Comments for Poor Clyde's Almanac http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles Articles and Other Jottings Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:29:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on DUAL SOVEREIGNTY by admin http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-41 admin Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:29:58 +0000 http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=12#comment-41 Yes, i have read AND STUDIED U.S.v. Bond. . My article DUAL SOVEREIGNTY teaches you why Bond won. She now has a whopping civil case in her State Courts against those who where instrumental in dragging her into the federal court system. What was amazing to me about that case was that it was 9 to 0. Another aid to help you understond the Bond case is COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM. That search argument will land you in the exact site. Yes, i have read AND STUDIED U.S.v. Bond. . My article DUAL SOVEREIGNTY teaches you why Bond won. She now has a whopping civil case in her State Courts against those who where instrumental in dragging her into the federal court system. What was amazing to me about that case was that it was 9 to 0. Another aid to help you understond the Bond case is COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM. That search argument will land you in the exact site.

]]> Comment on DUAL SOVEREIGNTY by admin http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-39 admin Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:18:13 +0000 http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=12#comment-39 Yes I did. Reading Ginsgerg's Concurrence was very instructive. She brought two interesting points to the table, Due Process and the Validity of the Law, as additional "standing" to be considerec and suggested both were at issue here. Certainly, Due Process could have been briefed by Bond but the validity issue sticks only by the addition testing of the Validity "as applied." Ginsburg challenged Congress' right to write the Law at § 229, which I think is misplaced. However, it's the application of the Law in Pennsylvania which is at odds with the law itself, which, by the way, really does pivot around the 10th Amendment. This distinction escapes most people, including Lawyers and Constitutionalist alike. Thanks for stopping by. I've add some new material and will pay more attention to the site in the future. Ken Yes I did. Reading Ginsgerg’s Concurrence was very instructive. She brought two interesting points to the table, Due Process and the Validity of the Law, as additional “standing” to be considerec and suggested both were at issue here. Certainly, Due Process could have been briefed by Bond but the validity issue sticks only by the addition testing of the Validity “as applied.” Ginsburg challenged Congress’ right to write the Law at § 229, which I think is misplaced. However, it’s the application of the Law in Pennsylvania which is at odds with the law itself, which, by the way, really does pivot around the 10th Amendment. This distinction escapes most people, including Lawyers and Constitutionalist alike.

Thanks for stopping by. I’ve add some new material and will pay more attention to the site in the future.

Ken

]]> Comment on DUAL SOVEREIGNTY by frdmfytr http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-38 frdmfytr Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:18:47 +0000 http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=12#comment-38 I came across your article today and found it very informative. Have you read the recent "United States v. Bond" case involving the 10th amendment? If so, what are your thoughts? I came across your article today and found it very informative. Have you read the recent “United States v. Bond” case involving the 10th amendment? If so, what are your thoughts?

]]> Comment on A CRITICAL LOOK AT COPYRIGHTS by Max Taylor http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=61&cpage=1#comment-18 Max Taylor Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:45:52 +0000 http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=61#comment-18 Nice article as are all of yours. Thank you for taking the time to research and write it. A couple of thoughts though. First paragraph: "… commercial interference…" This implies that it falls under the UCC and is therefore governed by Commercial Law. Second paragraph: "If a person were walking in a mall listening to music over the public sound system…" As you may well know, in legalese, a "person" is a reference to a Corporate entity and not a living breathing individual. Since the "Uniform Commercial Code" only applies to corporate entities [fictions] and not to living individuals then how can copyright infringement laws be enforced against any living individual? That law simply does not pertain to them. This may sound a little vague on my part as I have a lot more to study regarding how the world of commerce works, what applies to it and what it applies to but it is my understanding, after much research, is that the laws of commerce only actually applies to fictional entities [corporations]. Just some thoughts. Keep up the good work. Max Nice article as are all of yours. Thank you for taking the time to research and write it.

A couple of thoughts though.

First paragraph:

“… commercial interference…”

This implies that it falls under the UCC and is therefore governed by Commercial Law.

Second paragraph:

“If a person were walking in a mall listening to music over the public sound system…”

As you may well know, in legalese, a “person” is a reference to a Corporate entity and not a living breathing individual. Since the “Uniform Commercial Code” only applies to corporate entities [fictions] and not to living individuals then how can copyright infringement laws be enforced against any living individual? That law simply does not pertain to them.

This may sound a little vague on my part as I have a lot more to study regarding how the world of commerce works, what applies to it and what it applies to but it is my understanding, after much research, is that the laws of commerce only actually applies to fictional entities [corporations].

Just some thoughts. Keep up the good work.

