DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**gkruCRi1** · 01-21-2007, 03:50 AM

It encompasses all laws.

There is no qualifier.

No law means no law no matter what irrelevant case you bring up.

It's crystal clear.

I agree that is what it says if translated into English but since Calder in 1798, the courts have never interpreted it differently than what was said in that case.

The binding SCOTUS decision is not irrelevant. Whether you or I agree or disagree with the decision, it's the only opinion that counts on the meaning of the term and it's been the only meaning applied in the US since the beginning of the nation.

Fighting that interpretation is like running full speed into a brick wall. To change that understanding at this juncture, a constitutional amendment would be needed to undo something so solidly entrenched as that understanding.

01-21-2007, 03:50 AM	#14
gkruCRi1 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 505 Senior Member	It encompasses all laws. There is no qualifier. No law means no law no matter what irrelevant case you bring up. It's crystal clear. I agree that is what it says if translated into English but since Calder in 1798, the courts have never interpreted it differently than what was said in that case. The binding SCOTUS decision is not irrelevant. Whether you or I agree or disagree with the decision, it's the only opinion that counts on the meaning of the term and it's been the only meaning applied in the US since the beginning of the nation. Fighting that interpretation is like running full speed into a brick wall. To change that understanding at this juncture, a constitutional amendment would be needed to undo something so solidly entrenched as that understanding.
	Quote