Lothian
should be banned
You evaded mine 27 times. Can you provide details of one case where your arguments have been supported by UK Law?
The Freeman Movement and England
- Thread starter Especially
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fotl freeman on the land
- Status
Especially
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 667
I have answered you many times. Which of my MANY arguments do you wish me to support with the law of England ?
Just ask me, and I will happily provide you with further examples. I've already done so by pointing you to various forums.
But choose as you please.
Let others stay in ignorance. But please do not exaggerate.
Thank You
Last edited:
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
Amending the U.S. Constitution
No, Congress can propose an amendment but it must be ratified by the states, which can either put the amendment to their own state legislatures, or call ratification conventions:
Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.
To Propose Amendments
* Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
* Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
* Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
* Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm
So Especially is not only ignorant about England and U.K., he's also pretty dim on the subject of the U.S. Constitution.
No, Congress can propose an amendment but it must be ratified by the states, which can either put the amendment to their own state legislatures, or call ratification conventions:
Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.
To Propose Amendments
* Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
* Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
* Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
* Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm
So Especially is not only ignorant about England and U.K., he's also pretty dim on the subject of the U.S. Constitution.
Lothian
should be banned
Let us discuss the issues. Show us one case where the UK courts have accepted that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to it.
Show us that you are not out of your depth by answering this at the 28th time of asking.
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
Liar:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5168121&postcount=632
When are you going to admit you were wrong about the 16th Amendment? I even gave you the text explaining the exact errors in your argument.
I hope not - I like being the way I am.
Lothian
should be banned
You have never answered the question. Provide me with one example where a UK court has upheld your view that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to that law.
This has been asked over 30 times and I am not exaggerating.
Especially
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 667
I will gladly repeat my answer already given here many times. Can you be more specific ? Since if your question is general the answer will inevitably be general. Are you talking about Council Tax, ten pin bowling licences or the tax on inheritance ? And please don't exaggerate. One minute you've asked me 28 times and the next 30 times. When both are gross exaggerations. Be honest.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Your not reading for comprehension. (S)He can't be anymore specific.
Nice try at a dodge though.
Last edited:
Feudal overlords? Brittanic Majesty?
So continuously ignoring people when they answer your question regarding the 16th Amendment and acting as if they didn't does not count as evasion?
Regarding?
Well I am from Adelaide...
Lothian
should be banned
One minute I said that I had asked. the next I said that you had been asked. Do you want me to explain the difference?
As for the tax regime. Take your pick. However I do not want a general answer I want a specific one. I want the case reference. I will then read the case myself.
Especially
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 667
You are asking a nonsense question.
A Statute has the 'force of law only with the consent of the governed'. It is NOT law.
Don't you even know that ? Where did you get your education from ?
Especially
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 667
Dear Lothian,
You are confused. Please repeat after me -
1. Statutes are NOT Law.
2. Statutes have the 'force of law only with the CONSENT of the governed'
3. The 'laws' of Parliament are STATUTES.
Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times told you similar things here on this thread.
Thank You
Last edited:
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
Could you provide a reference for this? So far no one has been able to find any evidence that YOUR ASSERTION that a statute requires consent has any resemblance to reality.
You, not being a person of authority nor empowered to speak for any of the governments of the nations under discussion, cannot arbitrarily make such declarations and expect them to be accepted. You must realize that in order to accept your word we need to see some proof that your word has meaning.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
ok let me say that I do agree the UK has problems, heres my top three
1. more women than men
2. too close to france
3. beer too expensive
the reasoning
1. there are 30.3 million females compared with 28.9 million males, this means I have to service 1.4 million women and I'm getting worn out (+ i also like men and there aren't enough good ones to go round)
2. the french
3. too much tax (some weeks I have to decide between beer and condoms)
if these three problems were rectified this place would be Eden
1. more women than men
2. too close to france
3. beer too expensive
the reasoning
1. there are 30.3 million females compared with 28.9 million males, this means I have to service 1.4 million women and I'm getting worn out (+ i also like men and there aren't enough good ones to go round)
2. the french
3. too much tax (some weeks I have to decide between beer and condoms)
if these three problems were rectified this place would be Eden
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Especially
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 667
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
I'll play.
Let's talk about the Council Tax. Can you cite an instance where a freeman has successfully withdrawn his/her consent to the Council Tax by appealing to the "Law of England" as you define it, where "successfully" means that a UK court has recognized the freeman's right to do so?
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
I'm waiting for your reference for this. How long are you going to lie and evade the question?
Lothian
should be banned
Especially.
I am not confused. I want you to provide me with the reference of a case which supports your contentions that statutes do not apply to those who do not consent to them.
Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times asked you similar things here on this thread.
Especially
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 667
Lothian,
Read this. If you agree with it please tell me. If you do not it's a waste of time going round and round in circles when you do not even know what law is and what a statute is. Here it is, just for you -
STATUTE
Definition -
''A legislative rule of society given the force of Law by consent of the governed".
This is the commonly used definition of the word 'Statute'. (What are commonly called 'laws' of Parliament'). It raises some questions as most of us live our lives according to the rules of our various statutes and Acts they derive from, and yet in no part of that definiton does it suggest that it is a Law. Rather it is a rule. Aren't rules made to be broken? I would certainly say so; the more rules you break, the more you have to pay to the court!
Rather than finding the precise source, lets discover whether this much used definition is acceptable. So, can this much quoted definition be either disproved and discarded or confirmed and accepted?
First, let’s look at a sourced definition of “statute”.
Statute. An act of the legislature as an organized body. Washington v Dowling, 92 Fla 601, 109 So 588.
The written will of the legislative department, expressed according to the form necessary to constitute it a law of the United States or of the state, and rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms and solemnities.
In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature, an administrative regulation, or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state gives the force of law. 50 Am J1st Stat § 2. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1212)
Let’s now use this as our base to work from …
In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature, an administrative regulation, or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state gives the force of law.
act,n. A thing done or established; a deed or other written instrument evidencing a contract or an obligation. A statute; a bill which has been enacted by the legislature into a law, as distinguished from a bill which is in the form of a law presented to the legislature for enactment. Anne 5 ALR 1422. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 16-17)
legislature. Broadly, any body having legislative power. 49 Am J1st States § 28. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 724)
regulation. Control or direction by restriction or rule of something permitted or suffered to exist. 30 Am J rev ed Intox L § 22. Any rule for the ordering of affairs, public or private, whether by statute, ordinance, or resolution. Kepner v Commonwealth, 40 Pa St 124, 129. Ballantines, 3rd edtion, Page 1081)
state. A body politic or society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength, occupying a definite territory, and politically organized under one government. McLaughlin v Poucher, 127 Conn 441, 17 A2d 767. … a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanction and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. Coyle v Smith, 221 US 559, 55 L Ed 853, 31 S Ct 688. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1210)
Summary
An act of the legislature = legislative
An administrative regulation = a rule
The state = a political community, organized under a government, established by the consent of the governed.
In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature (legislative), an administrative regulation (rule), or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state (political community established by the consent of the governed) gives the force of law.
Connect the dots -
STATUTE
A legislative rule, given the force of law by the political community established by the consent of the governed.
Compare this to -
A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.
//
OK ?
Last edited:
- Status