jedi pauly

Patricia
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:28 pm

jedi pauly

Postby Patricia » Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:40 pm





That's nice, but I'm not seeing the relevance. I know what the words 'natural law' mean - what's important is what the Natural Laws actually are. Look at the definition and notice these key words: discernible...derived from an analysis...certain natural rights...derived from the general development of mankind. See? We decide what they are.





You (or rather, jedi pauly) can't throw the term out there and act like it means the same thing to everyone at every time.





That's right, and that's why even the definition is careful to point out that the meaning of the phrase varies to some degree depending on which set of belief-holders is using it ("as by the Stoics," "as by the Scholastics," etc.).



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15691
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

jedi pauly

Postby TollandRCR » Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:48 pm



"natural law." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. [/break1]merriam-webster.com]http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (25 Jul. 2009).





Main Entry: natural law Pronunciation Guide



Function: noun



1 : a body of law derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to institutional law: as a : the principles of justice discernible (as by the Stoics) by right reason b : JUS GENTIUM c : the part of divine law discernible (as by the Scholastics) to reason but not directly revealed d : a set of principles derived from an analysis of human societies and based (as by 18th century rationalists) principally upon certain natural rights having prior validity to institutional law e : the body of rules or customs derived from the general development of mankind and essential to the maintenance of human society



2 : a specific principle belonging to the total body of natural law



3 : LAW OF NATURE

I could go with 1e for the purpose of defining "citizen" or with 3 for defining something outside human society, although "law of nature" is exceedingly hard to define even though I use the idea all the time. The laws of nature keep changing the more that we learn. It was not so long ago that we believed that the atom was indivisible. A bit earlier we were sure that the homunculus derived only from the male and was simply implanted in the female.





What we thought was "human nature" has varied (evolved?) across the centuries. Sometimes I think that Ursula Le Guin has more of a handle on human nature than does an entire herd of anthropologists and sociologists, because she sees far into our future with the lens of our past. In any event, it is possible and maybe desirable to view "natural law" as a purely human project, a work in progress. Incidentally, that idea of natural law as being in the process of being discovered is entirely compatible with the idea of a Creator. The idea is that we humans are in the business of learning the language of God. That view is very different from the top-down view that jedipauly takes.





Another problem with jedipauly's argument is that he sees only two forms of government, that of a monarchy and that which is something like a republic or a republican democracy. For most of human history, we have had neither kings nor republics. That was indeed a false choice that jedipauly presented us.



Patricia
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:28 pm

jedi pauly

Postby Patricia » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:08 pm



Natural law is a big deal in philosophy (and in the Catholic Church). By the way, I've told some folks on a private mailing list that I am here and have learned a lot but cannot give them a quick explanation, so you might see some of them one of these days show up and say they know "Patricia." I told them to do that. I've known them for more than 15 years on a political list that started in the Clinton Administration. :lol:



User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

jedi pauly

Postby Butterfly Bilderberg » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:09 pm



I was referring to the argument he makes that like the inalienable rights declared in the Declaration of Independence, natural citizenship arises from natural law and is not bestowed by government in a republic in the same way it is in a monarchy. I just don't know if there's validity in that claim, though he does indeed point out that that may be the very reason for the Constitution and our laws not defining natural born citizen.





It's the concept that nowhere does the Constitution state that citizenship is bestowed by government, etc.





I didn't see the videos or the other stuff and right now don't seem to have the energy.





Edit: In fact, his argument addresses in my mind the disconnect between saying that if a statute grants citizenship, it's not natural born citizenship and then on the other hand saying that the nationality STATUTE defines who is a natural born citizen. Does anyone see what I am saying?
Patricia, natural law is a theory, a philosophical concept. And Jedipauly has contorted it. This guy is rationalizing his views on the basis of philosophy, not law. Don't let yourself buy into it.

Patricia
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:28 pm

jedi pauly

Postby Patricia » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:19 pm





Patricia, natural law is a theory, a philosophical concept. And Jedipauly has contorted it. This guy is rationalizing his views on the basis of philosophy, not law. Don't let yourself buy into it.

Yeah, I had a feeling when I first posted that I was missing something. I was! ;)

iangould
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:10 am

jedi pauly

Postby iangould » Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:20 am



then you inherit loyalty to your father's people, by the Laws of Nature, and they are Americans, so you are LOYAL to America and her people, and not some foreign dad's people, or country, or interests.

