Bio not provided
THE NDAA IS NOT LAW: GO TO COURT NOW!
UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS cannot TOUCH the Constitution. Google this in quotes: "What to do about Unconstitutional Acts - National Defense Authorization Act 2012 (NDAA)" or click here:
Spread this video, please. I'm trying to wake people up:
2 years, 1 month ago on NULLIFY NDAA NOW...Join Us In Reminding Tallahassee of Their Duty in Arresting The Progress of The Evil
You know what I hate, I hate when there's no link to download the product described. The World Browser... where is it, please?
2 years, 1 month ago on TheWorld - Free Web Browser Based on IE Engine
- I altered my DNS long before I posted my message above, so that my top-level domain uses a different backup site where there is no such FALSE message, an error caused by my old backup site in a free host that has a lot of serious problems.
There is, therefore, NO WAY you would have gotten the webroot error of my site as a "threat" by clicking my domain above AFTER I posted it here, because that url had been totally changed by then.
So, perhaps you "follow" me more than you admit, which would have to be the case for you to have noticed the false "threat" message that was removed several days before I posted here.
You seem to enjoy the subject of "threats", as I recall, which is why I have had to block you in other locations online. You must be delighted with the Obama regime's neighborhood fascism, citizen spying, and indefinite detention plans.
Why don't you put your face and your real name online, Mr. "Phreedom" Phan?
2 years, 2 months ago on Original intent? Understanding? Meaning?
Wonderful article, really enjoyed it. Jealous of your trip to the Middle Temple!
Have downloaded your article on the "The Founders’ Hermeneutic: The Real Original Understanding of Original Intent" and look forward to reading it. In particular because I am working right now on a WordPress site discussing the 1865 Debates on Confederation, and a special 1951 Introduction by F. R. Scott in which he confirms that the Debates are judicial evidence.
I think that supports your position on subjective intent to be taken from the words of the ratifiers.
The 1865 Debates had most often, unfortunately, been left aside in Canadian constitutional interpretation due to the thankfully now-defunct "English exclusionary rule".
My site's not finished yet, I have a ton of work to do, including the page on "The Mischief Rule", but you might be curious to take a look at Scott's 1951 Introduction to the Index to the 1865 Debates. I've posted it here:
"F. R. Scott’s 1951 Introduction to the Debates of 1865"
(Pardon the Christmas name, I'm economizing. Had to choose an existing domain for my hosting, but all my sites are in here, including this one, which will be under a domain in January, 2012.)
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union