What about us computer USERS ?

On 10/22/15 10:59 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:37:23 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

On 10/22/15 7:35 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:19:34 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:



You do know that the Declaration of Independence has zero legal
force, right?


Stan, your statement is not entirely correct. At the time it was ratified, the Declaration of Independence
served as a legal expression of international sovereignty, formally separating the thirteen colonies (as the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) from the authority of, and breaking all political ties with, the Crown. Enforcement
of this legal document took the form of the Revolutionary War.

Those who ratified the Declaration were the legally elected or appointed representatives of each of the
thirteen colonies.

In addition to my comments above, I offer the following for your consideration:

Hi, Norman,

An "Ah, but" comment or two...

Professor John Eidsmoe , Professor of Law at Faulkner University School of Law, writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the
Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental
law of the United States of America .

My read of the Professor's statement is the Declaration is not
necessarily legal, just the ideas expressed is part of the "fundamental
law of the United States of America." Professor Eidsmoe has not said
*directly* the Declaration itself is legal and binding. I think the
Professor is saying the ideas of the Declaration are built into the
fundamental laws of the US, not that the Declaration itself is a legal
and binding document.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws
of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest
Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the
Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section
3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and
the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'" (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

And at the end of this paragraph, the Oklahoma Constitution says "the
*principles* of the Declaration of Independence", not the Declaration
itself.

A search finds lots of links discussing the issue. I think to find the
correct answer, the place to start are the Supreme Court case(s) where
this question has been part of the cases presented and see what the
Court ruled.

But I, for one, do not have the time at the moment to ferret that info out.

My JD is over 60 years old, so admittedly, I am pretty rusty.

JD????


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

"Ken Springer" wrote in message
...
On 10/22/15 10:59 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:37:23 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 10/22/15 7:35 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:19:34 -0400, Stan Brown
wrote:



You do know that the Declaration of Independence has zero legal
force, right?


Stan, your statement is not entirely correct. At the time it was
ratified, the Declaration of Independence
served as a legal expression of international sovereignty, formally
separating the thirteen colonies (as the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) from the authority of, and breaking all
political ties with, the Crown. Enforcement
of this legal document took the form of the Revolutionary War.

Those who ratified the Declaration were the legally elected or
appointed representatives of each of the
thirteen colonies.

In addition to my comments above, I offer the following for your
consideration:

Hi, Norman,

An "Ah, but" comment or two...

Professor John Eidsmoe , Professor of Law at Faulkner University
School of Law, writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is
often misconstrued. Some believe the
Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force
whatsoever today. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the
U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental
law of the United States of America .

My read of the Professor's statement is the Declaration is not
necessarily legal, just the ideas expressed is part of the
"fundamental
law of the United States of America." Professor Eidsmoe has not
said
*directly* the Declaration itself is legal and binding. I think the
Professor is saying the ideas of the Declaration are built into the
fundamental laws of the US, not that the Declaration itself is a
legal
and binding document.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of
Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws
of the United States of America' along with the Articles of
Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest
Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the
principles of the Declaration; in the
Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma
Territory to take steps to become a state. Section
3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant
to the Constitution of the United States and
the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'" (Christianity
and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

And at the end of this paragraph, the Oklahoma Constitution says
"the
*principles* of the Declaration of Independence", not the
Declaration
itself.

A search finds lots of links discussing the issue. I think to find
the
correct answer, the place to start are the Supreme Court case(s)
where
this question has been part of the cases presented and see what the
Court ruled.

But I, for one, do not have the time at the moment to ferret that
info out.

My JD is over 60 years old, so admittedly, I am pretty rusty.

JD????

Juris Doctor I presume.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:28:05 -0400, "PAS" wrote:

"Ken Springer" wrote in message
...
On 10/22/15 10:59 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:

My JD is over 60 years old, so admittedly, I am pretty rusty.

JD????

Juris Doctor I presume.

I narrowly avoided getting my JD some 40+ years ago, but in my case it would
have meant juvenile delinquent.

--

Char Jackson

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:37:23 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

On 10/22/15 7:35 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:19:34 -0400, Stan Brown
wrote:
You do know that the Declaration of Independence has zero legal
force, right?

Stan, your statement is not entirely correct. At the time it was ratified, the Declaration of Independence
served as a legal expression of international sovereignty, formally separating the thirteen colonies (as the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) from the authority of, and breaking all political ties with, the Crown. Enforcement
of this legal document took the form of the Revolutionary War.

Those who ratified the Declaration were the legally elected or appointed representatives of each of the
thirteen colonies.

In addition to my comments above, I offer the following for your consideration:

Hi, Norman,

An "Ah, but" comment or two...

Professor John Eidsmoe , Professor of Law at Faulkner University School of Law, writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the
Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental
law of the United States of America .

