Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

Larry <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:x-79620F.11283502052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> In article <U%ESj.2186$506.1158@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:481ab22c$0$7075$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
>> 
>> > 
>> > "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> > news:x-945535.22512401052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> In article <481a7aea$0$30169$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >> "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >>> news:x-81CE27.22051501052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> > In article <481a7540$0$30239$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >>> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >>> >> news:x-31A95D.21395901052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> >> . 
>> >>> >> > In article <481a6f07$0$30192$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >>> >> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >>> >> >> news:x-B6C7F7.21142501052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> >> >> t.. . 
>> >>> >> >> > In article <481a69cb$0$30157$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >>> >> >> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >>> >> >> >> news:x-D9389F.19241701052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> >> >> >> .ne t... 
>> >>> >> >> >> > In article
>> >>> >> >> >> > <Ap-dnTAhj-cdzYfVnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
>> >>> >> >> >> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >>> >> >> >> >> news:x-5F8C5E.18550401052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> >> >> >> >> ews .net... 
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > In article
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > <56634f83-2a6b-40a1-9169-b7462535f992@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > ogl egroups.c om>
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > ,
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > RichD <r_delaney2001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> When was the last time the 9th was
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> cited in any court decision?
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> I'm thinking of the recent DofC v. Heller
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> case, not yet decided.  Both sides split
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> hairs over the meaning of 'well regulated
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> militia', for the 10000th time.
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> Why not make an appeal to the Ninth,
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> arguing 'right to life' implies 'right to self
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> defense', inalienably?  Is this not bulletproof,
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> is anyone honestly going to argue the
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> contrary?  It's certainly more solid than
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> dickering over the 2nd Amenment.
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > There is a right to self-defense.  However,
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > self-defense only
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > applies
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > the use of force in a given situation; it doesn't
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > apply to the
>> >>> >> >> >> >> > possession of weapons.
>> >>> >> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> >> And how do you defend yourself without the
>> >>> >> >> >> >> appropriate tools ?
>> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >> > I'm not giving you my opinion; I'm telling you what
>> >>> >> >> >> > the law says.
>> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >> > The Bernie Goetz case was the perfect example.  He was
>> >>> >> >> >> > found not
>> >>> >> >> >> > guilty
>> >>> >> >> >> > of shooting people because they jury believed he was
>> >>> >> >> >> > acting in self-defense.  He was, however, convicted of
>> >>> >> >> >> > illegally possessing
>> >>> >> >> >> > a
>> >>> >> >> >> > gun,
>> >>> >> >> >> > because self-defense wasn't applicable to that count.
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> Not exactly since his attorney or him never brought up 
>> >>> >> >> >> right to bear
>> >>> >> >> >> arms
>> >>> >> >> >> in this case as a defense.
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> > Because it was (and is) well-established law that that
>> >>> >> >> > wouldn't succeed
>> >>> >> >> > for him.
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> > I love how the armchair quarterbacks online seem to
>> >>> >> >> > recognize the obvious, winning arguments as clear as day
>> >>> >> >> > that the experienced, trained
>> >>> >> >> > attorneys and parties to the case didn't see in all their
>> >>> >> >> > hours and
>> >>> >> >> > days
>> >>> >> >> > and weeks working on the case.
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Opps...forgot this..
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Acutally funny you mention that. Seems most attorneys try
>> >>> >> >> to only fight
>> >>> >> >> the
>> >>> >> >> evidence against their client rather than attack
>> >>> >> >> unconstitutional laws.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > From what sources have you drawn this conclusion?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> From my own source. Myself.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >> I have shown many attorneys what the law reads. They never
>> >>> >> >> bothered to
>> >>> >> >> read
>> >>> >> >> them and surprised ("wow! I never knew that!") about the
>> >>> >> >> content. Seems
>> >>> >> >> to
>> >>> >> >> me spending too time paying attention to what the courts
>> >>> >> >> are doing. 
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Paying too much time paying attention to what courts do? 
>> >>> >> > Lawyers should
>> >>> >> > spend LESS time paying attention to what courts do?
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Keep talking - you're quite entertaining.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> No, pay attention to all, just just one thing.
>> >>> >> I recall on incident were a person in CA was arrested on a
>> >>> >> charge. The law
>> >>> >> stated an offense, but does not define what the offense is.
>> >>> >> Which this person brought before their attorney. Attorney
>> >>> >> refuses to hear it stating
>> >>> >> "Well the courts have 'defined' it for us thus I am not
>> >>> >> touching it". Well,
>> >>> >> ghee, since when do CA courts have the authority to make
>> >>> >> legislation? 
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Of course this person found another attorney.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > And of course you don't have a cite for this far-fetched
>> >>> > anecdote, right?
>> >>>
>> >>> Hardly far fetched. I have to look it up, but I can give you an
>> >>> example of
>> >>> how the PC reads, not how it is worded.
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> PC Code 10000000:
>> >>>
>> >>> (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to commit robbery.
>> >>>
>> >>>     (a) Any person  found guilty of robbery shall be confined to
>> >>>     jail for 
>> >>> a
>> >>> term not to exceed one year.
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>
>> >>> Again this is a made up of code to show you how it reads. In this
>> >>> example as
>> >>> in comparison, there would be no defintion of robbery in the
>> >>> whole CA Penal
>> >>> Code. I need to take the time to find it what PC it exactly is.
>> >>>
>> >>> So then the court says something like, "Any reasonble reasonable
>> >>> person would know what robbery is."
>> >>
>> >> So you're sup****ting your anecdotal, unsourced story with a
>> >> hypothetical law?  Like I said before, please continue.... you're
>> >> providing me with some entertainment this evening.
>> >>
>> >> And FYI, the real California robbery statute, 211-215, states in
>> >> part "Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
>> >> possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
>> >> against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear."
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >>
>> >> I think you'll find that all statutes have a definitions section
>> >> such as this one either in another subsection of the statute, or
>> >> for a phrase of general usage, elsewhere in the criminal/penal
>> >> code. Otherwise, they'd be constitutionally void for vagueness.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Yes I realize that, but in this case the law has no definition..I
>> > did a search myself of the entire Cal PC. I am trying to recall the
>> > words of the Cal Supreme Court, as I don't have the time right now
>> > to dig up that case law or that PC at this moment.
>> > 
>> > Well I can't recall now so I wil have to find it this weekend
>> 
>> Maybe I can help.
>> 
>> <USC Title="18" Section="371">
>> Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
>> 
>> If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against
>> the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency
>> thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such
>> persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall
>> be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or
>> both. </USC>
>> 
>> A conspiracy is two or more persons conspiring.
> 
> What in this statute is undefined?  To the extent that the statute 
> (conspiracy) has the same root as a word used in the statute
> (conspire), that's meaningless.  Or are you claiming that "conspire"
> isn't defined in the statute?

I'm not just claiming that "conspire" isn't defined in the statute.  It 
really isn't defined in the statute.

> If a common word

Something you use everyday.  Say the secret word and an indictment will 
be handed up.

> in everyday usage isn't defined within a statute,
> then its common, everyday definition is used.

Robbery is a common word too, but statutes generally define robbery not 
as "robbery" but as the taking of property by force.  California has a 
conspiracy statute, but it requires "agreement."

What constitutes federal conspiracy?  Agreement?  Partial agreement?
Approval?  General discussion of related issues?  Does it have to be 
verbal?

It just has to be conspiracy, by which I mean conspiring.  Now, if the 
law were impermissibly vague, I imagine it would have been struck down by 
now.  But GB posited a law that was self-defining, and here we have one.