Of course these same loons accuse any native born American who doesn't adhere to their far-right views of being traitors so what does this actually prove?

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8406
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

jedi pauly

Postby verbalobe » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:15 pm

moved to the active thread :oops:

User avatar
realist
Posts: 30740
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

jedi pauly

Postby realist » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:34 pm

moved to the active thread :oops:

Thank you. :-bd

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 18392
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC\
Contact:

jedi pauly

Postby Foggy » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:41 pm

Jedi Pauly invites you to watch his latest YouTube:[BBvideo 425,350:3vn5a8ck]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPpfrIV8HmI[/BBvideo]TL/DR
"The only thing more dangerous than an idea is a belief. And by dangerous I don't mean thought-provoking. I mean: might get people killed." - Sarah Vowell

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 27927
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

jedi pauly

Postby mimi » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:02 pm

video must be under 3 minutes long. He went a little over that.

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7398
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

jedi pauly

Postby PatGund » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:10 pm

video must be under 3 minutes long. He went a little over that.

Yeah, he seems to be suffering from inflammation of the apuzzo

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 1617
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

jedi pauly

Postby RoadScholar » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:45 pm

How is taking "Natural Law" as a defining guide supposed to work? "My understanding of Natural Law is such that your candidate is not a NBC.""Oh yeah? Well, MY understanding of Natural Law is such that YOUR candidate is not eligible!"Then what?There is only one arbiter of Article II NBC eligibility for President: Congress. Somebody runs, somebody else claims he or she is ineligible. Congress as a legislative body or as the Electoral College may or may not take up the debate, and they thereby decide. They may explore a Natural Law argument in their debate, they may not.No one debated BHO's eligibility.He's a NBC. Completely eligible. End of story.
I'll Stop Attacking the Far Right with the Truth When They Stop Attacking Me with Lies.

User avatar
BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

jedi pauly

Postby BFB » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:01 pm

Jedi Pauly invites you to watch his latest YouTube:[BBvideo 425,350:1by1hc8n]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPpfrIV8HmI[/BBvideo]TL/DR

There is no fucking way I'm blowing an hour of my life to watch that. AGH.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 21489
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm

jedi pauly

Postby SueDB » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

video must be under 3 minutes long. He went a little over that.

Yeah, he seems to be suffering from inflammation of the apuzzo

Proctologists have a Devil of a time shrinking that huge flow of Putzy streaming from the that gaping apuzzo down to a dribble so they can finally get a chance to treat that bleak vacuous wasteland.
You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.
Or... you can follow the money - The Two Jakes -

LaLawyer
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:04 pm

jedi pauly

Postby LaLawyer » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:58 pm

video must be under 3 minutes long. He went a little over that.

Yeah, he seems to be suffering from inflammation of the apuzzo

Proctologists have a Devil of a time shrinking that huge flow of Putzy streaming from the that gaping apuzzo down to a dribble so they can finally get a chance to treat that bleak vacuous wasteland.

Wow. 72 views so far. So the jedi watched it once and the other 71 are from Fogbow. Or maybe Pauly, 70 from Fogbow, and a poor kid looking for a Star Wars video.

User avatar
BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

jedi pauly

Postby BFB » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:01 pm

Wow. 72 views so far. So the jedi watched it once and the other 71 are from Fogbow. Or maybe Pauly, 70 from Fogbow, and a poor kid looking for a Star Wars video.

What he needs to do is drop a bunch of F-bombs and shoot off some semi-automatic weapons. Then, once it goes viral, he could have more than 180,000 views, just like [/break1]youtube.com/watch?v=AQakPtOQCJo]Chief Kessler.

gshevlin
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:05 pm

jedi pauly

Postby gshevlin » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:51 am

Wow. 72 views so far. So the jedi watched it once and the other 71 are from Fogbow. Or maybe Pauly, 70 from Fogbow, and a poor kid looking for a Star Wars video.

What he needs to do is drop a bunch of F-bombs and shoot off some semi-automatic weapons. Then, once it goes viral, he could have more than 180,000 views, just like [/break1]youtube.com/watch?v=AQakPtOQCJo]Chief Kessler.

