Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is The US Declaration of Independence Illegal? - UK (Law) Thinks So...

page: 16
14
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Fomenting civil war part deux?





posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Yeah, well that's why it's good to be here in North America cuz we did what we wanted...namely gained our Independence from them. So,here we are all independent with our own July 4th and it rocks.Just sayin'



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Do you really think America cares what The Uk may think of our Constitution? Learn to loose!!
edit on 20-10-2011 by CherubBaby because: Added text


I think you and others are kind of missing the point with this exercise. As I understand it, this is not the first time this group of academics has met to discuss the issue (might even be a regular thing) and it is really just a "thinking excercise" and, more likely, an excuse to meet up, have some brews and if the Gods of Leather Elbow patches allow it, pull a nice bit of stuff...

Then again, I am not surprised the concept of a "thinking excercise" has Americans up in arms....


I'm joking...honest



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 



What the hell are you talking about? All 16 of our overseas territories remain so at their own behest, therefore are not subject to "decolonisation". What exact overseas territory do you refer to? And, as I am sure you're aware, the US possesses quite a few too....


Originally posted by smallpeeps
I heard Scotland wants to ditch London, and that Ireland wants to ditch the Vatican? I would love to see Scotland and Ireland band with the good old US.


Scotland doesn't want to ditch the UK, the SNP. They promised a referendum during the last Parliament in Scotland but failed to deliver and they have promised it again by 2016, but no date fixed. The reason? They know they won't win and the SNP's flagship policy would sink, taking them with it.

Recent opinion polls put the figure at well over 70% who wish to remain part of the UK, with only the Highlands being staunch "independance" types.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Pervius
 



What the hell are you talking about? All 16 of our overseas territories remain so at their own behest, therefore are not subject to "decolonisation". What exact overseas territory do you refer to? And, as I am sure you're aware, the US possesses quite a few too....


Originally posted by smallpeeps
I heard Scotland wants to ditch London, and that Ireland wants to ditch the Vatican? I would love to see Scotland and Ireland band with the good old US.


Scotland doesn't want to ditch the UK, the SNP. They promised a referendum during the last Parliament in Scotland but failed to deliver and they have promised it again by 2016, but no date fixed. The reason? They know they won't win and the SNP's flagship policy would sink, taking them with it.

Recent opinion polls put the figure at well over 70% who wish to remain part of the UK, with only the Highlands being staunch "independance" types.


It is obvious what Kings of Europe started the slave trade, coined gold from blood, etc.

The fact that UK subjects press ahead under Vatican/Jesuit/Rothschildian schemes only speaks to the power of Mind Kontrol.

You suggest that the USA, having an abusive horrible raping parent (figuratively) should be mericful and good to that parent?

No, for a colony as a "child state" will eventually someday outgrow the abusive parent and will inevitably find a new way. No parliament or locks on the doors, will keep the abused colony from righting historical wrongs. Sadly, I see you as someone who is beyond reach, and beyond understanding how bad things get corrected. Can we talk about your relationship with your parents? Because I think a lot of bad thinking in the UK comes from traumas from the churches of Europe and the wrecked families they leave behind them.

Do you think the UK has successfully hidden their assasination of US presidents, and the fomenting of US civil war and also WW1 and WW2 where millions were ritually sacrificed? Do you imagine that you little postings here are going to throw a tarp over history? Don't you know that many in the UK can see that all of WW2 was a fake war, staged to create the Zionist dream and to create the IMF/UN house of rockefeller.rothschild globo-schemes?

If a parent-state be an abusive ass, does that mean that the child-state shall never reach adulthood? In fact it is the responsibility of the child-state, to correct the abusive parent-state. Wouldn't you agree, metaphorically speaking?

Or do you feel that abusive parent-states, should be allowed to continue their abuse of child-states? I mean since the UK is all about law, and corporate personage, then I think it's okay to use family metaphors, and abuse, is easy to see.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
What's that theory, which has been stated by some knowledgable people, that says essentially that the COTUS invalidated the Declaration of Independence?

The COTUS has two version, that's true as well isn't it? As do all US State have two versions of their Constitutions as California and so on?

Hmm.

Yet we cannot disallow any religion, nor that religons laws/codes/regulation...

Hmm.

Who wants to use Islam to destroy the world? Wasn't that Albert Pike?

Hmm, thinking now of the conspiracy Hollywodd film "National Treasure Two" where Pike's letter to Queen Victoria is burned. It is true that Pike was given the TOP CHAIR of the US Scots Rite in the time after US Civil War. He said he'd use Islam to destroy all religions.



news.yahoo.com...

Court: Oklahoma can't enforce Sharia law ban
By Robert Boczkiewicz | Reuters – 21 hrs ago

[...]

The decision upholds the ruling of a lower federal court.

"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out ... the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the appeals court said in a 37-page written decision.

The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations welcomed the ruling, calling it "a victory for the Constitution and for the right of all Americans to freely practice their faith."

Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," which was approved by 70 percent of state voters in 2010, bars Oklahoma state courts from considering or using Sharia law.

The lawsuit challenging the measure was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Awad, who is director of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR.

A federal judge in Oklahoma City issued a court order in November 2010 barring the measure from taking effect while the case is under review, finding a substantial likelihood that Awad would prevail on the merits.

The Council said the Oklahoma amendment is among 20 similar proposed laws introduced in state legislatures nationwide.

Defenders of the amendment say they want to prevent foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.

But foes of the Oklahoma measure, also called State Question 755, have argued that it stigmatizes Islam and its adherents and violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against the government favoring one religion over another.

State Senator Anthony Sykes, one of the measure's sponsors, called the decision an attempt "to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of, by and for the judges, or of, by and for the people."

[...]



PLEASE NOTE that the DC appeallate judges call themselves "the public". They feel they are correctly adjudicating "the public trust" ...This is key. Note their phrasing:

[from the above quote]

"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out ... the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the appeals court said in a 37-page written decision."

Three classes here in this statement:

1: the public who carries out the will of
2: the voters
3: the public who upholds
4: an individual's constitutional rights

Now can you tell me which group these judges see themselves in?

Do they see themselves as "the voters"??? Nope.

Do they see themselves as "individuals with constitutional rights"??

No, they see themselves as, "the public". Publis means: People. Therefore, simply, the judges see themselves as the people. The judges in this phrasing, are calling themelves "the public" ...This is there Republic, and they will tell the people what codes and laws apply.

The Publis itself, the PEOPLE, have no say. They will submit to Sharia judgement in all State courts. Uncle Sam's Public Trust have spoken.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   
well of course it was illegal

if everything was legal, there would not have been a war.

if they want it back,
they can come take it back!





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join