Any truth to this?

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6503
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Any truth to this?

#76

Post by Northland10 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:38 pm

Just some guy wrote: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.
If my post above had too many words, maybe this will help.

Image

Which area in the highlighted areas are "our rivers?"


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?

#77

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:41 pm

Northland10 wrote:
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.
Article 8th:
The Navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the Ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43447
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Any truth to this?

#78

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:53 pm

Just some guy wrote:
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.
No. You're not going to be able to do this by yourself. You're first going to learn the nomenclature. Then you're going to have to learn how lawyers think. You can't do it by yourself. You need a professional to help you. You need to learn what you don't know, and why you don't know it first. (That's the hard part.) Thinking you can read your way through it will not work. Hasn't worked for lawyers for 150+ years.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6503
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Any truth to this?

#79

Post by Northland10 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:57 pm

Just some guy wrote:Article 8th:
The Navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the Ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.
Two sovereign nations allowed citizens from both countries to continue to use a river that was, at the time, our western border. That is not the same as the King allowing us to fish in our river. We did not even have both sides of the river.

Oh, and neither England nor the United States controlled the mouth of Mississippi.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3716
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Any truth to this?

#80

Post by DejaMoo » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:16 pm

Suranis wrote:
Piffle wrote:
Suranis wrote:
And don't claim to look at common law. Common law didn't even begin to be a concept until the time of Edward the Confessor Henry II.
FIFY.
I Thought it began when Edward set up a system of wandering magistrates to effectively resolve disputes and enforce the jaw, and to ensure they were all making the same judgements they began writing down their judgements and sending them back to London so others could study their judgements and apply the same standards all over England.
That was Henry. Eleanor of Aquitaine's second husband. Father of Richard the Lionheart and John Lackland. (Damned autocorrect changed that to Parkland.)



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

Re: Any truth to this?

#81

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:23 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
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.
No. You're not going to be able to do this by yourself. You're first going to learn the nomenclature. Then you're going to have to learn how lawyers think. You can't do it by yourself. You need a professional to help you. You need to learn what you don't know, and why you don't know it first. (That's the hard part.) Thinking you can read your way through it will not work. Hasn't worked for lawyers for 150+ years.

I hear you, and I was thinking of an

http://likelincoln.org/?version=meter+a ... inks-click

type of deal.

Now for example, how would a professional teach me nomenclature? Books perhaps? statutory construction and interpretation? Words and terms? The blue book? The red book?

Besides the reading, what exactly are they teaching and how? From what I have read and people I have talked to, most law school is learning procedure and legal research.

And it seems that the law schools are barely teaching that....

http://www.alwd.org/lcr/archives/fall-2 ... an-darvil/

Not trying to be an ass, but I am not going into debt over shoddy learnings, that I can not seem to do any worse then the professionals are doing, am I wrong in thinking that?



User avatar
boots
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Any truth to this?

#82

Post by boots » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:25 pm

How stupid do you have to be to be spending your time on this?



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

Re: Any truth to this?

#83

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:33 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Just some guy wrote:Article 8th:
The Navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the Ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.
Two sovereign nations allowed citizens from both countries to continue to use a river that was, at the time, our western border. That is not the same as the King allowing us to fish in our river. We did not even have both sides of the river.

Oh, and neither England nor the United States controlled the mouth of Mississippi.
Oh, so England controlled the western side of the Mississippi river? what exactly was their territory on the west side called and who governed it?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 36dc88.jpg

Notice Englands claim to land touched NO part of the Mississippi, did we enter into treaties with Russia where they allowed us to use the Mississippi also?



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

Re: Any truth to this?

#84

Post by Just some guy » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:33 pm

Techno Luddite wrote:How stupid do you have to be to be spending your time on this?
Not as stupid as the guy who thinks it is stupid but yet still does it anyway.



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?

#85

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:35 pm

Just some guy wrote:
Techno Luddite wrote:How stupid do you have to be to be spending your time on this?
Not as stupid as the guy who thinks it is stupid but yet still does it anyway.
THAT'S SOME OBI-WAN KENOBI SHIT RIGHT THERE


"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
boots
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Any truth to this?

#86

Post by boots » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:46 pm

Family Liberty Patriot wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
Techno Luddite wrote:How stupid do you have to be to be spending your time on this?
Not as stupid as the guy who thinks it is stupid but yet still does it anyway.
THAT'S SOME OBI-WAN KENOBI SHIT RIGHT THERE
:rotflmao:



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8955
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Any truth to this?

#87

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:40 am

Just some guy wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote: No. You're not going to be able to do this by yourself. You're first going to learn the nomenclature. Then you're going to have to learn how lawyers think. You can't do it by yourself. You need a professional to help you. You need to learn what you don't know, and why you don't know it first. (That's the hard part.) Thinking you can read your way through it will not work. Hasn't worked for lawyers for 150+ years.
I hear you, and I was thinking of an

http://likelincoln.org/?version=meter+a ... inks-click

type of deal.
I've become a bit of a fan of the English approach to legal training, which is more similar to the way we approach medical education in the United States - academic training first, followed by (paid) apprenticeship.
Just some guy wrote:Now for example, how would a professional teach me nomenclature? Books perhaps? statutory construction and interpretation? Words and terms? The blue book? The red book?
You wouldn't be taught nomenclature. You'd be expected to pick it up as you go along. Dictionaries and such are available, but the expectation isn't that you learn what the words mean on paper. It's that you learn how they are used in practice and how context shades their meaning. But there's no instruction in vocabulary.

My first law school assignment - which was provided the Friday before classes started - was to read an edited version of Watts v Watts, 405 N.W.2d 303 (Wis. 1987). The case was found on pages 295-304 of the casebook. It took me a good 5 or 6 hours to read the case to the point where I thought I understood it; Monday morning, it took the professor a good 5 or 6 minutes to disabuse me of that notion.
Just some guy wrote:Besides the reading, what exactly are they teaching and how? From what I have read and people I have talked to, most law school is learning procedure and legal research.
Very little of law school (at least in my experience) involves learning procedure or research methods. Most of it involves learning how and when to doubt your own understanding and instincts. Much of the rest involves learning when to stop doubting your own understanding and instincts. This is why law can't effectively be learned alone. You will always be less than an optimal devil's advocate for yourself, and you can't learn to really think like a lawyer without a very good devil's advocate challenging your understanding and beliefs at every step.

What law school is really about, IMO, is learning how to learn the law. It's not just learning how to look for sources of information (or even learning what sources to look at first). It's about learning how to find the legally important parts of things, and how to do so quickly. For example, while I've got a certain understanding of investment treaty law, it's not an area that most American lawyers have any background in whatsoever. (For good reason - it's an obscure area that isn't relevant to 99.9% of lawyers.) Nevertheless, I bet that most of the lawyers here could read the Award in Phoenix Action v. Czech Republic* and fairly quickly figure out what legal principles the case turned on.

I very much doubt that you could do so either as easily or as accurately, even though their knowledge of the substantive law involved probably isn't that far ahead of yours. And that's got nothing to do with raw ability, native intelligence, or anything like that. It's a matter of having learned how to approach the reading, knowing what questions you want to answer, and how to go about finding the answers. And - importantly - how to brutally interrogate the answers until you are sure that they're the real answers.
Just some guy wrote:And it seems that the law schools are barely teaching that....

http://www.alwd.org/lcr/archives/fall-2 ... an-darvil/

Not trying to be an ass, but I am not going into debt over shoddy learnings, that I can not seem to do any worse then the professionals are doing, am I wrong in thinking that?
Yes. You are still far too convinced that you understand law to have any chance of understanding law. And I doubt that you're able to convince yourself that you don't understand very much law.


*Phoenix isn't a spectacularly important case; it's just one that I have open in another tab right now.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8955
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Any truth to this?

#88

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:43 am

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.
In theory, Parliament cannot make a law binding on future law makers. The treaties they accede to are, in theory, a factual exception to that general rule. In fact, the factual exception is actually more theoretical than factual, due to the enforcement issues involved in the interactions of sovereign states.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
phaseolus
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:17 pm
Location: Bay View, WI
Occupation: PLC Programmer

Re: Any truth to this?

#89

Post by phaseolus » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:45 am

Foggy wrote:I plead the fifth dimension.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3QvYIx0mfQ



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6503
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Any truth to this?

#90

Post by Northland10 » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:23 am

Just some guy wrote:
Northland10 wrote:
Just some guy wrote:Article 8th:
The Navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the Ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.
Two sovereign nations allowed citizens from both countries to continue to use a river that was, at the time, our western border. That is not the same as the King allowing us to fish in our river. We did not even have both sides of the river.

Oh, and neither England nor the United States controlled the mouth of Mississippi.
Oh, so England controlled the western side of the Mississippi river? what exactly was their territory on the west side called and who governed it?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 36dc88.jpg

Notice Englands claim to land touched NO part of the Mississippi, did we enter into treaties with Russia where they allowed us to use the Mississippi also?
Fur traders from England were using the Mississippi before the war. As part of negotiating a peace, we decided to let them continue using the Mississippi. This is how peace treaties are made. There is give and take about various issues until both sides agree.

It really was good deal for us because we ended up with not just the 13 colonies, but most of their claims all the way to the Mississippi. There was a great deal of negotiations with England and others on who would get the land west of the colonies.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8955
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Any truth to this?

#91

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:45 am

Just thought of an easy way to remember the big difference between treaties and contracts:

Breach of contract = cause of action.
Breach of treaty = casus belli.*

*sometimes, anyway.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Re: Any truth to this?

#92

Post by SueDB » Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:53 am

Northland10 wrote:
Just some guy wrote:Article 8th:
The Navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the Ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the Subjects of Great Britain and the Citizens of the United States.
Two sovereign nations allowed citizens from both countries to continue to use a river that was, at the time, our western border. That is not the same as the King allowing us to fish in our river. We did not even have both sides of the river.

