Justice dal Navā
Group: admins
(5222 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:43)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > > Just because the definition is not in the Constitution doesn't mean there isn't an accepted legal definition. Do we need to define every term?
>
> Well, in this case, the problem is that if it is an accepted legal definiation, then the constitution forbids something that is not defined.
>
> In the case of the USA, it appears that the fact it was not defined got perverted.
Uh-huh. And the legal profession goes 'round on such things.
> > > I would add : "life, liberty, property or rights"
> >
> > Why? The whole point of "life liberty and property" is rights. Those rights to what? Life, liberty, and property.
>
> Not just those 3 rights, but other rights, like Citizenship.
>
> The Bill that Ben wrote was a bill of Attainder in a way, but it affected Citizenship, not Life, Liberty nor property.
The fact that it was a Bill of Attainder made it illegal. What's the problem?
--------------------------------------
The mind plays tricks on you. You play tricks back! It's like you're unraveling a big cable-knit sweater that someone keeps knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting... |
