Member (Idle past 806 days)
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Hopefully I've been clearer this time.
Yes, you have. But I keep getting the impression that there is a scripture, often applied to life in paradise, which suggests that there will be no memory of the past. I will meditate on this and if key words come to mind I will search for it.
Am I correct in assuming that you require religious doctrines to be based upon the revelation of holy scripture? Or are appealing traditions of uncertain origin adequate for establishment of your faith?
I also assume that personal experience plays an important part in your religious life; but considering the subject (future life in "heaven") I expect personal experience is lacking. Yes?
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Well I was trying to second guess how a lawyer would "read on" the two ammendments before and after the one I am attempting to 'claim'.
If I am reading the 10th ammendment $legally$ then FIRST one must never no matter the station not be in assertion of extant rights that have already been #prohibited# by the constiution to either the states or the citizens which I read (past tense) as meaning any case law (including so-called "evolutionary law") as well as what one finds directly in the Declaration and Constitution. Then I take it would be a matter of precendent (but legal theories mean not much to the judge of the matter for it is only the judgement that matters) whether any power that is not already prohibited (hence "undelegated")be adjudicated in favor of FIRST states OR citizens. My guess is that by looking at the case law for this one would find (if anything) that instead of it being in the first instance a matter of citizen x,y,z compared to state 1,2,3 it is state ABC vs state DEF with citizens being left out to dry, in the fast pace of so-calling to appear "evolutionary law"... but maybe I am actually going to win this one and I ought not be so pesimistic.
The legal dillema as I saw it there was that by the 11th ammendment where a citizen can not bring a case against another then if two states aready DIFFERENTIALLY asserted and or took precendent (as is not too hard for me to imagine for NY and FLA to say NOTHING of LA) it would, outside say first establishing a patent etc be hard for instance for ANY citizen to get just due in this as NOT a class action since first it must be by WORD citizen OR state. It is not due process. That is later. And this is not freedom of speach as I see it.
I say, in FAITH AND BELIEF, how I think FLA mistook sleep for involutariness but I did not say how I thought Aristotle correct to NOT being bioloigcally the soul into the world. I tend to recognize that Morris is correct to by reading Aristotle extensively that this seems to be what "devolves" in the world as one reads it but I read Aristotle not as having the soul a material thing on Maple St. New Orleans only it seems very hard to find any one able to have enough time on hand to MAINTAIN a more spirtual aristotle. I was specificaly refering in this post however to Aristotle's notion of NAMING animals which I had not attempted as of yet to relate to baramins.
The reference to "equality" was a short cut to the legal theory above which is less specific than simply asserting inalienable rights but attempts to account for the actual legal history, at least in part, as well. I hope this helps.
Here, however, I have not distinguished appearence of evolutionary law so-called and called appearences in actual court cases.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-29-2002]
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 11 by shilohproject, posted 12-25-2002 6:24 PM|| ||shilohproject has not yet responded|