Skip to comments.
The "Lost" Thirteenth Amendment
Bank Index ^
Posted on 08/18/2002 5:32:42 AM PDT by Suzie_Cue
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
To: dighton; Orual; general_re
.
21
posted on
08/18/2002 8:14:41 AM PDT
by
aculeus
To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla; Suzie_Cue; TheOtherOne; dighton; Cato; hellinahandcart; aculeus; Orual; ...
A believer in the drivel Suzie_Cue is polluting the forum with.
Ideology kills.
To: I Corps
Questions for you: Do you believe that traffic stops, driver's licenses, and speeding tickets are Constitutional?
To: Cato
Same questions for you, if you please.
Is the title of "esquire" granted to lawyers by a foreign government or power?
No? It's just something they call themselves?
Glad we cleared that up. That didn't take long, did it?
To: dighton
dighton, honey, WHAT is that bat carrying in its mouth?
To: hellinahandcart
Looks like a lime which should have been destined for a Margarita.
To: hellinahandcart
Since it's a
fruitbat, I'll go out on a limb and guess "some kind of fruit."
;-)
28
posted on
08/18/2002 9:49:13 AM PDT
by
dighton
To: dighton
It looked like a tiny Christmas ornament to me.
To: hellinahandcart; Cultural Jihad
30
posted on
08/18/2002 10:03:30 AM PDT
by
dighton
To: Cultural Jihad
Questions for you: Do you believe that traffic stops, driver's licenses, and speeding tickets are Constitutional?
I do, under proper circumstances. A warrantless traffic stop is unconstitutional. But some regulations, like speeding limits, are Constituional.
To: TheOtherOne
What is a warrantless traffic stop? One such as an advisory stop? Seat belt check stop? Drunk driver sweep? Manhunt searches?
To: Cultural Jihad
One such as an advisory stop? Seat belt check stop? Drunk driver sweep? Manhunt searches? All of the above are warrantless stops, and therefore, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional. Unfortunately, SCOTUS does not agree.
To: hellinahandcart
It looked like a tiny Christmas ornament to me.I think it looks like an acorn, now never to be a mighty oak! Oh the humanity!
To: Junior
Lawyers are noble? I can't get over this oxymoron. I've never met a noble lawyer.
To: hellinahandcart
Is the title of "esquire" granted to lawyers by a foreign government or power?
No? It's just something they call themselves?
Glad we cleared that up. That didn't take long, did it? Taking this to a logical conclusion every single one of us who uses the title of Mr. (Master) or Mrs. (Mistress) or Miss can not hold office.
By default that leaves only radical feminist who call themselves Ms. in charge.
ABANDON SHIP!
a.cricket
To: Suzie_Cue
Lawyers, unfortunately do not receive titles "from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power" as prohibited in the amendment, but from the State and Federal Bar Associations, which are de facto parts of the Judiciary of the United States and/or the States.
If you got this recognized, incorporated into the "Official" constitution and enfourced zealously, the net effect would be zero
So9
To: hoosierham
Actually, the problem is more fundamental: from the earliest days of the Republic, the courts have held that issues of whether a consitutional amendment was properly ratified or not are not legal questions within the purview of the judiciary; instead, they are political matters to be resolved by the Congress and the legislatures of the several states.
And I, for one, say "Thank God Almighty that the courts aren't inserting themselves into those issues, at least."
Consider this: by the statements of those who argue as you do re: the 16th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment was never ratified, either. You want to hand Hillary Clinton and Sarah Brady the tool needed for outlawing private weapons ownership?
38
posted on
08/18/2002 12:01:49 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: dubyaismypresident
I said, "Esquire" is not a title of nobility. Therefore the gist of this entire rant is moot.
39
posted on
08/18/2002 12:06:16 PM PDT
by
Junior
To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
He then said that since these laws, including traffic laws were illegal, he had a right to resist them with murderous violence.If that's true, then according to the Constitutionalist view, the cop would have been in the clear had he simply walked up to Matthews without notice and put a bullet through his head. After all, the laws defining murder would have applied equally to Taylor and Matthews. If the laws were invalid as to one, they were invalid as to both.
Matthews was living an anarchist delusion, protected by the fact that almost no one else subscribed to his loony anarchist theories.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 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