Has Jeb Bush quit the New World Order?

[ChumpDumper]

the fifth ammendment.

And since you didn't know that, you proved were coming from an ignorant premise on the libertarian argument for the CRA.

Glad I could educate you.

Sorry, the passing of a congressional act is clearly due process of law.

Since you didn't know that, you proved you were coming from an ignorant premise on the logical argument for the CRA.

Glad I could educate you.

[Ignignokt]

They should have written that down if they thought it was that important.

Principles are reflected in laws. If you want a pro-discrimination amendment, I suggest you contact your representatives in Congress.

I understand where you are coming from, but the principles are rarely inviolate -- as Rand Paul has been proving rather consistently of late.

None of these arguments, personal fault of said believers, the fact that you haven't read the fifth ammendment, and your purposeful mischarecterization of someone as being pro discrimintation have anything to do with the fact the fifth ammendment grants us property rights.

[Parker2112]

Which state and in what year?

I'm talking about the current, and any state outside the armpit.

Do you think any state would allow re-segregation, if the federal gov all of a sudden says "not our business"? Honestly?

[DMX7]

the fifth ammendment.

And since you didn't know that, you proved were coming from an ignorant premise on the libertarian argument for the CRA.

Glad I could educate you.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"



Wrong amendment?

[Ignignokt]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"



Wrong amendment?

illiterate?

[ChumpDumper]

None of these arguments, personal fault of said believers, the fact that you haven't read the fifth ammendment

I read the whole amendment. You didn't.

and your purposeful mischarecterization of someone as being pro discrimintation

You are for the right to discriminate on the basis of race because property is more important to you.

have anything to do with the fact the fifth ammendment grants us property rights.

That can be abridged by due process of law.

[ChumpDumper]

illiterate?

due process of law

illiterate?

[Parker2112]

Look at the parallels between old england, the colonies, and now the states and washington. The peoples interests are no longer being represented by washington. Im not condoning revolt, Im saying we need to start electing candidates who will PULL THE DAMN TOOTH. Term limits. Saying no to federal spending on wars and pork, severing the dependence we are devolping on federal dollars that ultimately cause inflation and hurt the poor.

Who better serves minorities...someone who would offer federal protections for thier rights, or someone who would keep the doolar strong so they could afford to raise a family?

The answer is, the federal protections come with federal beaurocracy, and they come with a dildo, ready to minorities by reducing their quality of life.

I think the Civil Rights Act is probably the poorest example of an "out of control" federal government anyone could possibly put forth.

So libertarians would willingly give up their liberties as long as they were taken away locally?

Nice.

Please explain.

First see above.

Ultimately, as far as state rep vs fed representation, The point is, you dont give up freedoms to local govt, you wont have to. Those representatives live in your community, they shop where you shop, they go to church where you go to church, they eat at restaurants you eat at...etc

They are limited as to how far they can take advantage of the electorate.

Ron Paul would say, if you dont like the politics locally, either move to a state/community that reflects your values (move to cali if you want to toke it up) or change the roster in office with your own power as a voter.

Think about how detached everyone is from gov, they hand away thier responsibilities to wealthy officials in washington who know how to make the best use of them. Dont you think the public would be more involved if these sort of major decisions were made at the state level?

[DMX7]

illiterate?

That can be abridged by "due process of law".

[Ignignokt]

[SIZE="7"]illiterate?

You're a moron.

Due process does not mean legislation, but court rulings.

THe CRA was a legislative peice.

Ignorant of the Cons ution much?

[ChumpDumper]

You're a moron.

Due process does not mean legislation, but court rulings.
THe CRA was a legislative peice.

Ignorant of the Cons ution much?

The law is passed then it it ruled upon by the courts.

It is a process.

Of law.

Ignorant of the process of law much?

[Parker2112]

You're a moron.

Due process does not mean legislation, but court rulings.

THe CRA was a legislative peice.

Ignorant of the Cons ution much?

your wrong sir. Due process is that amount of legal process required to ensure that citizens are afforded the right to be present, be aware, be present, mount a defense, whenever the government seeks to interfere with life liberty or property.

Sometimes that comes through legislation, specifically when you are talking about en lement programs. If the SSA takes your benefits, you are afforded due process through the enacting legislation, and you will seek those rights first through administrative avenues, not through the judiciary.

[ChumpDumper]

First see above.

Ultimately, as far as state rep vs fed representation, The point is, you dont give up freedoms to local govt, you wont have to. Those representatives live in your community, they shop where you shop, they go to church where you go to church, they eat at restaurants you eat at...etc

They are limited as to how far they can take advantage of the electorate.

Ron Paul would say, if you dont like the politics locally, either move to a state/community that reflects your values (move to cali if you want to toke it up) or change the roster in office with your own power as a voter.

Think about how detached everyone is from gov, they hand away thier responsibilities to wealthy officials in washington who know how to make the best use of them. Dont you think the public would be more involved if these sort of major decisions were made at the state level?

No. I think most people don't give much of a at any level. If something really bugs them, they will get involved, but that's a very high threshold for most.

[Ignignokt]

The law is passed then it it ruled upon by the courts.

It is a process.

Of law.

Ignorant of the process of law much?

THat's not the process of law at all.

After legislation passes the courts are not next in order to rule upon, it is the executive who executes.

Legislation passes and it might be ruled by the courts if the case is brought up.

[DMX7]

After legislation passes the courts are not next in order to rule upon, it is the executive who executes.

Legislation passes and it might be ruled by the courts if the case is brought up.

You mean like this?

