Enshrining them in the constitution is supposed to make them immutable. The question of whether they otherwise existed at English common law depends on the specific right in question. Under the English common law, slavery was perfectly legitimate; black Africans had no "right...to not be owned."
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Enshrining them in the constitution is supposed to make them immutable. The question of whether they otherwise existed at English common law depends on the specific right in question. Under the English common law, slavery was perfectly legitimate; black Africans had no "right...to not be owned."
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Ya but what made them Americans like what defined them as Americans, solidified it, proclaimed it loudly to the world............ and later gave them the courage to continue carrying the torch of Freedom against great demons such as slavery or anything else feel me??
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
ummmmm no the 9th amendment. edit: Which is the basis of American Common Law.
What about it?
The influence and later effect of the words is irrelevant in determining the original intent of their meaning.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
"Just because it ain't written, don't mean it don't exist"
I thought you were one of the "Team aMurica"?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
simply retarded. try again.
actually, please don't.
you're lucky that anyone humors your delusions.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
People are talking economics here, go back to your easy troll-bait threads...
(Ie. tokenperv is mine, get your own bitch)
Ok so every couple in the USA earns that amount and has no children, got it.
You are living in fantasy land if you think your particular scenario is even kind of close to reality.
I mean you did take into account the tax advantage for 2 children per woman right? Tax due in both situation = no tax.
Hypothetical situations are so fun sometimes, you can make up anything, but still couldn't prove anything.
The fuck?? Boggle! Single straight people are gay?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Would you say I used it in a loaded sense?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Does the UCC define money? Money is the key word. Do you know what legalese is?
It's just confusing to me you could quote things and differentiate between a "priviledge" and a "right". Like you did when talking about not testifying by citing the root of the "laws" involved.....then act like you don't know why I just put quotes on that word.....I quoted it because they are "laws" that only pertain to a statutes i.e. statutory law and given only the force of law and are not factually laws in and of themselves. Just like Fed notes aren't money in and of themselves.
Given the fact you recognize the legal fiction by acknowledging it way back in this thread, why would you insistently argue and pretend like you don't actually know both definitions of money, There are only 2, one for the regular world like passing someone a "note" in class and one for the legal world; then substitute a new third definition that you literally made up? With zero evidence? Not one shred? Besides your own interpretation not defined anywhere beyond this thread?
besides a court case that does not recognize your new third definition either?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Then why must you insist on coming back for more?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
- tokeprep said:
Huge assumption government is allowed to take anything?
I never said that this was representative of every couple. You wanted an example of when there was a tax benefit that cannot be obtained by same sex couples, and I demonstrated one. You can make up lots of other scenarios and come up with the same result.
You suggested that men would take advantage and get married solely for tax benefits. The point is that people can already do that--it's ridiculous to suggest that gay marriage would enable it anymore than present marriage laws do.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Original intent was anything not specifically given to the government was retained for The People. As evidenced by the 9th and Prohibition.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Original intent was anything not specifically given to the government was retained for The People. As evidenced by the 9th and Prohibition.
All this speak of Slavery reminds me dearly of the age old Dem "champions of slavery" voting pitch, sorry no assumptions on your party if you have one.
All this speak of Slavery reminds me dearly of the age old Dem "champions of slavery" voting pitch, sorry no assumptions on your party if you have one.
I didn't want any example.
Are you going to want to take a child tax credit too? Even though neither you nor your partner are capable of conception? Equal rights and all?
Straight people can marry the same sex and get all the benefits as a hetero marriage??
If this is true, then why can't you get married? Just say you are straight.
