Your statement about the “peaceful quest” is not in your cite.
Depends on what you mean by a “peaceful quest”, rwjefferson. Your idea of “peaceful,” might not be the same as mine, nor the government’s.
** pudding is not the same as justice **
The statements “No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility” and “The enumeration (listing) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” are.
And if your idea of “peaceful” does not harm or threaten another, I will stand in the spirit of justice even for you.
Your motion is denied. In the court of justice, the burden of proof is carried solely by government prosecution. I accept your closing arguments as admission you have no better case for further prosecution. How else might I help you better understand liberty is innocent until proven guilty?
What do you know of persecution by any other Name or device?
ItS
liberty and justice equal for all
r~
** after all; this is my own thread and court **
First of all, you’re saying that government is doing wrong to justice. That makes justice the victim, and government the defendant. Your burden of proof is all screwed up. You have to prove that government is doing something wrong, and most people here can’t made heads or tails of your nonsensical arguments.
Secondly, let’s just send this to the jury. Nobody here is going to vote to convict government, except for you, and as the judge, you don’t get a vote.
No, it isn’t. Please try to make sense or this will be locked.
Uh, “peaceful pursuit?” Well, jaywalking is technically “peaceful”, but the government definitely has the right to outlaw it.
Certain protests, if they impeed others (such as blocking traffic, creating a public hazard, etc) can be outlawed. (I’m not permitting to sit in the middle of the road, for example, to make a point, even though I’m technically being “peaceful”)
** the cycle continues **
We’ve covered this very same ground many times before. Impeding and threatening others is “technically” not the same as “peaceful” for those thus “impeded” and “other than wise” “threatened”. Have you even tried further “re: search construe and Constitution”?
That you and the remaining posters still deny any better understanding of simple founding truth tells ever more clearly of you than me. I am even now learning.
** convict is not the same as forgive
nationalism is not the same as patriotism **
Thirdly, you’re saying your polarity of vision is reversed.
Fourthly you’re saying you see the world re: versed as if imaged through a looking glass.
In truth I am saying liberty a.k.a. peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness is an inalienable and basic and inviolable and natural and nonnegotiable and nontransferable and sacrosanct and unassailable and untransferable et cetra etc. etc. and self-retained right in the spirit of justice and morality.
In the spirit of justice, the defendant retains full right to further appeal denial of liberty. Seeking freedom in the court of justice is not the same as seeking government conviction. What do you know of the mark off guilty conscience? Please forgive.
In the court of justice, well-governed prosecution always carries the full burden of proof. That government tends to construe power as right does not make it so. The self-retained right of liberty always holds precedence over tyranny. No just government holds the right to construe law to deny or disparage liberty and justice equal for all. At least that is the whey with me.
end the plague of persecution
let my people freely go
ItS
peace
r~
** kangaroo is not the same as the spirit of justice **
“To this general answer, the general reply ought to be sufficient, that liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former, rather than the latter, are apparently most to be apprehended by the United States.”
Federalist Number 63
No. You continue to refuse to answer my questions. You continue to refuse to engage in honest debate, instead simply repeating the same crap. You don’t explain yourself, you don’t recognize that rights are not absolute, and you simply spew garbage.
So, no. I won’t forgive.
Why did I know before even opening this thread that it would involve guns?
Granted, there was an outside chance it was about health care, but the odds were against it.
Nonsense is not the same as conversation. The cycle is closed.