The right to sue a law before breaking it?

Actually you don't as the continuance of this so readily demonstrates.

What else is there? Don't really care whether you agree or not, it doesn't change anything. Also, you really should buy a good dictionary and take as much time to read it as you spend in utter ignorance of the meaning of words. I would suggest you start with anarchy which has an etymology from Latin:

((*)(*)(*)(*) poor dictionary as everything is from French except the French took it from either Latin or Greek but it's convenient.) Without leader, just where are we going that we need a leader? Just where has it gotten us, from almost total freedom (those 13 little tyrants freed from the king became the new tyrants) to a world fast approaching total tyranny. But hey, all those little slaves that need their master to be humans, pitiful. But what is even worse is those that demand everyone be ruled because they live on their knees and need the leaders to knock those than stand up. Pathetic and you admit to being a member of that club for the whole world to see.

If you must ask, then you don't comprehend and can't accept the obvious.

That is pure conjecture. You are still on your knees and actually worse, objecting to have to stand on your own. See above, you don't agree and need to be led. Led where?

You don't understand at all. You try and say the words but they are shallow and without meaning. There is no agreeing with most of it, either you are free or you are a slave. If a man would demand 100% of the fruits of a man's labor at the point of a gun you would have no problem calling that man a slave. So, if he only demanded 35% is he actually free or still subservient to another. So at what point other than zero does one not be a slave? Now look at governments demand that is in reality 50% of a persons production, payable at the point of that big old tax revenuer's gun and try and tell me you are free, buy a dictionary.

"Pleading", let me simplify that word for you, "begging". Would you define that as a free man or a man on his knees needing the approval of some "authority" to enforce their will upon the little slaves?

Sometime perhaps you will lose the emotions and start to make decisions on your own. Oh by the way, support the police? You really should check that out and find what it really means.

 

You keep saying that. I do comprehend.

Sure you do.

Lol, are you a judge or another lawyer?

brawk you don't comprehend brawl you don't comprehend... Like a trained parrot you keep saying that. And yes I do. Looking at your words and the little fantasize that are in your head yeah I comprehend perfectly.

 

I don't have to think about it, I already know, YOU, in the plural. If you can't define it then you don't own it or as so eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson:

Too bad he had to go and mess it up with that next sentence.

 

And I'll say it again, you don't comprehend at all. You keep saying you do while posting otherwise, speaking out of both sides of your mouth so to speak. But then actions always speak louder than words.

From someone that allows motions to rule a judgement about something that they are ill-versed to handled is no judgement at all, just conjecture. And this conjecture is so far off base as to be in the realm of fantasy land.

Are you serious, but of course you are, still with the lack of comprehension.

Parrot, good point and like that trained parrot, you keep squawking the same tired rhetoric based on the same lack of comprehension. And like that parrot you keep spouting the same phrases of indoctrination you are fed from others. Are you ever going to gain knowledge on your own?

 

The majority of your premise is sound, But there are some technical points that need to be made. First, opposition to a law does not establish standing to a legal challenge to the law. You have to be able to show that the law has a direct negative effect to you That is usually determined by having violated the law. Only then can you show judicial standing.

Second, schools do not make law. They may pass rules that can be challenged in court, but they do not make law.

The third point is where you are completely off base. Laws and rules are made with specific goals in mind. They are not made or enforced against only those that they do not believe could mount a challenge in court. Otherwise there would not be so many legal challenges each year. Further, these challenges are made by lawyers, not the individuals themselves.

 

That's all your argument amounts to and it's a lie. Mostly to yourself. That's sad.

 

I wouldn't bother talking to this person. She'll state a simple concept and claim you don't comprehend and then go off on a tangent using some seventh grader science words to show you how brilliant he is.

The waters are rather shallow here.

 

Actually the lie would be your statement as your prior statement justify. First, you start with the Hippocratic oath of a doctor when the conversation was about lawyers. Then when you start to discuss lawyers, you have no clue as the hypocritical as applies to lawyers, etc., etc., etc. Non-comprehension being the main discourse of your statements.

So I would say, before you try and pass judgement upon another, you look in the mirror and figure that one out first.

As to sad, just another lack of comprehension.

 

Wow, another whopping lack of comprehension. Your lack of following a conversation and using words you seem to have no clue as to their meaning (and I don't mean my words, yours) and it's someone else's fault. No doubt a real progressive liberal where words have no meaning and are confusing. But to say it is seventh grade and you still can't follow, priceless.

And I love how your lack of comprehension seems to be somehow also be another's problem, and they follow your guidance.

 

Incorrect

 

An assumption on your part.

- - - Updated - - -

Glad you could get something out of all this.

 

I have a New Flash, a University cannot establish any Rules as far as Rape, State Law specifically that Sates Penal code is applicable in those matters and calling 911 is what a student must do.

I have never heard of a college having such explicit sex rules, I did not even know anything like that was possible as most legal departments realize the hazard or legal risks that establishing such detailed rules on conduct such as Sexual Activity, it also condones Sexual activity and this is a legal mine field that no University or College with a real legal department with competent Lawyers would ever want to assume responsibility for.

This entire document reads like a amateurishly written game instruction manual.