Max

]]> Comment on GUN CONTROL by admin http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=14&cpage=1#comment-11 admin Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:14:41 +0000 http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=14#comment-11 Wow power leveling Thanks for the positive feedback. Political research together with the analysis to support the derived conclusions does not generally meet with the enthusiasm you expressed. While I’m not engaged in this effort for ego massages, I have to admit that when one comes along it is very much appreciated. I’m in this because I have a son and a daughter in law who together brought two wonderful grandchildren into this life. I don’t have a choice because if we can’t muster a solution to the mess we find ourselves in, my grandchildren will find themselves back in the middle ages as mere servants to the aristocracy, the same circumstances we escaped from two hundred and thirty three years ago. Thanks again for you encouragement. Cheers, Clyde Wow power leveling
Thanks for the positive feedback. Political research together with the analysis to support the derived conclusions does not generally meet with the enthusiasm you expressed. While I’m not engaged in this effort for ego massages, I have to admit that when one comes along it is very much appreciated. I’m in this because I have a son and a daughter in law who together brought two wonderful grandchildren into this life. I don’t have a choice because if we can’t muster a solution to the mess we find ourselves in, my grandchildren will find themselves back in the middle ages as mere servants to the aristocracy, the same circumstances we escaped from two hundred and thirty three years ago.
Thanks again for you encouragement.
Cheers,
Clyde

]]> Comment on LIFE ON EARTH by Max Taylor http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=22&cpage=1#comment-10 Max Taylor Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:03:06 +0000 http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=22#comment-10 Ken, Thanks for the great article on the "The Power Trinity". I had not seen it as it does not appear on your home page but only on the "Recent Articles" list. I thought they mirrored each other. Just finished rereading your article on "Life on Earth" and thought I might mention a point that I had found written some years ago regarding infinity and the infinite. It goes something like this. If the universe is indeed infinite then everything that could possibly happen has already happened an infinite number of times. So there really is nothing new under the sun. Maybe under our sun but not new to the universe. As you said, does it rally matter how matter originated? Existence exists. That is all there is to it, period. End of question, end of discussion. The rest really is up to us as to how we choose to live together on "this" planet. The men in the picture of your home page really understood that and inwardly knew what they needed to do to for the advancement of mankind and not just for personal gain. I would really wish (ya right) that a spaceship with all of them on board would return to the Capitol building just so they could see what had become of their "Republic" (if you can keep it). I think they would throw the money changers out on their ears. Unfortunately they have probably all rolled over in their graves. What we really need IS "A Few Good Men" like those who came before us (Hamilton might be the exception). Now I'm just rambling so I'll stop here. Keep up the good work and I'll help spread it. Max Taylor P.S. I guess I should register on your site also. I'll do that right now. Ken,

Thanks for the great article on the “The Power Trinity”. I had not seen it as it does not appear on your home page but only on the “Recent Articles” list. I thought they mirrored each other.

Just finished rereading your article on “Life on Earth” and thought I might mention a point that I had found written some years ago regarding infinity and the infinite. It goes something like this.

If the universe is indeed infinite then everything that could possibly happen has already happened an infinite number of times.

So there really is nothing new under the sun. Maybe under our sun but not new to the universe.

As you said, does it rally matter how matter originated? Existence exists. That is all there is to it, period. End of question, end of discussion.

The rest really is up to us as to how we choose to live together on “this” planet. The men in the picture of your home page really understood that and inwardly knew what they needed to do to for the advancement of mankind and not just for personal gain. I would really wish (ya right) that a spaceship with all of them on board would return to the Capitol building just so they could see what had become of their “Republic” (if you can keep it). I think they would throw the money changers out on their ears. Unfortunately they have probably all rolled over in their graves. What we really need IS “A Few Good Men” like those who came before us (Hamilton might be the exception). Now I’m just rambling so I’ll stop here.

Keep up the good work and I’ll help spread it.

Max Taylor

P.S. I guess I should register on your site also. I’ll do that right now.

]]> Comment on DUAL SOVEREIGNTY by admin http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=12&cpage=1#comment-8 admin Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:15:40 +0000 http://www.poorclydesalmanac.info/articles/?p=12#comment-8 Thanks Bob for your constructive critiques. I apologize for "jurisdiction" being misspelled. Unfortunately, I rely on the notion that if you can't trust Word for spell checking, who can you trust? :) Because federal law when using the term "state" in a statute doesn’t differentiate between the 50 Union States and the huge body of federal states, I purposely designate the former as Union States to remove any doubt as to which jurisdictional “state” I am referring. You will, however, find somewhere in the huge body of federal statutes inconspicuously placed a definition of the term “State” which, more often than not, doesn’t include any one of the Union States in that definition. Cheers, clyde@poorclydesalmanac.info Thanks Bob for your constructive critiques.
I apologize for “jurisdiction” being misspelled. Unfortunately, I rely on the notion that if you can’t trust Word for spell checking, who can you trust? :)
Because federal law when using the term “state” in a statute doesn’t differentiate between the 50 Union States and the huge body of federal states, I purposely designate the former as Union States to remove any doubt as to which jurisdictional “state” I am referring.
You will, however, find somewhere in the huge body of federal statutes inconspicuously placed a definition of the term “State” which, more often than not, doesn’t include any one of the Union States in that definition.
Cheers,
clyde@poorclydesalmanac.info

]]>