• 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:
did not say it was out dated, i said you keep using the code which was created in 1926, what i have posted was the first real attempts at producing code in the 1870's
Click to expand...
The US code is progressive; the 1926 code replaced prior code.

the DOI is "non positive law" title and u.s. code, and its "prima facie"
Click to expand...
The Declaration was never under a title. To claim so is i a lie. ANd I wish that you would quit lying about it. All of those references that your claim relies on refer ONLY to the TITLES of the US CODE. The Organic LAws were never in the titles and still isnt in the titles.

What number would that title be? In the link below they list the positive law titles and the non-positive law titles of the US code. Guess what? The Organics law ARE NOT LISTED! You my friend are wrong and proven wrong. ANd before you try and bash the site which the information comes from look at the bottom link.

http://www.llsdc.org/assets/sourcebook/usc-pos-law-titles.pdf

"Positive law titles of the United States Code, indicated by an asterisk, are legal evidence of the
law and need no further authoritative citation as prior acts concerning those titles have been
repealed. Other titles to the U.S. Code are "prima facie" evidence of the law (1 USC §204),
and are presumed to be the law, but are rebuttable by production of prior unrepealed acts of
Congress at variance with the Code. About half the titles of the Code have been revised, codified
and enacted into positive law. The enacting terms used in this list under each positive law title
are taken from the enacting clauses themselves. Historical and revision notes which explain
derivations to each revised section, as well as editorial and non-substantive changes to them, are
frequently set out after each section of a positive law title and are taken from committee reports
(usually from the House Judiciary Committee) which accompany the legislation. The committee
report number and where else it can be found is also set out.

Titles 1-50 The Code of the Laws of the United States of America
Enacted into prima facie law by act of June 30, 1926, ch. 712, 44 Stat. 1, pt. 1.
Covers all general and permanent laws in force as of December 7, 1925. No revision
notes; see H. Rept. 69-900 and S. Rept. 69-832 located at v. 8533 and v. 8526 of the
U.S. Congressional Serial Set. See related reports H. Rept. 65-916 (in v. 7454), H.
Rept. 66-781 (in v. 7653), H. Rept. 67-68 (in v. 7920), H. Rept. 68-2 (in v. 8226), S.
Rept. 68-722 (in v. 8221), H. Rept. 68-1573 (in v. 8391), H. Rept. 70-1706 (v. 8838)"


Further proof AGAIN...POSITIVE LAW CODIFICATION

A positive law title of the Code is itself a Federal statute. A non-positive law title of the Code is an editorial compilation of Federal statutes.

You already admitted that the Declaration IS NOT A STATUTE. SO according to the official site (by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives) A non-positive law title of the Code is an editorial compilation of Federal statutes.

So give up you are wrong and have been proven wrong.

LLSDC Home
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The US code is progressive; the 1926 code replaced prior code.

The Declaration was never under a title. To claim so is i a lie. ANd I wish that you would quit lying about it. All of those references that your claim relies on refer ONLY to the TITLES of the US CODE. The Organic LAws were never in the titles and still isnt in the titles.

What number would that title be? In the link below they list the positive law titles and the non-positive law titles of the US code. Guess what? The Organics law ARE NOT LISTED! You my friend are wrong and proven wrong. ANd before you try and bash the site which the information comes from look at the bottom link.

http://www.llsdc.org/assets/sourcebook/usc-pos-law-titles.pdf

"Positive law titles of the United States Code, indicated by an asterisk, are legal evidence of the
law and need no further authoritative citation as prior acts concerning those titles have been
repealed. Other titles to the U.S. Code are "prima facie" evidence of the law (1 USC §204),
and are presumed to be the law, but are rebuttable by production of prior unrepealed acts of
Congress at variance with the Code. About half the titles of the Code have been revised, codified
and enacted into positive law. The enacting terms used in this list under each positive law title
are taken from the enacting clauses themselves. Historical and revision notes which explain
derivations to each revised section, as well as editorial and non-substantive changes to them, are
frequently set out after each section of a positive law title and are taken from committee reports
(usually from the House Judiciary Committee) which accompany the legislation. The committee
report number and where else it can be found is also set out.

Titles 1-50 The Code of the Laws of the United States of America
Enacted into prima facie law by act of June 30, 1926, ch. 712, 44 Stat. 1, pt. 1.
Covers all general and permanent laws in force as of December 7, 1925. No revision
notes; see H. Rept. 69-900 and S. Rept. 69-832 located at v. 8533 and v. 8526 of the
U.S. Congressional Serial Set. See related reports H. Rept. 65-916 (in v. 7454), H.
Rept. 66-781 (in v. 7653), H. Rept. 67-68 (in v. 7920), H. Rept. 68-2 (in v. 8226), S.
Rept. 68-722 (in v. 8221), H. Rept. 68-1573 (in v. 8391), H. Rept. 70-1706 (v. 8838)"


Further proof AGAIN...POSITIVE LAW CODIFICATION

A positive law title of the Code is itself a Federal statute. A non-positive law title of the Code is an editorial compilation of Federal statutes.

You already admitted that the Declaration IS NOT A STATUTE. SO according to the official site (by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives) A non-positive law title of the Code is an editorial compilation of Federal statutes.

So give up you are wrong and have been proven wrong.

LLSDC Home
Click to expand...

sorry no i have not.

as stated.... in code..there is only "legal evidence of law"/"conclusive evidence of law", ................and there is "evidence of law"

and you need to stop staying in 1926 code,...all code of the 20 century is based off of the revised statures of 1873 which are more authoritative.


again....revised statutes of 1873 were made "conclusive of law" ....which has force of law..... which is still being used in some form today, and revised statutes of 1878 was not made "conclusive evidence ", but instead the printed volume was made only "evidence of law".
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
sorry no i have not.

as stated.... in code..there is only "legal evidence of law"/"conclusive evidence of law", ................and there is "evidence of law"

and you need to stop staying in 1926 code,...all code of the 20 century is based off of the revised statures of 1873 which are more authoritative.


again....revised statutes of 1873 were made "conclusive of law" ....which has force of law..... which is still being used in some form today, and revised statutes of 1878 was not made "conclusive evidence ", but instead the printed volume was made only "evidence of law".
Click to expand...

Prima Facie Evidence of our sovereignty was so historically important that Congress wanted to included these documents (printed in full) as the Preamble (a historical account) to an updated/corrected/revised Statutes on Record (which includes every Act, treaty, proclamation, and declaration from the beginning our nation's sovereignty to 1878). But these historical documents are not in and of themselves Federal Code or Statutes.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/USCODE/text (U.S. Code Table of Contents)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/RULES/fre (Federal Rules of Evidence)

The United States Statutes At Large is the Congressional repository for all past, current, and future laws, proclamations, etc...in which the DOI is a permanent historical fixture. It's not actually U.S. Code or a Statute.
 
ernst barkmann said:
as stated.... in code..there is only "legal evidence of law"/"conclusive evidence of law", ................and there is "evidence of law"
Click to expand...

And you have been shown repeatedly that the Declaration of Independence was never law nor is it evidence of law.
 
Removable Mind said:
Prima Facie Evidence of our sovereignty was so historically important that Congress wanted to included these documents (printed in full) as the Preamble (a historical account) to an updated/corrected/revised Statutes on Record (which includes every Act, treaty, proclamation, and declaration from the beginning our nation's sovereignty to 1878). But these historical documents are not in and of themselves Federal Code or Statutes.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/USCODE/text (U.S. Code Table of Contents)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/RULES/fre (Federal Rules of Evidence)

The United States Statutes At Large is the Congressional repository for all past, current, and future laws, proclamations, etc...in which the DOI is a permanent historical fixture. It's not actually U.S. Code or a Statute.
Click to expand...

the DOI is code...its not a statute, as stated by me, and has no force of law as stated by me, and made prima facie as opposed the the revised statutes of 1873, which did not include the organic laws.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
no, you have been shows by acts of congress which are dated, the "printed volume" which was meant originally"to be statute was instead only made "evidence of law", ..by striking out the word "conclusive".

https://books.google.com/books?id=G... march 9, 1878, 20 stat. 27, ch. 26."&f=false
Click to expand...

