Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2006 13:01 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:48 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: >> --- >> Nothing is forever. >> >> You all now have a Supreme Court, no? > >The Law Lords. --- No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to the extent of their building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 >In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. --- OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I believe. -- JF
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2006 13:06 On Wed, 29 Nov 06 13:09:44 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <456D7544.F1CC4D6D(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >>> You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >> >>The Law Lords. >> >>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. > >No. Unconstitutional. --- Do you have a reference you can cite? --- >There is a difference between illegal and unconstitutional. --- Splitting hairs, perhaps, but since the Constitution is the Law of the Land, an unconstitutional act would break that law, making it illegal. -- JF
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 13:12 John Fields wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:48 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>John Fields wrote: > > >>>--- >>>Nothing is forever. >>> >>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >> >>The Law Lords. > > > --- > No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to > the extent of their building. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 > > > >>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. > > > --- > OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an > actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I > believe. They still don't have a single element codified constitution.
From: krw on 29 Nov 2006 13:18 In article <456DB20A.590A3EF1(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > unsettled wrote: > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>You simply can't make these analogies with small start ups. > > > > > > How do you think the large companies got started? > > > > > > It occurred to belatedly that you are a teenaged boy. That > > > would explain a lot of the bizarre things you have written > > > and your ignornance of how stuff works. > > > > "On December 17, 1903, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the Wright Flyer > > became the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve > > controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard." > > > > http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/ > > > > Small start up company. > > I'd like to see that happen now ! Google? -- Keith
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 13:29
krw wrote: > In article <456DB20A.590A3EF1(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>You simply can't make these analogies with small start ups. >>>> >>>>How do you think the large companies got started? >>>> >>>>It occurred to belatedly that you are a teenaged boy. That >>>>would explain a lot of the bizarre things you have written >>>>and your ignornance of how stuff works. >>> >>>"On December 17, 1903, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the Wright Flyer >>>became the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve >>>controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard." >>> >>>http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/ >>> >>>Small start up company. >> >>I'd like to see that happen now ! > > > Google? eBay, Microsoft, PayPal, Menards, Trump's companies, Martha Stewart's companies. Doubtless others that don't immediately spring to mind. |