How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: knews4u2chew on 19 Apr 2010 12:52 On Apr 19, 9:06 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:83ec2383-5287-4d0f-9a58-226f5b9a696b(a)c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 19, 6:42 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Innews:5ef8caea-5537-45f1-93d5-6e71bef7f5e3(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> "Enumerate" means count the people. > > >> No it doesn't. That's only YOUR interpretation. > > > Gee, my "interpretation" seems to be just what it says in the > > dictionary. > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enumerate > > Not in THIS dictionary: "1. to mention separately as if in > counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate > the many flaws in your hypothesis. " > > "as if in counting" doesn't mean simply to count. It means to list, > which means note by description. > > > Plain and simple. > > Only to a plain simpleton. > > > Just as the law should be. > > The USC was never intended to be written as though to "enumerate" > each and every way it should be applied to each and every case which > could possibly arise in such a complex society. That's why it also > says that it will be up to the courts to decide how the law should > be applied to any given case. And the courts have decided that the > current census is consistent with what the law says. Or do you > reject that part of the USC which you've claimed to accept as valid? > > > We don't need Black Robed Cultists to tell use "new" definitions > > for old old words. > > The USC, which you've said that you fully embrace, says differently. > So do you embrace it, or not? I stand on the common law. Common definitions. I am not under the jurisdiction of "code." Code comes from military jurisdiction. I deny the jurisdiction of the law of Admiralty as I am not in "commerce' when being "enumerated." The Constitution was written in common language that all can understand. "Enuerate" needs no REINTERPRETATION or EXPANSION by Black Robed Cultists under Admiralty Law.
From: Remy McSwain on 19 Apr 2010 13:45 In news:fa557803-700f-44c6-b869-75102f3763a0(a)5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Yes they were. > Enumerate: > http://www.google.com/search?q=enumerate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a "1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis." To "list" means to note by description.
From: knews4u2chew on 20 Apr 2010 13:16 On Apr 20, 4:37 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:a4128f98-ca77-4664-888a-cd2a9a63a3bd(a)w32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Name calling and "catagorizing" proves nothing. > > If you are afraid to stand up for your privacy rights you are a > > lazy > > traitor to America. > > Ohhhhhh, the irony! Do you, or do you not accept the validity of > the US Constitution? Why have you never answered that simple > question? I answered the simple Constitutional "enumeration" question. How many people at the abode?, "two." Now bug off.
From: Remy McSwain on 19 Apr 2010 13:49 In news:088e1b9a-5ee1-4bbe-8378-2963b643cdc6(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 9:06 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> Innews:83ec2383-5287-4d0f-9a58-226f5b9a696b(a)c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Apr 19, 6:42 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Innews:5ef8caea-5537-45f1-93d5-6e71bef7f5e3(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, >> >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> "Enumerate" means count the people. >> >>>> No it doesn't. That's only YOUR interpretation. >> >>> Gee, my "interpretation" seems to be just what it says in the >>> dictionary. >>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enumerate >> >> Not in THIS dictionary: "1. to mention separately as if in >> counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me >> enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis. " >> >> "as if in counting" doesn't mean simply to count. It means to >> list, which means note by description. >> >>> Plain and simple. >> >> Only to a plain simpleton. >> >>> Just as the law should be. >> >> The USC was never intended to be written as though to >> "enumerate" each and every way it should be applied to each and >> every case which could possibly arise in such a complex >> society. That's why it also says that it will be up to the >> courts to decide how the law should be applied to any given >> case. And the courts have decided that the current census is >> consistent with what the law says. Or do you reject that part >> of the USC which you've claimed to accept as valid? >> >>> We don't need Black Robed Cultists to tell use "new" >>> definitions for old old words. >> >> The USC, which you've said that you fully embrace, says >> differently. So do you embrace it, or not? > > I stand on the common law. Do you accept the validity of the USC, or not? When I said that you did not, you called me a liar. Therefore, that must mean that you do. So do you, or not? > Common definitions. And the common definition of enumerate means to list by description. > I am not under the jurisdiction of "code." Who said that you were? > Code comes from military jurisdiction. > I deny the jurisdiction of the law of Admiralty as I am not in > "commerce' when being "enumerated." No one said that you were. > > The Constitution was written in common language that all can > understand. Except, obviously, for you. Clearly, you do not understand the full meaning of the word 'enumerate'. > "Enuerate" needs no REINTERPRETATION or EXPANSION by Black Robed > Cultists under Admiralty Law. It does for people like you who do not understad what it means. And, if you DO accept the validity of the USC, then you accept the fact that the law means what the courst say it means.
From: knews4u2chew on 19 Apr 2010 14:06
On Apr 19, 10:49 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:088e1b9a-5ee1-4bbe-8378-2963b643cdc6(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, > > > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 19, 9:06 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Innews:83ec2383-5287-4d0f-9a58-226f5b9a696b(a)c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On Apr 19, 6:42 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Innews:5ef8caea-5537-45f1-93d5-6e71bef7f5e3(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups..com, > > >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> "Enumerate" means count the people. > > >>>> No it doesn't. That's only YOUR interpretation. > > >>> Gee, my "interpretation" seems to be just what it says in the > >>> dictionary. > >>>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enumerate > > >> Not in THIS dictionary: "1. to mention separately as if in > >> counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me > >> enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis. " > > >> "as if in counting" doesn't mean simply to count. It means to > >> list, which means note by description. > > >>> Plain and simple. > > >> Only to a plain simpleton. > > >>> Just as the law should be. > > >> The USC was never intended to be written as though to > >> "enumerate" each and every way it should be applied to each and > >> every case which could possibly arise in such a complex > >> society. That's why it also says that it will be up to the > >> courts to decide how the law should be applied to any given > >> case. And the courts have decided that the current census is > >> consistent with what the law says. Or do you reject that part > >> of the USC which you've claimed to accept as valid? > > >>> We don't need Black Robed Cultists to tell use "new" > >>> definitions for old old words. > > >> The USC, which you've said that you fully embrace, says > >> differently. So do you embrace it, or not? > > > I stand on the common law. > > Do you accept the validity of the USC, or not? When I said that you > did not, you called me a liar. Therefore, that must mean that you > do. So do you, or not? > > > Common definitions. > > And the common definition of enumerate means to list by description. > > > I am not under the jurisdiction of "code." > > Who said that you were? > > > Code comes from military jurisdiction. > > I deny the jurisdiction of the law of Admiralty as I am not in > > "commerce' when being "enumerated." > > No one said that you were. > > > > > The Constitution was written in common language that all can > > understand. > > Except, obviously, for you. Clearly, you do not understand the full > meaning of the word 'enumerate'. > > > "Enuerate" needs no REINTERPRETATION or EXPANSION by Black Robed > > Cultists under Admiralty Law. > > It does for people like you who do not understad what it means. > And, if you DO accept the validity of the USC, then you accept the > fact that the law means what the courst say it means. The constitution says "enumerate." It doesn't say classify or list characteristics of the population. It means count the people. Plain and simple English. It is for the purpose of "apportionment." It is not for the purposes of social programs and allocating resources. |