posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by aching_knuckles
I gave you an answer, you couldn't accept that answer. You asked for clarification, and I explained a very simple principle of law that has existed
since time immemorial. Ignorantia juris non excusat. This is Latin for ignorance of the law is no excuse. Latin is a dead language. I emphasize
this to illustrate just how ancient this principle is. You want to take that as an insult. It is simply a fact of law. You seem to want to lead
this into some other direction, but all I can tell you is what I know, and that is the law.
All people are born with rights. It is self evident that all people have the right to life. You can reply to that with more questions asking for
clarification, but what I have just stated is as self evident as the day time sun. If you were to ask me questions in reply demanding clarification,
all I can say is that I see someone hiding in a cave all day long only to come out at night and read what I say, and then ask for clarification how
the sun is self evident.
People were driving automobiles before before government decided to declare that driving was a right but only a privilege. In the
California State Constitution
, there are Declarations of Rights. The latter part of Section 24
This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
This is a direct contradiction to California's assertion that driving is a privilege and not a right, particularly because people were driving first
and by right.
Either you can understand this, or you cannot. If you cannot you can declare it is a failure in my communication, but between you and I, I seem to be
the only one willing to make statements. Playing a Socratic method is obvious and in my estimation disingenuous. The law is not philosophy, and if
it were, it would be useless.
What more do you want?