Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

claimee,

..........and?

 

[Upchurch]

But those are not contradictions, it is merely mentioning A and not B, and B and not A.

What are the contradictions of the Freedom Chapters?

Kindly read all of what I said: Likewise, the USC/BoR refers to different rights than the DoI and even specifies that the rights refered to in the DoI can be impinged.

What's an AoC? You lost me there.

The Articles of Confederation. They defined the first (and somewhat brief) government that existed here before the USA, but after we were a loose group of British Colonies. I thought you were an advocate of fully understanding what you were talking about before taking a position. My mistake.

It paves the way. It lays down the foundations of all subsequent documents. Will you acknowledge this?

Historically, not legally. Do you understand the difference?

That's a gross misapplication. If you want to argue that, then you cannot possibly argue any legal precedence.

The DoI is not a legal document. Do you understand this?

No. You are to take it as that I won't go over points we have been through several times in this very thread.

You have not discussed why they are not compelling.

Jeebus Creebus, can't I ever get a little credit here? If I repeat the same points, I'm obsessive. If I don't, I'm running away.

You're only running away when you leave questions unanswered. And simply replying is not the same as answering.

And yes, I do feel sorry for you, but credibility must be earned.

Oh, for Pete's sake:

So you believe that God gave the British king his powers based on the words of Jefferson Davis? Is that correct?

If I misunderstand so much of American history, why am I the one bringing up the historical facts?

Because you're ignoring so many others. (And some of the facts that you do bring up are totally irrelevent.)

The definition of God that people used in those days.

Which is what?

You can't have context without interpreting that context.

That is a circular argument: "You can't know what the context is what knowing it's context"

The context of context, Claus? Seriously?

I asked you if that was what you were arguing. If I am wrong, just say so.

No, you asked me a question based on the assumption that this was my position. But whatever, if you can't figure out that it wasn't my position then: "No, that is not my position."

It's not a question of whether or not you accept or reject that George got his powers from God. It's a question of what people believed at the time.

But that isn't what you stated. You claimed that "Georgie got his power and authority from God".

Why wouldn't it? Atheism wasn't particular prominent in Colonial times. Wasn't the colonies seen as a haven for persecuted religious people?

Now is my turn to point out that I've explained this in gory detail.

Already answered, post #1015.

Do you admit that I have already answered this?

1015?

What entity owns State Church property in Denmark, anybody know?

I don't know, actually.

uh, no.

 

[Ed]

Because that is how the US government defines it, with some added qualifications, such as the intent of the creation of the document.

The courts have repeatedly reiterated that the DoI has no legal standing whatsoever. It exists exclusively as a historical record of the seccession of the colonies from England, and the reasons given for doing so. It does not at any point claim to be a charter of government, nor does it contain any legislation. It has no more standing than any other writings of the Founding Fathers, and indeed, is generally accorded considerably less than others when interpreting Constitutional law (eg. the Federalist Papers).

The original charter intended to be an official government document was the Articles of Confederation which were not created until a year after the declaration, and not ratified for another four. This established an interim government whose task it was to create the actual official structure for the goverment of the confederated colonies. The "supreme law of the land" is and always has been the US Constitution; which created the government that we currently have. No documents prior to that are officially recognized as having any legal force, and are consulted only with regard to interpreting the intent of the writers of the Constitution.

Pretty funny. The status of the DoI was clearly stated a month ago.

per·sev·er·a·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-sv-rshn)
n.
Psychology.
Uncontrollable repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.
The tendency to continue or repeat an act or activity after the cessation of the original stimulus.
The act or an instance of persevering; perseverance.

Pretty funny.

 

[CFLarsen]

Kindly read all of what I said: Likewise, the USC/BoR refers to different rights than the DoI and even specifies that the rights refered to in the DoI can be impinged.

Different rights are not automatically contraditory. Can be impinged does not mean it is.

Can you list the contradictions, yes or no?

The Articles of Confederation. They defined the first (and somewhat brief) government that existed here before the USA, but after we were a loose group of British Colonies. I thought you were an advocate of fully understanding what you were talking about before taking a position. My mistake.

I am. I just wasn't aware of that particular abbreviation. Thanks for being so understanding.

Yes, I could argue that no such document would exist. Your point?

Historically, not legally. Do you understand the difference?

Answered several times.

The DoI is not a legal document. Do you understand this?

Answered several times.

You have not discussed why they are not compelling.

What do you want me to say? They just aren't. I find the opposite arguments/evidence compelling.

So you believe that God gave the British king his powers based on the words of Jefferson Davis? Is that correct?

