Cody's Right to _____

[cody]

Did the name of the thread change for some reason??? Now it just appears to be deceptive rip off of the thread I started.

please just turn it back or rename it something else. It is just confusing now.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Codee

So they used the Law of Nations for that. Where does it say that the lawof nations is to be applied as a lense for viewing all of the constitution and federal law. Where does it say that the law of Nations Must be Preserveed....
Nowhere!

That is exactly why the Constitution did not say...

"Congress shall adopt punishments for the violations of the Law of Nations."

Sure it was around and it was important enough to mention in the constitution....

But never was it thought of as an inseperable part of our constituional law that must pervade every nook and cranny.

I'd agree that the Law of Nations was not intended to be applied to all parts of law, but there is no doubt there are specific aspect of it that was highly regarded and intended as a guideline for the Republic and the new constitution that was to be crafted...

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/619.htm

Originally Posted by June 19, 1787(in part)

It had been alledged [by Mr. Patterson], that the Confederation having been formed by unanimous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous Consent only. Does this doctrine result from the nature of compacts? does it arise from any particular stipulation in the articles of Confederation? If we consider the federal union as analogous to the fundamental compact by which individuals compose one Society, and which must in its theoretic origin at least, have been the unanimous act of the component members, it can not be said that no dissolution of the compact can be effected without unanimous consent. A breach of the fundamental principles of the compact by a part of the Society would certainly absolve the other part from their obligations to it. If the breach of any article by any of the parties, does not set the others at liberty, it is because, the contrary is implied in the compact itself, and particularly by that law of it, which gives an indifinite authority to the majority to bind the whole in all cases. This latter circumstance shews that we are not to consider the federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a Majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new Constitution for the whole, which the Gentn. from N. Jersey would be among the last to admit. If we consider the federal Union as analogous not to the social compacts among individual men: but to the conventions among individual States. What is the doctrine resulting from these conventions? Clearly, according to the Expositors of the law of Nations, that a breach of any one article, by any one party, leaves all the other parties at liberty, to consider the whole convention as dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach. In some treaties indeed it is expressly stipulated that a violation of particular articles shall not have this consequence, and even that particular articles shall remain in force during war, which in general is [FN6] understood to dissolve all subsisting Treaties. But are there any exceptions of this sort to the Articles of confederation? So far from it that there is not even an express stipulation that force shall be used to compell an offending member of the Union to discharge its duty. He observed that the violations of the federal articles had been numerous & notorious. Among the most notorious was an act of N. Jersey herself; by which she expressly refused to comply with a constitutional requisition of Congs. and yielded no farther to the expostulations of their deputies, than barely to rescind her vote of refusal without passing any positive act of compliance. He did not wish to draw any rigid inferences from these observations. He thought it proper however that the true nature of the existing confederacy should be investigated, and he was not anxious to strengthen the foundations on which it now stands. Proceeding to the consideration of Mr. Patterson's plan, he stated the object of a proper plan to be twofold. 1. [FN7] to preserve the Union. 2. [FN7] to provide a Governmt. that will remedy the evils felt by the States both in their united and individual capacities. Examine Mr. P.s plan, & say whether it promises satisfaction in these respects.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/627.htm

I know, I'm just cutting and pasting and not providing any additional insight (been kind of busy), but the references to the law of nations and the extent of it's consideration is made in the debates. Additional references by the founders at the convention are available in personal letters, memoirs and publications (such as the Federalist Papers, if memory serves me correct).

I think it would be a stretch to say it applies to areas outside those specifically referenced by the founders.

Happy New Year everybody.

[cody]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

I'd agree that the Law of Nations was not intended to be applied to all parts of law, but there is no doubt there are specific aspect of it that was highly regarded and intended as a guideline for the Republic and the new constitution that was to be crafted...

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/619.htm


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/627.htm

I know, I'm just cutting and pasting and not providing any additional insight (been kind of busy), but the references to the law of nations and the extent of it's consideration is made in the debates. Additional references by the founders at the convention are available in personal letters, memoirs and publications (such as the Federalist Papers, if memory serves me correct).

I think it would be a stretch to say it applies to areas outside those specifically referenced by the founders.

Happy New Year everybody.

Thank you for your contribution.

[BornStupid]

http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html

I invoke the power of Godwin's Law.

"Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Codee

I am not setting myself up. You keep stating that you have this but where is it?

Why cannot it be published here now. you arguments are all over the place and the reason I am upset is because you refuse to show me how any of this might work.

PLEASE!!!!! Show how this gets applied or it is useless to everyone.

I never said I was incompetition woth you. II did not create a thread called "Challenging Weis." you made this thread and Palani was the cause.

You to are competing with me and that is fine. But at least post your arguemnt in its best form! you admitt you have it better explained but then you never show it.

Sorry you are affraid to publish it... but until you feel comfortable maybe you should quit "challenging" others.

I put forth all my stuff but I guess I am not "up to" your standards and I am still in the "will get hurt" category.

I find this thread insulting and a lure with no real inention of offering a better strategy.

TRUST ME!!!! If you ever do show me your work and it works,,, I will not be feeling sad.

Where did you post the docket sheets?

And certified stamped copies of the pleadings?

The only reason you do not post on the "other site" is because of the same precise vulgarity that you exhibit here.

You got booted.

The vulgarity and profanity you expressed there, in fact, was far milder than what you are doing, and have been doing here.

There you were merely vulgar, flatulent, and basically annoying.

Here you are virulent, toxic, venomous, and remorseless.

Did you get booted from Quatloos also?

You certainly waxed very eloquent over there.

(Perhaps not, though, since your style and their tone quality seem quite complimentary.)

In fact the tone, and apparent factious purpose of your posts here makes this site look rather Quatloosian.

Is that your purpose, or just your nature?

Am I not free to post what I will on any site on the internet, and without you passing judgment, on one site, as to your opinion of my "purposes" on another?

Who are you to do that?

Is this what you claim you were "appointed" ("annointed??") to do as a "moderator?"

I do not especially approve of any nonsensical pranks coming from "there" to "here."

And, for that matter I am not so sure it comes from "there."

Do you know exactly how many sites I post on, some that have little or nothing to do with the nature of this particular site?

Furthermore, any so-called "disdain" for this site you say I might have expressed elsewhere is a direct result of conscientious disdain for you and ndusa spreading base and crude profanity and vulgarity prominently and prolifically throughout this whole site as a tag team, thus lowering the integrity of the site.

Need I provide a compilation of your contributions to this end?

(I do not plagiarize the posts of others and then profanely boast of my "contributions," as I suspect your erstwhile tag team partner does.)

(Curiously coincidental that you referred to your new buddy ndusa as "Scooterdog" on this site, and to Scooterdog as "ndusa" on another site.)

I am beginning to also suspect that the consistently reprehensible and gutter-mouthed tone of your posts and their volume and frequency evinces a certain purposeful design to deliberately create mayhem, in order to expressly detract from the integrity of this site.

In fact, if I were to post precisely as you do, and continued persistently to do so as you have so relentlessly done, I rather think I would have been booted if I had been as profane, vulgar, prolific and relentlessly persistent as you have been.

(Born Stupid: according to the FAQ's posted at the link, your invocation of Godwin's law was improperly executed.)

[palani]

FreeFromContract posted

I think it would be a stretch to say it applies to areas outside those specifically referenced by the founders.

From post 163 - Blackstone REALLY REALLY REALLY does include the Law of Nations in the Common Law ... Honest .... Cross my heart ... This is the same Common Law as we adopted as our Law of the Land.

IN arbitrary ftates this law, wherever it contradicts or is not provided for by the municipal law of the country, is enforced by the royal power : but fince in England no royal power can introduce a new law, or fufpend the execution of the old, therefore the law of nations (wherever any queftion arifes which is properly the object of it's jurifdiction) is here adopted in it's full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.

The individual nations are the ONLY entities that are signatory to the U.S. Constitution. Without them there IS NO CONSTITUTION. Prove to me that any of the men who signed the constitution were acting in their individual capacity or for any other legal entity than the countries they represented.

Codees method method will have you playing word games and being argumentative whereas eliminating 14th amendment presumptions properly makes the task of dealing with the state as simple as filing status documentation and smiling. Why do you want to make it any harder than that? And just possibly we might get our republic back.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by palani

FreeFromContract posted


From post 163 - Blackstone REALLY REALLY REALLY does include the Law of Nations in the Common Law ... Honest .... Cross my heart ... This is the same Common Law as we adopted as our Law of the Land.

The individual nations are the ONLY entities that are signatory to the U.S. Constitution. Without them there IS NO CONSTITUTION. Prove to me that any of the men who signed the constitution were acting in their individual capacity or for any other legal entity than the countries they represented.

Palani, I don't disagree that it is included as part of the common law and as part of the Constitution. But it is not part of all federal law. My understanding of the Law of Nations is it provides the guidelines for governing relationships between States (Countries) and their citizens (I believe the minutes from the Constitutional Convention agrees with this). So, if someone claims Federal Citizenship then along with the benefits of that citizenship they are also bound by Federal statutes.

(Also, I haven't said the framers of the Constitution were acting in their own capacity, so I'm not sure why you asked me that question.)

Originally Posted by palani

Codees method method will have you playing word games and being argumentative whereas eliminating 14th amendment presumptions properly makes the task of dealing with the state as simple as filing status documentation and smiling. Why do you want to make it any harder than that? And just possibly we might get our republic back.

My only comment is there are people (alot of people) who have little concern about (or might actually want to be) 14th amendment citizens. Hey, if you don't mind giving away your freedom (or unwittingly having it stolen from you) in return for Federal benefits, then sign away on all the forms the government shoves in front of you.

My point here being that even if someone is a Federal Citizen there are Constitutional protections which do apply. In that realm then, the methods Codee has provided certainly work.

[palani]

FreeFromContract posted

My point here being that even if someone is a Federal Citizen there are Constitutional protections which do apply. In that realm then, the methods Codee has provided certainly work.

I don't believe I have ever disputed that Codee's methods will never work or don't work. The debate was as to whether his methods were the best methods.

Somehow reading a bit of 'code' that a 'law maker' has put together and attempting to assign different legal meanings is to me a slippery slope. Kind of like assigning a meaning to the word 'is'. Who is to say the 'law maker' isn't going to slip a quick definition into the code that changes the entire meaning and scope? That is not LAW. LAW is law because it doesn't change but over a LONG period of time.

At the beginning of this debate Codee had no idea from what area the challenge was coming from. He made the assumption that it was straw man, redemption, UCC and anything else he had ever heard of. Instead the challenge is from LAW - - - - - DE JURE STATUS.

Having ones' status clearly defined and unrebuttable accomplishes the same goal (being left alone) without giving discretion to the court. Without DE JURE STATUS the constitution doesn't even apply. [note this is the subject for a debate in its' own right] Your ONLY path to the constitution is through your de jure nation (state). Accept those federal benefits and you land smack in the middle of a DE FACTO state and along with it comes COLOR OF LAW. Maybe Codees' methods will work in this environment ... for a short time.... until they figure out how to close the loophole.

There is certainly more to consider than what we discussed in the 'debate'.

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by palani

FreeFromContract posted


I don't believe I have ever disputed that Codee's methods will never work or don't work. The debate was as to whether his methods were the best methods.

Somehow reading a bit of 'code' that a 'law maker' has put together and attempting to assign different legal meanings is to me a slippery slope. Kind of like assigning a meaning to the word 'is'. Who is to say the 'law maker' isn't going to slip a quick definition into the code that changes the entire meaning and scope? That is not LAW. LAW is law because it doesn't change but over a LONG period of time.

At the beginning of this debate Codee had no idea from what area the challenge was coming from. He made the assumption that it was straw man, redemption, UCC and anything else he had ever heard of. Instead the challenge is from LAW - - - - - DE JURE STATUS.

Having ones' status clearly defined and unrebuttable accomplishes the same goal (being left alone) without giving discretion to the court. Without DE JURE STATUS the constitution doesn't even apply. [note this is the subject for a debate in its' own right] Your ONLY path to the constitution is through your de jure nation (state). Accept those federal benefits and you land smack in the middle of a DE FACTO state and along with it comes COLOR OF LAW. Maybe Codees' methods will work in this environment ... for a short time.... until they figure out how to close the loophole.

There is certainly more to consider than what we discussed in the 'debate'.

Well Palini, You are an AH too! Your a lier! You have F'D with Codee to make a name for yourself. Get a life!

You are a lier and will always live as one! Why are you kissing his ass now?? Because he knows what the F he's talking about? What the hell is that!

I will never, have never, and damn sure won't now!, turn the "other" cheek!

[palani]

Originally Posted by ndusa

Well Palini, You are an AH too! Your a lier! You have F'D with Codee to make a name for yourself. Get a life!

You are a lier and will always live as one! Why are you kissing his ass now?? Because he knows what the F he's talking about? What the hell is that!

I will never, have never, and damn sure won't now!, turn the "other" cheek!

Welcome to the thread NDUSA.

Do you have a point that you are interested in making?

What is a 'lier'?

Why would you think I am interested in 'kissing his ass'? Of whom are you referring?

What is who 'talking about'? This is a forum where I write, I do not talk. Does your computer 'talk' to you, NDUSA? If so possibly professional help is in order.

To what are you referring when you 'turn the other cheek'? I understand this is a Christian concept that is generally misunderstood. When you are struck on the cheek it is generally done with the back of the hand, as from a superior to an inferior. When the other cheek is turned it is with the intent to be treated as an equal. I don't see how this concept applies to this thread though.

I have a sense that you consider this thread to be a personal attack rather than a debate, one which I might add you have had no participation in. I would suggest that you go back and re-read the entire thread. I issued the challenge to 'Codys Right to Travel' and since he accepted the choice of weapons was his entirely. His main weapon of choice was insult. I responded in kind. I am not entirely comfortable with using insult as a debate form but, as I indicated, this was his choice.

Possibly you don't understand the significance of CONTRACTS. I believe Codee/Cody does; in the interest of education I will provide you one more link in the chain

Article 1 Section 10, U.S. Constitution

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.