Woman Screams Rape While Being Arrested After Claiming She Doesn’t Have to Follow Laws

[Pottapaug1938]

Article VII also says that:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

I guess that Patriotdiscussions believes that we are governed BOTH by the Articles of Confederation AND the United States Constitution, or perhaps by the former alone. Despite the fact that most of our Consitutional amendments and most of our federal and state laws which change the effect of prior consitutional or statutory provisions rarely state explicitly that the prior provisions or laws are explicitly repealed, he also seems to think that the Articles of Confederation are still in effect since they were not explicitly repealed by any subsequent act (as in "the Articles of Confederation are hereby repealed").

I guess the fact that, since 1789, no legislative or judicial body authorized under the AOC has existed is irrelevant to his fantasy.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Fan boy is correct, the AOC could have been repealed, in fact all fan boy has to show is that according to the law set out in it that it was in fact repealed.

Doesn't the US Constitution effectively repeal the AOC by replacing then, in their entirety? No need to repeal the AOC once the Constitution was adopted, as adopting the constitution effectively ended the AOC.

Did the 1609 Carolina charter repeal the 1606 charter?

What does the word perpetual mean do you think?

Was the NWO of 1787 also repealed?

[Famspear]

Did the 1609 Carolina charter repeal the 1606 charter?

Does anyone who knows anything about the topic think the answer has anything material to do with what is being discussed in this thread? No, "fan boy."

What does the word perpetual mean do you think?

Let's see what YOU think the word "perpetual" means in the Articles of Confederation. YOU think it means something like "lasting or enduring forever."

What it actually means in the Articles of Confederation is something like "lasting for an indefinitely long time." An "indefinitely long time" may or may not be "forever." Since you're having trouble with the concept, here's a dictionary definition of "perpetual":

....lasting or enduring forever OR FOR AN INDEFINITELY LONG TIME.....

---from Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 1060, World Publishing Co., Inc. (Second College Edition 1978) (emphasis added).

Do you see the word "or" in that definition? Good boy, fan boy.

Was the NWO [Northwest Ordinance] of 1787 also repealed?

Would the answer to that question mean what you think it should mean? No.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Sweet, so in trying to find the meanings of words used hundreds of years ago, we should use modern dictionaries.

Makes sense, that's what the founders used right?

Let's see what the AOC says.....

And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.

Now with reading comprehension in mind...

Should it state this union shall be forever, or this union shall be an indefinite length of time?

Hmmm, that's a tough one eh?


Now, the constitutional convention was not supposed to offer up a new constitution, it was supposed to amend the AOC, which is why RI stayed home, it's also why Henry and Sam Adams stayed home as well.

[Famspear]

Sweet. Fan boy is still trying lecture us on the interpretation of the Articles of Confederation.

Yes, Moonbeam, we're using a modern day dictionary in this case.

I'm sorry that things didn't turn out the way you and (presumably) Henry and Sam Adams hoped they would. But you're stuck with legal reality: the Articles of Confederation is/are not, today, in the year 2015, the current law of the United States of America.

By the way, in American property law (which is based on English property law), even the term "forever" does not always mean what an untutored person (Patriotdiscussions, are you paying attention?) might carelessly assume it would mean.

Consider a standard habendum clause in a deed evidencing the conveyance of an interest in real estate:

.....to have and to hold the above described premises, together with, all and singular, the rights and appurtenances thereto in any wise belonging, unto the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns forever.

Does the word "forever" in that clause necessarily mean that the Grantees will hold the property as long as they live? Of course not.

A separate but interesting first year property law course question: Is the legal effect of that habendum clause such that the heirs and assigns have acquired any right to the property at the time of the conveyance to the "Grantees"???

[AndyK]

Irrespective to (as usual) his posts having no relationship to the topic at hand, PD is totally correct in that the Articles of Confederation ARE, in fact, the governing laws of the United states Of PD, on Planet PD.

Unfortunately, they have absolutely no such status on our planet.

[Famspear]

.......Now, the constitutional convention was not supposed to offer up a new constitution, it was supposed to amend the AOC, which is why RI stayed home, it's also why Henry and Sam Adams stayed home as well.

Oh, waaaaaahhhhhhhh! Waaaaaaahhhhhh!



It's just not faaaaaaaaaiiiiiiirrrr!



No one is following the Articles of Confederation!

"Patriot ("Moonbeam") discussions" is upset because no one is following the Articles of Confederation! Those people back then who got the Constitution ratified and threw out the Articles of Confederation just didn't do it right!

Moonbeam knows how to interpret the law, and all the thousands upon thousands of legal experts since the late 1700s are just WRONG!

Oh, waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!

[Famspear]

In our next episode, "Patriot (Moonbeam) discussions" explains why all the brain surgeons are doing brain surgery all wrong, and why you should send your loved one to him instead.....

[arayder]

The problem, PD, is that you fish through the law hoping to find some elephant hidden in a mouse hole which will allow you to tell your clients/students you have found a way out from under the certainty of the law.

The problem is that whether you are claiming that the federal government has no authority outside D.C., or that auto titles are invalid, or that the Articles of Confederation still have to force of law you don't have a single theory that hasn't already been rejected in open court.

It's pretty clear that you have read each theory at some website written by a pseudo-scholar who never bothered to tell you his theory is bogus.

It's a pretty good bet that you've seen the originators of these bogus theories get some street cred in your crowd. And you desperately want to be like those guys.

My guess is that it's not going all that well.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Did the 1609 Carolina charter repeal the 1606 charter?

It doesn't matter.

What does the word perpetual mean do you think?

Self renewing. In effect until circumstances require a change/replacement.

Was the NWO of 1787 also repealed?

It doesn't matter.

[arayder]

PD has always had it backwards. He thinks old law trumps the new law that replaced it. He thinks old dead case law trumps new case law which changed precedent.

When called on it he said that he treasured old law because it shows the intent of the legislators and judges from the corresponding period. But he never explained why the rest of us should reject the law as it stands now in favor of his version of the 19th century.

I point out that much of what PD thinks was 19th century law never was in the first place.

[bmxninja357]

A common belife in the alternative law world is 'oldest in time first in line'. I have heard this in one for or another for years. And it fails. Every time.

Peace
Ninj

[LPC]

Let's see what the AOC says.....

And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.

Which is what happened. A new constitution was proposed, and ratified by every state, replacing the articles of confederation.

Now, the constitutional convention was not supposed to offer up a new constitution, it was supposed to amend the AOC, which is why RI stayed home, it's also why Henry and Sam Adams stayed home as well.

And yet all the states (including RI) ratified the new constitution anyway, despite what the convention was "supposed" to do.

The ratification of the Constitution was vigorously debated, votes were taken, and the Federalists won. Get over it.

[NYGman]

Sweet, so in trying to find the meanings of words used hundreds of years ago, we should use modern dictionaries.

Makes sense, that's what the founders used right?

Let's see what the AOC says.....

And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.

Now with reading comprehension in mind...

Should it state this union shall be forever, or this union shall be an indefinite length of time?

Hmmm, that's a tough one eh?


Now, the constitutional convention was not supposed to offer up a new constitution, it was supposed to amend the AOC, which is why RI stayed home, it's also why Henry and Sam Adams stayed home as well.

EIDT: I guess between me starting this post, and getting to the end [Kids dinner time] LPC Beat me to it.

Isn't this (Bolded above) exactly what happened. We had a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, which actually started with the purpose to modify the existing AOC to essentially address issues concerning the lack of federal powers to deal with interstate disputes. However, they debated and ended up writing a new constitution, which was subsequently approved by all the states. Yes RI was absent, but ultimately did approve, and NY only had 1 delegate, but this was ratified by all the states, so in the end, the amending of the AOD resulted in the Constitution, which effectively replaced the old AOC. If you want, I will pull out my old Collage Development of Law materials, and find some quotes.

The AOC were ineffective, the Constitution we have today is the fix for the AOC. It supersedes the old AOC, replacing it entirely. It no longer as any relevance, outside of historical studies, and at one point I did study it, but that was years ago...

[fortinbras]

Once again, does anyone know who/what happened before and after this video? What was the outcome in court, etc.?

[grixit]

It's not Pathetic Digression's fault that their Word-A-Day calendar didn't have "supercede".