• 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.
sangha said:
yes, i meant to say evidence of law. I'll restate:

What is says is that evidence of "the law contained therein"

The DOI is not a "law contained therein". It's not a law, period, so it's not evidence of law.
Click to expand...

as stated before, you have no idea what you are talking about the "printed volume" was made prima facie evidence of law.
 
ernst barkmann said:
as stated before, you have no idea what you are talking about the "printed volume" was made prima facie evidence of law.
Click to expand...

Only the "laws contained therein" were made evidence of law. Since the DOI is not "law contained therein" it is not evidence of law.

ernst barkmann said:
if it were legal evidence it would be positive law....its not...... it evidence of law.....non positive law.
Click to expand...

It's not evidence of law (see above) and there is no non-positive law in the US legal system
 
FreedomFromAll said:
That is what you need to show. SHow the rule that says what you mean there. ANd then show how it can pertain to the front matter. I want the words front matter in your link, if it doesnt say front matter is included then admit that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

because the "printed volume" is "prima facie"........which i have already posted by link 1081, with the seal of the secretary of state...... stating it is to be legal evidence of law......however change to evidence of law.
 
sangha said:
Only the "laws contained therein" were made evidence of law. Since the DOI is not "law contained therein" it is not evidence of law.



It's not evidence of law (see above) and there is no non-positive law in the US legal system
Click to expand...

sorry two things...first.. it says the "printed volume"...second...if you are going to state laws.........then you already know the answer because the DOI is a LAW.......its an organic law.

you have already admitted, you have made a mistake, and now you are building on another one.
 
haymarket said:
This is the basic problem here with the ability of everyone to see reality except one lone individual.

The Psychology of Extremism

in a nutshell



And that self imposed willful mental state prevents the holder from seeing what is obvious and real to others.
Click to expand...

:2razz:
 
haymarket said:
actually over a dozen other posters have ripped into your argument and have destroyed it forcing you to repeat over and over and over again discredited claims that have no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

:roll:....if that was true, then the thread would have ended long ago....sorry, no one did.
 
ernst barkmann said:
:roll:....if that was true, then the thread would have ended long ago....sorry, no one did.
Click to expand...

Oh its true all right. You seem to be the only person without the ability to recognize it. And I already explained why that is.
 
ernst barkmann said:
this a new tactic.....i can see for last several pages you had pretty much nothing to say, except when it deals with myself.
Click to expand...

Commenting on the obvious has never a been a new tactic. I did not write your posts - you did.

The only one to argue with here is indeed you EB. Every other poster with an opinion based on fact and history has found you wrong and told you so. I cannot argue with them as they are both wise and correct.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The Declaration of Independence clearly mentions a creator. The op's assertion that the DOI is evidence of law links what he wants to debate with you to this thread. Besides Ernst just keeps repeating himself and refuses to give pertinent proof. In doing so this thread is like all of his threads, we never get past go since he wont ever actually admit when he is wrong or give any evidence that you dont need extreme bias to believe. Eventually he will make a new thread and start all over again. After several threads simular to this he will have a new thread and claim that he proved his point in this and the other threads like it.

At anyrate dont you see a problem with placing our important rights with a creator?
Click to expand...

Its like watching a dog chase his tail, chew on it, then yelping for a new one so he can start all over again. After a while it becomes only too predictable and incredibly boring beyond a few minutes.
 
haymarket said:
Oh its true all right. You seem to be the only person without the ability to recognize it. And I already explained why that is.
Click to expand...

one thousand two hundred thirty five posts.......because you and they others, have never been able to prove anything to the contrary.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if it were legal evidence it would be positive law....its not...... it evidence of law.....non positive law.
Click to expand...

What is the practical difference between NOT being law and you claim that it is EVIDENCE of law????? ... IF there is one which you have never been able to articulate beyond asserting that there is. But here is your opportunity.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry two things...first.. it says the "printed volume"...second...if you are going to state laws.........then you already know the answer because the DOI is a LAW.......its an organic law.

you have already admitted, you have made a mistake, and now you are building on another one.
Click to expand...

No, it says that only the "laws contained therein" are evidence of law and the DOI is not a law.
 
haymarket said:
Its like watching a dog chase his tail, chew on it, then yelping for a new one so he can start all over again. After a while it becomes only too predictable and incredibly boring beyond a few minutes.
Click to expand...


then you must love watching, because you cannot satisfy yourself by proving anything which is contrary to the thread.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry, the tactic discussed is one carried out by you.....please understand your own MO
Click to expand...

If you do not want your own posts criticized, you need to take better care in the writing of them. As a wise man once observed ... "when you point the finger of blame at others, you have three more of your own pointing right back at yourself". Since you wrote your own posts and used language which makes no sense - the responsibility is upon yourself EB . The fault is not mine for merely observing what you yourself had done with your own butchering of the English language.

here was your post

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann
SORRY YOU CANNOT FOLLOW , I WAS COMMENTING ON A PERSON YOU LISTED IN YOUR LINE UP, who you stated gets it.

that person has already proven myself to not know much of anything on the forum....he terribles at debating.
Click to expand...

It hurts the eyes just to read that second wannabe sentence.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
What is the practical difference between NOT being law and you claim that it is EVIDENCE of law????? ... IF there is one which you have never been able to articulate beyond asserting that there is. But here is your opportunity.
Click to expand...

i have already stated its not statute, ..positive law, and has no force of law.....

however it is prima-facie ..evidence of law...non positive law.
 
haymarket said:
If you do not want your own posts criticize,you need to take better care in the writing of them. As a wise man once observed ... "when you point the finger of blame at others, you have three more of your own pointing right back at yourself". Since you wrote your own posts and used language which makes no sense - the responsibility is upon yourself EB . The fault is not mine for merely observing what you yourself had done with your own butchering of the English language.
Click to expand...

oh you admit you are trying a new tactic?.......which 1 sec ago. you were stating it was me doing it.......sad, very sad on your part!
 
ernst barkmann said:
i have already stated its not statute, ..positive law, and has no force of law.....

however it is prima-facie ..evidence of law...non positive law.
Click to expand...

You re not answering the question. You are merely repeating what you have asserted far too many times already.

I ask plainly and directly: What is the practical difference between NOT being law and you claim that it is EVIDENCE of law????? ... IF there is one which you have never been able to articulate beyond asserting that there is. But here is your opportunity.

If the past is any indication, you will not answer this either but merely repeat the previous non answer.
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh you admit you are trying a new tactic?.......which 1 sec ago. you were stating it was me doing it.......sad, very sad on your part!
Click to expand...

It is you who wrote your own posts. Here it is again

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann
SORRY YOU CANNOT FOLLOW , I WAS COMMENTING ON A PERSON YOU LISTED IN YOUR LINE UP, who you stated gets it.

that person has already proven myself to not know much of anything on the forum....he terribles at debating.
Click to expand...

You wrote that EB. Not myself. You wrote it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
then you must love watching, because you cannot satisfy yourself by proving anything which is contrary to the thread.
Click to expand...

How is it possible for anyone here to take a position WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE THREAD when the OP takes no position and you have completely failed to explain what any of this has to do with Americans in the year 2015?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom