Jurisdiction evidence

[AndyK]

Let's go back and review some things (again )

Travis has accepted the following as facts; thereby evidence according to his definition:

Come again? How is a random fact evidence for anything? If I say that the sky is blue (fact) is proof that you owe me $5000, would you pay up? Aren't you missing the relevant, hence not fallacious, aspect of this?

First, what aspect are we missing? It seems that your goal posts are constantly in motion.

Second, you have accepted as facts a clearly-defined chain of events which specifically establish the jurisdiction of the government of the United States. I believe that was the crux of your original question.

[travis]

The OP question is:
"What evidence do you rely upon that the US Constitution, Code and Regulations apply to anyone, past, present and future?"

You mean to say that some people engaging in various legal rituals for 200 years or more is evidence that the law applies? Did you miss the non fallacious part I keep reminding posters about? Hint: circular argument and non sequitur.

[Pottapaug1938]

@wserra: I applaud you for stating that there is no evidence. That takes courage.

That's not what he said; but then again, you've never correctly characterized anyone else's statement on Quatloos, so why should this be any different?

If wserra considers that I'm putting words into his mouth, he can say so himself, he's obviously a grownup. On the other hand, considering that he accuses me of sophistry, he's also dishonest.

You Pottapaug1938 keep repeating that you've provided evidence that the law applies, and that you're wasting time with me. I've said that you're a liar because you continue to waste time and the "evidence" you presented is actually a circular argument. You do understand what a circular argument is, don't you? I don't think you're a moron. On the banning issue, I do think you have more in common with Bolsheviks than ordinary people, but hey, that's what basing your perception of reality on delusions leads to.

No, that's not what I said at all; but then you've twisted my words in the past, so why should I expect anything different from you? As for my providing the evidence which you are demanding, I've repeatedly told you where to find it; and it is intellectually dishonest for you to accuse me of presenting a circular argument when you have yet to review that evidence, or even attempt to offer any logical proof that the laws don't apply to us all.

[Edit by LPC to correct attribution]

[Pottapaug1938]

The OP question is:
"What evidence do you rely upon that the US Constitution, Code and Regulations apply to anyone, past, present and future?"

You mean to say that some people engaging in various legal rituals for 200 years or more is evidence that the law applies? Did you miss the non fallacious part I keep reminding posters about? Hint: circular argument and non sequitur.

No, that's not what he meant. He meant that there is over 200 years of court decisions which show that these things DO apply to us all; but as I just said in my other recent post, you refuse to look at any of this evidence, although you have been repeatedly told where to find it. Perhaps you are afraid that you will see that the laws DO apply to you, and your little sovrun fantasy will vanish into thin air.

[travis]

@Pottapaug1938: do me a favor and post whatever you consider evidence in those court decisions. I don't refuse to look at the evidence, I refuse to go out there and find the needle in the haystack, if there is a needle to be found.

[AndyK]

The OP question is:
"What evidence do you rely upon that the US Constitution, Code and Regulations apply to anyone, past, present and future?"

You mean to say that some people engaging in various legal rituals for 200 years or more is evidence that the law applies? Did you miss the non fallacious part I keep reminding posters about? Hint: circular argument and non sequitur.

No. The evidence that the law applies is the specific language of the Constitution.

Since you appear to be able to read, start with Article I, Section 8; Article II, section 2; Article III, Section 2; and Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(bolding added)

The Constitution, itself, answers your question. If that doesn't satisfy you, then you are, indeed, nothing more than the troll of the day -- posting here for nothing more than to feed your ego.

[Duke2Earl]

I first saw this early yesterday before any responses were made. I thought it was a colossal waste of time. Perhaps I should start a new thread posing the question "How high is up?" Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what possible difference it could make to anyone whether or not "evidence" exists or not. What we have is someone who has asked a nonsense question and insists that no answer will do.

I certainly hope this is serving an educational purpose because otherwise it is simply a waste of electrons and time.

[travis]

I first saw this early yesterday before any responses were made. I thought it was a colossal waste of time. Perhaps I should start a new thread posing the question "How high is up?" Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what possible difference it could make to anyone whether or not "evidence" exists or not. What we have is someone who has asked a nonsense question and insists that no answer will do.

I certainly hope this is serving an educational purpose because otherwise it is simply a waste of electrons and time.

I insist that no answer will do? BS. Your BS answers won't do. The difference between the existence of "evidence" and lack thereof is the difference between moral and immoral. This is the facade on which governments try to hide their corrupt nature, by definition. Do you have evidence that the law applies?

