That you might not have any obligation does not necessarily hold for prosecution. The spirit of liberty equal for all holds sway in the court of justice. The defendant is presumed innocent. Prosecution is obligated to carry the burden of proof. If the government cannot first prove it holds right of just prosecution, the case will rightly be thrown out of court.
I find myself repeatedly plagued by posters that will not answer my simple and honest questions. Instead they brag of ignorance. That I might not be able to cure their self-inflicted disability releases great hostility. I am repeatedly silenced by those that do not want to better understand.
Does government hold the just right to deny or disparage the self-retained right of well-regulated peaceful quest?
Can the prosecution prove it does?
Please cite the first word or phrase that departs simple understanding. Please offer best guess of what my cryptic words might intend to mean. Yes and no and I don’t know are all perfectly acceptable answers. Does too is not proof; much less a reasoned response.
ItS
Peace
rw~
** even truth sounds as gibberish to those that do not understand **
Is it time for our quarterly rwjefferson liberty debate already? My, this year has flown by!
rw, you’re the one accusing the government of a crime (denying liberty). You are the prosecution. You’ve got the burden of proof all mixed up. Let’s hear your case that the government has done wrong, and then we will decide if there is a prima facia case.
You need to consider the possibility that the inability to understand you is not everyone else’s fault. The problem is that you’re not communicating coherently.
You should also stop treating everyone else like we’re all a vast conspiracy to oppress you. We’re not the government or the prosecution or whatever else you’re worried about. It’s not us against you.
And while truth may sound like gibberish, most times what sounds like gibberish is just gibberish.
Have you ever tried to translate one tongue into another? Not all words and languages have an exact translation. Even within a single sound there is no exact meaning. I seek better understanding of truth hidden even by gibberish and chaos. I know the difference between trying and not.
Does government have the just right to construe Law to prohibit well-regulated peaceful quest?
Read my gibberish. Please cite the first word that escapes current understanding. Please offer your best intended possible definition.
What do you mean “just right”? Do you mean power, or are you talking about in the general sense of “should”?
How about “construe”? Does that mean make laws? Interpret laws? Execute laws? Or all three?
And why the capitalized “Law”? Are you talking about Natural law? Codified Law? Common Law? Gravity?
What is “well regulated peaceful quest?” Why “well regulated”? Isn’t that what you’re whole point is, that government can’t regulate peaceful quest? And what is “peaceful quest?” Is that some kind of catchall for a list of rights to do something or other? What is the quest for? Liberty? Life? Happiness?
I agree with so many other posters here. You seem to have a bunch of words you like, but you just can’t put them together in a clear and coherent way.
My best short answer to what I think you’re asking: Yes, the government can put reasonable restrictions on people’s rights. Rights are not absolute. What those “reasonable restrictions” can be depends on so many different factors (such as the type of right, the governmental interest, and the statutes, Constitutional amendments, and caselaw involved) that it is nigh but impossible to deal with on as a catch all general rule.
Well, to try and parse through the bullshit, I’d say the government does indeed – as your rights end, when they start to interfer with the rights of others. You know, the old “the right to swing your fist ends at MY nose?”
Insulting or harming or threatening or defrauding another’s nose is not the same as peace.
Again and again I am handed a prima facie case of how easily Words are construed to mean even the opposite intent. My whole point and wave of thread is that government is instituted and constituted to better-regulatepeaceful pursuitsequal for all. Prohibition is not the same as regulation. Neither is anarchy. We are all responsible.
I understand my language and tongue is foreign to most. I capitalize some words to signify prima facie evidence that Word and Law are but a graven image of the spirit. Most will be marked as blinded by babel of Word and plank of Law. Few will understand.
The defendant appeals to higher justice. The defendant claims wrongful judgment by lower criminal court. The defendant is presumed innocent. Prosecution and conviction by government carries burden of proof. The defendant pleads innocent by right of well-regulated peaceful pursuits.
Please now offer any prima facie evidence that government might have the right to prohibit peaceful pursuits. Power is not the same as right. Good luck.
I am
ItS
r~
** the right of government to swing its mighty fist ends at my peaceful nose **
There is no equal for all. Do you not realize there are 300 million of us? Some are always more equal than others, no matter how well regulated or peaceful their pursuit is.
