Skip to comments.
McCain Rejects Idea That U.S. Can’t Afford No-Fly Zone in Libya (McCain wants to intervene in Libya)
Fox ^
| 2011-03-02
Posted on 03/02/2011 6:45:11 AM PST by rabscuttle385
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-153 next last
To: Thermalseeker
"If the preamble to the Constitution is law it should be very easy for someone as smart as you are to cite one case that has been decided based on the pretext that the preamble is indeed the law of the land."
I will do that when you cite case law for every other part of the constitution to ensure that it is indeed the law of the land. If your assertion is correct (that in order for it to be law it has to have been part of a case decided by the Supreme Court), then you should have no problem finding case law for every statement in the constitution.
To: Thermalseeker
You can't even admit a simple mistake you made. You stated:
"BTW, I'm not sidestepping anything. I don't bother answering your questions because they are just distractions from the original question of whether the preamble to the Constitution is law."
I showed you what the first question you asked was. It was in post 23:
"Just curious, but where in the Constitution do you find verbiage that allows the USA to intervene in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country simply because we currently get 2% of our oil from them?"
Which, BTW I promptly answered. You just didn't like the answer. This just goes to show how you can't even admit when you were plainly wrong. It's clear what the first question you asked was. Yet, you won't admit it. You are just a dishonest person who has no interest in the truth as evidenced by your duplitious statements above. How to discuss things with a dishonest sea lawyer? Just can't be done.
To: Old Teufel Hunden
You just didn't like the answer. No, your answer was based on your opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up. I've asked you to do one simple thing: Cite a case, any case, that has been brought to the SCOTUS which was decided on the pretext that the preamble to the Constitution is law. Plain and simple. A smart guy like you should have no trouble citing this, if indeed it exists. Someone as brilliant as you obviously are should be able to do it in a matter of seconds. I know the answer already. You also know it doesn't exist. Your continuing outbursts show beyond a shadow of doubt that you've backed yourself into a corner and that is why you keep badgering me. You have yet to answer this one simple question. It's put up or shut up time. It's okay if you admit that you were wrong. That's what a real man would do. One specific case, just one. That's all I'm asking for.......
83
posted on
03/04/2011 7:24:33 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Old Teufel Hunden
I will do that when you cite case law for every other part of the constitution to ensure that it is indeed the law of the land. BAWWWHAAHAHAHAHAHA! Talk about SIDESTEPPING! ROTFLMAO!
84
posted on
03/04/2011 7:30:37 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Thermalseeker
"Cite a case, any case, that has been brought to the SCOTUS which was decided on the pretext that the preamble to the Constitution is law."
You are very thick headed so I guess I'll have to break it down real simple for you. You see, I reject your whole assertion. That in order for a statement in the Constitution to be law that it had to be adjudicated by SCOTUS. So I will provide you with your answer, when you have proven that your assertion is true. So, you go ahead and cite SCOTUS case law that relates to every other section of the Constitution. Then I will cite SCOTUS case law for the preamble.
You have proven that you don't understand general logic. You don't get to set the rules of the debate there Mr. Sea lawyer. You have to prove your assertion is true in order for me to answer it. Is that simple enough for you? Probably not because you have also proven to be dishonest. So put up or shut up about your assertion. Be a man and prove your assertion. That's all I'm asking for....
To: Thermalseeker
BTW, I like how you ignore your simple misstatement about your first question to me. Since you have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be mistaken and wrong, you simply ignore the charge. It just shows your continued dishonesty.
To: Old Teufel Hunden
You see, I reject your whole assertion. How can you reject my whole assertion when it was YOU who said the preamble to the Constitution is law? My assertion was that the law starts at Article 1, Section 1, not the preamble. I asked you to cite ONE CASE that supports your opinion and you can't do it. That's the only question I have for you and you still refuse to answer it. I asked first, too, and thus far you have only "answered" my question with more questions and a seemingly non-ending stream of incoherent blather. And, somehow you believe have the corner on logic? ROTFLMAO!
Blather on, my FRiend, blather on......Check and Mate.
87
posted on
03/04/2011 8:32:33 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Old Teufel Hunden
It just shows your continued dishonesty. LOL!!! Yeah, I live to deceive you. Bawhahahahaha! What a legend you are.....
88
posted on
03/04/2011 8:35:49 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Thermalseeker
"How can you reject my whole assertion when it was YOU who said the preamble to the Constitution is law?"
Wow, are you really this stupid? Or just this dishonest? You still have not admitted your clear mistake about the first question you asked me. So you are probably just this dishonest. The assertion I reject made by you is that something from the Constitution is only considered law if it has been adjudicated by SCOTUS. That is your assertion and is underlying in the prompting of your question. I answered your original question, yet you have never answered any of mine. So, when you can prove your assertion (that statements in the constitution are only law if they have been adjudicated by SCOTUS), then I'll take the time look up some case law and answer your question.
Is that simple enough for you sea lawyer? Probably not, because you are a dishonest sea lawyer. Proven because you have been shown to make conflicting statements and not even admitted it.
To: Old Teufel Hunden
You sir, are delusional. Rant on, keep on throwing insults all you want. I'm not taking the bait.
Notice how I have not made any attempt to insult you? Your reaction to my simple question is proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you cannot back up your claims.
Now, you are making things up based on your opinion. I don't accept your opinion as a basis for any commentary because you have proven that you do not know what you are talking about.
I ask you one more time, please cite one case where the preamble to the Constitution was cited as law. If you come back with more of this blather about how I'm being dishonest, despite the fact that the previous six posts have all asked the same thing, you have exposed yourself. Again, it's okay to admit you are wrong. It's the noble thing to do at this point. Continuing to attempt to insult me just shows your weak character. Put up, or shut up.
90
posted on
03/04/2011 9:14:23 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Thermalseeker
"you come back with more of this blather about how I'm being dishonest"
For further "blather" of your dishonesty, re-read post 78.
"Now, you are making things up based on your opinion. I don't accept your opinion as a basis for any commentary"
And who are you that I should accept your assertion as fact? You have proven nothing here. Oh wait, you prove your dishonesty by not admitting a plain mistake as shown in post 78. Now, admit your mistake and prove your assertion as fact or leave me alone! If you do those two things, I will be glad to answer your questions. Until then, I concur. Quit wasting bandwidth!!
To: Old Teufel Hunden
Yeah, I knew you couldn’t answer it......LOL!
92
posted on
03/04/2011 10:01:07 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Thermalseeker
"Yeah, I knew you couldn’t answer it......LOL!"
I knew you couldn't answer the charges against you in post 78! LOL!! You are proven to be dishonest. I also know that you can't back up your assertions!!! ROFL
However, here is something for you to chew on:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=329&invol=69&linkurl=http://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm&graphurl=http://www.conlaw.org/images/clf.gif
From RICHFIELD OIL CORP. v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SCOTUS Ruling:
"'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole [329 U.S. 69, 78] instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning;'"
Every word in the constitution has it's due force. I win again!!! ROFLMAO.
Now admit your error and admit you can't even verify your assertions even though I cited a SCOTUS case for you! You are a fool!!!!!
To: Old Teufel Hunden
Every word in the constitution has it's due force. I win again!!! ROFLMAO. Keep laughing because you still haven't answered the question. The preamble is the preamble. The Constitution starts at Article 1, Section 1. Ask any attorney and they will tell you exactly what I have.
94
posted on
03/04/2011 10:49:10 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Thermalseeker
Three words....
Game, set match
LOL!!!!!!
To: Thermalseeker
See, e.g., Boyer, 85 F. at 430 : "I venture the opinion that
no adjudicated case can be cited which traces to the preamble the power to enact any statute." It has been widely recognized by courts across the land, including the SCOTUS that the preamble to the Constitution is an introduction to the Constitution, since it specifically references "this Constitution" and the next words after the preamble begins Article 1, Section 1. The preamble is not law. The reference you cite does not mention the preamble. Wanna try again?
96
posted on
03/04/2011 11:07:32 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Old Teufel Hunden
Game, set match Yep, you lost. I just posted the legal reference that puts your claims out to pasture once and for all.....
97
posted on
03/04/2011 11:09:21 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Thermalseeker
You are a dishonest sea lawyer. Whenever you are confronted with the Supreme Court decision that says every word in the constitution is to be given equal weight you can't even admit you're wrong. Well, just like last time when you couldn't admit you were wrong about the first question you asked me. Dishonest sea lawyer.
Game, Set, Match
LOL!!!!!
To: Old Teufel Hunden
I just gave you a legal reference to a majority opinion by the SCOTUS on this exact subject. Did you read it? You see, you took the bait, hook, line and sinker, partner. Go ask any attorney. They will tell you the same thing. In fact, why don’t you do a vanity post if you are so sure of yourself and ask the attorney’s here on Free Republic for an opinion. I dare you.
99
posted on
03/04/2011 11:18:43 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
To: Thermalseeker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-153 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson