posted on May 8, 2001 11:04:35 AM
Please show me in the Constitution, were the Supreme Court is afforded the final say in Constitutional interpretation.
posted on May 8, 2001 11:16:03 AMjlpiece:, please come back and use your own account. It is a deceptive practice to have someone else use your account, or to have someone else write your responses for you. While either case is not against the Community Guidelines, I want you to know that I do not appreciate the deception. If your previous posts from the beginning were this well written as they are in the posts above -- intelligent, logical, well thought out, spellchecked, using bigger words than you've ever used before, sentances constructed gramarically correct to a far greater degree than normal, then I would have no objection. Can you please convince this person to make an account for themself and then we can discuss things in a true perspective?
How does one know that isn't who its supposed to be?
ie; jlpiece being someone else?
I'm being very serious here, I have made spelling errors (and have been corrected )
puncuation, syntax, paragraph etc mistakes before, but never had someone else write post for me. BUT I was registered under a different name long ago, but 'de registered' myself thru the moderators, and re registered, I was never suspended from here.
I have been, um, suspected? of having a different ID, or alter ego, as it was put, but never have.
posted on May 8, 2001 12:50:18 PM
It's just a guess, really, but there are things people do when posting that are characteristic no matter what name they post under. I'm really not that good at detecting it, but some people, particularly people who have extensive experience in text editing and type professionally can be practically infallible. Nuances of language, spacings of particular series of words, things like that.
posted on May 8, 2001 03:35:56 PM
Well, I for one, don't care who jlpiece is. His/her answers/statements were brilliant!!!
He/she answered every statement with facts. Held his/her own while speaking the truth about the issues brought up.
Three cheers for those posts, jlpiece. (No matter who you might be.)
Please save your speculations on the identity of any AW Member. Discussion of a member that no longer posts to these boards is not appropriate, so back to the subject if you would.
posted on May 8, 2001 09:58:31 PM
I am truly honored that this discussion took place while I was away earning my meager living. For clarification, not that it matters of course, but I am only jlpiece - just little old me. If I came across a little more well-directed in this thread it was only due to my knowledge of the subject. Generally when I reply to threads I am so frustrated that people really believe the ridiculous things they say, that I don't take the time to try to convince them otherwise. As far as the spelling and grammar goes, allow me to be the first to point out that even after my edits, I still was not infallible with my typing. I can misspell and truncate sentences with the best of them.
It just so happens that certain posters bring out the best in me. Others don't even merit a response.
posted on May 8, 2001 10:27:22 PMSaraAW, please direct those comments at whoever is using my account to post under my name!! Just kidding of course, and I shall refrain from using such inflammatory words as "damn" ever again. Pinky Promise
posted on May 9, 2001 12:09:13 AM
Well, now maybe the link above concerning the reality of law as it pertains to election procedures in the state of Florida will be consulted so as to clear away the innacuracies posted as fact by the previous poster?
posted on May 9, 2001 05:14:51 AM
jlpiece - It has been quite a bit of time since your post but I have to ask - Are you unaware that State courts are seperate from Federal courts and each as you say has a progression of courts that can be appealed to up to the Supreme court of that system?
However they administer seperate codes and jurisdictions and a case at law does not in any sense automatically jump from State courts to Federal courts as an automatic "upward" progression. If that were the case I suppose the State Supreme court would have to send their cases to the lowest Federal court and strt the climb through that system all over.
That is not what happened here.
The Supreme Federal court stepped in to accept a case about a candidates Federal rights without allowing an under court to ever hear the case and ruled on how the State must act after the issue had been resolved at the State level. It is not clear how this would effect state law should the issues arise again - but no matter because they added an note to the effect that this ruling only applied to this time and circumstances.
In other words - George wins but if the same thing happens in 4 years to Al none of this applies. That's when you really know it is corrupt when it is a special one time ruling and none of them would even put their name on the illegitimate thing which is also not the usual proceedure to do unless there was NO disagreement at all and no need to sign it.
They may think it cleans their hands to refuse to sign it but it just announces their shame.