I showed you evidence of where George's power was thought to be derived from, by a contemporary source. If you reject it, that's your own problem.

Because you're ignoring so many others. (And some of the facts that you do bring up are totally irrelevent.)

I am neither ignoring historical facts, nor am I bringing up irrelevant facts. I know that you don't see them as relevant, but you don't decide what facts or arguments I can use to defend my own point.

Which is what?

An all-knowing, interfering God.

That is a circular argument: "You can't know what the context is what knowing it's context"

The context of context, Claus? Seriously?

It's not circular at all. You have to have context, and you also have to understand and interpret the context.

No, you asked me a question based on the assumption that this was my position. But whatever, if you can't figure out that it wasn't my position then: "No, that is not my position."

Whatever.

But that isn't what you stated. You claimed that "Georgie got his power and authority from God".

Read it again. Red text.

Now is my turn to point out that I've explained this in gory detail.

Fine with me.

1015?

uh, no.

1150. My fault:

It is hard for me personally to comprehend why people ignore that I have repeatedly said that I don't find the DoI a legal document.

Do you understand this now? It gets tiresome to repeat it, and it is disruptive to the discussion.

Do you admit that I have already answered the question?

 

[CFLarsen]

Pretty funny. The status of the DoI was clearly stated a month ago.



Pretty funny.

Where do I think that peace officers, each and every one, interpret the Constitution on the fly?

 

[LeFevre]

It is hard for me personally to comprehend why people ignore that I have repeatedly said that I don't find the DoI a legal document.

Do you understand this now? It gets tiresome to repeat it, and it is disruptive to the discussion.

Then why the freakout on the DOI? If you agree it isn't legal, then why again are you going back to discussing it?

 

[Upchurch]

Different rights are not automatically contraditory. Can be impinged does not mean it is.

Whoa. Don't be so cavalier in your dismissal. You should consider an argument before you simply disagree with it.

DoI right: Life is an inalienable right.
Under USC: Life can, and is, legally taken away from citizens via the death penalty, in self defence, and justifiable police shootings.

DoI right: Liberty is an inalienable right.
Under USC: Liberty can, and is, legally taken away from citizens via almost anything. i.e. You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot trespass on private property, you can be incarcerated for up to 24 hours without charges being filed, etc.

DoI right: Pursuit of Happiness is an inalienable right.
Under USC: Pursuit of Happiness can, and is, legally taken away or severly restricted in pretty much the same ways as Liberty above.

The US Constitution has been interpreted by the SCOTUS as taking away all of the rights defined in the DoI, given the proper circumstances. The USC makes the DoI's inalienable rights alienable. Rights cannot be both alienable (A) and inalienable (~A) simultaneously.

To assert, as you do, that both the DoI and the USC are simultaneously in effect is to assert both A and ~A. To put it in more rigid symbolic logic terms:

Given:
USC = A
DoI = ~A

|USC & DoI (Claim)
|:. A & ~A (Substitution)

|A & ~A (From above)
|:. False

In words, the claim that the USC and DoI are in simultaneously is a logically false statement. In other words, the USC and the DoI contradict one another.

Can you list the contradictions, yes or no?

I thought you were merely interested, Claus. I thought you weren't demanding this information. Why the "Gotcha!" positioning?

And, yes, I can and have listed the contradiction.

You have not discussed why they are not compelling.

What do you want me to say? They just aren't. I find the opposite arguments/evidence compelling.

"They just aren't" is another way of saying "I can't explain it but this is the way things are (or are not, as the case may be)" and you have used that phrase a lot in this thread. What I want you to do is to take the time to reason out why "they just aren't".

So you believe that God gave the British king his powers based on the words of Jefferson Davis? Is that correct?

I showed you evidence of where George's power was thought to be derived from, by a contemporary source. If you reject it, that's your own problem.

{snip}

But that isn't what you stated. You claimed that "Georgie got his power and authority from God".

Read it again. Red text.

The red text referred to: that there was no divine right to rule;

Quite to the contrary, Davis' words shows that he did not think that there a devine right to rule and that the British king did not get his power and authority from God.

1150. My fault:

It is hard for me personally to comprehend why people ignore that I have repeatedly said that I don't find the DoI a legal document.

Do you understand this now? It gets tiresome to repeat it, and it is disruptive to the discussion.

Do you admit that I have already answered the question?

Well, it reason you have been asked this repeatedly is because despite your repeated claims that you understand the difference, you continually put the DoI on equal, if not higher, footing with the USC. This would indicate that you don't really understand that the DoI is not a legal document. If you did, why do you keep making the same error over and over?

