How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: Remy McSwain on 20 Apr 2010 17:52 In news:eed16445-9cac-4aea-b7eb-03ecbeb0bcb7(a)x18g2000prk.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 11:21 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> Innews:b96eaf7c-e171-47b1-9b71-ee9964361c4e(a)b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >> >> >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Do you, or do you not accept the validity of the US >> Constitution? Either you do, or you do not. You know that >> plain, simple English of which you're so fond? Use it to answer >> this simple question. >> >>> How many people at the abode?, "two." >>> Now bug off. >> >> What's the matter? Simple questions got you stymied? Simple, >> plain question requires a simple, plain answer. > > I gave a simple answer to a simple Constitutional question. But you've never given an answer to the question I've asked. It's a simple and plain question which requires only a yes or no answer. The USC is a singular document which you either accept as valid in its applicability to you, or you do not. So which is it? And where in the USC is the government prevented from compelling you to provide it with the information that it demands? If you believe that the USC does not require interpretation, then quote for me exactly the plain and simple language which prevents the government from requiring that you give that information. Be very specific: > "Enumerate" the people in your abode? > Two. > "Any law made in contravention to the Constitution is invalid on > it's face." Then you should be able to quote the portion of the USC which the Census act violates, and the language should be quite plain and simple, requiring no interpretation, that the government shall not demand any information from you other than to know if you're alive, and in this country. Please post that plain and simple language. If enumerate means only to count, then why do you claim that the government can know exactly in which "abode" you live?
From: knews4u2chew on 20 Apr 2010 18:06 On Apr 20, 2:52 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:eed16445-9cac-4aea-b7eb-03ecbeb0bcb7(a)x18g2000prk.googlegroups.com, > > > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 20, 11:21 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Innews:b96eaf7c-e171-47b1-9b71-ee9964361c4e(a)b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> 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. > > >> Do you, or do you not accept the validity of the US > >> Constitution? Either you do, or you do not. You know that > >> plain, simple English of which you're so fond? Use it to answer > >> this simple question. > > >>> How many people at the abode?, "two." > >>> Now bug off. > > >> What's the matter? Simple questions got you stymied? Simple, > >> plain question requires a simple, plain answer. > > > I gave a simple answer to a simple Constitutional question. > > But you've never given an answer to the question I've asked. Idiot. If I say I answered what I believe the Constitution says, that means it is valid to that point. >It's a > simple and plain question which requires only a yes or no answer. It requires a response. > The USC is a singular document which you either accept as valid in > its applicability to you, or you do not. So which is it? It's code. Has the force of law but is not law. Why don't they call it the U.S. Law? > > And where in the USC is the government prevented from compelling you > to provide it with the information that it demands? The "law of the Land," the Constitution, says I have the right to my property. My data is my property. > If you believe > that the USC does not require interpretation, then quote for me > exactly the plain and simple language which prevents the government > from requiring that you give that information. Be very specific: > 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. > > "Enumerate" the people in your abode? > > Two. > > "Any law made in contravention to the Constitution is invalid on > > it's face." > > Then you should be able to quote the portion of the USC which the > Census act violates, and the language should be quite plain and > simple, requiring no interpretation, that the government shall not > demand any information from you other than to know if you're alive, > and in this country. Please post that plain and simple language. > 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. > If enumerate means only to count, then why do you claim that the > government can know exactly in which "abode" you live? They don't know "who" are the two people at the address. They get a number of souls. That's all they get. That's all they need. There is no rational that makes it more "convenient" for me NOT to stand on my Constitutional rights to my property and NOT to share it if I don't choose to do so. Any use of threat of fines or force is extortion. Period.
From: knews4u2chew on 22 Apr 2010 12:43 On Apr 22, 4:45 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:7e7a7808-9c18-4c61-b68e-21448819374b(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com, > > > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 21, 10:54 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >>>> Did you even READ that synopsis? Did you see all the > >>>> references to "interpreting" the constitution? Did you see > >>>> where no where in there does it say that any part of the > >>>> Constitution is contrary to common law? > > >>>> Only you could post a link to a site that proves that you've > >>>> completely misinterpreted your own posts! > > >>>> Now, for the umpteenth dozenth time, post the plain and simple > >>>> language directly from the USC which states that the > >>>> government cannot compel you to divulge the information it > >>>> requires. Either that, or admit that there's nothing about > >>>> the Census that unconstitutional. > > >>>> Can you do that? > > >> Cutting in here to note that you're still providing an analysis > >> of how the Constitution is to be interpreted instead of just > >> using what you have constantly argued should be a plain reading > >> of the actual words of the constitution in order to know its > >> meaning. If you really believed that, and didn't just say so > >> for the purposes of obfuscation, you'd be able to post the > >> plain and simple language of the USC which would prevent the > >> government from compelling you to answer its census questions. > > > I am not subject to the "code" of the District. > >http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/anonymous/truthshallprevail.htm > > Two Governments, Two Flags: the Corporate State > > You repeatedly claimed that the census was unconstitutional. So > post the plain and simple language of the USC from which you came to > that conclusion. > > >> But you cannot, and so THAT part of your position is hopelessly > >> lost. > > > I am not subject to "code." > > Irrelevant to my question as to your position about the > unconstitutionality of the USC. > > >> As to what Common law has to do with the Constitution, while the > >> common law is a basis of its construction, that is not to mean > >> that the USC is just another term for common law, > > > Not true. > > Very, very true. Even the idiots on the link you posted agree with > me on that one. > > >> and that its actual > >> words can all be thrown out only to be replaced by YOUR version > >> of common law. It means that when interpreting the USC (a > >> concept that YOU have denied although your own link shows it to > >> be valid), the basic priciples of common law should be taken > >> into consideration. > > >> It does not mean that YOU get to simply discard all of its > >> actual language. > > > See above. > > I did, and it's all irrelevant to any support of your position about > the census. I am not subject to the "code."
From: AllYou! on 23 Apr 2010 09:21 In news:55ydnewrXpV7JU3WnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d(a)giganews.com, Remy McSwain <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In > news:5bebed3a-8e5f-4d1b-9bac-c3c31cda204f(a)n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com, > knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Case closed. You're a liar. > Case closed again. > Case proven. > QED! > Again, QED! > QED > And, yet again, QED > Do you even know what Common law means? > http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/common%20law > You're absolutely amazing. I reposted exactly what you said, > complete with dates and times of when you said it, and it's all > right there above, and yet, you STILL persist in claiming that I > have not. You are truly delusional, or simply a pathological > liar.. You still don't seem to get it. These guys will say anything, no matter what it is, and no matter if it's totally inconsistent with what they've said before, or with any where near any semblance of reality, in order to convince themselves of their own delusions. You're making the mistake that if you pursue this long enough with them, they'll eventually box themselves in and capitulate. But as you're finding out, they'll either lie, or simply invent their own meanings of words and sentences and entire documents if that's what it takes to keep things going. Good luck!
From: Remy McSwain on 22 Apr 2010 07:45
In news:7e7a7808-9c18-4c61-b68e-21448819374b(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 10:54 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >>>> Did you even READ that synopsis? Did you see all the >>>> references to "interpreting" the constitution? Did you see >>>> where no where in there does it say that any part of the >>>> Constitution is contrary to common law? >> >>>> Only you could post a link to a site that proves that you've >>>> completely misinterpreted your own posts! >> >>>> Now, for the umpteenth dozenth time, post the plain and simple >>>> language directly from the USC which states that the >>>> government cannot compel you to divulge the information it >>>> requires. Either that, or admit that there's nothing about >>>> the Census that unconstitutional. >> >>>> Can you do that? >> >> Cutting in here to note that you're still providing an analysis >> of how the Constitution is to be interpreted instead of just >> using what you have constantly argued should be a plain reading >> of the actual words of the constitution in order to know its >> meaning. If you really believed that, and didn't just say so >> for the purposes of obfuscation, you'd be able to post the >> plain and simple language of the USC which would prevent the >> government from compelling you to answer its census questions. >> > I am not subject to the "code" of the District. > http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/anonymous/truthshallprevail.htm > Two Governments, Two Flags: the Corporate State You repeatedly claimed that the census was unconstitutional. So post the plain and simple language of the USC from which you came to that conclusion. >> But you cannot, and so THAT part of your position is hopelessly >> lost. >> > I am not subject to "code." Irrelevant to my question as to your position about the unconstitutionality of the USC. >> As to what Common law has to do with the Constitution, while the >> common law is a basis of its construction, that is not to mean >> that the USC is just another term for common law, > > Not true. Very, very true. Even the idiots on the link you posted agree with me on that one. >> and that its actual >> words can all be thrown out only to be replaced by YOUR version >> of common law. It means that when interpreting the USC (a >> concept that YOU have denied although your own link shows it to >> be valid), the basic priciples of common law should be taken >> into consideration. >> >> It does not mean that YOU get to simply discard all of its >> actual language. >> >> > See above. I did, and it's all irrelevant to any support of your position about the census. |