Sorry, that's the Gettysburg Address. Analytics said "we the people," but also mentioned "by the people and of the people" which is what caught my attention and which is a paraphrase of the GA. Yes, I was rattling off the post and misspoke. My mistake.

Now, no need to pretend you understand the constitution, Darth. You've made quite clear over time that you have your own version between your ears that follows its own inclinations.

And now, I won't be engaging you and your juvenile thread derailments any longer. You already destroyed one post, and I assume if I don't respond any more, and give you a cookie, you will eventually go away when your baiting is no longer responded to.

Interesting facts about Droopy:

---He doesn't believe that Article III of the Constitution, the role of the judiciary outlined in The Federalist, and the common law tradition the United States comes from mean that case law really is law. Somehow he thinks that the Constitution is a self-executing document.

---He does believe that the LDS Church can authoritatively interpret the myths that ancient Hebrews wrote about their tribal god. Somehow the Bible, and Joseph Smith's fanfic derived from it, is not self-executing.

Go figure, huh?

Droopy, since you don't want whatever the point of this thread is to be derailed, here you go:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=12849

You've had over a year and a half to show everyone that you understand the Constitution better than I do. Let's see that verified.

Just the fact that you think the Declaration of Independence establishes the government, or anything else, is sufficient proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Getting the most famous words in the Constitution---the Preamble---wrong was a nice touch, though.

I don't think the Declaration establishes anything. What I meant to say there was that the words "by the people, for the people etc.) were part of the Declaration. Call it a brain cramp. Oh well. That, of course, was the Gettysburg address.

I know perfectly well what the Declaration and constitution say, but sometimes I don't pay close enough attention to what I'm typing, and don't think through the constructions of my sentences thoroughly, in a message board environment, especially when typing furiously because I want to get a post up before I have to run out of the house to untangle the dog from the tree in the center of my front yard, or to answer the phone.

You know, perhaps instead of just assuming that someone you disagree with is stupid, or doesn't know what they're talking about (a bit of projection, perhaps?), you might ask for clarification of something that you should know perfectly well is likely not what that person meant to say.

But I don't think you have the personal or intellectual integrity to do that.

You wouldn't have left the church if you had, nor would you behave hear the way you do if you did.

Yeah, the Gettysburg Address is another of our more important sources for substantive law.



Drawing a conclusion based on the things you say is not "projection." I have yet to find anywhere on any message board that would lead me to the conclusion that you know anything about constitutional law. Yet you never fail to say that I don't know anything about the Constitution, or that lawyers in general don't know anything about the Constitution. And apparently you think that court consists of applying the Socratic method to message board posts.

And I know you really like to think you are some purist because you believe in the Constitution itself---as if it is possible to apply the Constitution without interpreting it---but as far as judicial review creating case law that determines what the Constitution means, that ship sailed in 1803.



Oh, of course! Intellectually honest people cannot help but maintain a belief in the faith-promoting narrative.

Where does D&C 132 authorize "ceremonial polyandrous sealings," again? I keep forgetting.

As long as we value greed and the interests of a ruling class over the spiritual and worldly needs of members, then there is only room for right-wing thought at this table. Let those do-gooders have their leftism and we can have our Thousand Year Quorum.

Choose the Far Right.

- Moksha, The Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Two Year Leap, Penguin Books. Skousen City, Alberta 2012.

The biggest similarity between Droopy and Karl Marx is that they are both extraordinarily concerned with people freeloading off of the work of others. The difference is that Karl Marx thinks the freeloaders are the ones who live like gods but don’t actually work because they live off of the dividends their ownership of capital provides. In contrast, Droopy thinks the freeloaders are the folks who do manual labor for minimum wage and ask that healthcare coverage be included in their contract with society.

Case law has become, unfortunately, in many cases a slow, creeping rewriting of the constitution through incremental precedent, and with the general present moral and intellectual state of the contemporary legal profession and judiciary, this has become the very point of much special interest litigation.



I know you really enjoy this vulgar, intellectually primitive Madalyn Murry 'O Hair-like baiting and mockery, but all it does is just make you look more like the terminal end of a horse than you did the post before.

I've never said that you don't understand constitutional law, at least as presently understood within many of our law schools. What I've said is that you have little understanding (or, more likely, have no intention of understanding) the constitution. You're entire past gay marriage schtick is evidence enough of that.

