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

Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "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.
> 
> 
> 
Almost every time the Supreme Court makes a decision, four of the 
justices disagree with the other five.  Are the four that disagree,
morons?