Perhaps I'm using confusing terminology, let's try something else:

Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

For example, passing a law banning the death penalty based on the DoI would not stand up in court and makes about as much sence as basing it on the Articles of Confederation or the song "Stars and Stripes Forever".

 

[CFLarsen]

Whoa. Don't be so cavalier in your dismissal. You should consider an argument before you simply disagree with it.

DoI right: Life is an inalienable right.
Under USC: Life can, and is, legally taken away from citizens via the death penalty, in self defence, and justifiable police shootings.

DoI right: Liberty is an inalienable right.
Under USC: Liberty can, and is, legally taken away from citizens via almost anything. i.e. You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot trespass on private property, you can be incarcerated for up to 24 hours without charges being filed, etc.

DoI right: Pursuit of Happiness is an inalienable right.
Under USC: Pursuit of Happiness can, and is, legally taken away or severly restricted in pretty much the same ways as Liberty above.

The US Constitution has been interpreted by the SCOTUS as taking away all of the rights defined in the DoI, given the proper circumstances. The USC makes the DoI's inalienable rights alienable. Rights cannot be both alienable (A) and inalienable (~A) simultaneously.

To assert, as you do, that both the DoI and the USC are simultaneously in effect is to assert both A and ~A. To put it in more rigid symbolic logic terms:

Given:
USC = A
DoI = ~A

|USC & DoI (Claim)
|:. A & ~A (Substitution)

|A & ~A (From above)
|:. False

In words, the claim that the USC and DoI are in simultaneously is a logically false statement. In other words, the USC and the DoI contradict one another.

Thank you. Finally, you provide examples of how the DoI and the USC contradict each other.

I thought you were merely interested, Claus. I thought you weren't demanding this information. Why the "Gotcha!" positioning?

It's not a "gotcha" positioning. My antennas are just raised when I don't get a straight answer.

And, yes, I can and have listed the contradiction.

Now you have, yes. You didn't earlier, when I asked you to.

"They just aren't" is another way of saying "I can't explain it but this is the way things are (or are not, as the case may be)" and you have used that phrase a lot in this thread. What I want you to do is to take the time to reason out why "they just aren't".

No, it isn't. It is exactly the same way I am not convinced that the arguments of Holocaust deniers are not compelling.

The red text referred to: that there was no divine right to rule;

Quite to the contrary, Davis' words shows that he did not think that there a devine right to rule and that the British king did not get his power and authority from God.

(groan)....That's just the point: That he disagrees with King George, who believed that his authority came from God. Don't look at what Davis argues, look at what he is arguing against.

Well, it reason you have been asked this repeatedly is because despite your repeated claims that you understand the difference, you continually put the DoI on equal, if not higher, footing with the USC. This would indicate that you don't really understand that the DoI is not a legal document. If you did, why do you keep making the same error over and over?

Perhaps I'm using confusing terminology, let's try something else:

Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

For example, passing a law banning the death penalty based on the DoI would not stand up in court and makes about as much sence as basing it on the Articles of Confederation or the song "Stars and Stripes Forever".

Just yes or no, please:

Do you admit that I have already answered the question?

 

[Upchurch]

Thank you. Finally, you provide examples of how the DoI and the USC contradict each other.

It's not a "gotcha" positioning. My antennas are just raised when I don't get a straight answer.

Now you have, yes. You didn't earlier, when I asked you to.

What on earth did you think I was talking about? We had already talked about how the rights described in the DoI are not strictly protected in the USC.

No, it isn't. It is exactly the same way I am not convinced that the arguments of Holocaust deniers are not compelling.

(groan)....That's just the point: That he disagrees with King George, who believed that his authority came from God. Don't look at what Davis argues, look at what he is arguing against.

So, you are saying that the colonists believe that King George got his power and authority from God because Jefferson and Davis argued against the idea?

Just yes or no, please:

Do you admit that I have already answered the question?

Generally speaking, I don't consider altenrately answering a question with "yes no yes no yes no" actually answering that question. Given the contradictory positions you've taken in this thread, I'd have to say "you have addressed the question, but no, you have not answered the question". But that isn't entirely fair because I don't think you understand what the question is.

Thus, I have rephrased the question so that it get more to the heart of the issue and is more specific: Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

 

[CFLarsen]

What on earth did you think I was talking about? We had already talked about how the rights described in the DoI are not strictly protected in the USC.

There is a hell of a difference between rights that are not protected and rights that are contradicted.

Argue the best you can.

So, you are saying that the colonists believe that King George got his power and authority from God because Jefferson and Davis argued against the idea?

