quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
That you think your fake court( which has no standing under the US constitution) has authority over the constituional legal system, means you are anti constituion.  You are opposed to the constitution. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Furthermore Real there is no such thing as a common law court under the Constition.   Article III section one states"
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "

Nothing about Common law courts or people tribunals or any such nonsense.  That you think your made up court takes precedent over what the Constituion clearly says means you are anti constitution.  How can even you not grasp that?

If you can find anything in the Constituion that says un elected dipshits can form thier own private courts and establish law for the nation, please cite it for me.  Article and clause, not some crap from a white supremist website.

quote:

over

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Actually, if a STATE wishes to convene a Common Law Court, then the Feds can go fuck themselves.

WHY do people forget that the Federal Government is THE PEOPLE'S BITCH, and subordinate to their Great State???

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Sure farg, I will explain.  We are talking about made up "common law courts", where local officals can implement policy (Legal rulings) over the entire nation and feds, right?   Article x says,"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. "   And Article III section one says,"Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "   So we can clearly see that Judical Power is vested in one Supreme Court, and lower courts created by Congress.  As we can plainly see, that Power is specifically delegated to the United States.  I do not understand why you want to throw out the 10th amendmant, but you are clearly arguing it is invalid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
A group of White Supremists, do not have the power to declare a court and enforce it on the rest of the nation.  Perhaps you could explain why you think they do?  You honestly think any 12 people can get together and declare themselves to be a "Common Law Court" and issue binding rulings on people?  That has to be the dumbest thing I have heard from you yet Farg.  Since people do not have the right to create courts on thier own, no right is being removed from them, and there is no issue with the 9th in this issue.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Show me which clause creates "Common Law Hearings".  What you call a common law court means absolutly nothing.  It has no legitimacy.  The club you belong to can hold pretend trials all day long, nobody cares and the "verdicts" mean nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Title: Cheney: Bush Administration May Challenge 22nd Amendment in 2008 Election
Source: New York Times

By PHILIP MCKRACK Published: April 1, 2007
JACKSONVILLE, North Carolina. April 1 — Vice President Cheney delivered a speech early Sunday morning before a formation of soldiers at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The speech was not publicized and the prepared remarks were intended to boost troop morale. The comments were fairly unremarkable except for one short comment near the end of the speech in which Mr. Cheney suggested that the Bush Administration may seek to challenge the 22nd amendment in the 2008 presidential election in an effort to ensure that the war in Iraq is successful.

Mr. Cheney again cited the war in Iraq as a key component in the effort to combat terrorism, saying "The war in Iraq is such a crucial part of the greater war on terror that we currently have our legal advisors looking into the possibility that the 22nd Amendment may not apply in 2008."

Because the speech was not publicized and was held on a secure military base, very few journalists were present, and none were able to ask questions about what the Vice President's comments might mean. Repeated efforts to contact the Vice President's Office to clarify the comment were unsuccessful.

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits U.S. Presidents from running for a third term, stating "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...". The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951 after President Franklin Roosevelt broke a tradition that dated back to George Washington, in which Presidents voluntarily refused to run for a third term.

Political pundits and Constitutional experts are split on what the Vice President's comments could mean. Some see the comments as an effort to extend the Administration's "war powers" due to the fact that the country is at war. They argue that there is a tenuous case to be made that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply during war time since the Congress waited until after WW II to introduce such an Amendment. Others say that the mere fact that the country had just ended the war in 1951, when the Amendment was passed, suggests that the Congress would have put such an exception into the language of the Amendment if they had intended it not apply during times of war.

Others say that the Bush Administration will argue that the 2000 race was not actually decided by an election and that the Bush administration has technically only been "elected" once since the Supreme Court's Decision in Bush v. Gore effectively nullified the popular vote. Anonymous sources inside the White House have corrborated that this may indeed be the Administration's plan.

Arguing that it was not actually elected would be a very interesting approach for the administration to say the least, but most experts agree that it is certainly possible given the Bush administration's history of creative interpretation of the law with regard to such cases as:

the assertion that The Geneva Conventions do not apply to U.S. detainees captured on the battlefield, suggestions that the legal definition of "torture" only includes activities that cause death or organ failure, the argument that U.S. Citizens do not have a right to "due process" if declared "enemy combatants", which was recently rejected by the Supreme Court, Attorney General Albert Gonzales's testimony before Congress that the Constitution doesn't guarantee U.S. Citizens a right to Habeas Corpus, The Administration's claim that the FISA law does not apply to their warrantless wire taps of Americans.

Critics of the Administration argue that these cases are all the proof needed to believe that The Bush Administration would try to argue that its own victory in 2000 demonstrates that it could run for a third term in 2008.