Why does everyone believe in conspiracy theories nowadays?

really

law is legal theory, enacted law is agreed upon legal theory, that you have to obey.

You can once its accepted as a prescription.

if law created extraconstitutional is legal then the constitution has to be illegal. cant have it both ways.

yeh the people have no right ot interpret the contract they made with the gov./

 

yeh proof that honesty in todays world is not healthy.

 

There are those who won't accept the truth if it's not to their liking, and if they're gullible enough they'll believe in conspiracy theories. And when a "credible" source like FOX News supports such unfounded conspiracies it becomes ingrained! Hence the MAGA crowd.

 

you are conflating legal theory with enforcement

an unconstituinal law cant be constitutional.

Ok so then the people can interpret the constitution after all.
this is getting a bit orwellian.

 

I hate to break it to you, Shy, but there is no Santa Claus. No Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy either. And "the people" never made a contact with the government nor anybody else." The people" is not an entity, but instead a legal fiction conceptualized and invoked by the elites who gave us our constitution. Behind the rhetoric, they proclamed that they were creating a government that was expected to serve the interests of the people in a somewhat vague, abstract way, and that the white males who met the literacy and/or property qualifications of their respective states could vote to elect their representative. Whoever could command a majority in the Electoral College would choose the President and a majority of eligible voters in each state electing the members of Congress--subject to the various checks and balances we learn about in civics classes. (It used to be that the state legislatures would elect the Senators, but we managed to democratize that considerably). We've since expanded suffrage greatly to include all adults. An important part of the "contract" was that an unelected judiciary would have the power to interpret it (See Federalist 78). True, the full extent of that provision would later be worked out by the Supreme Court, but it's interpretation was reasonable and nobody challenged it. Of course we had the Bill of Rights with vague language about "due process', life liberty and property. Before signing any contract, it's advisable to look beyond the preamble into the details in the fine print. Those would make clear that the Framers were intending to move well beyond anarchy or Athenian-style direct democracy by referendum.
Caveat emptor: Let the buyer beware! Whenever language that vague is involved, better think twice about who's going to interpret it.

It's like "natural rights" and the "social contract", two other fictions of the Enlightenment that our Founding Fathers were enamored with. By taking this Fourth of July rhetoric literally and interpreting "the people" as each and every one of us individuals by consensus you set up an impossible ideal that only a childlike mind could take seriously. The political system you've been advocating could never exist in the real world. (Your idealized Egyptian theocracy couldn't cut it in the Twenty-first century.) The system we have may be the best we can do. In relative terms, considering the greatest amount of influence for the greatest number of people, ours is one of the more democratic countries in the world--certainly more so than the opposition. To the extent it isn't, it isn't because of some sinister conspiracy but is simply a result of the facts of life. Mustn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

 

Faurisson was dishonest--or mistaken like you. Survivor testimonies, Jewish Sondercommando diaries, confessions of guards and commandants, written documents (e.g.,orders for Zyklon B), Zyklon B traces on the walls, ground photographs, including burning bodies, aerial photos of prisoners being moved toward the gas chambers, etc., point to the reality of the Holocaust. Like other contrarian historians, he put his own spin on the facts but the verdict of expert opinion is against him.

 

Of course they're more than happy to post the editorial on farrisson getting fined, and just happened to forget the one that runs contrary to the official story what a coincidence! That has no value. It's been over 20 years since I've taken a look at this stuff and most of it is extremely hard to root out because most people wind up going underground because of all the negative flack they have to take for telling the truth and frankly I have neither the time nor impetus to go digging for anything that's not easy at my fingertips at this point.

 

Zyklon b was the only reasonable method Germany had at their disposal to get rid of typhus. The camps had regular Red Cross inspections, you would think the Red Cross would have it in every report. They don't.


A diary kept by President John F Kennedy as a young man travelling in Europe, revealing his fascination with Adolf Hitler, is up for auction.

Kennedy, then 28, predicted "Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived".

"He had in him the stuff of which legends are made," he continued.

Kennedy wrote the entry in the summer of 1945 after touring the German dictator's Bavarian mountain retreat.

It is thought by historians to be the only diary ever kept by the 35th US president.

BBC - JFK diary calls Hitler 'stuff of legends'

 

I'm not arguing that enactments are not enforceable of course enactments are enforceable that's the way a government works regardless if the laws are theory a whim or whatever doesn't matter it's all irrelevant the fact is you're conflating an enactment with legal theory.

They can throw rice up in the air or look into a crystal ball and use that as they're enactment, your whole argument is baseless.

again that's not true and unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the start to the finish that doesn't change.

If an unconstitutional law is passed then we have to look at the people that pass that law and try them for crimes against the United States.

Saying an unconstitutional law is constitutional simply because somebody ran it through and enforced it is absurd.

 

Of course? Where is i? Don't tell me the dog ate it. Is this like your copy of the Durkheim quotation that you made the centerpiece of your post on "What is Religion" is one you made some time ago at the library from a source you can't remember the specifics about. The only piece of "evidence" you've mentioned so far against the Holocaust, and you just can't come up with. Okay, we'll be patient.

 

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents.

Like Biden mandating covid jabs, the WILL OF THE GOVERNMENT dictating to the people!

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.

Its not!

It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power.

It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.

They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.




The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.


This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.

Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies,3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.

But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society.

MeAgain seems to think all power originates from the government, ON PAPER it does not, look at the civil war those are just a pile of meaningless and useless words.

It appears you dont understand negative versus positive law as the words relate to the bill of rights. Our rights are written in the negative government authority is, well supposed to be written in the positive sense. This is basic.

Its a great system, its not the system, its the people running it.

 

What did they do? Spray everybody with it? The cure would be worse than the disease.

Relevance? And where is this alleged diary? Where did you get this info?

 

This again lacks understanding of the government. You need to read Blackstones Commentaries to understrand that the people are also fictions, you cannot present in a US court as a "man" you present as the fiction which is your name interpreted as a sole corporation. lol
Youve got a lot of homework to do.

 

I neither know nor care who bought it, feel free to goog it.
The people were showered and scrubbed down to remove as much lice as possible.

No, there were in fact gas chambers and its common knowledge that the real gas chambers were not used on humans lol They were used strictly to disinfect clothing and shoes to kill typhus lice. Most of the deaths in the camp were from typhus after the allies cut off the food and medical supply trains, hence people were weak and no medicine to treat anyone suffering from typhus.

It shocks me sometimes how effective the propaganda mill is at spreading disinfo.

 

I thought so!! All those people in pictures that looked starved to death actually committed suicide!! Finally the truth comes out. I bet Hitler put all those people in the camps to feed them çuz they just weren't eating right. That shows true concern right there.

 

As I said the allies bombed and destroyed the supply trains. Not only the camps but the people in the whole surrounding area were starving.

Even the most elementary researcher has know this for years.

The allies suicided them.