No, I have shown this to be an example of where people thought King George got his rights from. It is not my problem that you reject the evidence.

Generally speaking, I don't consider altenrately answering a question with "yes no yes no yes no" actually answering that question. Given the contradictory positions you've taken in this thread, I'd have to say "you have addressed the question, but no, you have not answered the question". But that isn't entirely fair because I don't think you understand what the question is.

Thus, I have rephrased the question so that it get more to the heart of the issue and is more specific: Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

I have not answered it?!? How can:

It is hard for me personally to comprehend why people ignore that I have repeatedly said that I don't find the DoI a legal document.

not be a crystal-clear answer to the question:

It is of little concern, however, since the DoI has absolutely no legal standing in the US Government as defined by the USC. Do you understand this?

I'm sorry, but if you deny that I have (already) answered your question, then I seriously question your ability to mod this forum.

Here it is again, in no uncertain terms:

No, I do not consider the DoI a legal document.

Continue to deny I ever said that.

 

[Upchurch]

No, I have shown this to be an example of where people thought King George got his rights from. It is not my problem that you reject the evidence.

What you provided evidence for shows that the colonists didn't think that King George got his rights from God, i.e. that they specifically rejected the idea that he had a devine right to rule.

I have not answered it?!?

As I have said, what you say and what you demonstrate do not match up.

As an analogy, let's say that you ask me whether or not I can ride a bike:

C: Do you know how to ride a bike?
U: Of course, I can.
**crash**
C: Are you sure you know how to ride a bike?
U: I said I did, didn't I?
**crash**
C: *winces* I don't really think you understand how to ride a bike.
U: What have I been telling you?
**crash**
C: Do you understand what "riding a bike" means? (here's your tooth.)
U: I've answered that already. (thanks.)
**crash**

Would you believe that I really know how to ride a bike? Likewise, I don't really believe that you understand the legal position of the DoI, especially in relation to the USC. You keep saying that you do, but you demonstrate something else entirely.

Here it is again, in no uncertain terms:

No, I do not consider the DoI a legal document.

Continue to deny I ever said that.

I'm not denying that you've addressed the question. I'm denying that your response is true based on your putting the DoI on equal, if not greater, footing with the USC.

Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

 

[CFLarsen]

What you provided evidence for shows that the colonists didn't think that King George got his rights from God, i.e. that they specifically rejected the idea that he had a devine right to rule.

Can you make up your mind? First, you reject the evidence. Then, you accept it. What's next?

As I have said, what you say and what you demonstrate do not match up.

As an analogy, let's say that you ask me whether or not I can ride a bike:

C: Do you know how to ride a bike?
U: Of course, I can.
**crash**
C: Are you sure you know how to ride a bike?
U: I said I did, didn't I?
**crash**
C: *winces* I don't really think you understand how to ride a bike.
U: What have I been telling you?
**crash**
C: Do you understand what "riding a bike" means? (here's your tooth.)
U: I've answered that already. (thanks.)
**crash**

Would you believe that I really know how to ride a bike? Likewise, I don't really believe that you understand the legal position of the DoI, especially in relation to the USC. You keep saying that you do, but you demonstrate something else entirely.

I'm not denying that you've addressed the question. I'm denying that your response is true based on your putting the DoI on equal, if not greater, footing with the USC.

Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

The question was not whether or not I put it on equal footing. The question was, had I answered the question?

Let's take it again, from the top:

It is of little concern, however, since the DoI has absolutely no legal standing in the US Government as defined by the USC. Do you understand this?

To which I had already answered:

It is hard for me personally to comprehend why people ignore that I have repeatedly said that I don't find the DoI a legal document.

Had I already answered it, yes or no?

 

[Upchurch]

Can you make up your mind? First, you reject the evidence. Then, you accept it. What's next?

There are two different claims at play here:

I reject that it supports that King George's powers and authority come from God.
I accept that it supports the notion that the colonists also rejeced the idea that King George's powers and authority came from God.

The question was not whether or not I put it on equal footing. The question was, had I answered the question?

It is a matter of whether or not you put it on equal footing with the USC. Doing so indicates that you think that the DoI is legally equivalent to the USC and therefore, you do not understand that the DoI is not a legal document. Saying that you understand that the DoI is not a legal document, on the other hand, indicates that you do understand that the DoI is not a legal document.

Which am I to believe, what you do or what you say?

Given that you have provided contadicting answers, I can't really say that the question has been answered. Addressed, yes. Answered, no.

In order to truely answer the question, you need to be consistent in your message. That means that you need to either say that you do believe that the DoI is a legal document or you need to stop treating the DoI as if it were a legal document.

