Sure it does, you just don't know what the rule of law actually means.Originally Posted by SR1419
You think it means 'a majority of people obeying the law a majority of the time'.
Ha, ha, ha!
Sure it does, you just don't know what the rule of law actually means.
You think it means 'a majority of people obeying the law a majority of the time'.
Ha, ha, ha!
What's the context of the situation they've faced since January 2011 that somehow justifies their "stepping over the line"?Okay, so I agree that in these cases, Obama and his colleagues may have stepped over the line. However, saying that they "flout the law whenever it is convenient" is absolutely ridiculous. Prove to me that this administration has done nothing but break the law at every opportunity, keeping in mind the context of the situation that they have faced since January of 2011. Just an opinion of mine, of course. My deepest apologies to the juror if that makes me a pro-state troll.
By the way, if you haven't seen me around, that's because I just joined. Thanks for having this site up, Mick.
really?
That's the best you can come up with?
I never said that was the definition. It is merely an indication that your claim was false.
Try again.
Hey, don't look at me. They were your mindless words, not mine.
I don't blame you for now trying disown them.
One, I never said that the context of their situation justified their stepping over the line. I actually agreed with you on those cases. What I have a problem with is your rash comment that they "flout the law whenever it is convenient." That is a rather rash claim, no?
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
I disown nothing. I stand by the comment.
I DID NOT offer it as a definition.
This is where your bias and assumptions lead you astray.
It is Your belief that if a law is broken that means the rule of law is dead that is fallacious.
You most certainly did.
Straw man alert! Straw man alert!It is Your belief that if a law is broken that means the rule of law is dead that is fallacious.
No, not really. It was certainly convenient for them to flout the law when it came to the Fast and Furious operation, and they did.
Fail.
Go back and read for comprehension.
My apologies if the subtleties of evidence are lost on you.
...and yet, the very premise of your belief is false.
Good luck with that.
You're having a hard time grasping my question. The Fast and Furious operation was one episode. Your comment implies they have done it all the time, in the 3 and a half years they have held office, which they haven't. Unless, of course, you can prove it. Otherwise, your claim that they flout the law whenever convenient really holds no water.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
It would seem to make most sense for the executive branch to firmly stick to the letter of the law 99.99% of the time. That's why we have so many lawyers in office - they want to do as much as possible without actually breaking the law. Fast and Furious is an example of an exceptional event, where they (arguably) stepped over the bounds of legality. And we see the result.
That's the type of thing they try to ignore. It's far, far from what they do all the time.
plane852 (May 2nd, 2012)
False, as "whenever convenient' =/= "all the time".
The point is, the Obama administration has demonstrably proven that it is above the law, that means there is no rule of law.
They don't need to do it "all the time" and get away with it to prove that system has been compromised, only once.
A regular citizen would have had the book thrown at him. The Obama administration just has to answer a few tough questions to get a free pass.
The system is rigged. There is no rule of law.
Okay, so "whenever convienent" does not equal all the time. You're certainly implying he's done it much more than one occasion (Fast and Furious the one instant you continuously cite). The article you provided displays three more instances. However, the problem with it is that it takes four instances and then goes to conclude that being above the law is "Obama's modus operandi." A wild accusation that seems to match yours perfectly.
My request is simple - give me more evidence that he has flouted the law. That's all I'm requesting here.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
What for? Isn't once enough? Or does it only count when it happens more than five, ten, or twenty times?
You're not one of those Obama apologists, are you?
Read Mike's post and you'll see why once isn't enough.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
@j8- So, your belief is that if a law is broken the the perpetrator is not punished then the entire construct of rule of law is dead?
I read it, and I'm still not seeing it.
Got anything else?
If a government official can break one of their own, very serious laws, get caught red-handed, and openly get away with it without facing any real repercussions, then yes, the rule of law is dead. At that point the law is only selectively applied and enforced, which isn't the rule of law at all.
