Up Front by Emma Hart

Read Post

Up Front: Oh, God

343 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 14 Newer→ Last

  • UglyTruth,

    Yup, it's my story. I get to define these aliens how I like.

    So, you don't really mean aliens, you mean human-like beings that you can't show any evidence for, right?
    Again, Occam's Razor says that my explanation is more probable because it makes fewer assumptions than yours does.

    You've now backtracked from "aliens that have taken over my brain" to "aliens that exist".

    Your "money quote" is circular reasoning: you are assuming that the Constitution Act was effective in order to argue that NZ legislation is effective.

    The legislation is not effective because there is more to sovereignty than political supremacy, and the NZ parliament doesn't meet the criteria.
    This point is illustrated by them using a blatantly false definition of sovereignty to give the impression that they are actually sovereign.

    http://www.actsinjunction.info/nzsov.html

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to UglyTruth,

    So, you don’t really mean aliens, you mean human-like beings that you can’t show any evidence for, right?

    No, I mean aliens. If you want more detail, fine. Thousands of them can fit on the head of a pin. They are immortal and come from a galaxy far, far away. They are fond of the color green. Country and western music seems to relax them.

    You’ve now backtracked from “aliens that have taken over my brain” to “aliens that exist”.

    No. I'm still on the aliens that have taken over your brain. They could exist. Admit it.

    you are assuming that the Constitution Act was effective in order to argue that NZ legislation is effective.

    Yes, I believe that the laws passed by the NZ parliament are the laws of the land, and every court, judge, lawyer, and police officer in the land will back me up on that one. That's about as effective as it gets.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to BenWilson,

    all Thetans are liars...

    No. I’m still on the aliens that have taken over your brain.
    They could exist. Admit it.

    Scientology is 'clear' on this...

    According to Scientology doctrine, a thetan exists whether operating a human body or not. Scientology advertises itself as being able to "rehabilitate" the thetan of a practitioner to a state where the individual can operate with or without a "flesh body". The term "operating thetan" would then apply as it does when an individual is operating a body. The Operating Thetan (OT) levels are the upper level courses in Scientology.

    source

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7943 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    What about the Thetan who utters the words "I am a liar". Antinomy?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP,

    This conversation is about to enter the noumena...

    Do doo be-do-do.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2450 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    thee says us thus that by golly an argument is the method that the two legged animal does establish dominance - half goat/other domestic animality.

    See that, I just spoke the word of God.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4411 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to steven crawford,

    See that, I just spoke the word of God.

    Darn tootin'.
    Thanks to the interhosen, we got more popes than catholics.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones, in reply to UglyTruth,

    The legislation is not effective because there is more to sovereignty than political supremacy, and the NZ parliament doesn't meet the criteria.

    Is this a Maori sovereignty argument? Because it looks like that's the logical conclusion, but people arguing that usually use a lot less carthago delenda est and a lot more rangatiratanga.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to B Jones,

    It's hard to see how it could be, since it's asserting the supremacy of English common law. But maybe the aliens want to play around with this. I'm curious to see what they come up with.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Yes, I believe that the laws passed by the NZ parliament are the laws of the land, and every court, judge, lawyer, and police officer in the land will back me up on that one.

    You are mistaken.

    Lex terræ: /léks téhriy/. The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to "due process of law". In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/CommonLaw/LexTerre

    As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

    http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/CommonLaw/References

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Is this a Maori sovereignty argument?

    It's related, but it's based on English law rather than assertion of Maori custom or rangatiratanga. One of the critical points is that the NZ state was established as "civil government", which divorces it from the common law necessary for the Westminster system to function effectively.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    I could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about grundnorm etc, but I read that link, and it's up there with Ken Ring and David Icke. I guess if there's alternative history and science, there's alternative legal theory.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    I guess if there's alternative history and science, there's alternative legal theory.

    Which theory is the better one, the one that fits the facts, or the one which results in fictions like the NZ state's position on sovereignty and the common law?

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to UglyTruth,

    http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/Sovereignty
    http://www.actsinjunction.info/nzsov.html</q>

    You keep quoting this site as if it has some value or authority. I've looked at it. It is not compelling, consisting of self-referential one-liners with no reference to external supporting evidence. I suspect it is your own site.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2933 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to UglyTruth,

    You are mistaken.

    The subsequent bunch of stuff you dump to justify the claim that I'm mistaken makes no reference to what you claim I'm mistaken about, which is that the entirety of the legal and enforcement apparatus in this nation will back up the sovereignty of our parliament. A bunch of quotes lifted from some quack website is not going to convince anyone that laws passed in this land do not have to be obeyed if the common law is in conflict with them.

    All you actually have there is a strictly legalistic interpretation of the phrase "the law of the land", for which you have as much authority to assert the meaning as you do over the word "oath", ie none at all. The law of the land is a common phrase referring to the laws that hold in a land, and that includes statute law. That is how I meant it, and how I continue to mean it. We're not in a courtroom here, we're on an internet blog. If you want to split hairs forever on this, I'd concede that you don't use the phrase that way, and could even use it in discussions with you to avoid wasting more time. But for now, no, I'm not wrong.

