One reason for social distancing/isolation

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > One reason for social distancing/isolation > Page 11

Page 11 of 20

29-05-2020 18:41
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	IBD, You say "semantics is all that matters". There is much that matters - truth, honesty, accurate info, polite manners etc. Semantics isn't really important except to you. For example, it doesn't matter whether you use "interpret", "ascertain the meaning" or whatever. It's what Judicial Review does. If you don't like it , try to make a case against it in the proper channels. You could move to canada i guess. Edited on 29-05-2020 18:44
29-05-2020 18:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: There is much that matters - truth, honesty, accurate info, polite manners etc. Semantics is the vehicle for all of that. You can't claim to care about honesty and accurate information and then bash on others for taking care to get the semantics correct. Those who complain about "semantics" are inherntly dishonest people. That would certainly include you. keepit wrote: For example, it doesn't matter whether you use "interpret", "ascertain the meaning" or whatever. For example, and inherently dishonest person would fabricate verbiage when asked what the Cosntitution reads. . Attached image:
29-05-2020 19:05
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: IBD, You say "semantics is all that matters". On a forum such as this, yes. keepit wrote: There is much that matters - truth, honesty, accurate info, polite manners etc. Semantics isn't really important except to you. All of those things require semantics. keepit wrote: For example, it doesn't matter whether you use "interpret", "ascertain the meaning" or whatever. Yes, it does. To "ascertain" something is not to "interpret" something. Those words have different meanings. keepit wrote: It's what Judicial Review does. If you don't like it , try to make a case against it in the proper channels. Your repetition has already been responded to. keepit wrote: You could move to canada i guess. No. I happen to actually like this federated republic called the USA. YOU are the one who desires to fundamentally transform it into a tyrannical socialist oligarchy. YOU are the one who rejects its Constitution. YOU move to Canada then, eh? BTW, Canada is a proper noun. It is capitalized. Edited on 29-05-2020 19:08
29-05-2020 19:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote:BTW, Canada is a proper noun. It is capitalized. In his defence, keepit did ask me to teach him the English grammar that he should have learned when he was a child ... but I haven't gotten around to it yet. . Attached image:
29-05-2020 19:39
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:BTW, Canada is a proper noun. It is capitalized. In his defence, keepit did ask me to teach him the English grammar that he should have learned when he was a child ... but I haven't gotten around to it yet. . Well, he needs it, and pronto! It's quite painful to witness. I'd be willing to teach him how to diagram sentences, but he's nowhere near that "difficulty" level yet, even though I was taught how to do that in 5th grade at my private school that I attended. One of my most painful memories is from one of my high school (a public school) English classes in which the teacher was attempting to teach the class how to diagram sentences. Now, I was completely bored out of my mind, since I had already quite extensively learned how to do this in 5th grade, but most of the class (mostly consisting of public school students) acted as if they had never before been exposed to such a thing. They didn't even know how to properly identify nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, etc... It was PAINFUL....... The few private school kids in that class (both from my Christian school and the Catholic school) seemed to know what they were doing for the most part, but the public school kids were leaps and bounds behind the private school kids with regard to such material... Although, the absolute most painful class I was in had to be my college class where we were going through logical fallacies. If only I knew about logic what I know about it now!! The teacher taught a lot of the fallacies incorrectly, and additionally, the teacher would go out of the way to purposely bash Christianity in all of the "fallacy" examples.

29-05-2020 20:18
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Rather than quibble about the usefulness of semantics and the word interpret or ascertain the meaning, let me just say, do what the SCOTUS does when it does Judicial Review instead of saying interpret or ascertain the meaning. That should give you an idea of the uselessness of quibbling about semantics. By the way, didn't your fancy schools teach you any thing about good manners and honesty? Didn't they teach you how to converse like an adult rather than an immature 12 year old. Edited on 29-05-2020 20:22
29-05-2020 21:15
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote:...deleted repetitious babbling... By the way, didn't your fancy schools teach you any thing about good manners and honesty? Yes. keepit wrote: Didn't they teach you how to converse like an adult rather than an immature 12 year old. Yes. Too bad your schooling failed you, though.