Let me know when one of you makes a decent argument to the contrary that doesn't involve simple hand-waving.
What law did they break?
Is it generally agreed they broke a law? Or is there some dispute?
If your rule of law allows pardons to be granted, and a pardon is legally granted, then that is not the death of the rule of law - that is, arguably, bad law.
If the offense is relatively minor, or is of a type that is often overlooked then it is not particularly remarkable at all.
If the offence has been "ignored" based on influence, malfeasance of office, corruption or similar illegal activities then that is simply illegal and is still not the death of the rule of law.
In practice the rule of law means that individuals are subject to the law - it does not mean that all crimes are punished all the time, and the illegal or immoral selective application of the law speaks moer to the rule of law still being in force, rather than any individual being above the law.
Back to the original point - whether the UCC makes the constitution irrelevant - I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but my understanding is that the Constitution is not actually law. Rather it is the set of principles by which the USA will be governed, and as such it requires laws to give it effect.
The UCC is one part of that set of laws.
Therefore the UCC cannot possibly supercede the constitution, by definition.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
With regard to Holder, perjury and obstruction at this point. There could be more, but the DoJ is withholding documentation pertaining to the whole Fast and Furious operation.
What is greater of concern than being ruled by UCC is the illegal acts of our Senate and House Committees who have for decades authorized the illegal non-consensual human testing of weapons for war and biological chemical sprays that have increased across our skies as chemical trails. Most citizens are not aware that there is a direct connection to Department of Defense Directive 5240.1-R that allow for non-consensual human testing on civilians and military personnel; defined as 'unwitting' U.S. Persons. The damages of such directives (not laws) have increased to our weather, waters, land (trees and fields), fish and death of thousands of birds; and that goes without stating the damage to the health of us citizens. Most, as I - had or have not read a Senate Appropriations Budget to government contractors, private companies or other entities, ever - yet the damages are silently occurring across our United States. Please visit Change.org petition 'Unlawful Non-Consensual Weapons Testing on Civilians and Military Personnel Must Stop' at https://www.change.org/petitions/unl...nnel-must-stop to post your opinion and make our Senate aware of the atrocities that greed is causing. We are not at war, yet we are paying over 3100 primary government contractors as much as 750 Billion per yer (quietly) to 1 Million per year with over 5000 sub-contractors with little to no over-sight. America must awaken to this waste while our schools, seniors and veterans suffer post wars.
Darlene, you are wrong. Experimentation on human subjects always requires informed consent.
http://atsdio.defense.gov/documents/52413.html
C. PROCEDURES 1. Experimentation on human subjects conducted by or on behalf of a DoD intelligence component may be undertaken only with the informed consent of the subject, and in accordance with guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, setting out conditions that safeguard the welfareof such subjects. 2. DoD intelligence components may not engage in or contract for experimentation on human subjects without approval of the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary or Under Secretary of aMilitary Department, as appropriate.
False. If government criminals can commit crimes and not suffer the consequences, then there is no rule of law.
You still have no grasp of what the 'rule of law' actually is or means.
Good grief. Is this what they are teaching people nowadays? That the Constitution isn't law? On the contrary, the U.S. Constitution represents the supreme, highest law of the land.Back to the original point - whether the UCC makes the constitution irrelevant - I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but my understanding is that the Constitution is not actually law.
How could you not know this?
Principles? Really?Rather it is the set of principles by which the USA will be governed, and as such it requires laws to give it effect.
Who taught you this nonsense? Seriously, I'd like to know.
You've still not established that this is happening.
It's very clear the the government goes to great lengths to ensure that its actions are legal. The case you bring up, Holder in "Fast and Furious", is not a case of not suffering consequences. The case is going through the legal system. The rule of law is in effect.
Point specifically to a case where the law has been seriously broken, everyone agrees it has been broken, and it's been allowed to slide.
Really? What lengths did the government go to to ensure that MK-ULTRA and COINTELPRO were legal?