    The laws that hold in this country are considerably more than the common law on my definition of "hold" and "country" and "considerably", and "common law" and "definition" and "are" and "more" and so on and so on. Split hairs all you like but the basic thrust of what I'm saying is that if you think you win arguments by becoming an inflexible walking talking latin regurgitating link-whore, you got another think coming. You're trying to actually argue for natural law and God and our parliament not being sovereign via being a language Nazi, and it won't wash. You can't convince anyone of anything that way, they'll just laugh at you wanting to insist on using your private language to prove the existence of your God, your "natural" laws, your opinion about the sovereignty of our Parliament. It's got all the force of my 4 year old telling me that his toy dog Woofy says he doesn't have to eat his beans.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    It is not compelling, consisting of self-referential one-liners with no reference to external supporting evidence.

    They're not self-referential. Just follow the wiki links, eg "References"

    External references for http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/Sovereignty/References

    http://www.etymonline.com/
    Bouvier's 1856 dictionary of law
    Blacks dictionary of law, 2nd, 5th, and 8th editions.

    External references for http://www.actsinjunction.info/nzsov.html

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/FactSheets/0/e/7.htm
    http://www.bennion.co.nz/mlr/2003/mlr0803.pdf
    Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone
    Institutes of the Lawes of England, Edward Coke
    Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory Some Historical Reflections, Eben Moglen
    Thomas Edward Scrutton, Roman Law Influence In Chancery, Church Courts, Admiralty, and Law Merchant
    Rights, remedies, and the impact of state sovereign immunity, Christopher Shortell
    London Gazette, 2nd October 1840
    http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/english.asp
    http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/state-of-exception/

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    You don't deny that it's your own site, though, do you George?

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2933 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Some references from after slavery was abolished and women got the vote would be more persuasive. The Tom Bennion and NZ Parliament links don't work.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Some references from after slavery was abolished and women got the vote would be more persuasive

    Why? Has anything relevant happened?

    The Tom Bennion and NZ Parliament links don't work.

    Thanks for that, I'll fix it later.

    The NZ Parliament quote can be found at this page.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/FactSheets/0/e/7.htm

    Link broken but you really need to study how Parliament works rather than cherry pick quotes.

    http://www.bennion.co.nz/mlr/2003/mlr0803.pdf

    Link broken but available via the Wayback Machine. Tom’s a good lawyer and a friend, and I’ve argued alongside him, so I may be a little more familiar with his thought than you, and what he’s arguing about the Crown’s trampling of Māori sovereignty does more to refute your thesis than support it.

    Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone
    Institutes of the Lawes of England, Edward Coke

    Laws of England, not of New Zealand. “Common Law” does not mean the same law, forever and ever. Common law is case law, or precedent, not the entire body of English law. While case law can modify statute law in some circumstance, and in the process highlight where statute law was lacking and needs amendment, it does not over-ride statute law as of right, because it is interpretation of a particular statute by a judge. I think you misunderstand the fundamentals of law and read only what you want to see, e.g you quote Blackstone:

    "Sovereignty and legislature are indeed convertible terms; one cannot subsist without the other.”

    This is the antithesis of your argument that our Parliament is not sovereign, yet you quote him as support. Strange.

    Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory Some Historical Reflections, Eben Moglen

    Focused mainly on the development of American law, which is also based on common law extant at the point of separation from Britain via the American Revolution.

    Thomas Edward Scrutton, Roman Law Influence In Chancery, Church Courts, Admiralty, and Law Merchant

    In case you missed it, those courts are specialised courts and bear no reflection on the development of law in New Zealand after we became a Dominion, rather than a colony.

    Rights, remedies, and the impact of state sovereign immunity, Christopher Shortell London Gazette, 2nd October 1840

    1840. Right. We haven’t moved from there, I take it? All laws are the same as they were then. The Empire still exists and we are all subjects of the Queen of England. #yeahright Don’t be ridiculous. The world __has__changed. You need to recognize that.

    http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/english.asp

    Link broken but you can find it here. I suppose you are citing this to show that the Queen asserts sovereign authority in making the treaty. You fail, however, to consider that, since the Restoration, England, the later additions to the United Kingdom, the subsequent colonies, dominions and realms have all been governed as constitutional monarchies. The monarch can assent to legislation or decline it (in theory – it would be a constitutional crisis were it to happen) agreed to by the legislature. A constitutional monarch cannot change the law of the land by fiat.

    http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/state-of-exception/

    I don’t even begin to understand why you are talking about state of exception, which is a very circumscribed set of eventualities. Please feel free to not enlighten me, because I don’t care.

    None of the above supports your perceived thesis that a) natural law exists and b) it trumps statute law. Common law does not equal “natural law” which seems to me your main point of argument.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2933 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    Oh, dear. I appear to have frightened him off. I apologize to anyone who was sincerely attempting to debate with him.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2933 posts Report Reply

  • Kirk Alexander,

    Well that was an entertaining diversion. Thanks everybody...

    Chch • Since May 2013 • 17 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth, in reply to nzlemming,

    Oh, dear. I appear to have frightened him off.

    Real world kept me busy.

    you really need to study how Parliament works rather than cherry pick quotes.

    No, I really don't.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Common law is case law, or precedent, not the entire body of English law.

    LOL

    I never said that common law was the entire body of English law.

    LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law….The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts.

    From Bouvier’s dictionary of law.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to UglyTruth,

    you really need to study how Parliament works rather than cherry pick quotes.

    No, I really don’t.

    Ah, those pesky facts. You don't need them, obviously. And thus your 'argument' is proved invalid.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2933 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 14 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.