"Wisdom from Snoop Dogg"

[Que]

You cant write Ron Paul in:
Indiana Code 3-8-1

It's probably too late for Indiana. I think Maine was the only state that moved fast enough to qualify him as a write in candidate.

 

[wagyu52]

What's wrong with that? Once you have repaid your debt to society, why shouldn't all of your rights be restored? If everyone who was a felon lost their right to vote, some smart politician would round up his competitive political base and arrest as many as possible for felonious actions.

Only Gods judgment should be eternal. He's the only one qualified to make that decision.

Magna Carta, Due Process, though not perfect, these laws have been in place in societies for hundreds of years to prevent just sort of a situation in your example.

Gods judgement is eternal, but God also recognizes governmental law as well and that you must pay for your crimes. Just look at Gen. 9:6, Rom. 13:4, Act 25:11, Matt. 5:17-26 & 40

 

[GBuck]

Only on INGO could a thread go from Snoop to RP to write in voting to religion.

 

[littletommy]

Only on INGO could a thread go from Snoop to RP to write in voting to religion.

I wonder what James Yeager would say about this thread?

 

[GBuck]

I wonder what James Yeager would say about this thread?

 

[jeremy]

I wonder what James Yeager would say about this thread?

Probably something derogatory about me...

 

[wagyu52]

Only on INGO could a thread go from Snoop to RP to write in voting to religion.

So you don't watch any videos on YouTube Snoop to Religion is nothing.

 

[NYFelon]

I wonder what James Yeager would say about this thread?

Whatever it was, you can be certain it would involve a lot of pompous proclamations and shoulder twitching.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Magna Carta, Due Process, though not perfect, these laws have been in place in societies for hundreds of years to prevent just sort of a situation in your example.

Gods judgement is eternal, but God also recognizes governmental law as well and that you must pay for your crimes. Just look at Gen. 9:6, Rom. 13:4, Act 25:11, Matt. 5:17-26 & 40

If we are going to go down this path, I would recommend that we consider the nature of governmental authority and crime. Under the standards you mention, one is compelled to be submissive to the authority over him. In a constitutional republic, that authority, ultimately, is the Constitution. How do you deal with those passages of scripture in terms of laws based on usurped authority which are not sanctioned by the Constitution? No, I don't intend to accept the dodge of whatever the Supremes say is good. Scalia may have been caught making fun of those who take the Tenth Amendment seriously, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still there, even if ignored like most of the rest of the Constitution.

 

[NYFelon]

Magna Carta, Due Process, though not perfect, these laws have been in place in societies for hundreds of years to prevent just sort of a situation in your example.

Gods judgement is eternal, but God also recognizes governmental law as well and that you must pay for your crimes. Just look at Gen. 9:6, Rom. 13:4, Act 25:11, Matt. 5:17-26 & 40

Yes, the Magna Carta, which held such pearls of wisdom as...

[7] A widow, after the death of her husband, is immediately and without any difficulty to have her marriage portion and her inheritance, nor is she to pay anything for her dower or her marriage portion or for her inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of her husband’s death, and she shall remain in the chief dwelling place of her husband for forty days after her husband’s death, within which time dower will be assigned her if it has not already been assigned, unless that house is a castle, and if it is a castle which she leaves, then a suitable house will immediately be provided for her in which she may properly dwell until her dower is assigned to her in accordance with what is aforesaid, and in the meantime she is to have her reasonable necessities (estoverium) from the common property. As dower she will be assigned the third part of all the lands of her husband which were his during his lifetime, save when she was dowered with less at the church door. No widow shall be distrained to marry for so long as she wishes to live without a husband, provided that she gives surety that she will not marry without our assent if she holds of us, or without the assent of her lord, if she holds of another.

[32] No free man is henceforth to give or sell any more of his land to anyone, unless the residue of his land is sufficient to render due service to the lord of the fee as pertains to that fee.

