From: dgs on 8 Aug 2006 10:55 Martin wrote: > On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:18:44 +0200, Stanislas de Kertanguy > <stanislas.dekertanguy(a)lesptt.net> wrote: > >>Le 08/08/2006, Mxsmanic a crit : >> >>>Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: >>> >>> >>>>A $40 "diploma" bought on the web is not a credential. >>> >>>Why not? >> >>Beacause it has less worth than the paper on which it is written. > > He got his copy by e-mail. Not even worth the pixels, then? -- dgs
From: Mxsmanic on 8 Aug 2006 11:57 Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > Beacause it has less worth than the paper on which it is written. How did you determine its worth? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 8 Aug 2006 12:00 Tchiowa writes: > Conscription is *not* involuntary servitude ... You are "serving" your government, and you cannot refuse. Therefore it is involuntary, and it is servitude. > ... and the courts have already rules that it doesn't violate > the Consitution. Because they care more about the status quo than respecting the Constitution. > Civil forfeiture must involve certain laws and courts and thus > does, in fact, follow "due process". It does not allow due process because there is no conviction of wrongdoing required. It's like prior restraint (which is also unconstitutional). > The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not followed. The fact that some people deny their rights are being eroded doesn't mean that those rights are intact. It always starts that way. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Hatunen on 8 Aug 2006 17:43 On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:26:28 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hatunen writes: > >> What, to you, determines whether something is constitutional? > >Whether or not it conflicts with what the Constitution says. Who gets to decide? ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 8 Aug 2006 17:45
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:37:04 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Tchiowa writes: > >> Then you missed yet again. Because the Constitution doesn't ban any of >> the things you talked about. > >Yes, it does, in the amendments I cited. For example, conscription is >unconstitutional because it is involuntary servitude, and civil >forfeiture is unconstitutional because it deprives people of property >without due process. Mixi is his own little Supreme Court. Perhpas he fled to Paris to escape American conscriptiion. >The reason there is still a Constitution is that the government simply >ignores it when convenient to do so. Hm. Define what you man by the American "government". >Thus, it's possible for >Americans to crow that the Constitution has survived for over two >centuries even as they routinely fail to heed it. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |