[ingliz]

@The Resister

You said, "I've been researching this for the better part of four decades and have successfully argued many of the points in courts."

Please provide the case citations.

To help you, here is an example of a case citation:

Hebb v. Severson, 201 P.2d 156 (Wash. 1948)

[Pants-of-dog]

When the Declaration of Independence was ratified, there was no such thing as a US citizen. The language in that document is unequivocally clear.

But the DoI is not a legal document anywhere else in the world. Why should the DoI matter to, for example, a young mother being kidnapped in Africa and sold into slavery to work in a Virginia plantation?

[The Resister]

But the DoI is not a legal document anywhere else in the world. Why should the DoI matter to, for example, a young mother being kidnapped in Africa and sold into slavery to work in a Virginia plantation?

What does that have to with price of beans in China? I'm not working on a plan for global government. I'm concerned with the Rights our forefathers fought, bled, and died for. We're discussing our legal Rights in the United States of America.

FWIW - Our forefathers saw America as a "shining city on a hill." Even today the United States sends out more missionaries to help the poor than any country on the planet. We've fought in major wars to secure the Liberty for those oppressed and have never taken an acre of land for our sacrifice.

IF your post had any relevance to the original posts we'd have a discussion. It doesn't.

[The Resister]

@The Resister

You said, "I've been researching this for the better part of four decades and have successfully argued many of the points in courts."

Please provide the case citations.

To help you, here is an example of a case citation:

Hebb v. Severson, 201 P.2d 156 (Wash. 1948)

READ THE OP. It has 11 court citations, 2 citations to Blacks Law Dictionary and many quotes by the founders and framers so as to show the first court holdings were consistent with the intent of the founders and framers. Now quit repeating yourself.

[ingliz]

@The Resister

So, you admit that statement, "I've been researching this for the better part of four decades and have successfully argued many of the points in courts.", is bullshit, and your lawyerly credentials are fake?

[The Resister]

@The Resister

So, you admit that statement, "I've been researching this for the better part of four decades and have successfully argued many of the points in courts.", is bullshit, and your lawyerly credentials an imposture?

You are trolling and insulting. I have spent several decades researching the subject and have several courtroom wins under my belt. You've been provided with cites. If you have a personal problem with me, direct it to PM. Otherwise, you and I are done.

[Pants-of-dog]

@The Resister

I apologise.

I simply wanted to know if this philosophy applied only to US citizens or everyone.

Like you say, the language of the DoI explicitly says that ALL people enjoy these rights.

At the same time, it seems like the writers of the DoI had no problem taking away the unalienable rights of people who were not US citizens. And you also seem to dismiss the experiences of people who are not US citizens.

Is liberty an unalienable right? If so, how do you reconcile this with the slavery during the time the DoI was written?

[late]

Nobody advocated that the Right to keep and bear Arms is inclusive of carrying a freaking nuke.

You did.

You said it was unlimited.

As long as we are on the subject, I expect one of these fine days Heller will be overturned.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/1476747458/ref=sr_1_1?crid=LNAAKZL4IQ22&dchild=1&keywords=the+second+amendment+a+biography&qid=1612987557&sprefix=the+second+amendem%2Caps%2C169&sr=8-1

[ingliz]

You've been provided with cites.

Not yours, though.

I've been researching this for the better part of four decades and have successfully argued many of the points in courts

How can we be expected to take your claims seriously when you refuse to cite cases you use to justify your argument from authority.

[Drlee]

I have to say something to stay following this circus.

@ingliz

Malta?

Best response ever.

I find it interesting that the argument goes something like this... The founders were correct when they spoke to inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence but they were wrong when they ignored them in the Constitution. And well they should. They did not believe them in the first place. Here is the proof.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

slavery

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unless they are slaves

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

As long as they are white, male, landowners.

The entire argument being made here leans on a broken straw. That is....The founders did not mean it when they wrote it. It was largely hyperbole. They wanted it to be true someday perhaps. 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners or had owned slaves. And they were not personally unaware of the irony of their words not immune to being convicted by them.

Hancock himself “We yet to sensibly feel the loss of every right, liberty, and privilege that can distinguish a freeman from a slave…”

Jefferson. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state.

I do not conclude from this that the founders were deliberately hypocritical but rather that they were keenly aware that government is a compromise. That it is as much about someday as it is about today. They constructed the Declaration of Independence in a spirit of optimism. They constructed the constitution in the spirit of political compromise. But in that compromise is the hope that we in succeeding years or even centuries will complete the work of which they could only dream.