The Declaration is a birth announcement of the United States separating from the control of Great Britain. Its legal significance is limited to just that.

After the Dec was signed, it was largely forgotten as having done its job. It played no role in the Constitutional Convention or in any other legal matters before the young nation.

Its placement in an act by the Congress in the 1870's does not change that fact nor does it make it law.
 
haymarket said:
The Declaration is a birth announcement of the United States separating from the control of Great Britain. Its legal significance is limited to just that.

After the Dec was signed, it was largely forgotten as having done its job. It played no role in the Constitutional Convention or in any other legal matters before the young nation.

Its placement in an act by the Congress in the 1870's does not change that fact nor does it make it law.
Click to expand...

sorry wrong:

the 1873 revised statutes does not contain, the organic laws, and it was made "conclusive evidence" of law, the 1878 second revision was to be the same, however it was not and only made evidence of law.

as to largely forgotten..... wrong....the DOI IS USED IN U.S LAW AND I POSTED THE INFO AND LINK ALREADY....which u.s. law recognizes the founding principles of america.
 
haymarket said:
Every post from you in this thread has been code for something ..... what that is .... who the heck knows since you are being super secretive.
Click to expand...

first which you do not get...i am speaking of the revised statutes of the 1870's not 1926 code.

the Code is in two parts positive and non positive...with the 1873 edtion positive and the 1878 revision ,non positive.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry wrong:

the 1873 revised statutes does not contain, the organic laws, and it was made "conclusive evidence" of law, the 1878 second revision was to be the same, however it was not and only made evidence of law.

as to largely forgotten..... wrong....the DOI IS USED IN U.S LAW AND I POSTED THE INFO AND LINK ALREADY....which u.s. law recognizes the founding principles of america.
Click to expand...

nope - its not law and never has been law. And you have never provided one instance of where it was used as law for Americans.
 
ernst barkmann said:
first which you do not get...i am speaking of the revised statutes of the 1870's not 1926 code.

the Code is in two parts positive and non positive...with the 1873 edtion positive and the 1878 revision ,non positive.
Click to expand...

You can tell me all about your non positive reticulated archived cranistan operating within the revised or abridged statutes of shadowy obscurity for all I care. It makes no difference as the DofI never was law and never has been law.
 
haymarket said:
You can tell me all about your non positive reticulated archived cranistan operating within the revised or abridged statutes of shadowy obscurity for all I care. It makes no difference as the DofI never was law and never has been law.
Click to expand...

evidence of law..non positive law as stated in post 1
 
ernst barkmann said:
the printed volume was made evidence of law...sorry for you.
Click to expand...

The Dec of Ind was never a law to begin with. Is not a law now. And it can be placed in volumes of Congressional activity every day until doomsday and that still does not make it a law.
 
ernst barkmann said:
evidence of law..non positive law as stated in post 1
Click to expand...

Carbutarun diredunmum - according to the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe - was rejected by the Third High Council of the Judicial committee of the American Legal Association in their landmark study from 1934 titled JURISPRUDENCE AND THE PILL. The Dread High Commissioner - Foul Sauronski - said it all when he wrote the epic conclusion of the report - "nothing here, move on, order a pizza Pauliene I'm coming home".
 
haymarket said:
Carbutarun diredunmum - according to the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe - was rejected by the Third High Council of the Judicial committee of the American Legal Association in their landmark study from 1934 titled JURISPRUDENCE AND THE PILL. The Dread High Commissioner - Foul Sauronski - said it all when he wrote the epic conclusion of the report - "nothing here, move on, order a pizza Pauliene I'm coming home".
Click to expand...

gibberish...nothing related to thread.
 
ernst barkmann said:
gibberish...nothing related to thread.
Click to expand...

Its nonsense crap I made up to get in the spirit that you have been employing since the OP. :roll::mrgreen::lamo

Where is your sense of humor EB? :2wave:
 
ernst barkmann said:
well at least you admit, you create nonsense..
Click to expand...

Do you even recognize when people are openly telling you that your OP and everything else that flowed from you in the thread is all nonsense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom