Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: BretCahill
Date: Jun 26, 2008 09:13

> Also please provide a cite to some "idle law clerk's out-of-the-blue
> dicta" on the 3rd Amendment.

Don't take my word for it. Anything I say here can be found in the
liberry.

Look up the 3rd in C.J.

One opinion does not make a body of law.

Bret Cahill
34 Comments
Re: Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: Deadrat
Date: Jun 26, 2008 10:41

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote in news:fe8289fd-48f3-4a29-8cb0-
8517463b94cc@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>> Also please provide a cite to some "idle law clerk's out-of-the-blue
>> dicta" on the 3rd Amendment.
>
> Don't take my word for it. Anything I say here can be found in the
> liberry.
> Look up the 3rd in C.J.

Here's how this works: you make a claim; you back it up. If it's so easy
to find in the library, you should have no trouble coming up with such
dicta.
> One opinion does not make a body of law.

If you hadn't snipped the context and the attributions, it would be easy to
see that I don't dispute this point.

Now, quit dodging the issue and cite that idle law clerk for us, legal
eagle.
> Bret Cahill
no comments
Re: Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: Bret Cahill
Date: Jun 26, 2008 11:39

>>> Also please provide a cite to some "idle law clerk's out-of-the-blue
>>> dicta" on the 3rd Amendment.
>> Don't take my word for it. �Anything I say here can be found in the
>> liberry.
>> Look up the 3rd in C.J.
> Here's how this works: �you make a claim; you back it up.

Exactly. Back up your claim by finding something that suggests
there's some 3rd Amend case law.

I'm saying that there's so little on the 3rd you cannot even
shephardize griswold.

. . .
>> One opinion does not make a body of law.
> If you hadn't snipped the context

You openly admit you are too dumb to reinsert whatever you happen to
believe is the context?

I hope you never aspire to be a lawyer.

You'll get creamed.

Bret Cahill
no comments
Re: Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: Deadrat
Date: Jun 26, 2008 11:52

Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote in
news:d5915c6e-e575-4641-9eaa-49eda2377681@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>>> Also please provide a cite to some "idle law clerk's
>>>> out-of-the-blue dicta" on the 3rd Amendment.
>
>>> Don't take my word for it. �Anything I say here can be found in
> the
>>> liberry.
>>> Look up the 3rd in C.J.
>
>> Here's how this works: �you make a claim; you back it up.
>
> Exactly. Back up your claim by finding something that suggests
> there's some 3rd Amend case law.

I have. The 3rd played an important part in convincing the Court to find
a fundamental right to privacy. If you don't understand that statement,
do a little study.
> I'm saying that there's so little on the 3rd you cannot even
> shephardize griswold.
Show full article (1.38Kb)
no comments
Re: Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: Bret Cahill
Date: Jun 26, 2008 12:00

>>>>> Also please provide a cite to some "idle law clerk's
>>>>> out-of-the-blue dicta" on the 3rd Amendment.
>>>> Don't take my word for it. ?Anything I say here can be found in
>> �the
>>>> liberry.
>>>> Look up the 3rd in C.J.
>>> Here's how this works: ?you make a claim; you back it up.
>> Exactly. �Back up your claim by finding something that suggests
>> there's some 3rd Amend case law.
> I have. � The 3rd played an important part in convincing the Court to find
> a fundamental right to privacy.

One case does not a body of law make.

That's why you'll need to shephardize griswold or count the number of
pages devoted to the 3rd in West's Digest or C. J. or some other
literature.

I'm saying it doesn't exist.

You are saying it _does_ exist.

Only _you_ can prove me wrong by finding something.
Show full article (0.94Kb)
no comments
Re: Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: Deadrat
Date: Jun 26, 2008 12:30

Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote in news:c1024f8b-5b9f-460e-8edc-
b2982139d505@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
Show full article (1.86Kb)
no comments
Re: Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: John
Date: Jun 26, 2008 13:22

Bret Cahill wrote:
> Exactly. Back up your claim by finding something that suggests
> there's some 3rd Amend case law.

Engblom v. Carey

Now how freaking difficult was that?
no comments
Re: Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: Deadrat
Date: Jun 26, 2008 13:26

John wrote in news:uZ6dnf1m2JDpZ_
7VnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@supernews.com:
> Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>> Exactly. Back up your claim by finding something that suggests
>> there's some 3rd Amend case law.
>
> Engblom v. Carey
>
> Now how freaking difficult was that?

He's just going to say that it's just one case and that doesn't make a
"body" of law.

In any case, the plaintiff's won the battle for us but lost the war for
themselves.
no comments
Re: Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: John
Date: Jun 26, 2008 13:27

Deadrat wrote:
> By the way, found
> any such dicta that you can quote for us?

Dicta would not help. It is irrelevant.
no comments
Re: Shephardizing the 3rd Amend.         


Author: John
Date: Jun 26, 2008 13:30

Bret Cahill wrote:
> One case does not a body of law make.

If there is only one case, then it represents 100%% of the cases. That's
it, bubba. Now, about this "body of law". More bullshitting from Bret?
What is a body of law, Brett? How does it relate to the singular case
law related to the 3rd A.?
no comments
1 2 3 4