Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
That is a matter of your wrong opinion!
Do you know your A..B..C..s ?
- Thread starter Libhater
- Start date
What does the law mean if the court can't interpret the law? If the Prosecutors say that the law against murder also includes damage to a window then the court would have to accept that since they can't interpret the law according to you. The only way the court can NOT accept that argument is if they interpret the law against murder to only include death of a person. Your argument fails because all decisions about the law involves the need to interpret the meaning of the law. It is impossible to rule on the law without interpreting the law.
Are you now saying powers haven't been reserved to the individual states but only the states as a whole? All states don't have to agree for an amendment to be ratified but even states that disagree are bound by that amendment when ratified.
What is a Constitutional crisis? How are they resolved? Doesn't the court have to interpret the Constitution in order to resolve that crisis?
The only way the Supreme Court can make that ruling is if they interpret the Constitution to mean that the power to apply tariffs is not reserved to the states. You have just laid out a scenario to do what you claim they cannot do.
Some powers must be reserved to the people or the clause makes no sense.
If the courts don't rule on cases can you provide one ruling where the law signed the ruling? Judges rule. The law doesn't rule. Judges make rulings based their interpretation of the law. How does anyone know the meaning of a law if they don't interpret it?
Our discussion is at an impasse. It seems you are going to argue that judges know what laws mean without ever interpreting what the meaning is and I am going to argue that no one can know meaning without interpreting the meaning from the words. It seems we can't even agree on how the English language works as you argue that dependent clauses are independent.
Your denial of what is clearly shown in the video is noted.
People that can't accept facts as facts are not worth talking to since they are delusional. The video you are claiming shows no violence is here.
Everyone is free to look at the video and decide for themselves if the video shows Josiah Kenyon swinging what is described as a table leg at police officers. At 47 seconds the video is slowed down and clearly shows Josiah Kenyon swinging the object at police officers. Someone that is pointing a stick doesn't wind up and swing it. I wonder if you can get anyone to support your version of events that there is no rapid movement of the object towards officers.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
It means that the court tries the cases, i.e. listens to both sides. The law that decides the case is simply read. It is written in English, and no interpreting is needed.
No Prosecutor gets to declare what any law includes. Prosecutors can claim that particular laws support their cases, and defense counsel can provide case law as examples of how those laws do not. They all provide laws, as written, and don't get to interpret any of them.
Remember, according to the Constitution, the power to interpret is reserved to the States. Let's not forget that.
I'm stunned that you aren't grasping this. Did you ever take set theory? Do you remember any of it?
Correct. So why are you having trouble with the preceding comment?
So what are you having trouble understanding?
Are you asking me to teach you?
War, typically.
No. Remember, according to the Constitution, the power to interpret is reserved to the States. Let's not forget that.
Remember, according to the Constitution, the power to interpret is reserved to the States. Let's not forget that.
Exactly, which is why the Bill of Rights was created. The clause you mention preceded the Bill of Rights.
I cannot provide a single instance of any law signing anything. You really got me on that one. Yessiree.
Nope. Judges preside. The law rules.
Yes, it does.
In order to have rule of law, the law and the law alone must rule.
Judges hand down decisions, and sign their names to them, based entirely on what the law determines.
Actually, we aren't really discussing so much as I am teaching you. Now you need to decide if you want to learn from me and up your legal acumen, or if you prefer to double down on stupid because it's so much easier.
It doesn't merely seem that way, I am, in fact, pointing out to you that our laws are made in plain English by elected representatives of We the People. All English speakers, and this includes all judges, who read law instantly know what it means without having to call in any interpreters.
How do you not know this?
I immediately understand every law I read. Am I a super-human genius or was your point stupid to begin with?
Let's jump to the chase. Are you saying that no one can know the meaning of a law until reading it?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I would really like to know who is so out of touch with reality that he thinks that pointing a stick is swinging a stick.
I have already added you to the list. Does anyone else need to be added?
Nope. At 47 seconds, the video clearly shows Josiah Kenyon pointing a stick at a single police officer.
Don't worry, you're on the list.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win
Too funny!!! hater moved from a red state to a blue state saying he wanted to be near extended family, A family who he hates because they are liberal 
Is the regime the same as the deep state and the swamp?
Libhater
Verified User
Couple of things I really hate is the majority of Jewish leaders that helped lead the Bolshevik Revolution in killing 100s of millions people in early 20th century Russia. I also hate the ideologies and or actions/policies of blue states like Taxachusetts that isToo funny!!! hater moved from a red state to a blue state saying he wanted to be near extended family, A family who he hates because they are liberal
Is the regime the same as the deep state and the swamp?
currently seeing quite an uptick in illegals disrupt the entire Boston area et al.
And yes, Biden's current regime consists totally of those anti American Marxists in the Deep State and the Swamp. Trump has
promised to oust every single one of those anti-American scum, like he did with that comey asshole et al.
A still picture of Josiah Kenyon in his windup before swinging the table leg at police officers. This is from a different video.
It's easy to see the blur of his arms in the picture because he is in the process of bringing the table leg back before swinging in an overhead motion at the officers in front of him.
Remember, you have not pointed to anywhere in the Constitution that takes the power away from the courts that extends to all cases. You have not told us how anyone can determine meaning without understanding the meaning of the words. Understanding the meaning of the words is interpretation. You are pretending that we should rely on the meaning of words and then you ignore the meaning of words.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I'm sure that California is also happy to get rid of as many resident trumpanzee mutants as possible.
They're an embarrassment to every blue state.
That applies to Massachusetts, as well, of course, so let's see what happens.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You haven't posted any video of him being violent. Why did you post only this still image and not the video? Is he not really in a "wind-up" but actually pulling his stick back so that the guy in front of him can't grab it and take it away? I will assume the latter until you post a video that confirms otherwise.A still picture of Josiah Kenyon in his windup before swinging the table leg at police officers.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Logic Failure: the courts never had the power you claim I am trying to "take away." Remember that you have never shown that the courts ever had that power, mainly because the Constitution reserved it to the States.
You have not explained how someone who knows the meaning of words would somehow need an interpreter to know the meaning of words.
Nope. Interpreting means to convert something unintelligible to a form that is understood. All English speakers already understand the law upon reading it.
ROFLMAO. Ok.. Troll away, troll. I have posted the video twice and you just denied that the swing of the table leg shown in the still picture occurred.
OK... So the meaning of the second amendment then means people can keep their arms and it has nothing to do with guns. Every English speaker knows your arms are what is between your shoulder and your hands. Any other interpretation must be a wrong interpretation since the most common definition of arms is bone and flesh. Clearly the courts have gotten it wrong since you don't need an interpreter to tell you what your arms are.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
ROFLMAO. Ok.. Troll away, troll. You have posted the video twice and you just keep insisting that the pointing of the stick is a violent attack, all in an effort to delude yourself of whatever you have been ordered to believe by the people who do your thinking for you.
You're probably wondering why no rational adults accept your delusion. LOL
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. English speakers are humans who understand context and who understand the 2nd Amendment upon reading it.
I'll tell you what, let me ask a few English-speaking teenagers if they simply and immediately understand the 2nd Amendment, and I'll get back to you with my results.
Constitution ratified in 1788.
10th Amendment ratified in 1791.
Even under your argument the courts had that power in 1788.
Let's combine your arguments. You agreed that the first video I posted showed someone breaking a window but you argued that breaking a window wasn't violence.
Are windows property if they belong to someone or some entity that can own property? Any English speaker would agree that they are property. You even referred to them as property being damaged.
Since windows are property then we need no interpretation to know that breaking a window is a crime of violence. One needs only read the law that needs no interpretation. Physical force used against property is a crime of violence. A crime of violence includes an act of violence.
18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined
The term “crime of violence” means—
(a)
an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b)
any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
Good luck arguing your interpretation.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
So it has come down to this. You have been relegated to quibbling over the definition of violence, trying to get all sorts of nonviolence admitted as "violence" because you can't meet your burden to support your argument.
Let's review.
* Conservatives preacefully protested the stealing of the election on 6 Jan
* The DNC infiltrated the peaceful protests with violent actors pretending to be aggressive conservatives who became violent on cue
* The police and prosecutors then arrested peaceful conservatives and wrongfully imprisoned them as punishment for being protesting conservatives and to promulgate the narrative that Trump ordered an "insurrection."
* Per the agreement, none of the people who were actually violent were ever arraigned, or even investigated
* Only conservatives who were not DNC operatives were persecuted by the Justice department
* Ergo, no person clearly caught on camera violently attacking others ever went to prison or was even arrested
* Ergo, there is no video of anyone who did go to prison shown clearly violently attacking others in any video
* In order to continue promulgating the false narrative, leftists are relegated to making false claims about still photos, falsely claiming that non-violence is something wildly different from what it obviously is, and quibbling over definitions of violence in order to get mere breathing accepted as "violence."
How can I possibly be quibbling over the definition of violence since it is clearly defined in the law. The same law that you say is not to be interpreted. It is you that is violating your own argument by now claiming that what you admit was destruction of property isn't violence even though the law you claim should be taken as written shows your argument to be false.
Is the law to be followed without interpretation or not? The law clearly says that the use of physical force against property is violence.
You admitted that the breaking of window was an attack on property.
That means that the video clearly shows violence. You are the one that is quibbling and trying to avoid a simple reading of the law which you claim must be done.
Your "review" would seem to indicate that you are trying to interpret the law to not be what it clearly states.
I see you have also decided to move the goalposts by now claiming that only violence against another person counts as violence. It seems you can't follow your own rules. Spin all you want.
The fact is you were presented a video of someone breaking a window that you admit is in the video.
The law clearly states that an attack on property is an act of violence.
You have been shown the video you asked for. You admitted that the video included violence based on the reading of the law you say can't be interpreted but must be followed without any interpretation.
Now you are attempting to claim that the law can't be followed or the video you admitted included violence no longer includes violence.
There is no other review that needs to be done. You are now trying to deny facts that you admit exist.