[Radar]

If the police started arresting people for wearing blues shirts then those police would be penalized, the arrested individual woud be released, as well as begged not to sue and the case would never make it to court. Why? Because the law doesn't exist. Never has. Thus it can't come up in court. The 16th has come up, because it does exist, it is in effect. Again, if it should be in effect is another issue.

What if the courts wouldn't penalize the police who arrested people for wearing blue shirts and the congress and the president wanted to make life tougher for those who wear blue shirts? What if the courts wouldn't even allow cases regarding blue shirts to be heard? There is no law that makes paying income taxes mandatory and the courts don't want to allow challenges to the 16th amendment or other ways income taxes are unconstitutional because it endangers their power and that of the government.

Maybe it's not so much that you stopped being wrong, but that you stopped asking yourself if you were wrong. Could this be the case?

It could be, but it's not. I do question my own beliefs and I am 100% sure of my constitutional beleifs. Some people have a hard time comprehending how a person can be sure of anything but I am. These are the same type of people who have a hard time comprehending that we all live in one reality because there is only one reality. I have gone over my beliefs thousands of times from every angle and discussed them with thousands of people which has fine tuned them.

What is a fact? What methods are you using to determine it?

The Constitution was written. That's a fact. How do I know? Because I have it right here in front of me. And historical records show that it was written, who it was written by, and when it was written. It seems as though you live in a world of uncertainty even of facts. I don't have that problem. I know the difference between truth and lies, facts and fiction, reality and perceptions.

So, I ask again without the connected quotes, how can it come up in court at all? Radar says it never was in the Constitution so how can it be mentioned if it has never been in effect? Using it in court would be like using the no blue shirt law. If it doesn't exist it can't come up.

It can come up because Philander Knox fraudently claimed it had been ratified and the courts and politicians have conspired to prevent people from challenging it and have kept evidence proving the fraud out of the courtroom.

And it comes up because judges will say, "Don't you know everyone gets arrested for wearing blue shirts? Why should you be any different?" And the politicans who promote that judge tell him don't even think about overturning the blue shirt thing. So if one judge allowed someone to go to jail for the blue shirt thing, this judge won't even hear the case, he'll just refer to the other one.

No matter how you slice it, marjuana is not medicine.

You are either a liar, or an idiot. Cannibas has been used as a medicine for thousands of years. It was used in America as a medicine. No matter how you slice it or try to skate the issue, Cannibas (Marijuana) is a medicine and it's an effective one at that.

Also, even in the highly agitated and slanted accounts that i've read ... he didn't die of nausea. He died of an airway obstruction.

He choked to death on his own vomit from nausea that could have been prevented if he were given access to his medicine. Saying he died of an airway obstruction is like saying. The guy I shot didn't die because of the bullet ripping through him, he bled to death.

If he chose not to take compazine, cannibanol, or some other actual medicine, that was his choice.

He tried all other medicines for his nausea but they didn't work. How can you take a pill to stop nausea from taking pills? Nothing worked but the natural and LEGAL cannibas medicine he needed to survive but was prevented from taking.

I'm still not seeing HOW the federal government silenced someone in this instance. You might want to look up the definition of accident.

You might want to look up the word "murder". This is no different than if he had diabetes and the courts told him he couldn't take insuline. They prevented him from using his life saving medicine and that is murder.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The people "want" to pay less tax but they also "want" greater number and quality of government services, and guess which one they demand in a louder voice.

True. But these services are unconstitutional and the people aren't entitled to them. The huge number of collectivists and authoritarians (socialists, communists, fascists) push these things and they know people will fight to keep their handouts. People wanting services doesn't make those services legal or grant the government the authority to provide them.