Final arbitrator of law and ignorance of it.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Final arbitrator of law and ignorance of it.

Author Message
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1330280 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 2:16:03 UTC

It has been posted here that SCOTUS is the final arbitrator of law at theis site. I know that SETI is University--in california---of Berkeley. So, being that true they would like to have the BEST and CORRECT information for the VIEWING public.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is not the last and final arbitrator of law in either the District of Columbia or any of the 50 states.

"Here sir the people govern." ~Alexander Hamilton

That means if the The Supreme Court of the United States of America, the states can nullify the case. And or the people can demand AND GET a amendment the the Constitution.

Or...

The Supreme Court can overrule itself.

American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis.

Such sweeping remarks as we must obay this or that are based in ignorance and MUST be corrected before more people become sheep to the slaughter. Not knowing your rights as an American citizen is tantamount to being a sheep.

The RIGHT to free speech is one of the reasons it IS FIRST of the rights in the Bill of RIGHTS. Another reason for it is so a ignorant law like allowing abortion in all 50 state can be stopped. Such laws as this take the RIGHTS from another, the unborn, such as the right to trial by jury. The case that made abortion rights for the born, mother, are not allowed for the unborn. They are in need of rights because the case did not include evidence of the uniqueness of the DNA right after the first cell division.

Another would be that the President does not possess with the power of executive orders amend an amendment of the Bill of Rights. The power of amendment of such rights is ONLY up to the people themselves. Once again the first in the bill of rights is NEEDED. If one does not use his first right then of course all other right can and will be taken just like the life of a sheep without hardly a wimper.

Such intellectual cowardice is the mark of sheep, not humans...
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,718,697
RAC: 1,260
United States
Message 1330281 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 2:19:33 UTC

*sigh* (here goes nothing)

It has been posted here that SCOTUS is the final arbitrator of law at theis site.


Can you elaborate where anyone said that SCOTUS has anything to do with anything that happens on this site?
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2205
Credit: 4,606,982
RAC: 9,103
United States
Message 1330294 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 3:47:39 UTC - in response to Message 1330280.

ID, welcome back.
____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9206
Credit: 1,393,899
RAC: 1,785
United States
Message 1330308 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 5:37:13 UTC
Last modified: 23 Jan 2013, 5:37:40 UTC

Years ago (early 90s), Rush Limbaugh liked to say "Words mean something" and would frequently claim that liberals like to shift the meanings of things.

http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/intellectual-cowardice/

To say that someone is demonstrating intellectual cowardice is to say that they are simultaneously putting forward a claim as a claim and refusing to stand by it. For example, a scientist could demonstrate intellectual cowardice by presenting an empirical generalization on the basis of data but refusing to stand by that generalization as a good one. Intellectual cowardice is motivated by a fear of being shown to be wrong, hence its name, but at the same time desiring to recognized for intellectual accomplishments. And this leads to the somewhat contradictory practice of putting forwards claims in one context, but at the same time adopting the position that the claim is not necessarily worth standing by. This allows them to accept any compliments that come their way as a result of the quality of their claim, but at the same time dismiss any criticism of it as reflecting badly on them, because they refuse to stand by it.


We all know yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no such fire, does not fall under "free speech".

Similarly, S@H has its rules. You're allowed to say a lot. But:


Posts must be 'kid friendly': they may not contain content that is obscene, hate-related, sexually explicit or suggestive.
No commercial advertisements.
No links to web sites involving sexual content, gambling, or intolerance of others.
No messages intended to annoy or antagonize other people, or to hijack a thread.
No messages that are deliberately hostile or insulting.
No abusive comments involving race, religion, nationality, gender, class or sexuality.
Do not post pictures of graphic violence or links to images or videos containing graphic violence.
Do not posts comments related to specific moderator actions. The moderators may be contacted at seti_moderators@ssl.berkeley.edu
Your posts may be deleted if it contains material from another post which has been deleted. You should avoid including material from a post you expect will be deleted.
Team recruiting is only allowed in the Team Recruitment Forum
Additional information on moderation policy can be found here.


Breaking any of these rules leaves us subject to a post or thread being hidden, and, if severe enough, banishment. It is like yelling "fire". Many of us have learned that the hard way. Some, a very very hard way. We have the right to post elsewhere, in the way we like, if the rules are different in those other places. And there are plenty of other places to do so. When here, we follow the particular rules of S@H, so that we are not yelling "fire!"

Consider this thread in light of:
No messages that are deliberately hostile or insulting.
Along with:
No messages intended to annoy or antagonize other people ... .


Casting claims of "intellectual cowardice", incorrectly used, antagonizes all but about 3 posters in the Political Forum. Calling them socialists, when many demonstrably are not, is similar. "Sheeple"? Same logic.

This thread also comes quite close to "comments related to specific moderator actions".

In the last few years, the project scientist acting as the Forum Admin, and the current mods, have worked very hard on fair moderation approaches. They are a lot easier to discuss concerns with. Do keep that in mind when feeling "persecuted".