My read of the Professor's statement is the Declaration is not
necessarily legal, just the ideas expressed is part of the "fundamental
law of the United States of America." Professor Eidsmoe has not said
*directly* the Declaration itself is legal and binding. I think the
Professor is saying the ideas of the Declaration are built into the
fundamental laws of the US, not that the Declaration itself is a legal
and binding document.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws
of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest
Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the
Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section
3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and
the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'" (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

And at the end of this paragraph, the Oklahoma Constitution says "the
*principles* of the Declaration of Independence", not the Declaration
itself.

A search finds lots of links discussing the issue. I think to find the
correct answer, the place to start are the Supreme Court case(s) where
this question has been part of the cases presented and see what the
Court ruled.

But I, for one, do not have the time at the moment to ferret that info out.

Well said, Ken.

I'll add just one note: Norman is incorrect when he talks about those
who "ratified" the declaration, unless he is consciously talking
about the empty set. No one ratified it. Quite a few people signed
it, but it did not create a government then or later. The Continental
Congress got what little authority it had from the state legislatures
in 1777, just as it had since 1774. It got a tiny bit more in 178a
when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. It got none at all
from the Declaration.

As you say, the principles of the Declaration are important(*). But
none of them -- not one -- would be legally enforceable without
legislation.

(*) Well, in theory they're important. If you actually read the
laundry list of grievances against King George, you'll see that our
own government had far exceeded some of them.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 10/22/15 5:50 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:44:07 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:37:23 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

On 10/22/15 7:35 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:19:34 -0400, Stan Brown
wrote:
You do know that the Declaration of Independence has zero legal
force, right?

Stan, your statement is not entirely correct. At the time it was ratified, the Declaration of Independence
served as a legal expression of international sovereignty, formally separating the thirteen colonies (as the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) from the authority of, and breaking all political ties with, the Crown. Enforcement
of this legal document took the form of the Revolutionary War.

Those who ratified the Declaration were the legally elected or appointed representatives of each of the
thirteen colonies.

In addition to my comments above, I offer the following for your consideration:

Hi, Norman,

An "Ah, but" comment or two...

Professor John Eidsmoe , Professor of Law at Faulkner University School of Law, writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the
Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental
law of the United States of America .

My read of the Professor's statement is the Declaration is not
necessarily legal, just the ideas expressed is part of the "fundamental
law of the United States of America." Professor Eidsmoe has not said
*directly* the Declaration itself is legal and binding. I think the
Professor is saying the ideas of the Declaration are built into the
fundamental laws of the US, not that the Declaration itself is a legal
and binding document.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws
of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest
Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the
Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section
3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and
the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'" (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

And at the end of this paragraph, the Oklahoma Constitution says "the
*principles* of the Declaration of Independence", not the Declaration
itself.

A search finds lots of links discussing the issue. I think to find the
correct answer, the place to start are the Supreme Court case(s) where
this question has been part of the cases presented and see what the
Court ruled.

But I, for one, do not have the time at the moment to ferret that info out.

Well said, Ken.

I'll add just one note: Norman is incorrect when he talks about those
who "ratified" the declaration, unless he is consciously talking
about the empty set. No one ratified it. Quite a few people signed
it, but it did not create a government then or later. The Continental
Congress got what little authority it had from the state legislatures
in 1777, just as it had since 1774. It got a tiny bit more in 178a
when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. It got none at all
from the Declaration.

As you say, the principles of the Declaration are important(*). But
none of them -- not one -- would be legally enforceable without
legislation.

(*) Well, in theory they're important. If you actually read the
laundry list of grievances against King George, you'll see that our
own government had far exceeded some of them.

Stan, here is a refresher on the history of the Continental Congress.

https://history.state.gov/milestones...ental-congress

As for the legal aspects of the DOI, my above comments stand as written as do those of Professor Eidsmoe.

Now, what about those enumerated rights?

Uuuhhhhhhhhhh.... 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. ROFL!!!

I'm sorry, Norman, I just couldn't resist.




--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:04:27 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2015-10-22 18:44, Stan Brown wrote:
[...]
I'll add just one note: Norman is incorrect when he talks about those
who "ratified" the declaration, unless he is consciously talking
about the empty set. No one ratified it.
[...]

Pointless literalism.


Maybe, but that's perhaps better than pointless republicanism. g

On 10/23/15 5:51 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:35:46 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:


Stan, here is a refresher on the history of the Continental Congress.

https://history.state.gov/milestones...ental-congress

As for the legal aspects of the DOI, my above comments stand as written as do those of Professor Eidsmoe.

Now, what about those enumerated rights?

Uuuhhhhhhhhhh.... 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. ROFL!!!

I'm sorry, Norman, I just couldn't resist.

Don't apologize Ken. There exists an aphorism about laughter being the best medicine; I think that applies
even if you are laughing at something you do not understand..........

grin I know what "enumerated" means the context of the conversation,
but I just couldn't resist taking "enumerated" and morphing over to
"numerals".


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"