Oh, and neither England nor the United States controlled the mouth of Mississippi.
IRR France owned New Orleans and that yuuge tract of land on the west side of the river & wasn't too friendly to the UK at the moment.
There was a bit of a dust up in the 1860's that closed the river to the subjects of GB and the US.

So much for treaties


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6726
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Any truth to this?

#93

Post by RoadScholar » Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:59 am

I'm sure the American Indians will be happy to learn that all treaties and contracts are permanently in force and heritable down through the centuries.

:lol:


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#94

Post by Azastan » Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:34 am

RoadScholar wrote:I'm sure the American Indians will be happy to learn that all treaties and contracts are permanently in force and heritable down through the centuries.

:lol:
Those of us in the PNW still hear angry mutterings from :geezertowel: about the Boldt decision.



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3716
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Any truth to this?

#95

Post by DejaMoo » Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:53 am

RoadScholar wrote:I'm sure the American Indians will be happy to learn that all treaties and contracts are permanently in force and heritable down through the centuries.

:lol:
You beat me to it. I don't doubt that some of the guys who are obsessed with this contract law/treaties conspiratorial thinking also believe that the treaties we signed with the Indians don't count.



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 16227
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Any truth to this?

#96

Post by Volkonski » Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:13 am

As to the Pope, the Act of Supremacy of 1534 established the English monarch as Supreme Head of the Church of England thus making the English monarch the pope within England. This was reaffirmed by the Act of Supremacy of 1559 which says in part-
And to the intent that all usurped and foreign power and authority, spiritual and temporal, may for ever be clearly extinguished, and never to be used or obeyed within this realm, or any other your majesty's dominions or countries, may it please your highness that it may be further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal, shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm, or within any other your majesty's dominions or countries that now be, or hereafter shall be, but from thenceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, and all other your highness's dominions for ever; any statute, ordinance, custom, constitutions, or any other matter or cause whatsoever to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.
Whatever claim Popes may have had under feudal law to England was ended by this act. In the intervening 457 years the Vatican has made no attempt to enforce any claims to England. In 1982 the Vatican and the UK established full diplomatic relations and exchanged ambassadors. That action represents the official recognition by the Vatican of the legitimacy of the current government of the UK.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15314
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Any truth to this?

#97

Post by Suranis » Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:47 am

Yeah, responding to what Mike said, the ability to read and analyse is what's missing here. I mean we have people puling half sentences and Lines out of legal stuff these days and trying to mangle them into proving a bullshit point. But I remember in the glory days of birthism where I had to show someone, by mentally reaching through the monitor and pushing their fat stupid head on to the page, that what they were quoting from came from the court describing the case of the side that LOST. I had to do that at least 3 times. Simple shit like that should be obvious to people. But people just are not trained to read properly, or they just don't care enough to try.

That least to people reciting bullshit like Obama "You didn't build that" or Hillary "what difference does it make" when if you read the fucking paragraph its obvious that both were not talking anything like what the spin masters are saying. Hell if you read the complete fucking sentence its obvious.

And yet these same people think you can look back at 900 year old laws and think they can understand what the hell they were saying back then without any idea what the times were like, the language or slang used, or that the whole idea of contract law, as an agreement enforced by the power of the state and the rule of law, might not have fucking existed back then. Aside from, "you break this agreement and I'm coming to slice your belly open," which lasts as long as you haven't paid enough people to outnumber the other guys band of thugs, at which point all bets are off.

And then using that misunderstanding to claim secret history of obviously stupid shit, like Rome owning and controlling England for 900 years without anyone bloody noticing. Hell, maybe France secretly controls Ireland becasue they came over with an army in 1798 and pledged a lot of stupid shit. Once you go down that road of babble you can justify anything.

Now if you don't mind I have to see to my holdings in Agartha, the hollow Earth.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43447
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Any truth to this?

#98

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:01 pm

The Yale Law Journal article that said that treaties are interpreted like private contracts is a good example of why legal education is important. "Interpretation" is different from enforcement. And enforcement is, quite frankly, problematic and almost impossible if a sovereign decides it does not want to comply with its prior promises. There are enforcement mechanisms, obviously, in many cases (especially those involving trade), but having a legal education lets you know what you do not know. And you immediately understand the difference between "interpretation" and "enforcement." Without the legal education you would assume they are coincident.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4421
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Any truth to this?

#99

Post by Maybenaut » Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:18 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:The Yale Law Journal article that said that treaties are interpreted like private contracts is a good example of why legal education is important. "Interpretation" is different from enforcement. And enforcement is, quite frankly, problematic and almost impossible if a sovereign decides it does not want to comply with its prior promises. There are enforcement mechanisms, obviously, in many cases (especially those involving trade), but having a legal education lets you know what you do not know. And you immediately understand the difference between "interpretation" and "enforcement." Without the legal education you would assume they are coincident.
I think the law student who wrote that Note understood the difference. Him being at the end of his legal education, and all (IIRC from looking at this briefly yesterday, the Note was published the same year the author graduated from Yale).



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4695
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Any truth to this?

#100

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:03 pm

This will probably be my sole contribution to the thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmePLg3hdCw



Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”