30-05-2020 01:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: Rather than quibble about the usefulness of semantics and the word interpret or ascertain the meaning, let me just say, do what the SCOTUS does when it does Judicial Review instead of saying interpret or ascertain the meaning. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret, change, or ascertain the meaning of the Constitution. keepit wrote: That should give you an idea of the uselessness of quibbling about semantics. It is YOU quibbling about semantics. Inversion fallacy. keepit wrote: By the way, didn't your fancy schools teach you any thing about good manners and honesty? Only with polite people. Those that want to implement tyranny are not polite. keepit wrote: Didn't they teach you how to converse like an adult rather than an immature 12 year old. Another inversion fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2020 14:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: Where, IN THE CONSTITUTION, is the Supreme Court granted the power to interpret the Constitution? When they said this: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court," The word judicial means that the justices would be interpreting all laws including the constitution. I actually don't see how it's possible to apply the constitution otherwise. Into the Night wrote: The Court has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution. They have to interpret it, that's how laws are applied. I would agree it's not within their purview to change it based on anything beyond it's perceived meaning. However the world changes so there is no way around the necessity to adapt it as honestly as they can. Into the Night wrote:RQAA. All weapons are legal. So it's legal for you you to poses nerve gas ITN? A nuclear warhead would legal for you to posses as well? If so just open with that. Saves everyone time.
03-06-2020 17:41
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Where, IN THE CONSTITUTION, is the Supreme Court granted the power to interpret the Constitution? When they said this: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court," The word judicial means that the justices would be interpreting all laws including the constitution. No. You are adding the word "interpret" to the Constitution when it is not contained within the document. 'Judicial' does not mean "justices interpreting...". It is an adjective that means "of/by a judge or judges". tmiddles wrote: I actually don't see how it's possible to apply the constitution otherwise. One could always just apply it as it is written instead of adding/subtracting words/ideas that aren't contained therein. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Court has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution. They have to interpret it, No, they don't. The States (collectively) are the owners of the Constitution, not SCOTUS. tmiddles wrote: that's how laws are applied. Interpretation is not application. tmiddles wrote: I would agree it's not within their purview to change it based on anything beyond it's perceived meaning. No, you are forming a paradox. tmiddles wrote: However the world changes Irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: so there is no way around the necessity to adapt it as honestly as they can. Paradox. [1] SCOTUS doesn't have the power to change the Constitution. [2] SCOTUS has the power to change the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the States (collectively). Only THEY can interpret it. Only THEY can change it.
03-06-2020 21:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Where, IN THE CONSTITUTION, is the Supreme Court granted the power to interpret the Constitution? When they said this: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court," The word judicial means that the justices would be interpreting all laws including the constitution. 'Judicial' does not mean 'interpret' or 'change'. Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 10. tmiddles wrote: I actually don't see how it's possible to apply the constitution otherwise. You are not applying the Constitution. You are ignoring it. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Court has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution. They have to interpret it, that's how laws are applied. No, it isn't. Only the States have the authority to interpret or change the Constitution. All the Court can do is interpret laws under the Constitution. They cannot interpret or change the Constitution itself. See Article III on what the Supreme Court can do. tmiddles wrote: I would agree it's not within their purview to change it based on anything beyond it's perceived meaning. Doubletalk. Only the States can determine the perceived meaning. The court cannot. tmiddles wrote: However the world changes so there is no way around the necessity to adapt it as honestly as they can. Age is irrelevant. Everything in the Constitution today is as relevant as it was when it was installed by the States. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:RQAA. All weapons are legal. So it's legal for you you to poses nerve gas ITN? Yes. And I do. Mostly I use it as a seasoning. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: A nuclear warhead would legal for you to posses as well? Yes. Not practical, but yes. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: If so just open with that. Saves everyone time. You already opened with it last time. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-06-2020 10:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: 'Judicial' does not mean 'interpret' or 'change'. gfm7175 wrote: 'Judicial' does not mean "justices interpreting...". It is an adjective that means "of/by a judge or judges". Stopped a bit short there GFM. Well ITN you added change, no one else is saying that, but of course it means to interpret. How do you define judicial? Judicial is the adjective of, by, or appropriate to a court or judge. (but you keep going GFM) Judges must be impartial and strive to properly interpret the meaning, significance, and implications of the law. link Into the Night wrote:All the Court can do is interpret laws under the Constitution. They cannot interpret or change the Constitution itself. See Article III on what the Supreme Court can do. Judges can't change the law outside of the constitution either. It's not possible to apply either the constitution or any law without interpretation. Example from earlier: The meaning of "regulated" has changed in the last 200 years. A judge needs to interpret it correctly as it was written, applying their judgement about the time it was written. Edited on 04-06-2020 10:29
04-06-2020 20:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: 'Judicial' does not mean 'interpret' or 'change'. gfm7175 wrote: 'Judicial' does not mean "justices interpreting...". It is an adjective that means "of/by a judge or judges". Stopped a bit short there GFM. Well ITN you added change, no one else is saying that, but of course it means to interpret. Lie. People ARE saying that. Only the States can interpret the Constitution. The courts cannot. tmiddles wrote: How do you define judicial? I see you've decided to argue semantics crap again. Go learn English. 'Judicial' does not mean 'interpret'. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:All the Court can do is interpret laws under the Constitution. They cannot interpret or change the Constitution itself. See Article III on what the Supreme Court can do. Judges can't change the law outside of the constitution either. It's not possible to apply either the constitution or any law without interpretation. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Example from earlier: The meaning of "regulated" has changed in the last 200 years. No, it hasn't. Go learn English. tmiddles wrote: A judge needs to interpret it correctly as it was written, applying their judgement about the time it was written. A court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-06-2020 21:39
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: 'Judicial' does not mean 'interpret' or 'change'. gfm7175 wrote: 'Judicial' does not mean "justices interpreting...". It is an adjective that means "of/by a judge or judges". Stopped a bit short there GFM. Well ITN you added change, no one else is saying that, but of course it means to interpret. How do you define judicial? Judicial is the adjective of, by, or appropriate to a court or judge. (but you keep going GFM) Judges must be impartial and strive to properly interpret the meaning, significance, and implications of the law. link Into the Night wrote:All the Court can do is interpret laws under the Constitution. They cannot interpret or change the Constitution itself. See Article III on what the Supreme Court can do. Judges can't change the law outside of the constitution either. It's not possible to apply either the constitution or any law without interpretation. Example from earlier: The meaning of "regulated" has changed in the last 200 years. A judge needs to interpret it correctly as it was written, applying their judgement about the time it was written. So, you are rejecting [1] and accepting [2], accepting that SCOTUS does have the power to interpret the Constitution? Thus, we return back to the same questions... Where, in the Constitution, is the word "interpret" located? Where, in the Constitution, is SCOTUS specifically granted the power to interpret the Constitution? Edited on 04-06-2020 21:41
04-06-2020 22:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...you added change, no one else is saying that, .... Lie. People ARE saying that. No one on this board. I'm not. So I'm not sure who you're talking to or about. Into the Night wrote:... 'Judicial' does not mean 'interpret'. So what's your definition of what a Judge does? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:Example from earlier: The meaning of "regulated" has changed in the last 200 years. No, it hasn't. Hate to break it to you ITN but the meaning of words is a collective agreement by those employing the language and it most certainly can and does change over time. reg·u·late (in 2020) /ˈreɡyəˌlāt/ verb control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations. gfm7175 wrote: So, you are rejecting [1] and accepting [2], ... Where, in the Constitution, is the word "interpret" located? I will answer you again (as many times as you like) that Judges interpret. If you say "Judicial" or "Judge" in the legal context you are bringing in their activity which is to interpret laws. The word "interpret", "gun", "slave" and a lot of words which are part of the constitutions meaning do not actually appear in the constitution. Still confused?

04-06-2020 23:13
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: So, you are rejecting [1] and accepting [2], ... Where, in the Constitution, is the word "interpret" located? I will answer you again (as many times as you like) that Judges interpret. Repetition does not magickally make an argument correct. I am still waiting for you to show me specifically where in the Constitution SCOTUS's supposed "power to interpret the Constitution" is located... tmiddles wrote: If you say "Judicial" or "Judge" in the legal context you are bringing in their activity which is to interpret laws. ... made UNDER the Constitution. They do NOT, however, have the power to interpret the Constitution itself. That power resides with the States. tmiddles wrote: The word "interpret", ... is not in the Constitution... at all. tmiddles wrote: "gun", ... which is a subset of "arms", which IS in the Constitution (see Amendment 2) tmiddles wrote: "slave" The word "slave" (and the word "slavery") is in the Constitution... See Amendment 13 (§1) as well as Amendment 14 (§4). tmiddles wrote: and a lot of words which are part of the constitutions meaning do not actually appear in the constitution. Your examples failed you. tmiddles wrote: Still confused? No, but you obviously are. Edited on 04-06-2020 23:15
04-06-2020 23:21
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: The word "interpret", ... is not in the Constitution... at all. Kindly define what a Judge does in a legal context. I would argue that it is universally accepted they "interpret" laws. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "gun", ... which is a subset of "arms", which IS in the Constitution (see Amendment 2) And interpret laws is what a Judge does. Why don't you just tell me what YOUR language is for when a Judge looks at the 2nd amendment but understands that the word "regulated" has an older and different meaning? gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "slave" The word "slave" (and the word "slavery") is in the Constitution... See Amendment 13 (§1) as well as Amendment 14 (§4). but not in the original document. Are you claiming that the original document doesn't deal with slavery without using the word "slave"? Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." Edited on 04-06-2020 23:22
05-06-2020 00:25
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: The word "interpret", ... is not in the Constitution... at all. Kindly define what a Judge does in a legal context. I would argue that it is universally accepted they "interpret" laws. RQAA. ARF. (Argument by Repetition Fallacy) tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "gun", ... which is a subset of "arms", which IS in the Constitution (see Amendment 2) And interpret laws is what a Judge does. ARF. tmiddles wrote: Why don't you just tell me what YOUR language is for when a Judge looks at the 2nd amendment but understands that the word "regulated" has an older and different meaning? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "slave" The word "slave" (and the word "slavery") is in the Constitution... See Amendment 13 (§1) as well as Amendment 14 (§4). but not in the original document. Irrelevant. The Amendments have been ratified by the States. They are part of the Constitution now. tmiddles wrote: Are you claiming that the original document doesn't deal with slavery without using the word "slave"? Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." Slaves were a subset of "persons held to service or labour". Article 1, Section 2 also dealt with "free persons" vs "all other persons" with regard to appropriation of representatives and direct taxes. Both sections of the Constitution have since been modified by the 13th and 14th Amendments. Edited on 05-06-2020 00:27
05-06-2020 04:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...you added change, no one else is saying that, .... Lie. People ARE saying that. No one on this board. Yup. On this board. tmiddles wrote: I'm not. Not directly, but you are inferring it and attempting to justify it. tmiddles wrote: So I'm not sure who you're talking to or about. You. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:... 'Judicial' does not mean 'interpret'. So what's your definition of what a Judge does? Go learn English. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:Example from earlier: The meaning of "regulated" has changed in the last 200 years. No, it hasn't. Hate to break it to you ITN but the meaning of words is a collective agreement by those employing the language and it most certainly can and does change over time. The meaning of 'regulate' has not changed. tmiddles wrote: reg·u·late (in 2020) /ˈreɡyəˌlāt/ verb control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations. Not the meaning of 'regulate'. 'Regulate' stems from the word 'regular' and means to make regular, or uniform. A voltage regular, for example, keeps the output voltage uniform, despite varying input voltages. A pressure regular does the same thing for pressure. The outputs of these is called the regulated voltage (or pressure). In law, it means the same thing. It is to make regular, or to unify across varying areas. Nothing about the word 'regulate' means changing the Constitution to limit or ban guns or any other weapon. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: So, you are rejecting [1] and accepting [2], ... Where, in the Constitution, is the word "interpret" located? I will answer you again (as many times as you like) that Judges interpret. Sure. They interpret contracts, laws, etc. under their jurisdiction. The court does not have jurisdiction over the Constitution. tmiddles wrote: If you say "Judicial" or "Judge" in the legal context you are bringing in their activity which is to interpret laws. No court has the authority to interpret the Constitution. tmiddles wrote: The word "interpret", "gun", "slave" and a lot of words which are part of the constitutions meaning do not actually appear in the constitution. A gun is an personal arm. Any weapon is legal, guns included. Slaves are specifically mentioned in the 13th amendment. tmiddles wrote: Still confused? No. YOU are. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2020 04:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: The word "interpret", ... is not in the Constitution... at all. Kindly define what a Judge does in a legal context. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: I would argue that it is universally accepted they "interpret" laws. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: "gun", ... which is a subset of "arms", which IS in the Constitution (see Amendment 2) And interpret laws is what a Judge does. Why don't you just tell me what YOUR language is for when a Judge looks at the 2nd amendment but understands that the word "regulated" has an older and different meaning? RQAA tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "slave" The word "slave" (and the word "slavery") is in the Constitution... See Amendment 13 (§1) as well as Amendment 14 (§4). but not in the original document. Are you claiming that the original document doesn't deal with slavery without using the word "slave"? Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." Strawman fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2020 14:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:Any weapon is legal, guns included. But that would include chemical weapons correct? So mustard gas is legal? And you guys are too funny that you simply refuse to define "judicial" to clear all this up. Yes, it's what a Judge does, and that is ____________________? Come on GFM, ITN wants to pretend he answered but you didn't either.
05-06-2020 18:03
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Any weapon is legal, guns included. But that would include chemical weapons correct? So mustard gas is legal? RQAA. See underlined text. tmiddles wrote: And you guys are too funny that you simply refuse to define "judicial" to clear all this up. RQAA, but I will repeat it again below. tmiddles wrote: Yes, it's what a Judge does, and that is ____________________? ... interpret contracts/laws/etc. under their jurisdiction. tmiddles wrote: Come on GFM, ITN wants to pretend he answered but you didn't either. We both have answered.
05-06-2020 19:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Any weapon is legal, guns included. But that would include chemical weapons correct? RQAA tmiddles wrote: So mustard gas is legal? Yes. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: And you guys are too funny that you simply refuse to define "judicial" to clear all this up. Yes, it's what a Judge does, and that is ____________________? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Come on GFM, ITN wants to pretend he answered but you didn't either. Lie. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2020 21:30
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Any weapon is legal, ... ...So mustard gas is legal? ...See underlined text. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: So mustard gas is legal? Yes. So let me guess. I'm asking you both, for the first time ever, how it is that you are saying that Mustard Gas, illegal since WWI and prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol, is still "legal" and you'll say RQAA. But I have quoted your correctly above have I not? gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Yes, it's what a Judge does, and that is ____________________? ... interpret contracts/laws/etc. under their jurisdiction. I would call the Constitution the Law of the Land wouldn't you? The Jurisdiction it coves being the entire country. So how is it not a collection of the "law" in your view? Edited on 05-06-2020 21:31
05-06-2020 21:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Any weapon is legal, ... ...So mustard gas is legal? ...See underlined text. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: So mustard gas is legal? Yes. So let me guess. I'm asking you both, for the first time ever, how it is that you are saying that Mustard Gas, illegal since WWI and prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol, is still "legal" and you'll say RQAA. But I have quoted your correctly above have I not? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: Yes, it's what a Judge does, and that is ____________________? ... interpret contracts/laws/etc. under their jurisdiction. I would call the Constitution the Law of the Land wouldn't you? tmiddles wrote: The Jurisdiction it coves being the entire country. So how is it not a collection of the "law" in your view? It is. The court has no jurisdiction over the Constitution. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2020 22:02
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:The court has no jurisdiction over the Constitution. RQAA. Doesn't matter. The constitution has jurisdition over the court. The court is required to interpret it every day. If a law conflicts with the constitution then a courts role is to declare the law unconstitutional. You need to read something to do that. You can't do that without the act of interpretation. Now YOU think the 2nd amendment makes posession of Mustard Gas legal right that cannot be taken away. GFM agrees with you. That is, I hate to break it to you, your "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. Sure you think you're right (everyone does) and if you were a judge you'd be in a position to overturn the conviction of someone caught with mustard gas by judging the prosecution to be unconstitutional. Edited on 05-06-2020 22:03
