Any truth to this?

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#51

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:24 pm

RoadScholar wrote:I can't believe I actually am saying this, but: Wouldn't the Revolution have put an end to any ownership of the USA by England anyway?

I'm just sayin'.
Not sure if you have read the treaty of 1783 but it does not look like we were in a position of power, it seems the king was dictating the terms, along with obligations on past debts, because you know, the winner always pays the loser in war.

Oh not to mention the kings troops were still here on us soil when the jay treaty came about, hence why they were mentioned in it, what like 12 years AFTER we won the war?

Yep, sounds like we won, but if the king had pledged all his lands and future lands, would us beating the king have won any right to the land? Does one buy land off the owner or the manager of the land?

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 7916
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: Any truth to this?

#52

Post by Estiveo » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:28 pm

If Richard I got a ticket in Jerusalem for tinted windows that were legally installed in Normandy, was John Lackland contractually required to pay the fine to the Vatican Bank? :think:
Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#53

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:28 pm

Treaty Provisions

With the gift of hindsight, Jay is understood to have played a bad hand as well as possible. Historian Marcus Cunliffe wrote that Jay “got about as much as Britain was prepared to concede at that period.”80 Historian Walter McDougall wrote: "Given his lack of bargaining power, Jay did not do badly....the British, in their anger and strength, demanded Americans swallow a long list of restrictions on their trade with the French, grant most-favored-nation status to Britain, pay their pre-Revolutionary debts, and drop counter-claims for slaves freed by redcoats during the war. Although no trivial concessions, they were well worth making in exchange for a British withdrawal from the whole Great Lakes region."81
Lots of demands from someone who just got their ass kicked eh?

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#54

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:29 pm

Estiveo wrote:If Richard I got a ticket in Jerusalem for tinted windows that were legally installed in Normandy, was John Lackland contractually required to pay the fine to the Vatican Bank? :think:
Depends if Lack land had any money at the time to pay such a fine.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44253
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Any truth to this?

#55

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:29 pm

You need to stop thinking in terms of "contract." MikeDunford mentioned that. A treaty is a treaty. It is subject to its terms. And the ability of interested parties to enforce it.

Contracts are voluntary agreements which include an object and consideration. A contract may also require certain kinds of performance or conduct or forbearance. While you believe you have self educated yourself, it would be best for you to spend the money and take a contract course at a law school. And also a course in constitutional law. When you have the tools and nomenclature from those courses you will see how, forgive me, silly all these questions and beliefs you have are.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Any truth to this?

#56

Post by Plutodog » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:32 pm

Ya know...I don't see why Great Britain didn't just stick it out, continue to rule the colonies. After all, they kicked our ass, right?

:confused:
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#57

Post by Suranis » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:33 pm

Just some guy wrote: That is not a "law" is it? it was an agreement or contract, with henry being one of the contracting parties who in effect could void the contract with his non performance correct?
Nope. For one thing, he was 9 years old. :-D
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5473
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Any truth to this?

#58

Post by Maybenaut » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:35 pm

Estiveo wrote:If Richard I got a ticket in Jerusalem for tinted windows that were legally installed in Normandy, was John Lackland contractually required to pay the fine to the Vatican Bank? :think:
:rotflmao: Estiveo, you crack me up!
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#59

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:37 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:You need to stop thinking in terms of "contract." MikeDunford mentioned that. A treaty is a treaty. It is subject to its terms. And the ability of interested parties to enforce it.

Contracts are voluntary agreements which include an object and consideration. A contract may also require certain kinds of performance or conduct or forbearance. While you believe you have self educated yourself, it would be best for you to spend the money and take a contract course at a law school. And also a course in constitutional law. When you have the tools and nomenclature from those courses you will see how, forgive me, silly all these questions and beliefs you have are.
Would something like this be a good starting point?

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/348_u2j3v72k.pdf

A. Originalism and Treaty Interpretation

The Constitution is silent as to the methods judges should use to interpret
a legal text. The originalist argument for textualism is based largely on
statutory interpretation cases in England and the colonies prior to the
Founding and therefore has little direct application to treaty interpretation.51
The surviving historical sources that discuss treaties emphasize their
contractual—as opposed to legislative—character. And to the extent that the
Framers conceived of treaties as contracts, it is reasonable to conclude that they
intended courts to interpret treaties using methods derived from the law of
contracts.

That was the nineteenth-century view of Chancellor Kent:

Treaties of every kind, when made by the competent authority, are as
obligatory upon nations, as private contracts are binding upon
individuals; and they are to receive a fair and liberal interpretation, and
to be kept with the most scrupulous good faith. Their meaning is to be
ascertained by the same rules of construction and course of reasoning which
we apply to the interpretation of private contracts.52
51.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#60

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:40 pm

Plutodog wrote:Ya know...I don't see why Great Britain didn't just stick it out, continue to rule the colonies. After all, they kicked our ass, right?

:confused:
If you read the charters and treaties, you will notice that the king never gave up his gold/silver/copper claims, so in fact he was making just as much cash without the hassles.

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Any truth to this?

#61

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:40 pm

Estiveo wrote:If Richard I got a ticket in Jerusalem for tinted windows that were legally installed in Normandy, was John Lackland contractually required to pay the fine to the Vatican Bank? :think:
Hmmmm... based on what little I know of Richard, I can only imagine why he had those windows tinted.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: Any truth to this?

#62

Post by Piffle » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:49 pm

Just some guy wrote:Ah, so any treaties that king Richard made were void as soon as he died and John took the throne in 1199 is what you are saying? I have never heard that the death of a king voids all treaties made under him, any source for that nugget?
Are you that intellectually dishonest or do you suffer from a profound reading comprehension problem?

I wrote nothing of the sort and I'm quite sure you know it.
Family Liberty Patriot wrote:Hmmmm... based on what little I know of Richard, I can only imagine why he had those windows tinted.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#63

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:49 pm

Suranis wrote:
Just some guy wrote: That is not a "law" is it? it was an agreement or contract, with henry being one of the contracting parties who in effect could void the contract with his non performance correct?
Nope. For one thing, he was 9 years old. :-D
Henry iii was 9 in 1225? how old was he in 1216 when he ascended the throne?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_III_of_England

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#64

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:52 pm

Piffle wrote:
Just some guy wrote:Ah, so any treaties that king Richard made were void as soon as he died and John took the throne in 1199 is what you are saying? I have never heard that the death of a king voids all treaties made under him, any source for that nugget?
Are you that intellectually dishonest or do you suffer from a profound reading comprehension problem?

I wrote nothing of the sort and I'm quite sure you know it.
Family Liberty Patriot wrote:Hmmmm... based on what little I know of Richard, I can only imagine why he had those windows tinted.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

you said
The English legal principle, BTW, is that a sovereign can not bind successors.
I might be mistaken but is a treaty not binding or something?

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7874
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Any truth to this?

#65

Post by RoadScholar » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:55 pm

JSG, what in the world is so attractive about expending so much effort trying to convince the rest of the world of something that is so palpably, inescapably, obviously not so?
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8054
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Any truth to this?

#66

Post by Northland10 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:56 pm

As long as you continue to look to history only to prove what you want, you will continue to be wrong. Between John's time till now, England had a bunch of rebellions, civil wars and wars for control of the throne, not to mention a union of said throne with the neighbors to the north. Wars and changes in governments have a way of voiding any treaties or agreements without any specific written agreement voided the previous agreement.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#67

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:57 pm

And let me state, that you are correct that they can not make a law binding on future law makers, but the treaties they make are in FACT binding on the new lawmakers.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#68

Post by Suranis » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:58 pm

Congratulations on finally looking at wikipedia to find out stuff. I had to prod you enough.

Now if you will point out where he, Johns Son, refereed to the pope as his liege lord and said he was his vassal as I asked you before to the sweet sound of silence. You were claiming King Johns descendants were bound to this becasue of John's deceleration to the Pope, so I'm sure you will be able to find where Henry, a 9 year old, reputed all this and SOMEHOW worked outside the law. A 9 year old managed to defy his Liege lord by not mentioning it?

Or is it true that Henry III never mentioned it so your whole idea is full of crap. If your idea held any water Henry III would have been scraping his forehead to the pope as he was Johns direct decendent AND a child so he would have been easily mailable and not exactly up for taking on a powerful figure like the Pope, so I'm sure you will be able to show how he did so.

WE'RE WAITING!!
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#69

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:59 pm

Northland10 wrote:As long as you continue to look to history only to prove what you want, you will continue to be wrong. Between John's time till now, England had a bunch of rebellions, civil wars and wars for control of the throne, not to mention a union of said throne with the neighbors to the north. Wars and changes in governments have a way of voiding any treaties or agreements without any specific written agreement voided the previous agreement.
Great, so tell me again why after we won the revolution the king was "allowing us" to fish our rivers, and why we were paying him for pre war debts.

I'll wait here while you find the answer.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8054
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Any truth to this?

#70

Post by Northland10 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:01 pm

Just some guy wrote:
The English legal principle, BTW, is that a sovereign can not bind successors.
I might be mistaken but is a treaty not binding or something?
Um, a treaty is only binding if a sovereign decides to follow it. It is sort of that whole, sovereign nation thing. The penalty for abdicating a treaty signed by a previous sovereign or government, is diplomatic and could lead to war, but there is no other structure to bind a sovereign, unless a sovereign intentionally submits to such structure.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Any truth to this?

#71

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:04 pm

Just some guy wrote:And let me state, that you are correct that they can not make a law binding on future law makers, but the treaties they make are in FACT binding on the new lawmakers.
According to whom? And this is enforced, again, by whom?
Treaties are effective only when the signatories abide by them. When the signatories cease to abide by them, they are effectively nullified.
This is pretty basic stuff.

EDIT: ninja'd by Norfy
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: Any truth to this?

#72

Post by Piffle » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:08 pm

Just some guy wrote:I might be mistaken but is a treaty not binding or something?
I might be mistaken but, despite your loose logic, you appear to have been treating yourself to something that is powerfully binding.

Have you moved your bowels lately?

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#73

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:09 pm

Suranis wrote:Congratulations on finally looking at wikipedia to find out stuff. I had to prod you enough.

Now if you will point out where he, Johns Son, refereed to the pope as his liege lord and said he was his vassal as I asked you before to the sweet sound of silence. You were claiming King Johns descendants were bound to this becasue of John's deceleration to the Pope, so I'm sure you will be able to find where Henry, a 9 year old, reputed all this and SOMEHOW worked outside the law. A 9 year old managed to defy his Liege lord by not mentioning it?

Or is it true that Henry III never mentioned it so your whole idea is full of crap. If your idea held any water Henry III would have been scraping his forehead to the pope as he was Johns direct decendent AND a child so he would have been easily mailable and not exactly up for taking on a powerful figure like the Pope, so I'm sure you will be able to show how he did so.

WE'RE WAITING!!
https://books.google.com/books?id=6SpLA ... el&f=false


page 697. bottom left hand side "innocent iii and king john"

start at "the last years of john's and the first years of henry iii's"

who does it say ran England?

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8054
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Any truth to this?

#74

Post by Northland10 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:17 pm

Just some guy wrote:
Northland10 wrote:As long as you continue to look to history only to prove what you want, you will continue to be wrong. Between John's time till now, England had a bunch of rebellions, civil wars and wars for control of the throne, not to mention a union of said throne with the neighbors to the north. Wars and changes in governments have a way of voiding any treaties or agreements without any specific written agreement voided the previous agreement.
Great, so tell me again why after we won the revolution the king was "allowing us" to fish our rivers, and why we were paying him for pre war debts.

I'll wait here while you find the answer.
The Grand Banks of of Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence were not our rivers but actually waters off the coast of British North America (now known as Canada). We did have later treaties that dealt also with fishing but that was due to disputes on where the boundaries between and the future Canada should be.

As for debts, part of sovereignty is ownership of your own debts. We borrowed to finance the war (as did England), and so, our ability to retain credit with the creditors in England and Europe requires us to be able to satisfy the lawfully contracted debts. The treaty allowed both England and our country to pay those debts, despite the country of the creditor. If we would not have been able to pay off our debts, the new nation would not be able to continue to receive credit from the banks of Europe.

You really need to read before you make claims.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#75

Post by Suranis » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:20 pm

Just some guy wrote: page 697. bottom left hand side "innocent iii and king john"

start at "the last years of john's and the first years of henry iii's"

who does it say ran England?
Image

Wow, that's convincing.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”