Conceptualizing the TP/Soverign Movement as a Religion

[notorial dissent]

As an FYI, the database connection has been a bit odd the last few days, and sometimes it just loses the connection and doesn't save what you were working on. I've had this happen a few times, so that is more than likely what happened. You should get a confirmation after you submit something, if you don't, consider whatever you were doing lost.

[wserra]

Good point. I always copy a post to the clipboard before submitting it, just for this reason.

[cynicalflyer]

P.S. I forgot to say, we don't have "Departments" anymore. We have branches. So, my last post apparently only applies to Departments, & not "Branches." What happened to the, DEPARTMENTS? A branch, is an extension of its source but a department is a separation from another body. Department is defined as, a separate part or division. Branch is defined as, “any offshoot of a MAIN stem, as the branch of a stream; an offshoot, lateral extension, or subdivision, a tributary stream.”
I am not trying to be "cute." Sincerely trying & wanting to understand.

In early state constitutions and writings, there was absolutely no consistency in using the terms branch and departments: they were used sometimes to mean the same thing and in others the "departments" were meant as sub-units of a branch. Moreover, "branches" sometimes mean the distinction between the two chambers of the legislature. Consider how the U.S. Constitution references the state legislatures:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

To this day, for example, many state constitutions refer both to "the judicial department" and then some paragraphs or sections later "the judicial branch".

http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2012/09/04/ ... tate-have/

It is not a conspiracy, it has no bearing on the authority of the courts, and won't let you dodge taxes.

[notorial dissent]

As cynicalflyer points out, this is largely a semantic argument without actual distinction or point. The terms are, have, and and can be used interchangeably.

In general, at least in formal writing, one speaks of branches of government when referring to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, and departments as offices or units within the Executive branch. Gov't offices come and go at the whim of the elected gov't, branches of gov't do not as they would require a constitutional change.

[searcher]

I don't know who said it but I believe it, > "Service plus Enforcement equals Compliance."

[grixit]

could you explain that one please?

[searcher]

To: Famspear,
Re: your comment, > "I'm trying my best to obfuscate."

Why? I'm not trying to obfuscate.

[rogfulton]

Still not the explanation requested

I wonder if Searcher is the new handle for an old word salad poster?

[Pottapaug1938]

Still not the explanation requested

I wonder if Searcher is the new handle for an old word salad poster?

He reminds me of the way "lorne" started out.

[Cathulhu]

Verily, the suck-up is strong in this one. So far.

[webhick]

Calm down guys.

[Famspear]

To: Famspear,
Re: your comment, > "I'm trying my best to obfuscate."

Why? I'm not trying to obfuscate.

Ah, that's because you haven't lived the very same life I have lived. If you had experienced the life I have experienced, believe me, you'd be trying to obfuscate.



But seriously, my colleagues have provided good explanations. The terms "department" and "branch" are sometimes used interchangeably to refer to what we learned in grade school to be the three "branches" of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. Although we usually use that term (branch) to refer to those three elements, the term "department" has also been used in that way. Possibly the most famous example of that is the U.S. Supreme Court statement (by Chief Justice John Marshall) in Marbury v. Madison:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

--Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

Like many words, the word "department" has more than one use. For example, when used to describe the Department of the Treasury, the word is being used to describe a "department" in the executive branch of the federal government. When used the way Justice Marshall used it in Marbury v. Madison, it was used to describe the judicial branch of the federal government.

[searcher]

Thanks, webhick, > Calm down guys.
I needed that. I am very sensitive.
weserra,et al,the comment is self explanatory,i.e., it explains itself.

[searcher]

famspear,@ It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

But if any judicial department issues ALL process in the name of the President of the U.S.,this IS some degree of a merger, it seems to me.

[Pottapaug1938]

famspear,@ It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

But if any judicial department issues ALL process in the name of the President of the U.S.,this IS some degree of a merger, it seems to me.

Well, you are wrong. It is, as you note, the job of the judicial branch of government to say what the law is; but in order to enforce the law through use of legal process, the judiciary must then turn to that branch of government with the job of seeing that the laws of our country are faithfully executed: the executive branch, headed by the President.

[Dr. Caligari]

But if any judicial department issues ALL process in the name of the President of the U.S.,this IS some degree of a merger, it seems to me.

You are probably misunderstanding the word "process." When the courts render verdicts, opinions, decisions, etc., those are signed by the judge. "Process" in this context is a technical term referring to a very limited number of papers-- essentially, orders to someone to do something-- which are issued by the court in the President's name because only the executive branch can enforce them (the court doesn't have its own police force).

[Dr. Caligari]

But if any judicial department issues ALL process in the name of the President of the U.S.,this IS some degree of a merger, it seems to me.

You are probably misunderstanding the word "process." When the courts render verdicts, opinions, decisions, etc., those are signed by the judge. "Process" in this context is a technical term referring to a very limited number of papers-- essentially, orders to someone to do something-- which are issued by the court in the President's name because only the executive branch can enforce them (the court doesn't have its own police force).

[Famspear]

I don't know who said it but I believe it, > "Service plus Enforcement equals Compliance."

Since no one has yet pointed out what should be obvious, I guess I will.....

In the past, the sentence "Service plus Enforcement Equals Compliance" has been, of course, used as a motto by the Internal Revenue Service. See, e.g.:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Enforcement-Reve ... rd-in-2004

[searcher]

Hello, Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons.

I like famspear. So far, the answers from famspear makes sense, even to a nut like me. BUT remember, the tall oak tree was once a nut too !!!.

[searcher]

To: Dr. Caligari,
Thank you, "good" Dr. Caligari." Still, I cannot dismiss from my mind what Andrew Jackson said.
To the best of my knowledge, he was not disciplined, in any way. I don't believe what he said was wrong, it makes sense. Also, we have the Judiciary Act of 1948 which seems to take away the Judicial Power established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. In addition,we have a legislative "power clause" beginning with the 13th amendment,& on, that Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution apparently did not cover. Otherwise, I see no need for an additional power clause, e.g., "This amendment shall be enforced via appropriate legislation." Sometimes it looks like the "Courts" are only an extension of the Legislative "Branch" via their rulings, decisions, etc.