Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards

Ken Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Jon Beaver wrote:

>> Also, remember that, fundamentally, government officials who make
>> decisions they are required to make are doing their job, even if it's
>> a "wrong" decision.
>
>  As long as the government agent stays within the confines of his lawful
>authority, and no remedies are provided under law, that ought to be the
>end of the matter.  That having been said, the federal and state constitu-
>tions are absolute limits on that official's authority, as are federal or state
>laws constraining his actions. Any person violating those strictures strays
>beyond the bounds of his agency, and cannot be said to be acting under
>law.

        Huh? Not  "acting under law"?  What are you babbling about? 
        Not every "wrong" decision is actionable at law, nor is every action

        which violates a law. Yikes! Are you brain damaged too?

        If you wield the battle-axe like it was a farm tool, you will be cut
        down! (Which isn't any new experience for you, eh?)

        So think again about what you need to do to accomplish your 
        objective, Ken.... better still, get    some professional help,
        rehabilitate yourself, go back and take your last year of
        law school over (this time pay attention), study for and pass the
        bar, apply for a law license and take and pass the moral fitness
        requirement INCLUDING any required mental status exam, get an
        official okiedokie from the Colorado Supremes for a law license,
        take the requisite oath, THEN come back and we'll let you
         pontificate about how " Any person     violating those strictures
        strays beyond the bounds of his agency, and cannot be said to 
        be acting under law.".... but frankly, I predict that by then you'll
        have gotten a clue and will find such comments kinda 
        weird.

>> The remedy for "wrong" decisions is political,
>> for the ballot box, not the courts.
>
>  But if the "wrong" decision only affects a single individual, resort to the
>ballot box is not a viable option.  Don't you think we should just settle it
>in the Marine way -- blowing up the official and skragging his family? :)
>

        No. Because the moment someone in authority can be convinced 
        you     pose a serious threat of that kind you'll simply be locked up
        instead of being allowed to roam around the internet unsuccessfully
        pretending you aren't a lunatic.  Okiedokie?

        So think some more, but this time... think better.