Do you understand the problem?

Had I already answered it, yes or no?

No, for the reasons given above.

 

[CFLarsen]

I reject that it supports that King George's powers and authority come from God.

Who are claiming that? I'm not.

I accept that it supports the notion that the colonists also rejeced the idea that King George's powers and authority came from God.

So, you accept that King George and his (loyal) subjects claimed that it did?

I'm not saying that it did. I'm saying that they claimed it did. Do you understand the difference?

It is a matter of whether or not you put it on equal footing with the USC. Doing so indicates that you think that the DoI is legally equivalent to the USC and therefore, you do not understand that the DoI is not a legal document. Saying that you understand that the DoI is not a legal document, on the other hand, indicates that you do understand that the DoI is not a legal document.

Which am I to believe, what you do or what you say?

I don't "do" anything here. This is an online forum. All you have from me is what I say.

Given that you have provided contadicting answers, I can't really say that the question has been answered. Addressed, yes. Answered, no.

In order to truely answer the question, you need to be consistent in your message. That means that you need to either say that you do believe that the DoI is a legal document or you need to stop treating the DoI as if it were a legal document.

Do you understand the problem?

There's no problem. I'm not treating the DoI as if it were a legal document.

No, for the reasons given above.

Live in denial, then. Not my problem.

 

[Upchurch]

I reject that it supports that King George's powers and authority come from God.

Who are claiming that? I'm not.

Yes, Claus, you did.

Nope. Georgie got his power and authority from God.

Do you have evidence to support this?

Oh, for Pete's sake:

It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed.
Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address

So, you accept that King George and his (loyal) subjects claimed that it did?

I have no idea what his loyal subjects claimed. So far, we've only seen evidence from his disloyal subjects.

I'm not saying that it did. I'm saying that they claimed it did. Do you understand the difference?

Well, that isn't what you said. (see the above quoted sequence)

I don't "do" anything here. This is an online forum. All you have from me is what I say.

A rather fine distinction, but in that case, you have said both that you do think it is a legal document and that you don't think it is a legal document. Which am I to believe?

There's no problem. I'm not treating the DoI as if it were a legal document.

Then you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

Not my problem.

That remains to be seen.

 

[Grammatron]

Claus, I went back and read the first few pages of this thread. Unless I am mistaken, you were the one who brought up DoI in the legal context(Post #163) thus making it confusing for me -- and apperently Upchurch -- when you say you don't consider it a legal document.

If you do not consider it as a legal document then why do you care what it has to say about rights?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, Claus, you did.

I do not claim that King George's power came from God. I claimed - and have backed it up with evidence - that people at the time believed that King George's power came from God.

Do you understand the difference?

I have no idea what his loyal subjects claimed. So far, we've only seen evidence from his disloyal subjects.

What about King George himself?

Well, that isn't what you said. (see the above quoted sequence)

You are flat-out wrong. That is not what I am saying.

A rather fine distinction, but in that case, you have said both that you do think it is a legal document and that you don't think it is a legal document. Which am I to believe?

Where, exactly, do I say that I think it is a legal document?

Then you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

I haven't claimed otherwise.

That remains to be seen.

This is ridiculous....

I have repeatedly told you, in no uncertain terms, that I do not consider the DoI a legal document.

Yet, you say that I do.

Well, no, I don't.

No. I. Don't.

I. Do. Not. Consider. The. DoI. A. Legal. Document.

Now, what? We can go on forever, where you claim that "You say 'A'", to which I'll respond "No, I don't say 'A'". What's the purpose of that?

 

[Upchurch]

Fine, let's move on to a different quesiton then:

Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I went back and read the first few pages of this thread. Unless I am mistaken, you were the one who brought up DoI in the legal context(Post #163) thus making it confusing for me -- and apperently Upchurch -- when you say you don't consider it a legal document.

If you do not consider it as a legal document then why do you care what it has to say about rights?

This is my post:

According to the Declaration of Independence, rights do not belong to humans simply because they are humans. They are, as you correctly state, endowed by their Creator.

Who is this creator, if not God?

I point out where rights come from. I say nothing about the legality of it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Fine, let's move on to a different quesiton then:

Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?

Already answered:

I haven't claimed otherwise.

• I do not claim that King George's power came from God. I claimed - and have backed it up with evidence - that people at the time believed that King George's power came from God. Do you understand the difference?
  
• What about King George himself?
  
• Where, exactly, do I say that I think it is a legal document?
  
• Could you stop asking me questions I have answered? It is most destructive to the debate.