Shots fired at the Dog Walker being used to justify violence

[Agent Observer]

Stevesy said:

Hidden rules and laws only a delusional egomaniac could find.

Wow, you're going to have to change your name to Cinderella now, because that phrase fits you like a glass slipper. Of course, the irony of the comment will be lost on him and the others in the "oh my gawdz! yer just slavesez!" crowd.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: You're saying:

----"Nothing anywhere requires me to accept a person's opinion of law in a case I was not part of. In short just because some person, a servant of the people, formed an opinion on a law does not require me to change mine. Unless and until the law is proven to be one way or another the opinion is just an opinion."

Wow, Steve, you're so persuasive that I've changed my mind. Yeah, yeah, from now on, I'm going to look TO YOU, Steve, for the authoritative pronouncement on what the law is. Wow, silly me, what was I thinkin'? Relying on all those silly judges (those "persons, servants of the people") who studied law and who had all that legal training! How silly! Looking to the courts of all places for years and years, and who formed such non-authoritative opinions for hundreds and hundreds of years before you and I were born. All I can say is: It's just lucky for the Republic that Steve came along when he did! Now, let's see .... if I can just convince all the other people here in Quatloos that SteveSy is really the answer, that we should have been looking all along to SteveSy instead of "judges" for the authoritative interpretations of the law.... yeah, hey come on everybody what'ya say? And then we'll work on all 300 million Americans. They've got to see that Steve is the one who should interpr-- (brrrzzzztt/crackle harp music - wavy lines on the TV screen - Steve! - Steve!) (Huh?) Steve, wake up buddy, you were dreaming!

[Dr. Caligari]

The phrase "antecedently existing" is in reference not to judicial decisions but from the practices of the people i.e. "common law" derived from commonly accepted practices of the people. It's common among the people.

And it is a "commonly accepted practice of the people" in the U.S. to pay income taxes on their earnings from jobs in the private sector. So the 861, CtC and other TP arguments must be false.

QED.

[grixit]

Um, doesn't the Declaration indict George Hanover for both oppression and for promoting anarchy?

[silversopp]

Your argument has validated the existence of ever corrupt regime and government there ever was.

Every government has had corruption in it, and every government has abused its power in some way or another. There's a reason why government was referred to by some of the founders as a "necessary evil." Government does have the tendency to be bad and abusive, but on the whole, we are better off with a government than without one.

It's easy to wrap your mind about the bad aspects of government, but you also have to wrap your mind about the benefits of having one too. The Founders did a decent job is trying to limit the evilness of a government as much as possible.

The problem that I see now is that the average American has no interest in government, and spends his free time following the actions of Paris Hilton instead.

[silversopp]

My position is that people should drop the "Well they said so, so I have to accept what they said.". If the decision has no basis other than "I say so" then its crap and people should say its crap. If people stop accepting the crap it will change. Saying nothing and accepting it status quo will change nothing.

Steve, you almost make a real point.

People have no choice but to accept the rulings of the courts (after appeals and all that jazz). The people have to accept it because they get hauled off to jail or have to pay a fine. That is the immediate consequence. Pretending that the courts have no power, when they do, will not change anything.

If a judge rules in a manner you do not like, you have to accept the ruling for the time being, but you can work to replace the judge. Judges can be changed. It's hard work, and I think that the TPs such as yourself aren't capable of hard work. Instead you play in a fantasy world where courts have no power.

Now...the point you almost made...

We recognize that judges rule wrong all the time. Every election cycle, there is talk about what judges the President will appoint. If all the judges were purely objective and neutral, it really wouldn't matter. So the point you bring up is "recognizing that judges rule incorrectly, how do we limit or prevent this?"

The Founders came up with a solution to take judges away from the political process as much as possible so they won't be swayed by party politicals. Life appointments. The downside is that voters can't kick them out. Some states have judges elected by the voters, but the downside to this is that judges have to "campaign" every few years, which involves the raising of funds, which questions the impartiality of the judge.

Your time may be better spent coming up with a great solution to this, and maybe it will gain traction and become law. And for the record, "every man decides the law himself" is not a solution.

[Randall]

The Marshals said no lethal force was used. Do bean bags whiz?

I don't know about bean bags, but dogs whiz. Maybe that is what he heard.