I'm not working on a plan for global government. I'm concerned with the Rights our forefathers fought, bled, and died for. We're discussing our legal Rights in the United States of America.

You mean like the right to own slaves, prohibit women and non-landowners from voting, and the right of states to have official religions?

FWIW - Our forefathers saw America as a "shining city on a hill." Even today the United States sends out more missionaries to help the poor than any country on the planet. We've fought in major wars to secure the Liberty for those oppressed and have never taken an acre of land for our sacrifice.

You mean other than Puerto Rico and Guam. And the Philippines also not to put to fine a point on it though we let them go. Oh. And oh yea. All of the Native American territories. Does the CSA count as taking land from conquest or were they prohibited from seceding in the first place? Did the states in the CSA not have that right? You know. Deriving from the will of those governed and all?

[The Resister]

I have to say something to stay following this circus.

@ingliz

Best response ever.

I find it interesting that the argument goes something like this... The founders were correct when they spoke to inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence but they were wrong when they ignored them in the Constitution. And well they should. They did not believe them in the first place. Here is the proof.



slavery



Unless they are slaves



As long as they are white, male, landowners.

The entire argument being made here leans on a broken straw. That is....The founders did not mean it when they wrote it. It was largely hyperbole. They wanted it to be true someday perhaps. 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners or had owned slaves. And they were not personally unaware of the irony of their words not immune to being convicted by them.





I do not conclude from this that the founders were deliberately hypocritical but rather that they were keenly aware that government is a compromise. That it is as much about someday as it is about today. They constructed the Declaration of Independence in a spirit of optimism. They constructed the constitution in the spirit of political compromise. But in that compromise is the hope that we in succeeding years or even centuries will complete the work of which they could only dream.



You mean like the right to own slaves, prohibit women and non-landowners from voting, and the right of states to have official religions?



You mean other than Puerto Rico and Guam. And the Philippines also not to put to fine a point on it though we let them go. Oh. And oh yea. All of the Native American territories. Does the CSA count as taking land from conquest or were they prohibited from seceding in the first place? Did the states in the CSA not have that right? You know. Deriving from the will of those governed and all?

What a conflated pile of absolute horseshit! IF all the Blacks only had "inalienable" rights, then you just lost your argument. See the first three posts of this thread. Don't feel bad, you're not the only one that had their argument blown out of the water before you posted it. Moral: At least read the first few posts of a thread before responding.

[Drlee]

What a conflated pile of absolute horseshit! IF all the Blacks only had "inalienable" rights, then you just lost your argument. See the first three posts of this thread. Don't feel bad, you're not the only one that had their argument blown out of the water before you posted it. Moral: At least read the first few posts of a thread before responding.

Your arguments are a joke and your demeanor sophomoric. Simply facile and childish. They make no sense. You try to build your own wold view on a notion so obtuse that there is no wonder that you find the courts frustrating. I imagine the feeling is mutual.

You are. Fake news.

So far everyone who has in anyway disagreed with you has been insulted by you. But I am pretty sure you are enjoying your own rhetoric.

Just for the others reading my posts. I read what you posted and I reject your premise. So you have not refuted anything I said. If you have an argument to make to my points I suggest you make it. I don't expect you will. You will just puff up and claim that the fact that I disagree with you is some sort of personal failing.

Seen your type my whole life. Tedious, self-important people desperate for acolytes.

[The Resister]

What would be really nice is if those trolling this thread would read the first three posts. It refutes most of their arguments. When they realize they're losing, they fall back on "inalienable" rights and ignore the first three posts on this thread about the differences in inalienable rights and unalienable Rights.

When dishonest ploys begin failing, they resort to changing the topic. When this thread has run its course, I'm going to take on ALL challengers on the topics those trolling me want to derail this thread with. What is this? People demand I debate and they don't know the first thing about even formal debate... don't insult people, don't call them names, allow the posters to extrapolate their version of the truth from the facts presented, and stick to the topic.

[The Resister]

Your arguments are a joke and your demeanor sophomoric. Simply facile and childish. They make no sense. You try to build your own wold view on a notion so obtuse that there is no wonder that you find the courts frustrating. I imagine the feeling is mutual.

You are. Fake news.

So far everyone who has in anyway disagreed with you has been insulted by you. But I am pretty sure you are enjoying your own rhetoric.

Just for the others reading my posts. I read what you posted and I reject your premise. So you have not refuted anything I said. If you have an argument to make to my points I suggest you make it. I don't expect you will. You will just puff up and claim that the fact that I disagree with you is some sort of personal failing.