[34] No-one is to be taken or imprisoned on the appeal of woman for the death of anyone save for the death of that woman’s husband.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's use a document established by feudal lords which disallows women property, or to bear witness to any crime except the murder of her husband, nor permits the sale of land save that enough of it be left to pay homage to his lord. Marvelous rationale there.

While we're at it, let's bring back the doctrine of outlawry, where persons so declared may be deprived of liberty, property, and life by anyone who so chooses. The Constitution itself prohibits attainder except in cases of treason, and even then it may not carry corruption of blood or civil death. The Founders roundly rejected such notions as not suitable for a Republic founded on liberty and the right to property. We have however returned to a form of civil death by virtue of collateral consequences, which while depriving persons of their innate humanity by virtue of conviction, have been deemed to "not be punishment", and thereby not subject to Constitutional regulation.

Viva la Feudal system!

 

[sepe]

Probably something derogatory about me...

As he should!!!

 

[wagyu52]

If we are going to go down this path, I would recommend that we consider the nature of governmental authority and crime. Under the standards you mention, one is compelled to be submissive to the authority over him. In a constitutional republic, that authority, ultimately, is the Constitution. How do you deal with those passages of scripture in terms of laws based on usurped authority which are not sanctioned by the Constitution? No, I don't intend to accept the dodge of whatever the Supremes say is good. Scalia may have been caught making fun of those who take the Tenth Amendment seriously, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still there, even if ignored like most of the rest of the Constitution.

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Ultimately we did not heed this warning and now we are paying the repercussions. As a follower of Christ I ultimately have to answer to the laws of scripture, even when my Government dose not.

 

[Raskolnikov]

You cant write Ron Paul in:
Indiana Code 3-8-1

Very interesting; I'd never read the law before. Gary Johnson it is, all the same. Thanks for sharing!

 

[wagyu52]

Yes, the Magna Carta, which held such pearls of wisdom as...







Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's use a document established by feudal lords which disallows women property, or to bear witness to any crime except the murder of her husband, nor permits the sale of land save that enough of it be left to pay homage to his lord. Marvelous rationale there.

While we're at it, let's bring back the doctrine of outlawry, where persons so declared may be deprived of liberty, property, and life by anyone who so chooses. The Constitution itself prohibits attainder except in cases of treason, and even then it may not carry corruption of blood or civil death. The Founders roundly rejected such notions as not suitable for a Republic founded on liberty and the right to property. We have however returned to a form of civil death by virtue of collateral consequences, which while depriving persons of their innate humanity by virtue of conviction, have been deemed to "not be punishment", and thereby not subject to Constitutional regulation.

Viva la Feudal system!

Due process is in our Bill of Rights, Magna Carta dates back to 1354 long before the existence of a Constitutional Republic. Criticizing a near 700 year old document that established legal rights because it fails meet the standards of current laws that uphold legal rights

 

[IndyDave1776]

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Ultimately we did not heed this warning and now we are paying the repercussions. As a followers of Christ I ultimately have to answer to the laws of scripture, even when my Government dose not.

True, but not the direction I was heading. My question is how do you deal with the notion of being required/not required to follow the dictates of those who are not following the law themselves?

 

[NYFelon]

Due process is in our Bill of Rights, Magna Carta dates back to 1354 long before the existence of a Constitutional Republic. Criticizing a near 700 year old document that established legal rights because it fails meet the standards of current laws that uphold legal rights

Actually, Magna Carta dates to 1215. But who's keeping track?

 

[GBuck]

Actually, Magna Carta dates to 1215. But who's keeping track?

I don't know where the 1354 comes from, but yes it dates to 1215. Although, the influential version most people refer to, and that is on display in the National Archives is from 1297.

 

[lucky4034]

Wisdom from Snoop Dog... oxyMORON redefined

 

[lucky4034]

You cant write Ron Paul in:
Indiana Code 3-8-1

You are more than welcome to join me in the booth and watch me

 

[NYFelon]

I don't know where the 1354 comes from, but yes it dates to 1215. Although, the influential version most people refer to, and that is on display in the National Archives is from 1297.

Correct. 1297 was when it was finally translated into English, IIRC.