He needs to throw in the liberal use of perjoratives like "Libtards" and "Obots" also.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15692
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

jedi pauly

Postby bob » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:13 pm

Planet Infowars: [/break1]infowars.com/activism/the-true-definition-and-meaning-of-article-ii-natural-born-citizen]The True Definition and Meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen”:

Greetings! My name is Paul Guthrie. I am a [highlight]political scientist who has discovered the scientific true definition and meaning of the U.S. Constitution’s Article II “natural born Citizen” clause[/highlight] regarding the qualifications for the Office of President of the United States. I will show you hidden knowledge that can deprogram people from their religious belief that Obama is a lawful President. I have discovered, based upon Obama’s reported birth in Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and non-citizen father, that Obama is, at best, only a “naturalized citizen”, and not a natural born Citizen of the United States, and thus does not qualify for the Office of President.This discovery is [highlight]not a matter of my subjective beliefs or opinions[/highlight]. What I have discovered is objective and self-evident. Those who would argue against the truth that is presented here [highlight]are not arguing with Paul Guthrie, but instead are arguing against self-evident natural political Laws of Nature, and against the Creator of Nature,[/highlight] and against human reason, and against the rule of law and the Constitution. Their arguments are nothing more than [highlight]political sexist hate crimes of sedition and religious persecution against male U.S. citizens[/highlight] from a State of the United States.As far as I know, [highlight]I am the only person in the United States[/highlight], in over 4 years and 200 eligibility challenges to Obama, who actually understands what a “natural born Citizen” is and [highlight]has properly informed a federal court judge (two in fact, and also several State judges)[/highlight], in an attempt to remove Obama from Office and hold him accountable for his crimes. As far as I can tell, every other court case besides Guthrie v. United States (my case) failed to properly expose the fraud of Obama, by failing to comprehend what a “natural born Citizen” is and how it is defined, and thus they failed to inform the courts of the natural facts as a matter of law, and therefore failed to expose the fact that the federal courts are no longer courts of competent jurisdiction which can even hear a case as long as a non-nbC occupies the Office of President. Therefore, there is no standing possible in any federal court because they are all operating illegally as foreign courts engaged in religious advisory opinions of declaring Obama to be a President without any facts or law to support such a determination, done in order to dismiss cases without having to address the merits of the case, and thereby maintain an unlawful monarchy government with a dictator King that everyone just calls a “President”. This is the true story of the historic overthrow of the United States Constitution and rule of law in 2009 and 2013 and of what happened to me twice in federal court when I tried to expose this fraud. Please go to [/break1]jedipauly.com]http://www.jedipauly.com and read the case Guthrie v. United States and [highlight]the analysis of Judge Barker’s illegal religious opinion ruling that establishes the USA government to be a dictatorship and Religion[/highlight], in violation of the First Amendment that is supposed to establish a separation between Church and State.Apparently [highlight]people nowadays are so incapable of reasoning and rational critical thought[/highlight] that no one realizes that natural born citizen status can only be secured in a non-monarchy form of government (monarchies have “subjects” not citizens) by a male citizen father. This is just a natural political law of Nature for males due to the reproductive differences between males and females, which requires a male citizen father in a non-monarchy to have to claim his offspring and make a reporting of the birth to his government within 18 years of the birth in order to secure natural born citizen status. This is verified by the United States Supreme Court in the case Nguyen v. INS 533 U.S. 53 (2001). If the male father does not claim and report his offspring then no one will even know who the father is. It turns out that Nature vests the male with the sole sovereign political authority to secure natural born citizen status for his offspring. It is self-evident that both female citizen mothers and the society cannot create an offspring or attach natural born citizen status without the political permission and consent of a male citizen father. Only the male citizen father has the sole sovereign political authority, because he does not need the political permission of the state society or the mother in order for the father to claim his offspring and report the birth to his government within 18 years of the birth of the offspring, to secure his child’s natural born citizen status. This is the only way in which one can secure a natural born citizen status, thus it requires being born to a U.S. citizen father from a State in order to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” who can qualify for the Office of President.

...more :yankyank: at the link.

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4278
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

jedi pauly

Postby Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:42 pm

I stopped reading when I saw Paul Guthrie and Political Scientist in the same sentence

User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm

jedi pauly

Postby gupwalla » Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:10 pm

What a nutter.It is cute, though, how he - and only he - has discovered the hidden meaning and divined the Self Evident Truth of the Constitution's meaning. I'm not quite sure what "political sexist" means, but it probably has something to do with rejecting his notion that citizenship may only descend through the male line. I guess they cover that in SovCit Law Class when you shell over your 21 oz of gold for tuition.


Return to “Miscellaneous”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests