What does the 9th amen mean to you?

DNAprotection said:

ps doc...the specific thing you wrote in the DNA thread I was responding to when first the SHDT was born was that you stated you were going to need to get your debate suit out of the closet to fight the DNAp act proposal in cali...if that helps piece it together any more for ya...

Click to expand...

keep your welcome back kotter bullshit, keep your code words and secret acronyms which only you can parse, and keep your smug self-satisfied responses.

youre an obnoxious little twat.

and i mean that.

desert dude said:

Personally, I consider the use of very obscure references without explanation to be seriously impolite. Supplying a youtube link as explanation compounds the breach of etiquette. I am old enough to remember "Welcome back Kotter" and to know that it was a crappy show to start with.

I am interested in your discussion of jury nullification, though you go off the deep end of the sanity pool with your talk about corporations controlling all the seeds, etc.

Click to expand...

dd I find your statement about my supposed impoliteness to be as ironic as your original question about the SHDT and if you reread the DNA thread that you took a big part in you would know or should know exactly what I mean on both counts.
Your responses in the DNA thread were rooted in anything but responding to the intent and motive behind the proposal, in fact you went directly to whether or not GMO's were 'good or bad' for people which is not a finding of the proposal and to which is entirely irrelevant to the reason for the proposal or the thread, let alone cannot possibly be stated as fact because enough is not yet known to make such a conclusion and to which the proposal actually speaks to and is motivated by, and thus all your 'evidence' and drawing first blood in the 'insult' department were irrelevant and would have probably been held inadmissible in court because you would have needed to prove that you have the 'numbers' you haven't even begin to realize exist in the greater equation of life...so because of the lack of numbers/knowledge to the life equations (which is simply undeniable and undebatable) we are manipulating it is actually the people arguing against the act in irrelevance seeking to rush ahead in such tech regardless which prove the theory that we are not ready for prime time in that area and conversely the people who have decided to proceed in caution that are the best reason for our possibly being mature or evolved enough to be close possibly to utilizing such technology responsibly one day if need be.
So...if you think I've been off the deep end till now, your gonna love this...

[video=youtube;xKG07305CBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xKG07305CBs[/video]


lol...kidding dd

Dr Kynes said:

keep your welcome back kotter bullshit, keep your code words and secret acronyms which only you can parse, and keep your smug self-satisfied responses.

youre an obnoxious little twat.

and i mean that.

Click to expand...

I realize you mean that doc and that in part makes me laugh harder...you go girl...

Doer said:

I like to discuss everything. I detest only this cowardly rancor that sometimes appears.

Did you represent yourself, then? Interesting that the Public sentiment was that high, that it didn't matter who the State chose. That is detail of change of heart in California it didn't know about. Thanks. And congrats for putting up such a high order defense that it won the day. And a very meaningful victory it turned out to be.

These other questions, to me, are right on point about the 9th Amendment. LAW is Alive. That's the first thing they teach.

It can bite, snarl, spit, shrug, cuddle, grow, evolve, turn against you, etc. For what is LAW? Two things for us, Common Law and the Constitution. So, my point is we bring it all on ourselves. It was a wide open, blank slate, based on Common Sense and a very crafty Constitution. And proceeding by, trial by jury, away we went.

We taught ourselves how to do this. It got us through instant wars that have not stopped since day one and Civil Rights. These things are only self-evident. They are not instant.

It is the heart and minds, of we the people, that decide what is LAW. It is not the govt. They only write laws.

We the people make LAW everyday in the jury. Laws are written, but the not the living LAW. It exists to wait for the next jury.

So, of course, it is not in balance. It is un-stable, like Science. And expensive, like Science. Always new rulings, to cause the collisions of logic. Always new situations to challenge those ruling. When Science and Law meet, Watch out, Nellie!!!

And by now, it is very similar to Science. Carefully constructed on bit by bit from basic principles. The Method of Law.

So, these questions will be consumed by LAW, at some point. Other than that I agree it should be looked it. It doesn't seem right to me.

But it will only be solved in the adversarial cauldron. The LAW.

Click to expand...

Apologies for my end of that mule...my choice would be to discuss everything as you have stated, but I am a soldier, if you will, so I tend to respond in the kind that I am approached with only with a twist ya might say.
And yes to the self rep question.
Also I agree with much of what you state here, the problem is that the law is subtle in some areas and therefore the most root or fundamental questions are often not even in question when litigating such important issues. To that I would say the lack of practicing constitutional lawyers has some part, but even what constitutional lawyers we do have tend to restrain from posing the truly fundamental questions in my view.
Thats why sometimes, like with 215/CUA, I feel the need is for the people to preempt state or federal existing law (or lack there of) in whatever legally viable way possible through the ballot process such as exists in cali.

unohu69 said:

Doer & Desert Dude have stated it about as good as it can get. This government has been defunct and unlawful for so many generations now, there will be no stopping it. we are on a crash course. we are fucked.

Click to expand...

And I didn't even get a kiss!!!!

I am back to thinking DNAprotection is insane. His writing has that rambling, incoherent style that stops you in your tracks for a while as you scratch your chin and wonder if anybody else understands a fucking word he said. A lot like Cornell West.

2xcharming said:

And I didn't even get a kiss!!!!

Click to expand...

When you come to the politics section for a kiss, you usually have mistletoe hanging from your coat tails.

The writing style seems vaguely familiar. It has the stench of sock puppet.

what does the ninth amen mean to me?

it means we probably got too high and did an extra night of channukah.

desert dude said:

I am back to thinking DNAprotection is insane. His writing has that rambling, incoherent style that stops you in your tracks for a while as you scratch your chin and wonder if anybody else understands a fucking word he said. A lot like Cornell West.

Click to expand...

Motherfucking Cornell West.

He plays crazy better than anyone except maybe his brother Adam West.

if you havent heard his rant on the origin of the word negro, you should check that shit out.

its as crazy as a soup sandwich.

I haven't seen this question answered so.....
SHDT = Sotomayor has decided that:---> The bill of rights....blah blah blah.

Oh and the 9th means nothing to me because when it comes to the government, we don't really have any rights. Think about the court system and when it comes to "selecting" jurors. I have been called for jury duty, and if you dare have an opinion, or think logically and independently you will not be selected to be a juror. The court system wants people who are easily persuaded.

DNAprotection said:

Apologies for my end of that mule...my choice would be to discuss everything as you have stated, but I am a soldier, if you will, so I tend to respond in the kind that I am approached with only with a twist ya might say.
And yes to the self rep question.
Also I agree with much of what you state here, the problem is that the law is subtle in some areas and therefore the most root or fundamental questions are often not even in question when litigating such important issues. To that I would say the lack of practicing constitutional lawyers has some part, but even what constitutional lawyers we do have tend to restrain from posing the truly fundamental questions in my view.
Thats why sometimes, like with 215/CUA, I feel the need is for the people to preempt state or federal existing law (or lack there of) in whatever legally viable way possible through the ballot process such as exists in cali.

Click to expand...

Well, that is exactly true. Btw, I too fight fire with fire. I prefer discourse, of course. We don't like un-kind aggression, and respond. It can be a weird forum that way.

So, it is true, it's a dynamic system. The Stability is there, but like our Solar System, a lot of moving parts. And likewise, a lot of interesting collisions, giant un-fairness runs in both directions. Take the Civil War. Voting Right Act. ERA. Both the individual States and the Federal Govt, tend to run amok.

In govt there are civil servant and civil tyrants. You know it is completely adversarial from top to bottom. Our entire system is based on physical combat. A long time ago, it was decided one could hire their own brute to best the other guy's brute. Today we call them Lawyers. So, LAW is not for anyone. It is actually against everything, except the "good of the many" including against the 9th.

It has to be constantly contested everyday or what happens? Tyranny. What would happen if we had a code of laws from 200 years ago and they can't be changed? Tyranny. I proposed that it all leads to tyranny. Even Liberty. And Tyranny is blood. Brute fights are blood. We have a layer of nicety in LAW. We have Championed brute fight with very strange rules of words. No hitting, no blood. But, a fight, every day. And the loser feels the lose.

I see the law as blood sport. We should not forget the origins. The States and Feds are adversarial in Federated Democracy. They all fuck around. Not right or wrong, but within the LAW....whatever that happens to be, that they can get away with until someone of courage steps up. Keep fighting!