Its in the spirit of striving toward a worthy quest that makes even the least of us great.
Your help is always greatly appreciated.
There is no example, much less proof that government has the right to deny or disparage or infringe or prohibit well-regulated peaceful pursuit of health and happiness. Power and case law is not the same as precedent right.
How long have you been forced to eat jim crow? Ordinary crow tastes infinitely better; especially when rendered and cooked and served with good wine and spice and company. Please forgive even squawks of such an old crow.
There is no Article or Amendment of any Constitution that might ever be justly construed to prohibit the prima facie right of regulated peaceful pursuit. Its been long sense written that no state in verse just government holds the right to deny or disparage the self-retained spirit of liberty and justice equal for all; entitlement is prohibited. That such a simple and self-evident point might still somehow prove too cryptic for most; in another cryptic wave of words (ten by amendment), the constitution was even more brightly enlightened: Thou shall not construe to prohibit or disparage peaceful quest.
Denial of peaceful pursuit carries the mark of strife and crime and war. If it is prima facie evidence and proof you might someday truly seek; simply look to the streets and jails just beyond your ivory tower and wall and gate.
Please forgive.
I never cease to be amazed at these type of discussions in which libertarians and conservatives trot out the Declaration of Independence and the old clause about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and then project that to the world today. I would urge anyone serious about understanding the context of those words to read some of the excellent work by Pauline Maier of MIT. She has investigates this field and has written extensively on it. Dr. Maier points out the word LIBERTY back in 1776 and even in 1787 meant something very very different than the very broad “I can do anything I want to do as long as it does not hurt anybody else” libertarian sense used today.
LIBERTY - as used in the late 18th century American society simply meant freedom from foreign rule. If we are going to wave the Declaration around to justify some beliefs you have about government today, it would be good to find out just what the word meant to those who used it at that time.
Many today also seem to forget that after the Revolution ended and we had our true Independence, we saddled our young nation with a very weak national government that nearly led to the early death of our nation. The Constitution was written in an effort to find a govermental structure that would work for our nation and that involved greatly increasing both the powers and scope of the national government beyond what we had.
Your insistence upon using convoluted wording nigh but begs to be misconstrued. You still, even in this very post, refuse to answer the questions I asked, instead linking to historical documents without explanation. The problem lies not in your grasp of the English language, or your insistence on being obtuse, it lies in your unwillingness to explain yourself and your unwillingness to understand or respond to other posts.
I plead innocence presumed in the spirit of liberty
Please forgive.
Its been long sense written that no state of government holds the right to deny or disparage the self-retained spirit of liberty and justice equal for all; entitlement is prohibited. “No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility.” None shall hold the right not inherent equal for all. That such a simple and self-evident point might still somehow prove too cryptic for most, the constitution was even more brightly enlightened and amended: Thou shall not construe Word or Law to prohibit or disparage the most certain right of all: liberty in the spirit of peaceful quest. “The enumeration (listing) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Pursuit of liberty and justice equal for all is self evident as the most certain right of all.
I never cease to be amazed at the type of intellectual or other priest that trots out their Power and Authority and Word and Law and Symbol. Because those of that mark are able to construe Word and Law to deny the spirit of liberty and justice equal for all, they vainly Believe mark and power is the same as right.
The spirit of liberty holds the defendant innocent until proven guilty.
The spirit of justice demands that the burden of proof is carried solely by government prosecution.
I stand in defense of liberty equal for all in verse government prosecution. I stand against devil’s advocate claiming government or client has the right to deny well-regulated peaceful quest.
Full burden of proof is carried by devil and government prosecution. Now is a good time to prove your case or end it. Now is a good time to let my people go.
I’m going to try a different tack here. I hope it will find more success.
The government is prima facie liberty. The legislative power, or non-power, is the spine upon which the tree of freedom mixes its metaphors.
Justice for all? Yes! More justice for more people, to guard against the brigands of words.
If one accuses liberty, or government, of crime, then who is the prosecutor? Are not the Fathers the defendants for the crime of law? We cannot allow them in our houses!
Your honor, I move for a mistrial.
The burden of proof is in the pudding.