Two very different things, the constitution and constitutional law, depending upon one's approach to "constitutional law."

So then, Someone who has earned large sums of wealth through productive economic activity in which he created and built up a successful business, provided jobs and economic opportunity for others, and increased the net wealth of his community and nation, and who then takes a portion of his savings and invests it in further productive economic activity, job creation, and in providing his fellow citizens with things they want to trade some of their property for of their own free will, and who is directly at risk, if his own money has been used, and directly responsible to others, if he has borrowed and is managing the funds of others, is a "freeloader"?

The entire job creating class; the investors who take their own earned income, itself generated from serving there fellow human beings in a way that those human beings found useful and desirable, and reinvest it in the creation of jobs, opportunity, and wealth for others, as well as themselves, and who then, reinvest those profits in yet other profitable economic activities, are parasites.

Fascinating.



Very few Americans work for the minimum wage (approximately 2.5% of all wage earners and 1.5% of the entire American workforce) and of those who do, The vast majority are not relying on those wages to subsist.

The average family income of the minimum wage worker is around $65,000 per year. Why, because the average minimum wage worker is between 16 and 24 years of age, and is living at home with parents or other working family members, or, above 25 years of age, is part of a family in which multiple members work. This is why Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that only 17% of minimum wage earners are living below the poverty line. Most of these people are actually living in middle class households, not sleeping in cardboard boxes at the railroad yard.

Well has Dr. Thomas Sowell et al termed Marxism a "crackpot" economic theory with so little intellectual rigor outside its own internal theoretical web, and so little connection to actually existing economic and social reality as to be an intellectual comic irrelevance, had it not become to popular in the minds of much of the western intelligentsia over the course of the 20th century.

It is these kinds of ideas - exactly these kinds of ideas - that, when left to run their course and follow their own inherent internal logic, end in things like Mao Tse Tung's views and policies on agricultural reform.

And about this alleged "contract with society" you claim exists. What is this contract, who agreed to it and on what terms, and how is this entity you call "society" to be defined?

I view the story of the driving out of the traders from the temple as showing a tale against the greed that the right holds so dear to their heart. Surely if Jesus was supportive of the right, he would have let them get on with their business?

The degree to which you're out of the loop in this entire discussion is utterly breathtaking, Melchett. I think I'll just avoid discussing this stuff with you from this point on so as to avoid an ad hominem fit of frustration, as its becoming awfully tempting, and I'd rather not get into that with anymore folks then its already happened with.

Suit yourself Droops. If you can't discuss more than one thing at a time.

I thought that it has been over 12 hours had passed, I could take things in a different direction.

Droopy, I'm sorry to interrupt your parade of ignorance yet again, but case law is a methodology. It is the way judges follow precedent in Anglo-American law. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics or value judgments. Your babbling here is analogous to saying that because there are some socialists who write literature, literature is a socialist field.

Tell me about the overreaching power grab by tyrannical judicial activists in Troxel v. Granville, for example. Or Boys Scouts of America v. Dale.



Still waiting for you to copy and paste some posts of mine that prove what my political leanings are, Droopy. Until then, please continue to admit by your conduct that "liberal" means "someone who disagrees with me."

And makes me look like a horse's ass to whom? To a reactionary religious fanatic who parrots Heritage Foundation talking points and thinks that padding his posts with unnecessary verbiage makes them appear to be substantive? Wow, that certainly will keep me up at night.



I have never seen any reason to believe that you have any idea what is taught in law school. However, you are continuing to pile up evidence that you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about, since you think lawyers base their understanding of law on what they read in law school, versus what they learn in practicing law.

Another point in the "you have no idea what you are talking about" column is that you insist that all lawyers---or even most lawyers---have the same political leanings (or even have any particular political leanings).



I look forward to your addressing the equal protection argument, Droopy. You can start by demonstrating where in the United States your fantasies about "traditional marriage" are codified.



And I can't wait to see you demonstrate your understanding of the scriptures by explaining what they mean independently of the aegis of the LDS Church.

I wonder who it is you think disputes that the Constitution itself and case law interpreting the Constitution are different things. I'm sure you will tell everyone, instead of continuing with your uninformed babbling.

(Note to readers: the above should not be taken as a suggestion that the U.S. Constitution is comparable to Mormon scriptures.)