Even with all of the data available, and some of the most able analysis by posters here that's ever been done in these forums, the republican/Bush oriented sectors never desisted in repeating the same tired Limbaugh-like dogma as though it were the gospel even though very little of it could be supported by the most imaginative.
This has been only a repeat of those distortions, made, I guess, in the hope that over time the truth will be forgotten and the myth will then be revered as the actuality.
posted on May 9, 2001 09:15:19 AM"Well, now maybe the link above concerning the reality of law as it pertains to election procedures in the state of Florida will be consulted so as to clear away the innacuracies posted as fact by the previous poster?"-krs
Yes, dear friend I did refer to the link you mention but found cause for concern when I read the profile of the man that the page is hosted by. It's a very official looking page, and could probably impress the untrained eye, but hound dog that I am - little gets past me. Allow me to sample some of mr. Sutin's biography found on that page (convenient, too, you needn't scroll down at all - it's just to the right.)
"he represented the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton/Gore92 campaign, the Tsongas for President Committee, the Presidential Inaugural Committee and others."
This is what has so eloquently been stated by yourself before, a case where you'll want to consider the source.
As for your other links to prior forums, I hope you didn't expect me to be impressed with what I read there. Hardly did I notice the difference between todays posts and December's. What concerns me most is the lack of common sense and the inability to separate one's agenda from those little things we call facts.
Of course, it also concerns me that you were willing to rely on the debates of others in a time of ignorance, in order to battle minds with someone such as myself, in a time of enlightenment. A definate faux pas, or worse.
One most come better prepared, my friend.
[i]"Are you unaware that State courts are seperate from Federal courts and each as you say has a progression of courts that can be appealed to up to the Supreme court of that system?
However they administer seperate codes and jurisdictions and a case at law does not in any sense automatically jump from State courts to Federal courts as an automatic "upward" progression. If that were the case I suppose the State Supreme court would have to send their cases to the lowest Federal court and strt the climb through that system all over."[/i] -gravid
A few mistakes, sir, so I'll take them in order I guess.
Although to a great degree, the State courts are separate from the federal courts, this only necesarily applies in the initial stages of a case. The Federal laws supercede the State laws, and although a state is free to go over and above the Federal laws, it is not allowed to ignore or violate the federal laws. This is true in the Statutes, the Courts and even the Constitutions. The Federal Laws, Courts and Constitution are superior to the States. The only time a case which was initiated in the State Courts goes to Federal would be if new evedence is brought to make it a Federal issue, or when all of the State courts have been exhausted, it can be appealed to The US Supreme Court, NOT THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS! The lower Federal Courts are there to handle cases that have been deemed as Federal from there inception, or after new evidence has made them such. I repeat, You can not appeal a State Supreme Court decision to any of the LOWER Federal Courts. State courts are given relative autonomy in that their decisions will not be questioned as long as they have stayed within the Federal guidelines. The lower Federal courts are given the same autonomy in their interpretation of Federal Law, BUT THEY ALL HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE US SUPREME COURT.. Federal laws = federal courts, state laws = state courts. They are both subject to the final say of the big dogs. However, the lower Federal courts are NOT superior to the State courts - they are completely separate.
Excuse my crude drawing, I ma certainly no artist, but you'll notice how the Federal and State Court both answer to the same court, without answering to each other.
I hope that helps gravid, if not perhaps you could read up on the issue. There is plenty of information right there at your fingertips. Just don't make the same mistakes of others, ALWAYS KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE AUTHOR OR YOU WON"T KNOW WHAT YOU"RE READING!
posted on May 9, 2001 09:20:21 AM
Meaning if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger?
Try just clicking the links to Florida law. Paricularly where it says "Chapter 102". Can't miss it, or I wouldn't have thought that it could be missed until now.
Compare the requirements of law to the erroneous and unbased claims made previously here by........guess who.
posted on May 9, 2001 09:29:22 AM
No attacks implied, dear sir, just unmasking the agenda behind the message. Allow me to qoute you inorder to demonstrate...
"the republican/Bush oriented sectors never desisted in repeating the same tired Limbaugh-like dogma as though it were the gospel."-krs
of having a different ID, or alter ego, as it was put, but never have.
