[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

J.A.Henshaw jhenshaw at dsl-only.net
Wed Mar 27 21:56:11 UTC 2002


Jeme A Brelin wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, J.A.Henshaw wrote:
> 
>>Case law is NOT law and NOT constitutional, as Jeme said too - I agree
>>with him there.
>>
> 
> Well, that's not quite what I said (or at least not what I meant to
> write).
> 
> It is simply true that the Constitution makes no provision for the
> interpretation of law.  This is a flaw and a failing.  Justice Marshall
> recognized that failing and, when the need for legal interpretation arose,
> he appropriated that authority for the courts exclusively because it's the
> only thing that made sense at the time.
> 
> It's two hundred years later and I think you'd still be fairly
> hard-pressed to find a better solution.  That method isn't perfect and it
> makes for political courts sometimes, but it's better than either
> executives or legislators making the rulings... especially when the issue
> is Constitutional.
> 


Stare Decisis is fine for Uniform Commercial Code;  leave it 
out of the common law constitutional system.



> Common law is recognized in nearly every state in the Union (Louisana
> being one quite notable exception for its reliance on Napoleanic code).


Your Louisiana reference shows that there are other venues 
in use in the courtrooms of Louisiana;

For when one looks at the Declaration of Independence you 
see that to be a member of the Union you must have UNIFORM 
LAWS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION CANNOT 
CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

So,  why is it that Florida can have a "must carry"  law, 
New York can have a Sullivan Law, and Connecticut can have 
no gun registration law?

Because they are all laws that operate in a venue outside 
the constitution, that's why.

They do not conflict with it because they are not applicable 
to anyone who knows how to preserve his constitutional 
rights which are applicable in any state of the union!


Anyone following this thread know the difference between a 
Township and an incorporated city???

Hint: Venue


> 
> A vagueness argument is accepted in pretty much every appelate court in
> the country.  Ask Randal Schwartz about his sometime... still pending
> hearing, I think.


In a common law jury trial it is no matter what the "court" 
accepts.  The court can kiss the jury's ass.



>>Now;  think about a Supreme court who have a split decision 3-2 on
>>abortion or something: The founders are rolling over in their graves-
>>If the "supreme" judges cannot agree it is a bad law. See?
>>
> 
> Now, I used to have this idea about a sort of vast symbolic logic computer
> where each person would write their own version of a law and submit it and
> the machine would OR the laws all together and spit out the law that
> EVERYONE agreed was fair.  The problem is that just a single anarchist
> would make the world anarchic.  Now, I'm not opposed to a considered
> social anarchy, but I just don't think society is well-enough developed to
> handle such a thing... too much reliance on destructive behavior as a
> motivator and sin as virtue.


I do not give a rat's ass Jeme,  about what everyone agrees 
is fair.

Common law and the constitution do not give a syllable to 
the concept of majority rule.

On the contrary, it protects individuals from such madness.

See: Private property.

See: Freedom.

They are interdependent and interlocked. You oppose both so 
you don't have eyes to see it,  or would would be happy to 
burn it.


> 
> Your argument amounts to the same thing.  Put one anarchist on the Supreme
> Court and you'll never have another law stand.
> 
> Where would you put the interpretation of law? 



Where the founders put it: THE JURY BOX

 Would you allow the
> public's executive agents to make the decision, thus allowing them to
> define criminal as be anyone who is suspected of crime?  Would you have
> the legislators interpreting the law, thus changing their own powers at
> their whim?
> 


No,  just you and Justice Marshall would.


> 
>>( I encourage everyone to look up the history on the NUMBER of supreme
>>justices and WHY it was changed from an even number to an odd number
>>and by WHOM )
>>
> 
> Eh... the number of justices has fluxuated quite a bit... as low as 6, as
> many as 10.  Hell, FDR wanted 15.
> 
> 


The point was even vs odd numbers - the number itself is 
irrelevant,  but you have a proclivity for overanalyzing the 
irrelevant so I expect this from you- things like 
punctuation and sentence structure are often 50% of your 
critiques even when they are of no bearing on the discussion 
at hand-  why?


>>Speeding: Do more than ten percent of us disobey? Marijuana? Mp3
>>sharing?
>>
> 
> See, there's where it gets tricky.
> 
> I think the numbers are easily skewed.  There's a big difference between,
> say, americans writ large and the active music community, for
> example.  In one, MP3 usage (let alone sharing) might be below 10%,
> whereas in the other MP3 sharing might be as higher than 90%.
> 


This is only tricky to you because you don't recognize that 
nothing is illegal until it affects someone elses right to 
life and liberty .

Speeding does neither and marijuana plants in the backyard 
don't affect anyone else and is not a problem until the 
marxist demoractic communists took over the legal system and 
reinstated mob rule.

Add the power of television to inculcate the ignorant mob 
and you have a bad recipe for freedom.

I guess that's probably why the courts shouldn't be 
interpreting things for us.


Their job is to APPLY the LAW as written.

Nothing more,  Jeme.

But again,  where you have the War Flag flying behind the 
judge,  you are guilty until proven innocent.

See Title 4 of the US Code and learn it.



> 
> Now, maybe I missed it, but what's UCC?


Uniform Commercial Code.


> 
> 
>>The question really ought to be:
>>What venue am I in?  How did I get there? Why am I in a position that
>>I have to let a judge decide my fate?
>>
> 
> Yeah, well, much of that is decided by the wealthy information-masters who
> claim ownership on the very thoughts we carry and expressions we share.


That's why people like me claim ownership of the 
constitution,  while people like you dance around the issue.
You want the same kind of control over every other person, 
but you want that control to equally distributed.

It is the antithesis of freedom,  but you readily admit that.


> 
> They shop for a friendly venue (usually in the entertainment-industry
> dependent California or New York), sue you there and find a way to make it
> stand, and put your actions up in front of a judge with more consideration
> for the protection of their wealth and opportunity to exercise their power
> than the law or the public good.
> 



A good example of why Justice Marshall was wrong,  don't you 
think?


>>
>>This make any sense to anyone so far?
>>
> 
> It'd be nice if that sentence had a complete verb.


It's be nice if you weren't so inclined to quibble about 
things that are unimportant too.  We all know you understand 
that sentence.
What do you hope to achieve by being an ass?


> 
> But I don't think it would help me to understand the point of what you
> were saying.


I don't think it will either.  You want a controlled 
populace with no freedom. You are not going to ever agree 
with me;  despite history and logic you are a crusader and 
as such will not consider any other viewpoint but that which 
furthers your goal of NO PERSONAL WEALTH, NO PRIVATE 
PROPERTY and therefore NO FREEDOM.


> 
> I got this much, "The law is a pact between the people and the public in
> which they participate.  



The law is the law. The pact is between the officers of the 
government and God to uphold the law of the land.
(See: Oath of office)

> And while it is codified and executed by agents
> of that public, its interpretation and validation still resides largely in
> the actions of the people."


The people retain the right to nullify badly written or 
unconstitutional laws,  yes.

Without that Justice Marshalls are completely unrestrained; 
  it is the key to liberty.

The jury is our last line of defense from crooked courts and 
Congress.

Ever heard of FIJA and FIGJA ?


> 
> But I missed anything beyond that.
> 
> J.
> 



Not surprising.



-- 
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they 
will have for lunch.





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list