I think you are missing the point. If you read the ENTIRE article this is not about say, for example, Haiti prosecuting the Clinton Foundation. This is about US being able to bring such a prosecution. In order to bring a case, we have to give EVIDENCE, and that evidence involves countries who are not only NOT going to cooperate but who will actively FIGHT the case. Get it now?
The point is that the US isn't competent to bring a prosecution. "Sacrifice a chicken to Molech" and "Minerva agrees" should tell you that you should get the basics right before attempting to make a case. The basics in this case being the relationship between law and theism.
Um, we are going to bring a theism case? I have no idea what you are doing, but I am trying to bust human-traffickers, not police people's spiritual lives.
In order to make a successful case it's important to find a court of competent jurisdiction. What I'm attempting to do is to describe why it's futile to attempt to make a case in a civil jurisdiction. Humanism is essential to the civil paradigm, and humans don't have natural rights, which makes it problematic to argue a case in those terms.
I do not think I suggested a civil case, did I? However, in our courts we DO have inalienable rights (see the Constitution), so I am not sure what you mean by "humans don't have natural rights".
Your inalienable rights derive from deity (see Blackstone), and are recognized by your Constitution. Being inalienable only means that you cannot be alienated from them without your consent.
Legal distinction between men and humans:
person: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a "thing" is the object over which rights may be exercised. Black's 2nd (1910)
human being See MONSTER.
Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)
view the rest of the comments →
UglyTruth ago
AFAIK diplomatic immunity is only relevant at the state level, If you're pursuing a prosecution at common law it doesn't matter.
LaDonnaRae ago
I think you are missing the point. If you read the ENTIRE article this is not about say, for example, Haiti prosecuting the Clinton Foundation. This is about US being able to bring such a prosecution. In order to bring a case, we have to give EVIDENCE, and that evidence involves countries who are not only NOT going to cooperate but who will actively FIGHT the case. Get it now?
UglyTruth ago
The point is that the US isn't competent to bring a prosecution. "Sacrifice a chicken to Molech" and "Minerva agrees" should tell you that you should get the basics right before attempting to make a case. The basics in this case being the relationship between law and theism.
LaDonnaRae ago
Um, we are going to bring a theism case? I have no idea what you are doing, but I am trying to bust human-traffickers, not police people's spiritual lives.
UglyTruth ago
In order to make a successful case it's important to find a court of competent jurisdiction. What I'm attempting to do is to describe why it's futile to attempt to make a case in a civil jurisdiction. Humanism is essential to the civil paradigm, and humans don't have natural rights, which makes it problematic to argue a case in those terms.
LaDonnaRae ago
I do not think I suggested a civil case, did I? However, in our courts we DO have inalienable rights (see the Constitution), so I am not sure what you mean by "humans don't have natural rights".
UglyTruth ago
Your inalienable rights derive from deity (see Blackstone), and are recognized by your Constitution. Being inalienable only means that you cannot be alienated from them without your consent.
Legal distinction between men and humans:
person: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a "thing" is the object over which rights may be exercised. Black's 2nd (1910)
human being See MONSTER. Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)
LaDonnaRae ago
This is ALSO not a thread for moot court. If you do not have something relevant to the investigation, why are you wasting my time?