Cite?
Edit: Damn I’m slow.
If you read earlier, i think what you believe to be very important.
I think what I believe to be very important, my opinions were discounted earlier
I wasn’t disagreeing with your right to believe as you will, I was trying to allow my “belief system” the same authority.
Jurisdiction is given on matter or persons, a capitol crime is definetly subject matter
Originally Posted by silenus
Since FMOtlers claim to be outside our laws, can’t we just declare them “outlaw” and shoot them? Seems to be the simplest solution - even simpler than a FMOtLer.
Ah. Ok.
The problem lies, of course, in convincing the rest of us (and the courts) that your belief system should “trump” others, if and when a conflict of interest occurs.
Can you show the text of this “common law”, so that others may apply it in their lives? (Is it the Bible?)
Can you show the text in the Federal or State Constitutions that state that this “common law” as being of a greater authority to the courts that you object to?
Well clearly, if we examine the words, sworn testimony = mon(e)y testi(d) to see if it’s (s)worn.
Quite simply sworn testimony is testimony made sworn under oath so lies are subject to “under the pains and penalties of perjury”.
Unsworn testimony that’s found to be lies might have other “pains and penalties” but isn’t necessarily perjury.
I could argue that since the Bible and Jesus’ dad aren’t sacred to me, no lie that I state under that oath is perjury. Shoulda made me affirm! 
“Under the pains and penalties of perjury, my testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” no sky pixies, who don’t seem to ever be bothered by broken oaths (I’ve seen folks go to prison for it, divine retribution not [del]so much[/del] ever), involved!
CMC fnord!
Not even Jerry ‘the King’ Lawler?
I do not understand this sentence.
“Jurisdiction is given”… by who? By what authority?
“on matter of persons”… ummm, what is that, exactly?
“a capital crime”… defined as, and under which set of laws are you talking about?
“is definately subject matter”… ummm. Yeah. I agree. Capital crime… can be very real. (Again, under what context or set of laws are you refering to here?)
Courts only exist if the taxpayers fund them, and only have effective power if the taxpayers fund the police, etc.
This sentence is not in the English language As far as I can tell. For someone who is a fan of Blacks Law Dictionary, please look up “jurisdiction,” and “subject matter.”
Let me ask the OP a question that I’m foolish enough to think he may give a straight answer to.
Is there any way that you may rethink your position? The following has all been pointed out to you.
- The reason we follow laws we don’t agree with is because we agree (at least when we turn 18) to follow said laws as part of a social contract.
- While there is no paper we sign, the acceptance of the social contract is implicit when we choose to partake in the benefits of our society.
- Yes you have a choice. You are free to renounce your US citizenship and move to a place where there is no social contract. A few places have been mention ranging from Bir Tawil to Northern Canada to Somalia.
- Your own actions show that you do not respect the natural rights of others so we question your sincerity that you truly believe your view apply to all and not just you.
So here is the question I’d like you to answer plainly. If you choose to function in our society, why do you feel you do not need to abide by our social contract? Or put it another way, if you choose to NOT abide by our social contract, why don’t you remove yourself from our society?
My hero..don’t we all need a hero?.. T. Jefferson Natural Rights
The members of the Continental Congress made only two minor changes in the opening paragraphs of Jefferson’s draft declaration. In these two paragraphs, Jefferson developed some key ideas: “all men are created equal,” “inalienable rights,” “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Where did Jefferson get these ideas?
Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment. This was the period during the 17th and 18th centuries when thinkers turned to reason and science to explain both the physical universe and human behavior. Those like Jefferson thought that by discovering the “laws of nature” humanity could be improved.
Jefferson did not invent the ideas that he used to justify the American Revolution. He himself said that he had adopted the “harmonizing sentiments of the day.” These ideas were, so to speak, “in the air” at the time.
As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was well acquainted with British history and political philosophy. He also had read the statements of independence drafted by Virginia and other colonies as well as the writings of fellow revolutionaries like Tom Paine and George Mason. In composing the declaration, Jefferson followed the format of the English Declaration of Rights, written after the Glorious Revolution of 1689.
Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England’s Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.
Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain “inalienable” natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are “life, liberty, and property.”
Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.
Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.
By “property,” Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one’s self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, “pursuit of happiness,” which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.
The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with “a long train of abuses” over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.
Jefferson adopted John Locke’s theory of natural rights to provide a reason for revolution. He then went on to offer proof that revolution was necessary in 1776 to end King George’s tyranny over the colonists.
Will all the lemurs(or was that lemmings?) follow the leader off the ridge just because the accepted social clause says follow the leader? or will an astute individual lemming(or lemur your choice) say hey wait a min .. this can’t be a healthy choice. True the other lemmings may stampede him through and off the ridge, after he tumbles he may recognize the error of “mob rule”
- Where is the full disclosure of benefits and waivers for these “unalienable” (which is abominable English, Declaration of Independence notwithstanding)? You are arguing against one nebulously defined social contract with another one.
The difference is that you like yours better, so you claim (without evidence or proof) that it’s fundamentally different and superior. Worse yet, you choose to alienate them yourself (see below), meaning they aren’t inalienable.
Where’s the meat?
- Apparently, those rights are unalienable. Via taxes and fees (including fishing licenses), I have a right that fishing stock in public waters will not be overtaxed. You chose deliberately to fish where other people had a vested interest.
Where’s the respect for the rights and property of the fishing public who paid to make sure they weren’t bilked by poachers like you? Apparently, the rights of which you speak are quite alienable by you yourself.
What the hell does that have to do with what he asked? More direct answers and less puffed-up diversionary bullshit would really help your cause at this time.
yea just like that fish owes his existence to the game warden. How old are you ?
how far back does your “enlightenment window” allow you to see. Courts are thousands upon thousands of years old, silly taxpayor
And how does one philosophy prove itself “natural” and “inalienable” as you claim?
I will also note that this is one version of the social contract mentioned several times in this thread. You have repeatedly mocked the conventions of our social contract, yet here you laud the very men who developed a lion’s share of it.
Again, you are choosing to pick and choose your beliefs with little backing in history, law, or anything else, really.
Insults to lemurs aside (which I find neither coy nor amusing), lemmings don’t actually commit suicide by going off ridges. They’re seeking open land and some of them don’t make it.
It’s actually in their collective best interests to do so. So, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. That lemmings (who also don’t have sapience, by the way) are foolish for taking actions that increase the chances for survival and that of their species?
Well, lemmings don’t do this either. If a lemmings doesn’t want to go, it doesn’t have to.
And how is this mob rule? I thought they were following a leader?
Your metaphors are quite mixed, incomprehensible, and poorly researched.
There is reason, and there is law. There is no “law of reason.”
You do understand, don’t you, that the common law you revere is not natural law and has nothing to do with “natural rights”?