"The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpreting the extent of the civil rights. A single Supreme Court ruling can change the very nature of a right throughout the entire country. Supreme Court decisions can also affect the manner in which Congress enacts civil rights legislation, as occurred with the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

[Parker2112]

No. I think most people don't give much of a at any level. If something really bugs them, they will get involved, but that's a very high threshold for most.

But if that involvement is limited to federal elections, they are pissing away the effort. which keeps us on our knees.

[Ignignokt]

your wrong sir. Due process is that amount of legal process required to ensure that citizens are afforded the right to be present, be aware, be present, mount a defense, whenever the government seeks to interfere with life liberty or property.

Sometimes that comes through legislation, specifically when you are talking about en lement programs. If the SSA takes your benefits, you are afforded due process through the enacting legislation, and you will seek those rights first through administrative avenues, not through the judiciary.

You're wrong sir, that's only half the story

Here's a founding father on the issue;

"The words 'due process' have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature."-Alexander Hamilton

[ChumpDumper]

THat's not the process of law at all.

After legislation passes the courts are not next in order to rule upon, it is the executive who executes.

Legislation passes and it might be ruled by the courts if the case is brought up.

So it's not solely the courts?

Thanks for admitting you were completely wrong about that.

Yeah, if by execute you mean "sign into law" -- I can go along with that. I don't think the executive has to actively enforce a law for it to be challenged in a court.

If there were no laws to process, there would be no process.

Can you provide the court challenges to the CRA?

[Parker2112]

You're wrong sir, that's only half the story

Here's a founding father on the issue;

"The words 'due process' have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature."-Alexander Hamilton

in his day that was the case. There was no such thing as federal en lements in those days.

Technically the due process doesnt end with the legislation, but the process is laid out there and the ultimate authority for these types of programs, as well as regulation enforced by federal agencies is through the regulatory process.

Start dumping solid waste and the EPA is going to be where you are afforded due process, as set forth in legislation.

[Ignignokt]

You mean like this?

"The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpreting the extent of the civil rights. A single Supreme Court ruling can change the very nature of a right throughout the entire country. Supreme Court decisions can also affect the manner in which Congress enacts civil rights legislation, as occurred with the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

Exactly, it is the power of the supreme courts to interpret that by the Law of the Land, the cons ution. That is due process.

The courts can get it wrong, or produce some bull excuse, doesn't mean that you can or cannot argue the CRA's violation of the 5th ammendemnt's principle.

“examine the cons ution itself, to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions....”-Murray vs Hoboken Land, US 59 272 1855

So, only thru due process can a court strip away property but it must not violate and must be beholden to the cons ution.

Due process and Law of the land were interchangeable terms legally in the beggining of this nation.

[Parker2112]

I lie. administrative bodies wouldnt have the ultimate authority, but you would get your ass kicked out of court if you didnt follow the requirements for challenging the procedures reqd in the legislation, which would mean a regulatory agency determination first.

[Ignignokt]

So it's not solely the courts?

Thanks for admitting you were completely wrong about that.

Yeah, if by execute you mean "sign into law" -- I can go along with that. I don't think the executive has to actively enforce a law for it to be challenged in a court.

If there were no laws to process, there would be no process.

Can you provide the court challenges to the CRA?

Don't be an ass and put words in my mouth.

Process of law does not equate to due process.

Process of law can mean many things.

You are still clueless as to what due process law means.

It's not the about how a bill is made, Dumbass.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't be an ass and put words in my mouth.

Process of law does not equate to due process.

Process of law can mean many things.

You are still clueless as to what due process law means.

It's not the about how a bill is made, Dumbass.

No, I know what you are getting a -- the process of a law's being duly processed is quite clear, but it's been 46 years -- seems like there has been plenty of time to mount a successful challenge to the Civil Rights Act based on the 5th Amendment.

I have asked you to provide that.

All I have gotten is your Cliff's Notes version of the Wikipedia article on due process, dumbass.

[Ignignokt]

No, I know what you are getting at, but it's been 46 years -- seems like there has been plenty of time to mount a successful challenge to the Civil Rights Act.

I have asked you to provide that.

All I have gotten is your Cliff's Notes version of the Wikipedia article on due process.

I don't deny that the CRA is still enforced.

But, that's because lately nobody has had the stones to defend the principle, and no politician would risk their livelihood to do that.

But with such arguments as " You're pro discrimination" it's no surprise people are too afraid to touch that issue.

[Parker2112]

Exactly, it is the power of the supreme courts to interpret that by the Law of the Land, the cons ution. That is due process.

The courts can get it wrong, or produce some bull excuse, doesn't mean that you can or cannot argue the CRA's violation of the 5th ammendemnt's principle.

“examine the cons ution itself, to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions....”-Murray vs Hoboken Land, US 59 272 1855

So, only thru due process can a court strip away property but it must not violate and must be beholden to the cons ution.

Due process and Law of the land were interchangeable terms legally in the beggining of this nation.

wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Due process is judicially construed, and wasnt around at our founding. We had rights, but they had yet to be specifically enumerated by our govt. The cons ution did not provide the specific guarantees that encompass due process.

Courts have fleshed it out. you are guaranteed the right to have notice of charges, you are guaranteed the right to have a lawyer if you want one, you are guaranteed the right to have the opportunity to be present if your rights are in jeopardy, you are guaranteed the right to be heard in your own defense. Those things have come to being inside courts throughout the twentieth century.

You are actually on the right track, but you need to do some more investigation...you dont grasp the whole concept here.