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12315
Credit: 6,607,829
RAC: 8,667
United States
Message 1330310 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 5:43:23 UTC - in response to Message 1330281.

*sigh* (here goes nothing)

It has been posted here that SCOTUS is the final arbitrator of law at theis[sic] site.


Can you elaborate where anyone said that SCOTUS has anything to do with anything that happens on this site?

SCOTUS isn't the final arbitrator of law, ICJ is the final arbitrator of law. It doesn't matter how much ID protests about it either, the ink is dry.


____________

Profile DEADProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 2208
Credit: 3,785,092
RAC: 5,239
United States
Message 1330311 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 6:04:29 UTC

Sarge Da Pro Say:

antagonizes all but about 3 posters in the Political Forum


Definition Of Politics: To Antagonize Others Not Of Your Viewpoints. To Not Discuss and Compromise. To use Rhetoric and Other Very Divisive Devices To Obliterate Opposition. To use The Friendly Media to Further Bury Your Opponent.
Many Tactics will be illegal, nearly illegal, Conspritorial, and Definitely Not Democratic.

In Other Words: To Be POTUS in The 21st Century.

So Why Should A Political Forum Be Any Different?

PROFessor S. Say: Let The Vapid Vicious Vitriol Vaporize Any Vestige Of Violable Compromise Begin.
____________



Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 38,338,523
RAC: 29,395
Message 1330334 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 10:30:53 UTC - in response to Message 1330310.
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 19:21:04 UTC

--

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1330387 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 16:10:21 UTC - in response to Message 1330334.


SCOTUS isn't the final arbitrator of law, ICJ is the final arbitrator of law.


So, the next time I lose my case at the SCOTUS, I can appeal to the ICJ. Good to know.


LOL! There is NO law made by man in this world that trumps the Constitution. We don't pledge our allegiance to ICJ. Nor did Barry take a oath to the ICJ.

Such people who think so have no understanding of rights. Oaths mean nothing to them. And law is only agreed with if it has a socialist tint.

ALL law has come from God whether the God less want to believe it or not. LOL, law does not come from the ICJ.
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12315
Credit: 6,607,829
RAC: 8,667
United States
Message 1330456 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 19:16:35 UTC - in response to Message 1330334.


SCOTUS isn't the final arbitrator of law, ICJ is the final arbitrator of law.


So, the next time I lose my case at the SCOTUS, I can appeal to the ICJ. Good to know.

You can as long as you can convince the ICJ to take the case. Enforcing the judgement is another matter.

____________

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8254
Credit: 54,373,716
RAC: 74,036
United Kingdom
Message 1330481 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 20:05:32 UTC - in response to Message 1330387.


SCOTUS isn't the final arbitrator of law, ICJ is the final arbitrator of law.


So, the next time I lose my case at the SCOTUS, I can appeal to the ICJ. Good to know.


LOL! There is NO law made by man in this world that trumps the Constitution. We don't pledge our allegiance to ICJ. Nor did Barry take a oath to the ICJ.

Such people who think so have no understanding of rights. Oaths mean nothing to them. And law is only agreed with if it has a socialist tint.

ALL law has come from God whether the God less want to believe it or not. LOL, law does not come from the ICJ.


Sorry to disavow you of your ignorance about the law.
I live in a country which is NOT covered by the US constitution, indeed somewhat more than 50% of the world's population are not covered by it, however somewhat more than 50% of the world's population do live in countries that have signed up to the IJC as the "final legal arbiter", and that figure includes the USA. No argument, fact, the US constitution is therefore, in legal terms, subservient to the an ICJ ruling.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12315
Credit: 6,607,829
RAC: 8,667
United States
Message 1330493 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 20:51:52 UTC - in response to Message 1330481.

No argument, fact, the US constitution is therefore, in legal terms, subservient to the an ICJ ruling.

Yes, the US Constitution even provides for this whereby it delegates the authority for treaties to the President with the consent of the Senate.

____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1330510 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 21:54:28 UTC

The Constitution is the only law that we citizens abide by.

It's called the law of the land for a reason, we abide by it.

And them who voted for it, commited treason to Country. That is the law of the land.

Hence the word--sheeple.
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8254
Credit: 54,373,716
RAC: 74,036
United Kingdom
Message 1330511 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 22:02:30 UTC

Wrong.
The "Law of The Land" is the whole law, as laid down by statue, not some arbitrary subset, either historical, or contemporary in nature.
Statute that has passed through the various stages of testing and approval by the various parts of the government of the land concerned.
A citizen may not like some, or all of that law, but that is, by definition and statute "The Law of the Land".

I have to say, as an outsider, that the US constitution cannot have been perfect at the outset as it has required a number of amendments over the years to cope with its deficiencies (perceived or real).
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Message boards : Politics : Final arbitrator of law and ignorance of it.

Copyright © 2014 University of California