05-06-2020 22:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:The court has no jurisdiction over the Constitution. RQAA. Doesn't matter. The constitution has jurisdition over the court. But the court does not have jurisdiction over the Constitution. tmiddles wrote: The court is required to interpret it every day. They do not have the authority to. tmiddles wrote: If a law conflicts with the constitution then a courts role is to declare the law unconstitutional. If and only if someone brings that case before the court. tmiddles wrote: You need to read something to do that. You can't do that without the act of interpretation. They can interpret the law in question. They cannot interpret the Constitution. tmiddles wrote: Now YOU think the 2nd amendment makes posession of Mustard Gas legal right that cannot be taken away. GFM agrees with you. All weapons are legal. tmiddles wrote: That is, I hate to break it to you, your "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. No weapon is listed in the 2nd amendment. All weapons are legal. tmiddles wrote: Sure you think you're right (everyone does) and if you were a judge you'd be in a position to overturn the conviction of someone caught with mustard gas by judging the prosecution to be unconstitutional. Any law banning the possession of mustard gas is unconstitutional. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2020 22:34
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Any law banning the possession of mustard gas is unconstitutional. Thanks man! That's a nugget. Hey GFM what do you think of ITN's statement? Do you agree? IBD? Do you also? Edited on 05-06-2020 22:48
05-06-2020 23:18
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Any weapon is legal, ... ...So mustard gas is legal? ...See underlined text. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: So mustard gas is legal? Yes. So let me guess. I'm asking you both, for the first time ever, how it is that you are saying that Mustard Gas, illegal since WWI and prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol, is still "legal" and you'll say RQAA. But I have quoted your correctly above have I not? See the 2nd Amendment. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Yes, it's what a Judge does, and that is ____________________? ... interpret contracts/laws/etc. under their jurisdiction. I would call the Constitution the Law of the Land wouldn't you? Yes, I would. tmiddles wrote: The Jurisdiction it coves being the entire country. So how is it not a collection of the "law" in your view? RQAA.
05-06-2020 23:28
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:The court has no jurisdiction over the Constitution. RQAA. Doesn't matter. The constitution has jurisdition over the court. Wait, I thought you've been arguing this whole time that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over the Constitution?? tmiddles wrote: The court is required to interpret it every day. No it isn't. SCOTUS has no authority to interpret the Constitution. tmiddles wrote: If a law conflicts with the constitution then a courts role is to declare the law unconstitutional. ...IF someone brings up a case before the court. tmiddles wrote: You need to read something to do that. You can't do that without the act of interpretation. Laws made under the Constitution can be interpreted by the courts. The courts, however, have no authority to interpret the Constitution itself. See Article III of the Constitution. tmiddles wrote: Now YOU think the 2nd amendment makes posession of Mustard Gas legal right that cannot be taken away. GFM agrees with you. That I do. ITN is correct. All weapons are legal. See Amendment II of the US Constitution. tmiddles wrote: That is, I hate to break it to you, your "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. The Amendment mentions "arms" (it does not make mention of any limit to any specific arms). tmiddles wrote: Sure you think you're right (everyone does) and if you were a judge you'd be in a position to overturn the conviction of someone caught with mustard gas by judging the prosecution to be unconstitutional. Any law banning the possession of mustard gas is an unconstitutional law. See Amendment II of the US Constitution.

05-06-2020 23:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: how it is that you are saying that Mustard Gas, illegal since WWI and prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol, is still "legal" and you'll say RQAA. That wasn't a particularly bright question. The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of mustard gas in war, lest the offenders be held accountable after (or during) the war should other countries so choose. That's a far cry from claiming that the Geneva Convention somehow has authority over what laws sovereign countries may enact. If a particular country wishes to make all arms legal and to prevent the government from infringing on any right to bear arms, there is no such thing as any "convention" that can bar it from doing so. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-06-2020 23:32
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Any law banning the possession of mustard gas is unconstitutional. Thanks man! That's a nugget. Hey GFM what do you think of ITN's statement? Do you agree? IBD? Do you also? Yes, I agree with it. Amendment II of the US Constitution is quite clear.
