Quote:
Originally Posted by
RThomas
As David Merrill has clearly shown on this site and others, there exists intent to convert ones fruits (your labor; paycheck) into acceptance of another’s claim to them (a claim that you gift your labor to satisfy their debt). David has shown a way to refute any such claim.
There is a similarity to this type of claim of ones knowledge of truth and a recording of such in a ‘Bible.’ The ‘Bible’ (conceptually) does show many truths. But whose ‘Bible’ is true to the ‘word of God.’ Is the ‘word of God’ (KJV) actually from ‘God’ or from servants of King James who may have translated the original language in a manner that served their master? Does not the introduction of the King James Version show who their master was? Does it show that they serve only one master, King James, and not the one true ‘God’ as evidenced conceptually in their text? Who, conceptually, is ‘God’ to you? Conceptually, is ‘God’ as what you may have been conditioned to believe? Or is ‘God’ conceptually what you have come to see within a pursuit of truth? Did not Jesus say that the only way to ‘heaven’ (heaven may be a concept and not an actual place) was by truth and light?
If one pursues, the concept of ‘God’ with a religious bias (conditioning originating from others as opposed to a mind that is like an innocent baby, or a mind that is ‘born again’) they may never see that which is hidden in plain sight.
Thank you for the Ashwander Rule. I am amazed sometimes at my ignorance of such obvious doctrine.
Quote:
1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions "is legitimate only in the last resort, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act."[1]
2. The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it." [2] "It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case." [3]
3. The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the Precise facts to which it is to be applied." [2]
4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter. Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground.
5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right to challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right.
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
7. "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided." [4]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.
All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?
If they are holding all the wealth by dishonest means, that means they are criminals. But consider this; they are holding the wealth as trustees. [This non-organization; on it descent into the 20th-Century Dinner Club above linked, formed through