What does the 9th Amen mean to me?

It's the one that comes after Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen and Amen.

Doer said:

Well, that is exactly true. Btw, I too fight fire with fire. I prefer discourse, of course. We don't like un-kind aggression, and respond. It can be a weird forum that way.

So, it is true, it's a dynamic system. The Stability is there, but like our Solar System, a lot of moving parts. And likewise, a lot of interesting collisions, giant un-fairness runs in both directions. Take the Civil War. Voting Right Act. ERA. Both the individual States and the Federal Govt, tend to run amok.

In govt there are civil servant and civil tyrants. You know it is completely adversarial from top to bottom. Our entire system is based on physical combat. A long time ago, it was decided one could hire their own brute to best the other guy's brute. Today we call them Lawyers. So, LAW is not for anyone. It is actually against everything, except the "good of the many" including against the 9th.

It has to be constantly contested everyday or what happens? Tyranny. What would happen if we had a code of laws from 200 years ago and they can't be changed? Tyranny. I proposed that it all leads to tyranny. Even Liberty. And Tyranny is blood. Brute fights are blood. We have a layer of nicety in LAW. We have Championed brute fight with very strange rules of words. No hitting, no blood. But, a fight, every day. And the loser feels the lose.

I see the law as blood sport. We should not forget the origins. The States and Feds are adversarial in Federated Democracy. They all fuck around. Not right or wrong, but within the LAW....whatever that happens to be, that they can get away with until someone of courage steps up. Keep fighting!

Click to expand...

Some counties in cali have now begun an effort to limit abilities under the CUA or 215 by passing 'land use ordinances' and in our county they passed an ordinance to limit folks to 6 outdoor plants. I just rapped up a civil case at the state superior court level facially challenging the constitutionality of our county's ordinance and the county has won for now but there are two other cases already on appeal and one of those is rapping up its 80 day count down.
What I'm trying to get to though is that this particular judge gives all his rulings orally and then orders them to be transcribed, so when giving his ruling he went on for twenty or more minutes seemingly trying to convince himself more than me with the laundry list of appealable reasoning behind his ruling.
Of course time for rebuttal is over at that point so I could only listen to the ruling.
Of the many things he touched on was what I consider to be an especially precious lower court jewel in that he dared do address my tomato plant analogy and (still waiting on transcript but if memory serves this is almost word for word) stated that 'of course it would be unconstitutional to limit your number of tomato plants and everyone knows that, but people don't kill each other over tomato plants'.
All I can tell you is it took every bit of restraint I had not to speak out saying 'I have the constitutional right to grow a tomato? where in the constitution did you find that? I've been looking for that amendment for years and have yet to find such? So in effect since "everybody knows that" you must be stating that such is a self evident right, is that right? Ok so why then do I not have the same non-enumerated self evident inherent right to grow cannabis?'
Of course another less relevant but none the less obvious response is that if you outlaw tomato plants and folks still want tomatoes then the price would sky rocket just as cannabis and any other thing would, its a simple supply and demand equation.
I was told by a federal judge in another civil case (excerpted for this thread) some years back that we had no constitutional right to grow plants period. That case though was the first of its kind and not sure if a similar case has arisen since then, it was clear at the time that if a barrage of similar cases had come forward simultaneously in different federal districts there might have been a different outcome and at the very least someone would have heard those trees falling in the woods if you will, but as you have stated so eloquently we live to fight on and these questions remain in reach any time we choose to ask them whether hopefully in court or even here in the virtual court of jesters questers besters and digesters.
Thanks Doer, it was refreshing to virtually converse with you here at the end of my stay.
No matter the relevance or admissibility my closing summery and thread conclusions on the subject of 'what now?' and where we need focus can be found here:

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/602854-monsanto-cannabis-yes-no-dna-70.html



The battle front has evolved into fighting for 'ownership' of the gene pool itself, like springtime for Hitler, and the battle is at hand...
You Doer it seems are maybe like me in that we don't mind...fight on<3



[video=youtube;Ve8RzQ36I6s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;amp;v=Ve8RzQ36I6s[/video]