You mean, the pretense of the rule of law is in effect. The government is above the rule of law, since, if push comes to shove, it can simply invoke the state secrets privilege to hide any inconvenient documentary evidence pertaining to any illegal activities it engages in. You and I can't do that, but the government can. The government can also indefinitely stonewall any FOIA requests.The case you bring up, Holder in "Fast and Furious", is not a case of not suffering consequences. The case is going through the legal system. The rule of law is in effect.
Why does "everyone" have to agree? So, if a criminal breaks the law, but doesn't agree that he broke the law, and those who aided and abetted him don't agree that he broke the law, then he didn't really break the law? Because not everyone agrees?Point specifically to a case where the law has been seriously broken, everyone agrees it has been broken, and it's been allowed to slide.
I imagine they checked with their lawyers. What would you have them do?
I think your argument is becoming largely semantic. It's very clear that there's a VAST deference to the law within government. Breaking the law is an incredibly serious affair, which causes all kinds of problems.
Rule of law does not mean that nobody ever breaks the law. It means that when people do break the law then there is a process to address that.
You imagine? How comforting.
Oh, I don't know. How about, not break the law?What would you have them do?
Sure, only if they get caught and can't rig any legal proceedings and ensuing media propaganda in their favor.I think your argument is becoming largely semantic. It's very clear that there's a VAST deference to the law within government. Breaking the law is an incredibly serious affair, which causes all kinds of problems.
No, that's not what 'rule of law' means. Simply having a legal process in place does not mean you have the rule of law. After all, a king could create a law and a legal process by which those who break that law are found guilty in a court and punished, but if the king himself is not subject to those courts as equally as everyone else is, then there is no rule of law, there is only the 'rule of men'.Rule of law does not mean that nobody ever breaks the law. It means that when people do break the law then there is a process to address that.
Again, the government can simply invoke the 'state secrets privilege' to impede any legal or investigative process. Can you?
Pehaps you could explain in detail what you personally mean by "rule of law", seeing as:
Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion"[5] giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is."[6]
Would, for example, you say that the rule of law would preclude any form of state secret? Or even privacy of the individual?
Of course government criminals, authoritarians, and those who support this establishment would have "contrasting convictions" about what the rule of law is. It's because they don't want to be subject to the rule of law. They want to be above the law, so they try to confuse people about what it is and try to make it seem as if it is illusory or unobtainable. It's nonsense.
Rule of law essentially means, "nobody is above the law". It applies to everyone equally, including rulers. The rule of law is non-arbitrary.
If the State, or agents acting on behalf of the State, can break the law, and then shield themselves from legal or public scrutiny by invoking something like a state secrets privilege, how does that serve the public's interest? What's to stop the State from repeatedly breaking the law if it can so easily invoke a privilege nobody else subject to the law can invoke?
Also, what do you mean by asking about individual privacy?
Well, if an individual can carry drugs around, but be protected from being searched, then does that not too make a mockery of the rule of law? It's okay to break the law if you do it in secret?
Nobody is above the law. In practice people will break the law. But if they get caught then the law will apply to them.
I'm not sure what your broader point is here. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there's a lot of corruption in government, and people in power get a way with a lot of illegal acts. Then what? What do you deduce from this? Is it evidence of something else, or are you just saying that people tend to be corrupt?
Are you being serious here or are you just trolling me? Are you really trying to draw a comparison between Fourth Amendment protections (unreasonable searches and seizures, probable cause, etc...) and the state secrets privilege?
If the rule of law is dead, then we are living under the rule of men. This means the system we are supposed to be living under, or are taught we live under, the system of laws, checks, and balances, has been compromised.I'm not sure what your broader point is here. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there's a lot of corruption in government, and people in power get a way with a lot of illegal acts. Then what? What do you deduce from this? Is it evidence of something else, or are you just saying that people tend to be corrupt?
That part is a foregone conclusion. The correct question is, who, why, what, where, and when?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks