quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: there are many ways. and, being such a vague question, I will throw a vague answer: by the will of its people.

I like that answer .

So the leigislative and executive branch act by the will of the people. I know this is all Constitution Basics 101. The power they use to do this is by passing laws right?

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Forgive my assumption if I am incorrect, but I see you arguing for the sake of the argument. Would you care to explain how an article where a guy said he talked to three people that say they heard President Bush say the constitution was "just a !@#!@* piece paper" is proof that the President actually said it?

Never once did I say it is irrefutable proof/evidence (pick your word, I'm not delving further into that beast) that he said it. I simply corrected your incorrect statement that hearsay is not proof/evidence. It can be evidence/proof depending upon circumstances. I can think of multiple exceptions where it can be admitted as proof/evidence, and depending upon the skill of the litigator, argued successfully.

quote Originally posted by Khw: I like that answer . So the leigislative and executive branch act by the will of the people. I know this is all Constitution Basics 101. The power they use to do this is by passing laws right?

well, I was waiting to see where you were headed.

I myself have always thought that "written" law isflawed, and can NEVER be thought of as absolute
but, there are other people, who have no thoughts of their own, who NEED written law

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Never once did I say it is irrefutable proof/evidence (pick your word, I'm not delving further into that beast) that he said it. I simply corrected your incorrect statement that hearsay is not proof/evidence. It can be evidence/proof depending upon circumstances. I can think of multiple exceptions where it can be admitted as proof/evidence, and depending upon the skill of the litigator, argued successfully.

Hearsay is never proof.

Wow. Back to square one.

Nothing is -ever- incontrovertible in a court case. So no, by that token Hearsay is not a definitive statement of truth, but then again, neither is a video or audio tape of whatever alleged event. There are always mitigating circumstances. So I'll grant that to avoid a pointless semantic argument. Everything is weighed upon it's merit by either a judge, and/or jury. It can be entered into "evidence" and can be considered by the Jury. There is no definitive, "irrefutable proof" -ever- in a court case. Anything and everything, can and _will_ be argued and judged upon its merits. Even then, it may not be binding.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Wow. Back to square one. Nothing is -ever- incontrovertible in a court case. So no, by that token Hearsay is not a definitive statement of truth, but then again, neither is a video or audio tape of whatever alleged event. There are always mitigating circumstances. So I'll grant that to avoid a pointless semantic argument. Everything is weighed upon it's merit by either a judge, and/or jury. It can be entered into "evidence" and can be considered by the Jury. There is no definitive, "irrefutable proof" -ever- in a court case. Anything and everything, can and _will_ be argued and judged upon its merits. Even then, it may not be binding.

So why do you keep saying hearsay is proof then say it isn't. Maybe you should go and take some time to make up your mind. Then after you decide come back and stick to just that one stance you come up with.

Also, note for your consideration : http://criminal.findlaw.com...earsay-evidence.html

Exceptions wherein hearsay may be admitted.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Wow. Back to square one. Nothing is -ever- incontrovertible in a court case.

Wait, who's talking court case? You're the law student, so that's to be expected, I suppose, that you would keep taking it there. But hearsay is not a legal term exclusively. Its a literal term whose definition I posted earlier. Go back and read what I actually said. All I have been saying from the beginning is that while hearsay may be admissible evidence legally, it is not proof literally. Or, put another way, while a judge may allow hearsay to stand as evidence in a court case, that hearsay is not proof in reality.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]

well, good job at chasing your tails.
this is an internet forum. "proof" is not needed.
think for yourself

quote Originally posted by Phranc: So why do you keep saying hearsay is proof then say it isn't. Maybe you should go and take some time to make up your mind. Then after you decide come back and stick to just that one stance you come up with.

Proof = Evidence. The terms are used interchangeably and their usage is determinant upon lexical context. Consider the two statements, "I submit to you, that this ... is proof of..." and "I submit to you that this ... is evidence" They are used nearly synonymously.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Proof = Evidence. The terms are used interchangeably and their usage is determinant upon lexical context. Consider the two statements, "I submit to you, that this ... is proof of..." and "I submit to you that this ... is evidence" They are used nearly synonymously.

And evidence isn't always proof. You said that your self. They aren't always mutually interchangeable. Like you said your self. So again take you time and make up your mind. Then when you decide on whether they are the same come back and try again.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Be it the court of public opinion, or a court of law. Hearsay can be admitted based upon whatever warrants it. E.g., in the court of public opinion, a person's stature may determine the number of people who may believe whatever is said. It can never be completely ignored, but merely judged upon circumstances and people involved. In the court of public opinion, personal ideologies influence heavily their belief or non-belief.

Ah, so what you're saying is the definition of hearsay is pliable depending on whether its "public opinion" or not... okay...

quote Originally posted by Phranc: And evidence isn't always proof. You said that your self. They aren't always mutually interchangeable. Like you said your self. So again take you time and make up your mind. Then when you decide on whether they are the same come back and try again.

Exactly. You get it - they are one and the same.

So, what am I not making up my mind on? My stipulations are thus : 1 Hearsay can be admitted in either a court of law, or court of public opinion. 2. Evidence / Proof are largely interchangeable. The lexical argument between these two terms was used to serve item 1 as to counter the semantic rebuttal to my earlier rebuke.

I've been very clear.

we really gonna waste a page on this crap?
there is no courtroom here. anything submitted is as equal as everything else, and up to the readers discretion.

I can say my smelly feet is proof that mars is heaveir than jupiter.

but, if we wish to continue off topic ramblings, how's about steroid use in baseball?

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: No. My original argument is : Hearsay can be admitted. You then challenged that with, "well this isn't a court of law" to which I responded that even in the court of public opinion, it can be admitted. People will accept it, or not accept it, thus negating your "is not proof" statement.

And your challenge to my original statement was to say that evidence and proof are one in the same. Regardless of what people may accept or consider, they are not, that has not changed.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: anything submitted is as equal as everything else, and up to the readers discretion.

Thank you.

lol

Interesting read.

You say you voted for Obama because he was the better candidate and not one time in your post did you give a reason WHY you thought he was a better candidate. IOW, you made a statement of fact with nothing to support it. I hope your law training teaches you better than that so that you can prepare a proper defense for your clients. I'm pretty sure the "Because I said so" won't play well in front of a jury.

As to the talk of Secession, do you honestly believe the economy is the root cause of this talk? If you do, you need to get out of the classroom more often and talk to the people that are simply fed up with the attacks by the federal government on our rights as set forth in the Constitution that each and every one of the lawmakers swore to uphold. THAT is the issue my friend, not the economy.

You say "get over it". I say, OK, quit trying to nationalize our banking system. Quit trying to make more unconstitutional limitations on my right to own guns. Quit feeding our schoolkids a biased and inaccurate view of history. Quit saying that killing unborn children so we can harvest their stem cells is not a moral judgement, but a matter of personal choice. Quit telling us that we can't have a manger scene at the county courthouse because somehow that's a violation of the separation of church and state, something that isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Quit telling me what I can and cannot do in a hundred other cases that are explicitly said in the Constitution to be rights reserved to the People and the States.

When the President and party YOU helped vote into power quit those things, we can all live in peace and harmony, roast s'mores over the campfire, and sing Cumbaya. Until then, get used to it. I will not go quietly into that good night that used to be the United States of America. Public dissent is as old as this country. Perhaps they mentioned that to you at some point in class (although with the way things are taught now, I can forgive you for not knowing because they may not teach it anymore)

You have a different view? Fine by me. Just don't tell me (however politely) to shut up about mine. It ain't gonna happen.

You say that "No one state, or minor collection of states in the union possess enough material or manufacturing capacity to improve upon their current condition". Let me guess, East Coast (FL) born and raised.

Newsflash for you my friend. Take the states from Canada to Mexico between the Rocky Mountains and the MIssissipi. That's 16 states, a little over 30% of them (I'd call that minor), with less than 1/4 of the US population. I defy you to give me one thing that we don't have, in abundance, that we need. I await your response. As I've said before, although those on both coasts discount and overlook the middle part of the US, if push came to shove, you need us a hell of a lot more than we need you.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Disclaimer: I am a Republican. I believe in limited government and free market economy principals. I voted for both Bush Sr, and Bush Jr twice. I am a Political Science graduate student. I've also accrued nearly enough credits from undergraduate courses to earn a Psychology degree. I am a Law Student. I voted for Obama over McCain not because he was Obama, or that I had partaken of the Obama kool-aid, but because he was the better candidate of the two. When I see posts similar to that found within this topic, I find myself wondering whether the conservative ideologues have lost their mind. Their myopic view of fiscal matters is truly staggering in the extreme. The current administration is not responsible in the slightest for our current problem, and to a degree, the previous administration. The current problems stem from the fact that big-business made staggeringly bad decisions that compounded over the course of almost a decade. These decisions have leaked into the public awareness, and as with any hot topic, has triggered a massive public backlash that has led to a severely crippled consumer confidence. Which makes things that much worse for big-business. The problems we have currently are not partisan, but are systemic to our entire capitalistic practice. There was a nationwide bubble, similar to the 1999-2001 Technology bubble. It popped.We're now suffering the consequences, and those responsible aren't facing a single consequence. It has n o t h i n g to do with the current administration, rather, it has everything to do with the companies we are trying to save. We currently have two options : Let these businesses fail and deal with the cascade effects and consequences of double digit unemployment, or attempt to stem the tide and rescue consumer confidence. I believe the current system is best, however much it does suck. I also believe the proposed tax plan is best as well, as it gives relief to the middle class and working poor. The previous administration's tax plan gave a greatly reduced ratio of tax to income in favour of the extremely wealthy, while a increased ratio to the middle and working-poor. Talk about secession is pure stupidity as it would not fix the problems, but would provide a means for the political ideologue to act like poor losers. No one state, or minor collection of states in the union possess enough material or manufacturing capacity to improve upon their current condition. Also consider, that while you may hold a view that is one way, realize that others hold opposing views. This past election should have proved that much. Any secession would be ghastly and bloody. As a side note. I've noticed a trend. While the GOP controlled the house, liberal ideologues whined and complained, much the same as the conservative ideologues do now. My message to you? Get over it.

[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 03-09-2009).]

we almost to page 7? can we get back on topic?

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: And your challenge to my original statement was to say that evidence and proof are one in the same. They are not, that has not changed.

Actually, that was my counter to your rebuttal. The point to that silly lexical argument still stands. There are many factors that can determine whether hearsay can be admitted. It is not simply discarded as being hearsay and dismissed. Weight it like you would any argument. Critical thinking is key. Blindly following isn't.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Critical thinking is key. Blindly following isn't.

A knowledge of the English language is key. Definitions are definitions and are not open to interpretation of the court of public opinion.

Alright Pyrthian, I'm done here... going to work now. Wonder if it'll be on pg 7 by the time I get home?

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Exactly. You get it - they are one and the same. So, what am I not making up my mind on? My stipulations are thus : 1 Hearsay can be admitted in either a court of law, or court of public opinion. 2. Evidence / Proof are largely interchangeable. The lexical argument between these two terms was used to serve item 1 as to counter the semantic rebuttal to my earlier rebuke. I've been very clear.

You have clearly changed for hearsay being proof to it not being proof back to it being proof. Its ok. I'm sure you only confused yourself. Just like you got confused on what my post said.

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: A knowledge of the English language is key. Definitions are definitions and are not open to interpretation of the court of public opinion.

You're kidding right? Definitions are never exactly thus. Look at Ebonics and the dynamic impact upon the English language. Language, like opinion, changes over the course of time.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: You're kidding right? Definitions are never exactly thus. Look at Ebonics and the dynamic impact upon the English language. Language, like opinion, changes over the course of time.

So definitions do not definitely define......

quote Originally posted by Phranc: So definitions do not definitely define......

Exactly. You have your connotative and denotative distinctions between words. It's up to the user to determine which is weighed more heavily.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, I was waiting to see where you were headed. I myself have always thought that "written" law isflawed, and can NEVER be thought of as absolute but, there are other people, who have no thoughts of their own, who NEED written law

I was headed toward what a law does, or what some laws do. For example since it's been a hot topic, gun control. The laws limit our ability to possess them, while it may only limit a specific type it is a limitation none the less.

quote Dictionary.com lib⋅er⋅ty    /ˈlɪbərti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-tee] Show IPA –noun, plural -ties. 3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

I want to look at this definition of Liberty specifically.

In support of that definition, I offer up some philosphy also.

quote Two Treatises of Government By John Locke Sec. 22. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.

My original question was "How does a Government protect the Liberty of it's people?".

Lets get to my point by looking at some more of what Locke wrote.

quote CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies. Sec. 95. Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it.

quote Sec. 97. And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature

Now I know he is talking Majority rule, and we aren’t truly that. What I am referencing more to is that when a group of men, our for fathers for example, join in a compact creating a government, they leave a state of liberty and become bound to the laws of that government they joined or created. Our government is charged with the duty of protecting our liberty. They protect it from without. They protect it from within.

So how do they protect our liberty? By limiting it. Laws limit our liberty. They limit the things we can own, the things we can do, the places we can go, and even some of the things we can say.

The topic of this thread will come when the limitations set by our government are no longer acceptable by the populace at large. By then though, will it be to late?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: ..... You say "get over it". I say, OK, quit trying to nationalize our banking system. Quit trying to make more unconstitutional limitations on my right to own guns. Quit feeding our schoolkids a biased and inaccurate view of history. Quit saying that killing unborn children so we can harvest their stem cells is not a moral judgement, but a matter of personal choice. Quit telling us that we can't have a manger scene at the county courthouse because somehow that's a violation of the separation of church and state, something that isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Quit telling me what I can and cannot do in a hundred other cases that are explicitly said in the Constitution to be rights reserved to the People and the States. ....

you mean the banking system which put us into this mess of an economy we are in right now?
with ya with the guns & schools
the "unborn" are NOT killed to harvest - they are killed for sport - the harvest is a added bonus.
and, presenting chistian (or any other religous junk) at a courthouse implies that the displayed religion carries weight at that courthouse.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I defy you to give me one thing that we don't have, in abundance, that we need. John Stricker

A Chief's playoff win?

quote Originally posted by Khw: Now I know he is talking Majority rule, and we aren’t truly that. What I am referencing more to is that when a group of men, our for fathers for example, join in a compact creating a government, they leave a state of liberty and become bound to the laws of that government they joined or created. Our government is charged with the duty of protecting our liberty. They protect it from without. They protect it from within. So how do they protect our liberty? By limiting it. Laws limit our liberty. They limit the things we can own, the things we can do, the places we can go, and even some of the things we can say. The topic of this thread will come when the limitations set by our government are no longer acceptable by the populace at large. By then though, will it be to late?

On revolution or disposition of government, "The ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed" - Johne Locke.

quote Originally posted by Khw: ..... Now I know he is talking Majority rule, and we aren’t truly that. What I am referencing more to is that when a group of men, our for fathers for example, join in a compact creating a government, they leave a state of liberty and become bound to the laws of that government they joined or created. Our government is charged with the duty of protecting our liberty. They protect it from without. They protect it from within. So how do they protect our liberty? By limiting it. Laws limit our liberty. They limit the things we can own, the things we can do, the places we can go, and even some of the things we can say. The topic of this thread will come when the limitations set by our government are no longer acceptable by the populace at large. By then though, will it be to late?

yup. and this is what makes a big mess.
much has to do with density of the population you live in.
the denser it is, the more controlling the laws need to be. and, since we have a nation of wide open spaces & high density living - you get the HUGE split in ideas about what is right.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: ..quoth the chicken to the egg.

"quoth"....SWEET!

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: A Chief's playoff win?

Oh Man, that was cold!

You should go to the penalty box and soak your head for a while. That was a cheap shot.

Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Newsflash for you my friend. Take the states from Canada to Mexico between the Rocky Mountains and the MIssissipi. That's 16 states, a little over 30% of them (I'd call that minor), with less than 1/4 of the US population. I defy you to give me one thing that we don't have, in abundance, that we need. I await your response. John Stricker

A port? err, Texas nm.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 03-09-2009).]