Country under Pubilc International Law.

Our rights are God Given and in-alienable, and that includes the right to universal suffrage, if that is what our STATE says.

The US Constitution was meant to limit the power of the FEDERAL government only . EACH state was sovereign under public international law.

The Orgnanic Act of 1871 created a corporation that has been masking as our country ever since.

The 14th Amendment made us citizens/employees/voluntary servants of this Corporation.

This attorney breaks down exactly why the 14th Amendment is un-Constitutional. READ IT.

I really hate calling a total hoax on a thread, but this should be moved to the hoax forum.

You guys have NO IDEA what you are talking about regarding the law.

reply to post by Josephus23

Wrong yet again. The only reason that voting is considered a privilege is because we are citizens of the Federal Government, due to the un-Constitutional 14th Amendment.

Not wrong at all. It would be a mistake to assume I am simply parroting someone else when I assert that voting is not a right and merely a privilege. It is self evident that voting is a privilege that comes with citizenship. Where a person has the inalienable right to speak, to write and publish, to worship and to keep and bear arms, among other rights, they do not need the institution of government in order to have these rights. However, without government, voting for government officials is moot.



[edit on 3-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


reply to post by Josephus23


I think both of you have good arguments in this case. But, as for the time frames in regards to your arguments, I would have to say neither of you would get my vote.

I would say voting is neither a privilege or a right. It is something that has been completely fubared.

I have seen articles that the dems and repubs would not allow cities to NOT include the party affiliation. Yeah, in this instance, the right or privilege means nothing. It is a misnomer or irrelevant to the argument.

As of right now, I would call the right or privilege to vote is neither. It is more a coronation of king a or king b.

In the beginning of our country, I would argue it was a right, in the center a privilege.

Now, if one has unalienable rights, things that cannot be taken away , I would say our government has decided we have no rights. They feel they can take them, hence no rights only privileges. If you look at the Constitution with only the Bill of Rights, no where do they state that rights can be taken away.

Sometimes I do not even know what to think of our system anymore, anything can be taken for any reason the priests want.

I believe it is time to become a HERETIC!

There is a long list of heretics in the past. I guess being labeled a heretic would not be so bad!

reply to post by endisnighe

In the beginning of our country, I would argue it was a right, in the center a privilege.

Of course, in the beginning of the United States for America, neither slaves, nor women were afforded the "right" to vote. Slaves had their inalienable rights abrogated and derogated on a daily basis, and beyond the privilege of voting, it could be argued that women suffered abuses they should not have had to.

Now, if one has unalienable rights, things that cannot be taken away , I would say our government has decided we have no rights. They feel they can take them, hence no rights only privileges. If you look at the Constitution with only the Bill of Rights, no where do they state that rights can be taken away.

I, sadly, am inclined to agree with your assessment, however, I would argue that the willingness to confuse government granted privileges, such as citizenship and voting, with inalienable rights, is part of why the government has taken the view that only they may decide what is a right and what is not. Only when we can be clear and zealously assert the differences between rights and privileges will we get back on track towards defending rights, and treating privileges for what they are.

The 14th Amendment is a horrid piece of legislation that should be legally challenged and struck down. For those who argue it is necessary to protect "minority" rights, they are necessarily diminishing inalienable rights in favor of some form of "civil rights". There is not greater minority than that of the individual and it matters not what color of skin, what religion or what ideology that individual possesses, every single one has rights. However, as a non-citizen, people do not have the "right" to vote and understandably so, they do not have the "right" to run for certain elected positions, and understandably so.

Where the 14th Amendment has been used to argue that rights are granted by government, to mistake voting as one of these rights, is to mistake what can and can not be granted by government.

reply to post by endisnighe


Excellent point endisnighe.

The current means of how we cast votes has become so unfathomably corrupted that it is now ridiculous to the point of actually being ridiculous.

We can only vote if the government says we can.

John Adams was opposed to universal suffrage, and the reason being is that he thought that the uneducated were too easily swayed by demagogues. (Good or Bad thing? Right or Privilege?)

Thanks for the unbiased, honest, and extremely insightful opinion.

It definitely opened my eyes to the bull-headed nature of my argument.

Much gratitude my friend.

Hey, I do not want my friends to but heads too often, of course discourse and discussion is always a good thing.

I am still working on how I see voting and citizenship as a right or privilege.

I can see the arguments merits on both sides.

Some of it is hard to discern our founders thoughts, which is what I always try to base my views on things.

I do find there position on the value of votes on slaves and the lack of women's votes to be highly irrational. Of course we are not alive in their era, so we can not really hear their arguments. We can only try to figure their positions by their writings.

I have always thought to go back to the beginning of the Constitution and remove their minor mistakes that are common sense in modern times.

Anyway, I think this thread was enlightening on several concepts and discussion.

To all,

I must apologize for any communication errors on my part. I intend to hold the class 8:00 Pacific/ 11:00 Eastern tomorrow on May 5.

Again, please accept my apologies and I look forward to seeing you all. I am also almost done with compiling materials for the second lesson, which will be on the separation of powers.