Seen your type my whole life. Tedious, self-important people desperate for acolytes.

There aren't half a dozen posters participating on this thread. You seem to have this God complex. Everybody agrees with you? Is all this board controlled and decided by less than half a dozen posters? Dude, you are so funny. You project like an amateur. In my business, if you don't have opposition, you didn't do your job right. You live for acolytes. That is why you make much ado about less than a half dozen posters agreeing with you. Then again, I thought you had more participants.

If everybody were happy with the world situation, there would be one political party, no dissension, and we'd all sit around a campfire singing Kum Bah Yah. I'm certainly not miserable with the world situation (though I am admittedly working my ass off to avert an inevitable clusterphuck, the likes of which most people living in the United States have never experienced). If I make people mad and they stomp their feet, I feel that they end up with two avenues: ignore me OR be prepared to eat crow.

Back about 20 years ago, I warned the right against the road they were embarking on. The enemies I made in ensuing years caused people to make false police reports against me, string up the family cat and hang him from a branch in the back yard, and even shoot through the kitchen window while I was at home. I had a fed that was with me 24 / 7 as my constant biographer and shadow. I could not post on social media and I always had three computers (one in the shop, one next to me, and the one I was using). My shadow, who stayed on my ass for ten years, failed to take me down. He couldn't silence me.

But, what I regret was having given up. BEFORE the constitutionalist and patriot movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) sold out to the left, those of us seeking Liberty were winning. My own Congressman, John Linder, introduced the Fair Tax. I don't know that I would have ultimately supported it, but we got the IRS and the income tax on the ropes. I won several 14th Amendment cases that never made it past the District Court of Appeals - the opposition simply couldn't win. The right sabotaged all of that work and I'm mad that I didn't do more, so now I have a lot to make up for.

Your criticisms have been duly noted, refuted, debunked, and proven to be fluff, not substance. Otherwise, you would have no need to make it personal. You damn sure aren't professional, which calls your Dr. credentials into question. But, what the Hell. You have someone sounding like a parrot, repeating himself over and over and maybe 2 or 3 converts. Sounds like a landslide to me.

[B0ycey]

My own Congressman, John Linder,

You have been here before. Even your style is distinctive.

[ingliz]

I won several 14th Amendment cases that never made it past the District Court of Appeals

Please provide the case citations.

To help you, here is an example of a case citation:

Hebb v. Severson, 201 P.2d 156 (Wash. 1948)

In this example, Hebb and Severson are the parties in the case. The case can be found in volume 201 of the Pacific Reporter, Second Series beginning on page 156. The case was decided by the Washington State Supreme Court in 1948.

We're discussing our legal Rights in the United States of America.

Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding.

— National Archives

[The Resister]

You have been here before. Even your style is distinctive.

Not to the best of my knowledge and belief. My style would be distinctive to all those who attended the many meetings of the day in the metro Atlanta area.

[The Resister]

Please provide the case citations.

To help you, here is an example of a case citation:

Hebb v. Severson, 201 P.2d 156 (Wash. 1948)

In this example, Hebb and Severson are the parties in the case. The case can be found in volume 201 of the Pacific Reporter, Second Series beginning on page 156. The case was decided by the Washington State Supreme Court in 1948.


Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding.

— National Archives

ROTF LMAO ROTF

" it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence "

Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

Assaulting the Constitution by using synonyms as a means to circumvent standing precedent and reinterpreting the law is not what the founders and framers intended. The Declaration of Independence is not a statute nor a case cite, but it has its place in constitutional interpretation. The United States Supreme Court admitted it. If you can't read 11 case citations, you should buy some glasses or take remedial classes in reading. Your denials are dishonest, but we can leave that to the lurkers to decide.

[The Resister]

You did.

You said it was unlimited.

As long as we are on the subject, I expect one of these fine days Heller will be overturned.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/1476747458/ref=sr_1_1?crid=LNAAKZL4IQ22&dchild=1&keywords=the+second+amendment+a+biography&qid=1612987557&sprefix=the+second+amendem%2Caps%2C169&sr=8-1

Unless you have a cite showing where nukes are inclusive of the "arms" mentioned in the Second Amendment, you've pretty much nuked your own argument.

[late]

Unless you have a cite showing where nukes are inclusive of the "arms" mentioned in the Second Amendment, you've pretty much nuked your own argument.

Arm:
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/arms

Most of the time, when the rubber hits the proverbial road, you reach for an excuse.