• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Declaration of Independence is Law, it is U.S. Code[W:118]

Status
Not open for further replies.
ernst barkmann said:
excuse me.... what law is there to quote...by saying printed edition/volume......please tell me?



under the seal of the secretary of state and when printed and promulgated as herein provided the printed volume shall be legal evidence of laws therein contained, in all the courts of the united states, and other the several States and Territories

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Click to expand...

The quote you posted is not law. The 2nd link quotes the law which says "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of the law contained therein"

It does not say "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of EVERYTHING contained therein"

Only "the law contained therein" is legal evidence and the DOI is not a law so it is not a "law contained therein"
 
ernst barkmann said:
seems people want to talk about something else instead of "prima facie"
Click to expand...

THAT IS the term I am asking you about EB. What does PRIMA FACIE mean to you in this context since you have already conceded this


already it has been stated by me, the DOI has no force of law.
Click to expand...


?
 
sangha said:
The 2nd link quotes the law which says "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of the law contained therein"

It does not say "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of EVERYTHING contained therein"

Only "the law contained therein" is legal evidence and the DOI is not a law.
Click to expand...

sorry..... you asked about the printed volume....there is nothing of law stating printed volume...

SORRY IT IS NON POSITIVE LAW.
 
sangha said:
The quote you posted is not law. The 2nd link quotes the law which says "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of the law contained therein"

It does not say "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of EVERYTHING contained therein"

Only "the law contained therein" is legal evidence and the DOI is not a law so it is not a "law contained therein"
Click to expand...

A most excellent observation. So just is EB claiming here?
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry..... you asked about the printed volume....there is nothing of law stating printed volume...

SORRY IT IS NON POSITIVE LAW.
Click to expand...

the law says "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of the law contained therein"

It does not say "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of EVERYTHING contained therein"

Only "the law contained therein" is legal evidence and the DOI is not a law so it is not legal evidence.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry..... you asked about the printed volume....there is nothing of law stating printed volume...

SORRY IT IS NON POSITIVE LAW.
Click to expand...

Reading you chase your tail on this is like hearing about the bonger defitician who reticulates caranistans when they fail to kliberate.
 
ernst barkmann said:
:lamo

this shows you do not read....it was supposed to be legal evidence of law....however the change was made to make is evidence of law..
Click to expand...

And that makes no sense since you already conceded that it has no force of law. Watching you chase your tail on this is like hearing about the bonger defitician who reticulates caranistans when they fail to kliberate.
 
sangha said:
the law says "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of the law contained therein"

It does not say "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of EVERYTHING contained therein"

Only "the law contained therein" is legal evidence and the DOI is not a law so it is not legal evidence.
Click to expand...

:lamo......again shows you and your fellows poster do not even know what has been said.....
 
ernst barkmann said:
:lamo......again shows you and your fellows poster do not even know what has been said.....
Click to expand...

I know what the law says

the law says "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of the law contained therein"

It does not say "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of EVERYTHING contained therein"

Only "the law contained therein" is legal evidence and the DOI is not a law.
 
haymarket said:
And that makes no sense since you already conceded that it has no force of law.
Click to expand...

you and your fellows posters, do not still even understand......

the volume was created, and ready for congress to vote on it making it legal evidence of law.....however was instead only made evidence of law.
 
sangha said:
I know what the law says

the law says "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of the law contained therein"

It does not say "the printed volume shall be legal evidence of EVERYTHING contained therein"

Only "the law contained therein" is legal evidence and the DOI is not a law.
Click to expand...
:lamo..thats hard to not keep from laughing..at your quote
 
ernst barkmann said:
you and your fellows posters, do not still even understand......

the volume was created, and ready for congress to vote on it making it legal evidence of law.....however was instead only made evidence of law.
Click to expand...

It speaks volumes that for over a hundred pages now your argument is so obtuse.... so vague ... so without any common sense ... so without any real world application - that all you can do is chastise everybody else who has posted here. The problem is YOU EB. The problem is your own inability to articulate clearly your own position and tell people just what it is and what it means to Americans living in the year 2015.

If everyone else here does not understand your argument and your position and your claims - the problem lies with your own posts.

But then we are back to the typical EB problem - you claiming that everybody in the parade is marching out of step except you. :roll:
 
haymarket said:
It speaks volumes that for over a hundred pages now your argument is so obtuse.... so vague ... so without any common sense ... so without any real world application - that all you can do is chastise everybody else who has posted here. The problem is YOU EB. The problem is your own inability to articulate clearly your own position and tell people just what it is and what it means to Americans living in the year 2015.

If everyone else here does not understand your argument and your position and your claims - the problem lies with your own posts.

But then we are back to the typical EB problem - you claiming that everybody in the parade is marching out of step except you. :roll:
Click to expand...

:roll:more personal musings
 
ernst barkmann said:
already explained many times.
Click to expand...

No it has not. But if you claim so, simply
1- link to it, or
2- give the post number, or
3- repeat the answer right here for all to read.

Of course, you will play silly games and do none of those.
 
ernst barkmann said:
:roll:more personal musings
Click to expand...

Do you understand that your argument has been taken firmly by the lapels, lifted two feet off the ground and smashed brutally hard against the wall over and over and over again until there is nothing left of it?

Silly question. Of course you don't despite the fact that everybody else here can see it.

It speaks volumes that for over a hundred pages now your argument is so obtuse.... so vague ... so without any common sense ... so without any real world application - that all you can do is chastise everybody else who has posted here. The problem is YOU EB. The problem is your own inability to articulate clearly your own position and tell people just what it is and what it means to Americans living in the year 2015.

If everyone else here does not understand your argument and your position and your claims - the problem lies with your own posts.

But then we are back to the typical EB problem - you claiming that everybody in the parade is marching out of step except you.

That is not a musing but a factual observation of your intellectually dishonest tactics.
 
haymarket said:
No it has not. But if you claim so, simply
1- link to it, or
2- give the post number, or
3- repeat the answer right here for all to read.

Of course, you will play silly games and do none of those.
Click to expand...

already explained..research prima facie links posted by me in this thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom