17
   

During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 09:48 am
@oristarA,
Yes, but only if they don't eat the Man in the Moon's green cheese.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 12:24 pm
@oristarA,
You don't have to wonder.

As a former lawyer, David should abide by international treaties:

Quote:
This principle can be found back in Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which clearly forbids "national appropriation by claims of sovereignty, means of use or occupation by any other means". It has been widely accepted: no one complains the various moon landings or satellites in space have infringed their sovereignty.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 02:08 pm
@timur,
Not only that: David certainly will know that you can't compare the year 1066 and the "international law" of that period to 1969 (or any other year) and the legal interstate-situation at that time.

Besides that, there's not only legally a difference between actions following 'exploring' and those in/after 'war'.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 02:31 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:

You don't have to wonder.

As a former lawyer, David should abide by international treaties:

Quote:
This principle can be found back in Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which clearly forbids "national appropriation by claims of sovereignty, means of use or occupation by any other means". It has been widely accepted: no one complains the various moon landings or satellites in space have infringed their sovereignty.

No. No government was ever invested with the authority
to compromise American sovereignty.
Any effort to do so is void and of no legal effect.

The Constitution can be amended ONLY by the means
designated in its Article 5, not by treating with any entity.
Any efforts to do so are void & frivolous.

IF it were possible to amend the Constitution by that means,
then the President and the Senate cud treat with any banana republic
to double their salaries and install themselves in office for life
and their sons after them. By that means,
thay cud grant themselves the power of Stalin or Saddam.
That is BLATANTLY, flagrantly, conspicuously un-Constitutional.

This is not to deny that future liberal politicians
might honor fraud.





David
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 02:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
So the moon is according to the US-constitution part of the USA.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 03:28 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
Before we go any further, I wonder whether David would like to answer this:

If William the Conqueror's invasion and subsequent occupation of England could be justified, can NASA, the conqueror of the Moon, justify itself as the owner of the territory of the natural satellite of the Earth?
In my early youth, it was explained to me
that the practice of law was the art of predicting what a court
of competent jurisdiction will decide, when presented
with designated evidence or stipulated fact and to advise your client accordingly.
That is usually accomplished by statutory analysis as well as by analysis
of judicial authority on the subject. (Stare decisis; no pun)

Different courts (not being genuinely impartial) will arrive at
different conclusions. (I remember hearing of a lower-court case
wherein the judge had the effrontery to preside over litigation
whose plaintiff was his mom, before it was overturned, on appeal.)
American astronauts did NOT claim the Moon to be American territory.
Hence, there is no territorial claim for anyone to dispute.

Incidentally, William the Conqueror, was acutely aware
that he was the rightful King of England, as its Owner.
As a matter of the bloodlines of inheritance, he had the right
to that real estate, the same as if your dad dies and u inherit
the family house along with bank accounts & corporate stock.
He was cheated. He was no fool. He was not going to put up with that.
He did something about it.

After his successful invasion from Normandy, Bill was effectively
a military dictator. He was boss & owner both de facto and de jure,
as a matter of the ordinary law of real estate and of inheritance.





David
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 03:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
After his successful invasion from Normandy, Bill was effectively
a military dictator. He was boss & owner both de facto and de jure,
as a matter of the ordinary law of real estate and of inheritance.
Well, but these laws didn't exist before William introduced them and nullified Danelaw.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 03:41 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
So the moon is according to the US-constitution part of the USA.
That claim was never made.
No one ever asserted that territorial claim, including me (at least not yet).





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 03:48 pm
@Walter Hinteler,

OmSigDAVID wrote:
After his successful invasion from Normandy, Bill was effectively
a military dictator. He was boss & owner both de facto and de jure,
as a matter of the ordinary law of real estate and of inheritance.
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, but these laws didn't exist before William introduced them and nullified Danelaw.
I stand by what I said, upon the basis of my understanding
of the applicable law of inheritance in England before 1O66.
I have not researched this recently; not in this century,
but that is what I recall.





David
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 03:48 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
After his successful invasion from Normandy, Bill was effectively
a military dictator. He was boss & owner both de facto and de jure,
as a matter of the ordinary law of real estate and of inheritance.
Well, but these laws didn't exist before William introduced them and nullified Danelaw.
As a Duke of Normandy, William actually should have followed the "laws and customs" there, e.g. the iuris ciuilis. Giovanni Santini wrote about this (in Revue historique de droit francais et étranger, vol 73 (1995), p. 23-40): Administration publique et droit romain dans la Normandie de Guillaume le Conquérant.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2014 04:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
After his successful invasion from Normandy, Bill was effectively
a military dictator. He was boss & owner both de facto and de jure,
as a matter of the ordinary law of real estate and of inheritance.
Well, but these laws didn't exist before William introduced them and nullified Danelaw.
Walter Hinteler wrote:
As a Duke of Normandy, William actually should have followed the "laws and customs" there, e.g. the iuris ciuilis. Giovanni Santini wrote about this (in Revue historique de droit francais et étranger, vol 73 (1995), p. 23-40): Administration publique et droit romain dans la Normandie de Guillaume le Conquérant.
Most sincerely and in all good faith,
that appears to me to be a non-sequitur.

Bill shud not obay the laws of Normandy when he is IN ENGLAND.
Remember: "when in Rome, do as the Romans" ???
When he inherits land in Timbucktu, or in China,
he applies those laws, not the law of Normandy.

If I inherit land in England, I can 't apply the law of Florida to it.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/15/2019 at 06:15:17