I'm just seeing this post now, and its freaking gold.

errr you're about to say why for me. wait for it:

Oh there it is!
That's relevant.
Hmm so the constitution contains only natural rights? Thats funny, here I thought it outlined our government
Err ok I guess? It doesn't change the fact that your definition of treason would be unconstitutional, and by your reasoning, treasonous. Its quite a funny loop.


I'll answer this with a story. My sister, who is a freshman in college, told me last week that sperm don't penetrate eggs, the egg pulls it in. I told her she was wrong. She responded with 'My prof has more than a degree from Michigan.' I told her I didn't think her prof was wrong.

Oh yeah? If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you. So there!

Yes, thank god apparently.

Bump for Mainstream Media Coverage and ACLU Lawsuit against Janet Napolitano

The TSA has to be my least favorite gov't organization.

Note: I'm not a legal scholar and not the strongest student of history, so 2 cents and all, with salt... This is clearly lacking in intellectual rigor. All humans are fallible, and all ideas and persons should be subjected to healthy criticism.

Perhaps you can, being privately educated, understand the intellectual significance of appealing to authority in the way you are.
The Declaration and its signing were not an act of creation, only an act of destruction, destruction of political bands and identity with a tyrannical government.
I doubt this is a legal argument. Just saying, if you want to prove the Declaration is law you need to make a legal argument not an analogy.
The Declaration is just that - a declaration of independence and a(n implicit, iirc) statement of intention to create a new government. It is not in itself the creation of a government or body of laws. It is a statement of principles, principles which will be used as a guiding light for future legal interpretations, but which are not in and of themselves law.

The government was one that was created on a system of laws, and which therefore needs to codify any idea for it to become usable within that system. The Declaration was not codified (to the best of my knowledge) into the applicable legal code, and therefore is not able to be referenced, save insofar as it guides the opinions of judges on issues of intent of early law, and guides their approach to legal interpretation in general. The Constitutional Convention was formed precisely to create a(n amended) legal framework through a process of compromise, debate, and politicking that would satisfy all political bodies involved in the process. If they did not specifically codify the Declaration's text in the newest version of law then it does not legally apply to the system of governance they created.

Besides, the Declaration does not properly construct a coherent legal system, and aside from those simple and few natural rights it enumerates, is extremely short on "legal" declarations. To claim it as a founding document in the legal sense seems inappropriate.

And this is precisely where your definitions get mixed up. By definition the Constitution is the founding document of the current US government. It enumerates the laws, rights, and formulation of the government we exist in. It does this, and anything prior to this no longer remains applicable as the law of the land, save for the instances I mentioned before. It is the product of an attempt to amend the previous founding document, and is a creation of a new government and "nation"(-state).

The ideas of the Declaration are a system of law - but not one in use by the current government. Natural Rights are enforceable only insofar as individuals internalize and act on their principles. If an individual does not believe in the concept of these rights as dictated in the Declaration, he is under no legal requirement to live by them.
Really unnecessary. Is this helping your position, or is this trolling? What does the latter accomplish? Why should I respect your opinions when you are going to come out and trash talk like this, and why should you have any moral high ground to say you shouldn't respond to other posters when they somewhat insulting and rude posts questioning your assumptions?

For the record, I was privately schooled up until college so I'm not taking personal offense here. But it is one thing to say, "there are issues with public schooling and the mainstream intellectual culture," and explain the distinctions, and another thing to make unnecessarily inflammatory comments. Note how the framing and voice will dictate the responses you will receive.

You are turning this into an ego contest, and shifting the focus from the issues. This ego contest is going to further cloud your judgment - already so clouded by your blind spot regarding Judge Napolitano.

PS. TSA/DHS are a disaster imo

How the United States was created is an awesome story.

But it's current downfall is going to make a much much more awesome story.

When I'm dead in the future and someone once again decides to make a free country I hope they use us of an example of how not to ruin freedom.

Went through the airport today and was about 2 seconds away from telling a TSA agent he was born ******ed and dropped as a child. Dumbass thought he saw a nailclipper in my backpack after squinting at the machine for 3 minutes. Then he decided to go through my bag.

He couldn't open the zippers to get in and got pissed when I tried to open it for him. Took 10 minutes to go through my barely full backpack and didn't find anything. So that's it right? No, he takes it back to the x-ray machine and we do the whole thing over again.

For a nail clipper..... that didn't exist.

Oh and he had a handlebar mustache.

That's nothing.

post of the year, there's little doubt in my mind if there's a revolution in the future, the 20th century - present U.S. will be a textbook example of how a true republic slowly implodes without people caring


as far the discussion earlier about a cop wanting to search your car, I have an index card with my insurance card/registration that basically says "im not stopped voluntarily and would like to be told when i'm free to go, i'm yielding all potentially incriminating examination to the 4th and 5th amendments" etc. also only open your window an inch when you have to exchange with the cop.

it is wild how RPR comes along and makes some informative and interesting posts and you then nitpick him. in this post you REPEAT THE EXACT SAME INFORMATION RPR posted the exactly previous post, but switch a few words around to twist the meaning in an embarrasing attempt to show RPR is wrong.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/589.html

wow that is great audio. i had just gotten into the US airport after a long flight, right after surgery (not serious). a TSA pulled me aside to question me at some point, then let me go. i asked him why he stopped me for extra questioning. which did not result in me learning anything since he gave an answer completely void of information... but it did result in him coming into the baggage claim area five minutes later at a brisk pace to search my bag and ask me more questions.

i have a tendency to buy plane tickets within the same week of the flight, which is almost surely why i get flagged for questioning all the time. but it's just stupid, i am a clean cut american jew white boy. so he asked me questions like "you have a good time over there?" "what were you upto?" and i just nodded my head or gave one word answers. this guy got super pissed. like i was a meddlesome child interferring with his holy work. he said he was just trying to do his job but since i wanted to be a jerk about it we could do it the hard way. but he already knew i was coming back from germany after having surgery. what was suspicious about that?

so i was in a lot of pain from surgery and extremely tired and he took me to an interrogation room. he went of to scan my passport in a backroom. he told me he was going to do a search of my person and had me to face the wall, spread my legs, and put my hands on the wall. whenever i moved my legs or turned my head around he shouted at me like he had apprehended me with a gun in my hand robbing someone. he also had another policeman or two in the room giving him back up.

the audio if this guy reminded me of how that happened to me. it makes me realize how the police officer was being an even bigger jerk than i realized. i wasn't a jerk to him, i just responded with one word answers to his questions. questions he asked pretending to be a friend, but which he really was using his force as a police officer to ask. and when i didn't play along with the lie he got mad fast and was a big jerk doing everything in his power to be a jerk to me.

i was also a little bitch about it. it felt bad being yelled at by a police officer, and being forced to do things against my will.

edit, cliffnotes- after surgery, not sleeping 40 hours, long plane flight, arriving in boston at night in a snow storm, after 1 hour baggage delay... i responsd to police officers leading questions with one word answers... police officer holds me for an hour of questioning and treats me like a dangerous criminal

Damn dude that's a crappy story... did you ever get to file a complaint or harassment charge ?hopefully someday he'll get his... most scumbags always do

Seriously in the future it would problably be like a 21 credit college class doing a case study on where we went wrong