[travis]

The Constitution, itself, answers your question. If that doesn't satisfy you, then you are, indeed, nothing more than the troll of the day -- posting here for nothing more than to feed your ego.

The Constitution says it applies so the Constitution applies. Missed the done already about circular arguments? I'm not posting this to stroke my ego, just to find out whether you're rational individuals or delusional followers of a religion.

[Pottapaug1938]

@Pottapaug1938: do me a favor and post whatever you consider evidence in those court decisions. I don't refuse to look at the evidence, I refuse to go out there and find the needle in the haystack, if there is a needle to be found.

You do indeed refuse to look at the evidence. The "needle in the haystack" approach is one reason why I have not performed this search for you; but the other reason, which I have repeately given you, is that the evidence already exists on Quatloos. I do not have the time of inclination to reinvent the wheel and recapitulate it for you.

I'll even give you other sources. If you have a Boy Scout Shop near you, stop in and grab merit badge pamphlets for the Citizenship in the Community, Nation and World merit badges. Those will give you a nice start. Or, you can go to your book store and look for the "Dummies" and "The Complete Idiot's Guide" series of books. Despite their titles, both provide excellent introductory overviews of many subjects; and I keep "Law For Dummies" and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Making Money With Mutual Funds" on my desk as reference material.

For further information, a college-level course in American government would be useful to you.

You now have no excuse at all to avoid beginning your search.

[Pottapaug1938]

The Constitution, itself, answers your question. If that doesn't satisfy you, then you are, indeed, nothing more than the troll of the day -- posting here for nothing more than to feed your ego.

The Constitution says it applies so the Constitution applies. Missed the done already about circular arguments? I'm not posting this to stroke my ego, just to find out whether you're rational individuals or delusional followers of a religion.

No, it applies because over 200 years of court decisions say so. See my last post for advice on how to find the answer for yourself.

[Duke2Earl]

I first saw this early yesterday before any responses were made. I thought it was a colossal waste of time. Perhaps I should start a new thread posing the question "How high is up?" Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what possible difference it could make to anyone whether or not "evidence" exists or not. What we have is someone who has asked a nonsense question and insists that no answer will do.

I certainly hope this is serving an educational purpose because otherwise it is simply a waste of electrons and time.

I insist that no answer will do? BS. Your BS answers won't do. The difference between the existence of "evidence" and lack thereof is the difference between moral and immoral. This is the facade on which governments try to hide their corrupt nature, by definition. Do you have evidence that the law applies?

I will post one, and only one reply to this nonsense, so you better enjoy it while it lasts. You want to know whether "evidence" that law "applies" exists because that is the difference between morality and immorality... how droll. As I'm sure all are aware, morality is an abstract concept. What is moral in one situation, culture, time period, society, etc. may or may not be moral in another. You also seem to assume that governments are by their nature, corrupt and try to hide that fact by hiding behind "laws." You have proved, therefore, that you asked no legitimate question in the first place. You seem to be looking for an admission from this group that you are godlike... uniquely able to discern what is or is not moral with respect to governance. You want us to state that there is no legitimate basis for government.

In case you were unaware, a question is by its very nature is a request for information. You request no information. You admit as much. You foolishly seem to believe that your word games will somehow prove something to you or about you. Somehow you will "prove" yourself morally superior to the people here by "revealing" that there is no "morality" (as you want to define it) associated with government. Good luck with that. It simply is not going to happen. I suspect that your best course at this point is to do what many previous trolls here have done... declare victory and leave because you have gotten all the answers you are going to get.

[travis]

@Pottapaug1938: I had a look in the "Law for dummies", chapter 1, "What are laws and where do they come from". There is no evidence there, just assertions that the law represents the standards, values and expectations of the society. Maybe that was the case 200 years ago, but it isn't anymore. Not that the "law of the land" has any more meaning attached.

@Duke2Earl: wow, another generous post from you. Morality is an abstract concept but the law isn't. How droll! I've asked a question. Whether you have evidence that the law applies has nothing to do with me, my beliefs or intentions. You have evidence, or you don't, it's simple. BTW, I don't have to prove that there's no morality in the government actions, that's what government and their supporters have to prove since they are asking stuff from me, not the other way around. The troll mention, again, from someone who isn't able to answer a simple question but dedicates a lot of energy and electrons into writing nonsense.

LE: by government I mean individuals acting in the name of this abstract entity's authority.

