Posted on 03/01/2003 3:14:26 PM PST by exodus
Get a law degree, become a supreme court justice, and maybe your fringe opinion will means something.**********************
My "fringe opinion" already has more weight than a judge's opinion of law.
I an a juror; I decide what the law means.
A judge merely presides over the courtroom while I make my decision.
The Declaration of War thing has already been litigated. Youse guys lost.**********************
Give me a link to the judicial decision, please.
You’ve been told 3-4 time on this thread alone that the court has ruled that no changes are required. You advocate thickheadedness, exodus.
Bush Sr. never used the term "New World Order" to mean one-world government under the U.N.**********************
I listened to those speaches live, plain talk.
Bush Sr. spoke of a world under the control of one government. Everyone will live "in peace."
Really? Tell me more about how the Constitution authorizes juries, not the federal court, to decide the constitutionality of laws. Or is the constitution just important when it serves your desires exodus?
You’ve been told 3-4 time on this thread alone that the court has ruled that no changes are required. You advocate thickheadedness, exodus.**********************
I have consistantly said that we are being led illegally into war, because our law has been violated.
Show me the section of our Constitution that gives the President the power go to war on a whelm, and I'll stop bringing questions of law to the subject of war.
Tell me more about how the Constitution authorizes juries, not the federal court, to decide the constitutionality of laws.**********************
The Cnstitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to decide the Constitutionality of law.
Deciding on the aptness of law is the responsibility of jurors.
I'm tired of Ron Paul acting like I'm too stupid to know what words mean. I wish he would go away with this "New World Order" crap. Yeah, there are people who want World Government. So what? They don't own the words, and "new world order" is not a brand name for any particular alternative. And it is insulting to everyone's intelligence to pretend that everyone who uses that term means the same thing by it. It's just three damned words.**********************
Forget "One World Order."
Our law is being violated. The messenger isn't the problem.
I have told you that a court has already decided this. Your argument is moot.**********************
Please quote the court, then. I don't believe that the Supreme Court can amend the Constitution on it's own.
Arguing that our leaders are violating law is never moot. Ignoring corruption will not protect us from tyranny.
Ron Paul tried the same thing against x42 and lost because Congress voted to give x42 the money he specifically asked for to persue his private little war in Kosovo.**********************
Past violations of law do not excuse present violators.
If Paul is as ignorant about Iraq as he is about Vietnam, that would explain a lot.**********************
I don't know that Ron Paul is wrong about Vietnam. I haven't been following the issue, and Vietnam hasn't been in the news.
Ron Paul is right about this Constitutional issue, though. That, I have been following.
Here are a couple of posts by people more knowledgeable than myself in "declaration of war" and "authorization of force" issues:
This is a little more succinct and interesting if you follow the 1432 link to court summaries
So every time both a legal and a rational argument is made in a post that you don’t like, you respond that they "must hold Roe v. Wade in the highest esteem"?
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.