Has Jeb Bush quit the New World Order?

[Ignignokt]

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

I've given you a court case example, dumbass.

[ChumpDumper]

I've given you a court case example, dumbass.

No, you didn't. You gave me a quote from the wiki article you've been mining.

Show me a challenge to the CRA based on the 5th amendment. I think it's rather paradoxical as you are demanding due process be fully implemented before enforcing a law, but the process cannot take place until a law is indeed enforced.

[Ignignokt]

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.

whotTTTTt???

That's been my argument, all that you described is what happens in a court hearing, not a legislative meeting.

[Ignignokt]

Your assertion that Due process wasn't around in the beggining of our nation is false too, it was taken from the magna carta.
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

[Ignignokt]

So, what that means is that you can't have your property seized unless tried in court through dilligence in a jury of your peers, or a judge, sans Emminent domain.

[ChumpDumper]

You should just post the entire wiki article in one place, gtown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

[Ignignokt]

No, you didn't. You gave me a quote from the wiki article you've been mining.

Show me a challenge to the CRA based on the 5th amendment. I think it's rather paradoxical as you are demanding due process be fully implemented before enforcing a law, but the process cannot take place until a law is indeed enforced.

what, i'm not demanding that. the , i'm not saying courts should rule on every idea before it becomes a bill.

I said that only individual court rulings can deny property rights, that's a totally different thing there.

Either you're dishonest, or can't read.

[Ignignokt]

You should just post the entire wiki article in one place, gtown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

LOL, so you got owned by Wikipedia, don't .

[Ignignokt]

Also, hamilton made that statement in 1788 and the BOR was solidified in 1789. So, paker, you argument is weak.

[ChumpDumper]

what, i'm not demanding that. the , i'm not saying courts should rule on every idea before it becomes a bill.

I said that only individual court rulings can deny property rights, that's a totally different thing there.

Either you're dishonest, or can't read.

Nah, you're being quote dishonest here, or can't understand your own argument. I'll believe either one.

LOL, so you got owned by Wikipedia, don't .

Not at all, there was some good info in there, but it owned you more than anyone once you started quoting it.

[Ignignokt]

Nah, you're being quote dishonest here, or can't understand your own argument. I'll believe either one.

Not at all, there was some good info in there, but it owned you more than anyone once you started quoting it.

Ha, you haven't refuted , except mischaraterzied my arguments, got called on it, and ing and crying about me using wiki is proof.


And now since you've been reading it, you've abandoned your argument and now resorting to strawman tactics.

[ChumpDumper]

Ha, you haven't refuted , except mischaraterzied my arguments, got called on it, and ing and crying about me using wiki is proof.

Not at all. You have shown nothing to prove that the CRA hasn't gone through any due process, only that you are ing that the courts never ruled the way you think they should have. Your own wiki quote says that due process and law of the land were used interchangeably in the early US.

And now since you've been reading it, you've abandoned your argument and now resorting to strawman tactics.

Not at all. The Civil Rights Act is by cons utional definition the law of the land, and there has been over four decades of due process to prove you completely wrong.

You have been wrong your entire life. Thanks for using wiki to prove it!

[Parker2112]

So, what that means is that you can't have your property seized unless tried in court through dilligence in a jury of your peers, or a judge, sans Emminent domain.

You can have property siezed by a federal agency, and though you will be afforded due process, you may never reach the courts.

[DMX7]

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.

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

Well... First of all, we're not talking about courts stripping away property. We're talking about your "liberty", presumably your "liberty" to discriminate against black people in private businesses, being denied. (How sad by the way )

And that would only be a violation of the fifth amendment of the Cons ution if you weren't afforded "due process", but you were. You just admitted it! So how is CRA a violation of the Cons ution? It's not.

[Galileo]

Look at the black kids who can eat at lunch counters.

I doubt a true libertarian would make the distinction between federal and local government when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

You're just upset that another of your NWO brethren has defected to the pro-Liberty movement.

[ChumpDumper]

You're just upset that another of your NWO brethren has defected to the pro-Liberty movement.

You're just upset that Rand Paul isn't the person you thought and never was.

[Galileo]

You're just upset that Rand Paul isn't the person you thought and never was.

You're just upset that Rand is kicking the out of the liberals!

[ChumpDumper]

You're just upset that Rand is kicking the out of the liberals!

You're just upset that Rand is losing his lead in the race and compromising his "principles" to get elected!

[Galileo]

You're just upset that Rand is losing his lead in the race and compromising his "principles" to get elected!

You're just suffering liberal rage!!!

[ChumpDumper]

You're the one freaking out with the emoiticons.

Rand could still win, but probably after selling out a bit more.

[Galileo]

You're the one freaking out with the emoiticons.

Rand could still win, but probably after selling out a bit more.

Jeb Bush is the one who sold out!!

Ha! Ha!

[ChumpDumper]

Jeb Bush is the one who sold out!!

Ha! Ha!

During the primary season, Rand Paul pledged not to accept campaign donations from any lawmaker who voted for the Wall Street bailout. But little more than a month after he won the nomination, the GOP candidate was feted at a Washington fundraiser hosted by Senator Mitch McConnell and attended by eight other Republican senators who voted for the bill.

http://theweek.com/article/index/204...ump-5-theories

Ha! Ha!

[Galileo]

http://theweek.com/article/index/204...ump-5-theories

Ha! Ha!

How does that help the NWO???

[ChumpDumper]

How does that help the NWO???

They will own another senator.

[Galileo]

They will own another senator.

Rand Paul can't be bought. You fear him.