[Pottapaug1938]

@Pottapaug1938: I had a look in the "Law for dummies", chapter 1, "What are laws and where do they come from". There is no evidence there, just assertions that the law represents the standards, values and expectations of the society. Maybe that was the case 200 years ago, but it isn't anymore. Not that the "law of the land" has any more meaning attached.

Now, keep reading. You've only just begun; and you evidently didn't go past the first page. "Law For Dummies" is not an authoritative textbook, but simply a guide for further research. The evidence is out there, if you're willing to look for it, find it and understand it. We've told you where to look.

Another source could be law school bookstores. They have books available which provide excellent summaries of an area of the law -- in my law school days, if I were taking a course on Constitutional Law, I might buy the Gilbert's guide on that subject to hep me along. These guies provide a nice summary of the law, as well as citations to help you explore further.

[Cpt Banjo]

The difference between the existence of "evidence" and lack thereof is the difference between moral and immoral. This is the facade on which governments try to hide their corrupt nature, by definition. Do you have evidence that the law applies?

So after spewing B.S. for days, Travis comes down to this: the law "applies" to someone only if the application of the law is moral. Conflating legality with morality allows him to ignore the text of the Constitution and statutes and all judicial opinions. Instead, his criterion is simply whether the use of force by the government in a particular case is moral, according to his standards of morality (which, I suspect, he believes are objective, eternal truths). As Wes pointed out, we've seen this kind of argument before.

There are two possibilities: (a) he thinks that applying the law to anyone is never moral because of the specious argument that the people can't grant the government the right to use force that the people don't possess individually, or (b) the application of the law to someone may or may not be moral and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. For example, he might admit that the government's forcing a thief to return stolen property to its rightful owner is moral. But then again, he might not -- he might think this is the responsibility of the owner, unaided by anyone else.

So he is basically demanding a demonstration that applying the law to anyone is consistent with his view of morality.

Whether you have evidence that the law applies has nothing to do with me, my beliefs or intentions. You have evidence, or you don't, it's simple. BTW, I don't have to prove that there's no morality in the government actions, that's what government and their supporters have to prove since they are asking stuff from me, not the other way around.

Note how he contradicts himself. On the one hand, he claims that the kind of evidence he's demanding is unrelated to his personal beliefs. On the other hand, he demands that the evidence must demonstrate that applying the law is moral. Which is it, son?

[travis]

@Cpt Banjo: Father, stop the BS, do you have evidence that the law applies to anyone? I don't care about your other views and interpretations.

[Pottapaug1938]

@Cpt Banjo: Father, stop the BS, do you have evidence that the law applies to anyone? I don't care about your other views and interpretations.

"There is none so blind as those who will not see."

Travis, you have been told, time and time again, where you can find the evidence you seek. You obviously don't care to look, though, because like so many trolls on Quatloos you are playing what one might call "Troll Whack-A-Mole." You start by posing an innocuous question; and when the answers appear you respond with evasions, distortions, lies, misrepresentations and irrelevancies. Your sole goal is to be able to strut onto some other forum like the Saving to Suitors or Sui Juris circle-jerks, and be able to brag "I went onto Quatloos and challenged them to answer some questions. They could not or would not answer them."

[travis]

@Pottapaug1938: sorry to disagree with you. Going to law school to understand whether there's evidence that the law applies to me is ludicrous. This means either to accept the baseless assertion that it applies or to go through some years of probable indoctrination in order to find the Holy Grail of the Law. And I'm not doing this to brag on other forums how smart I am, thus negating your thesis (among others) that I'm here to troll.

[Cpt Banjo]

@Cpt Banjo: Father, stop the BS, do you have evidence that the law applies to anyone? I don't care about your other views and interpretations.

Until you define what you mean by "applies", you're nothing but a troll who's too intellectually dishonest to admit he's talking about morality instead of legality and who poses as some kind of logician who won't acknowledge the premises he's starting from.

The usual process of determining whether the law applies to anyone is to take the law as a given, look at the facts of a particular case, and see if there is a correspondence between the rules set out in the law and the facts. But it's obvious you aren't using the word "applies" in this sense because you don't accept the law as a given. Fine. Then tell us what you mean by "applies".

[travis]

@Cpt Banjo: I perfectly understand your point, and most points expressed so far in the thread. The law applies because it's axiomatic. That's not what I'm looking for and, if this is the only evidence I'm going to get, nice talking to you!