Topic: [US Only] Legalization of the sex trade? (Read 274 times)

Definitions is the reason for most people to go the common law route. Legalease has all kinds of Latin in it. And if the person starts using Latin, the judge just might start speaking in Latin.

Missed the point again, it does not use the word "may", it does not even define "others", thats the whole point.  All its saying is that its a disclaimer, in other words, we've defined these, but just because we defined these doesnt mean these are the only ones you have. 

The few Traffic related offenses which are considered criminal, are called criminal offenses and are handled by the courts as criminal offenses, not traffic offenses. 

Thats why I used the words I did.

Definitions mean a lot in legal speak. 

Where doe 9-A say you may have more rights? It say you have "others" that can't be denied because of the fact that you have some from the Constitution. Look at it.

I also mentioned 7-A which is civil. Are you going to deny that some of the traffic violations wind up becoming criminal, and some of them remain civil?

You seem to be reading only half of what I post.

You keep quoting the 9th A everywhere.  All it really says is:  you may have more rights than we defined here. Just because we defined these, doesnt mean you dont have more that we didnt list.

You quoted this 6th A regarding jury trial.  Look closer.... at the important words "CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS". 

What if a traffic violation wasn't considered a "CRIMINAL" prosecution ?  There's your answer.

Your State Constitution, right in the first few lines, upholds the US. Constitution. In addition, if you have a proper Oath of Office on file, you promised in your OoO that you will uphold the US Constitution, as well. In the case of Louisiana that doesn't uphold the US Constitution, or any State that makes an amendment to their State constitution to remove the upholding of the US Constitution from their constitution... the Organic Acts of all States require that the States uphold the US Constitution to even be a State. (The Organic Act is the Act of the US Congress that authorizes a territory to become a State.)

This means that a person can always require a jury trial. The only way a person can be denied a jury trial is if he agrees to such. However, if he rescinds his signature off the agreement, he can still have a jury trial. The funny thing is that the jury trial isn't automatic. The accused must demand it.

Why would I want to read the US Constitution? Most of it has to do with the way they organize their operations in D.C.

The US Constitution absolutely is NOT the final law of the land. The US Constitution says so, itself, right in the parts that allow private contracting, and in the 9th Amendment:
The jury trial existed before the Constitution. You can't lawfully deny the right to a jury trial to anyone who demands it. You really need to go back to LEO school. You really need to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOBKiHUbuw?t=9m0s to see what life and law are about. Go to 9 minutes in the video to see an important part.

No I think this is wrong in so many ways 
Woman and children are not objects to be traded 

I think I see the issue here.  You got your law degree from Google, and believe the US Constitution is the only applicable law.

How does your state apply the wording of "criminal prosecutions" stated in the US Constitution to a traffic violation?

I cant speak for the other 49 states, but there's one that I'm quite familiar with.  In my state, Title 234 is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and outlines how prosecutions and investigation are to be handled depending on the grading of the offense. Is a Summary traffic offense handled in the courts the same as a Felony Assault?  Nope.  
     At the Summary level, the local District Judge is the "finder of fact" and makes the ruling. The citing officer acts as prosecutor. The defendant can appeal the ruling to the State Court, but in that appeal, the Commonwealth Judge is the ultimate finder of fact.
   Misdemeanor and Felony graded offenses operate quite differently.

I get that you read the US Constitution.  I might also suggest you spend some time researching how the US Constitution integrates to individual state laws.

If the US Constitution was the only final law of the land, then please explain how you can legally buy and own an AR15 with standard capacity (30rd) mags. Put them in your car in Pennsylvania and youre cool, but as soon as you cross to New Jersey its a felony.

However, even if Jung's position was stronger, it's not simply cut and dried. A debate like this can be won or lost based on who was taking brain drugs that day, or who was tired from working late last night.

Freud's observations can't be simply thrown out the window because someone introduced other points, even if his points are not the best idea.

All right. We are missing something in our correspondence here.

If you mean one of the 50 States in the USA or one of the US Territories, and you are not using some kind of play on words to mean something other than what the standard understanding of your words means, you are wrong.

Consider the 6th and 7th Amendments. Amendment 6:
Amendment 7:
How much plainer can foundational law be? And this doesn't include all kinds of other things that can be done without relying on a jury.

Are you really talking without some kind of trick to it, or some kind of play on words? You know this stuff. If you are in the USA, you are supposed to take the Oath of Office that states that you will uphold the Constitution. And the Amendments are part of the Constitution.

Are you in some other country, other than the USA. Because if you are LEO in the USA, without an Oath of Office, you are placing yourself in danger from anyone who challenges your right to be an LEO.

This is why Carl Jung had to come and: "de-emphasized the importance of sexual development and focused on the collective unconscious".

In fact, they had quite the heated debate and ended breaking relations... But still, Carl was right, and Freud just didn't like his theories getting broken...

Sorry, I missed the Esq. after your name.

But I will guarantee that you cannot get a jury trial for a traffic offense in my state.

Of course you might say something like this. You are trained as a code enforcement officer. If they wanted common-law-of-man officers, your training would be a whole lot different. It's your training that is keeping you ignorant of the rest of the law... especially common law, which is the basic law.

This is wrong.  Very very wrong.  As Ive seen in other posts of yours, you lack practical legal knowledge, yet perpetuate legal inaccuracies repeatedly. 

Sigmund Freud would disagree with you about sex not being the main reason behind marriage. In fact, Freud would tell you that sex is essentially the reason you do everything in life that you do.

But regarding sex in marriage, the sexual bond in marriage (even if there aren't any other bonds holding it together) is designed to maintain the marriage for stability for the children long enough to get them to maturity. This doesn't always work, of course. Who Set it up like this? God did. But we continually mess up the good stuff God provided.

I don't think sex is the main reason behind a marriage because it's only a temporary stuff and all, there lies a true love between the couples in a marriage and if it lacks, it's just gonna break the marriage in no time. Because stuffs like property sharing, offsprings and unconditional love for ones on child, these feelings can only originate if there exists a true love or bonding which is more than the lust for sex. And sex is already legal, isn't it, if you are an adult, you can have it with any consensual adult

Sex is just a bonus. If you look like you are the one doing all the cooking and laundry for yourself, you'd look miserable. But having someone to do it for you is a lot better. 
Having kids that will look after you and visit you from time to time in the retirement home will be something to look forward to when you decide to marry someone. Watching kids becoming like you feels good.

Most people think that a good retirement income will do this. But they are wrong. For example, hospice costs these days are like $5,000 a month, basic. This drains the retirement income right out of average Americans. Government takes over, but it is draining the resources of government, as well. It's going to collapse the whole money system if it continues going on like this.

So, you are right. People will need family to support them in old age. But many (most?) people don't have it set up this way. Not in the USA, that is.

Sex is part of marriage but there is a lot to it,you might need children ,to take good care of you when you are ageing ,your wife or kids to inherit your properties when you are no more and some other vital issues

The 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution allow jury trial for almost anything. The 9th Amendment essentially says that the people have all the rights not granted to them by the Constitution.

The jury has the duty of deciding anything in the case, including the legality of any law. The jury is common law, because it was around before the Constitution, and is simply guaranteed by the amendments. The jury can be local or nationwide. The jury cannot be coerced by a judge/magistrate.

These amendments give the bottom-line control to the jury and the local jury. There is no governing body that has any more legal or lawful strength than the jury... if it is used correctly.

Friend, maybe I'm wrong. Of course, I am not familiar with the legislative system of the United States of America, but it seems to me that, first of all, the main law is the Constitution and other laws must be in agreement with this document.  If a citizen believes that his rights are violated, then of course, with the help of the court, he can appeal any decision of the congress.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Law and legislative acts are two different documents that have different degrees of importance.