Preamble
I have a theory on how or why Commerce, Constitutional Law, and Police powers were unlawfully bled together.
Source: 16 American Jurisprudence 2d 2ND REVISION 1964
The underpinnings of my reasoning being simple - they appear directly next to each other in the book.
Isn’t it so that they could never have done that? This is, and again, that they “were unlawfully bled together.”…
Source: 16 American Jurisprudence 2d 2ND REVISION 1964
I, for one, am a proponent of the Law as it was written; and not anything less supreme. This enumerating the concept of the unalienable right preceding even also the US Constitution. And yourself?
Breathing documents must respect their own words, like: “supreme Law of the Land,” and “shall not be infringed.” Otherwise, they are not in any benevolent sense alive, but rather plaque on the tooth and repugnant to the true spirit of the US Constitution, isn’t that so?
Source: 11 American Jurisprudence 1d 1937
I heard it said by one Bill Cooper the other night as I was falling into sleep that the right of true ownership of one’s own land was in some way abridged even also around 1933. That would make the almost ancient texts of ‘11 Am Jur., 1d., Constitutional Law’ in some way less than the obvious framing of the US Constitution. Consider that, if you please, dear reader.
Source: https://zchg.org/hott/late%20episodes/1365%20-%2027-Apr-98%20-%20Handgun%20Control%2C%20Inc.%2C%20Confidential%20Letter.mp3
What is the appeal to tradition fallacy in this context? Beware, also, the appeal to authority fallacy in this context by avoiding the bandwagon. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”…
DOWNLOAD FREE NOW:
Source: 11 Am. Jur., 1d, Constitutional Law, § 1-382
*The torn white paper bookmarks are mostly mappings to Carl Miller’s references.