06-06-2020 01:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: If a particular country wishes to make all arms legal and to prevent the government from infringing on any right to bear arms, there is no such thing as any "convention" that can bar it from doing so. You have all be crystal clear now. Any weapon from a switch blade to a nuclear war head must be legal in your opinions if the constitution is to be followed. No one agrees with you of course including SCOTUS, POTUS, or the populous, (in all time, for all 3) so it's really just a very interesting detail about the three of you. " 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is "restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security." Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The Court agreed, unanimously. " link
06-06-2020 04:10
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Why isn't the 2nd amendment interpreted in 2 parts - 1)bearing arms for a militia and 2) bearing arms for the individual themself? Two different situations without the ability of one part to interfere with the other part. It is what people did back then (both militias and individuals bore arms). Re: interpreting the constitution. The word "interpret" doesn't need to be used. Think of it this way - the SCOTUS reads the Constitution and the issue brought before it. Then a series electrical impulses occur in each of the Justices brains. You don't have to call them "interpret". Then a decision is made regarding the meaning of the Constitution and the issue. Done. The Constitution doesn't say that electrical activity should not occur in the Justices brains after reading the Constitution and the issue brought before it. The Justices simply read and then decide. It is what they do and it is according to the decision of 1803 (Judicial Review). KISS (keep it simple stupid). Edited on 06-06-2020 04:13
06-06-2020 04:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: Why isn't the 2nd amendment interpreted in 2 parts - 1)bearing arms for a militia and 2) bearing arms for the individual themself? Two different situations without the ability of one part to interfere with the other part. It is what people did back then (both militias and individuals bore arms). The 2nd Amendment has two parts: 1st part: The government shall not prevent We the People from training and drilling and organizing and marching and preparing to fight against a tyrannical government or any other foe 2nd Part: the government shall not prevent We the People from keeping and bearing arms, for self protection or for any other reason Keep it simple. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-06-2020 04:58
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	IBD, In general i agree with the gist of what you just posted but the Constitution doesn't have the words training, marching, drilling, organizing or PREPARING. So, do you say that those activities can't be done?
06-06-2020 09:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: The word "interpret" doesn't need to be used. In interpreting your post keepit I find that indeed, I'm not able to comprehend any language without interpetation. IBdaMann wrote: The 2nd Amendment has two parts: 1st part: ... 2nd Part: ... Keep it simple. Except it doesn't. This is how the 2nd amendment actually reads: This is how it DOES NOT read: "1st part: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 2nd Part: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
06-06-2020 09:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: This is how the 2nd amendment actually reads: Correct. I hope you didn't allow yourself to become confused just because I was trying to explain something to keepit. If you are trying to tell me that it was pointless to try, ... OK, maybe you have a point. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-06-2020 09:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: IBD, In general i agree with the gist of what you just posted but the Constitution doesn't have the words training, marching, drilling, organizing or PREPARING. So, do you say that those activities can't be done? You are correct in stating that those words do not appear in the 2nd Amendment. The words that do appear are "well regulated militia." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-06-2020 10:06
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	I'm just pointing out that the electrical activity in the Justices' minds doesn't have to be called "interpretation". In fact it doesn't have to be called anything. All they have to do is come up with their judgement (which hopefully makes sense). It usually does, they're awfully smart. Also, i don't see any problem with dividing the 2nd amendment into two parts. Most people had a gun in those days and didn't necessarily belong to any militia. If it isn't thought of in two parts then all those people with guns were illegal. It wouldn't make sense if it was in one part and the Justices usually make sense.

Page 11 of 20

Join the debate One reason for social distancing/isolation:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Trump appointed federal Judge Limits Federal Government's Contact with Social Media Companies	3	06-07-2023 18:11
The Best Public Way To End The COVID Pandemic Is Using Climate Change Reason	6	25-04-2023 19:50
The real reason that Meghan Markle is not at the Queens funeral is that there are no	0	09-09-2022 13:58
The Real Reason Of Climate Change Is People Too Stupid, Live Without True Purpose Of Existence	1	13-07-2021 01:45
The Next Social Media Evolution Will Give The Authority Governments & Users More Power More Choice	1	11-01-2021 10:45