Re: ACLU & Client, MxGov, To Sue Ice For Being Anti-Semetic

"Don Gabacho" <jpastore@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:e9505242-f84d-44af-a22f-46931abfd259@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 17, 4:38 pm, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
> >
news:a294c368-c764-4869-9a99-c83941568c31@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
On May 17, 5:23 am, "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
> >
news:9057a5b3-53a8-424b-8246-ba1925558f3a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > > > On May 16, 3:33 pm, "Lamont Cranston"
<Lamont.Crans...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > But, let's say that the CNDH is a part of the Mexican
government.
I
> > work
> > > > > for a company that contracts with a part of the Canadian
government.
> > Is
> > > > > that illegal or unconstitutional?
> >
> > > > Not if the contracts infringes, much less as the ACLU's accord
with
> > > > the National so-called Commission on Human Rights of the Mexican
> > > > Government even declares itself to do, on the very soveriegnty of
the
> > > > U.S.A. which includes the U.S. judicial system.
> > > > **************************************************************
> >
> > > > No, dummy, it does not not.  The ACLU agrees to seek judicial
redress of
> > > > rights under *American* law.  This does not attack the
"sovereignty"
of
> > the
> > > > US.
> > > > Do you even understand what the word means?
> >
> > > The ACLU un-Constitutionally signed an accord
> >
> > No, it did not.  And the dummy Senor Gabacho cannot cite anything
other
than
> > the Preamble in his lamebrained attempts to argue his absurd point.
>
> Liar. Several times I have also cited the granting---BY WE THE PEOPLE
> OF THE USA---of the powers to make accords, treaties and alliances
> with "foreign powers" to the U.S. legislature and no one else.

The ACLU has not made any such thing.  You seem to think this bans all
contracts with foreign governments or private organizations, and it does
not.
So Senor Gabacho lies again.


> And just as often, even the U.S. Legislature cannot sign away U.S.
> sovereignty including the sovereignty of its included court system.

No one has signed away any "sovereignty," a word that it is now clear you
do
not understand.


> You had even responded proclaiming that the Constitution prohibited
> powers to the people it did not grant to the people.

I said no such thing.  Indeed, I said the opposite: where the Constitution
is silent, the power is retained by the people.


> You're still as I even then told you: "a jerk."

In fact, you're projecting.  You have been corrected innumerable times and
simply repeat the same discredited arguments instead of trying to figure
out
why you are 100% wrong.

You don't dare ask a lawyer offline for fear of being laughed at for being
such a moron.  How humiliating it must be to go through life as Senor
Gabacho.