United State Constitution Class 101.

1. The basic principle in murder is Lethal Force not Gun as united state.

2. Gun in basic principle is a machine an by united state must be accompanied with bullet, plus a person to hold only potential for application of lethal force as a United State. An example of a complex state of conditions.

3. When murder of some kind is the legal precedent, then a basic principle must be added to make a balanced United State held between two principles of constitutional address for law as public legislation.

4. A woman is not a wise old man.

5. A woman is not a man who sits for the future of all men under oath of United State Constitution. In basic principle never will be.

6. A woman can be called a Presadera by any voter as it simply implies she has been place as a witness by her ability to basically represent the honest truth all woman may share as united state.

Lunacy forms a united State...……………...In the America's...………….

Has this article been a help Yes ? No?

It is unclear if anyone in Chicago is legally allowed to maintain the right to bear arm,or Common defense to the general welfare of American United State Constitutional right. The condition set was nothing more that Ability to preserve United State Constitution with basic principle.

To understand context, American United State Constitution does have a 2nd Title. It would be called the American Declaration of Independences,1st Amendment, Article I.

Life is not a right. Guns are not responsible for death as united state. Even one person who has designed and built a new type gun admitting their gun was built to kill is not proving a united state.The key point made is a self-incrimination "their." Design improves an abuse or second, third, forth, and etc...condition as legal precedent.

All American United State Constitutional right depends on three things.

1. A United State.

2. Basic principle.

3. Legal Precedent.

Is gun ownership a right, for law abiding adults? No, not as a United State, if it had ever been just right there would be no question in debate over gun ownership.

Is gun ownership a American Constitutional right, for law abiding United State adults? Yes, The basic principle in Preamble of American constitution makes a call on all common defense to the general welfare as a united state, including gun. The 2nd Amendment then goes into a 2nd basic principle a militia with a burden of bearing arms is a peaceful assembly. The Amory can be independent and not held in United State.

Yes a mentally stable requirement as condition of a person can be a influence on a right to bear arm, however the professional must be able to demonstrate an ability to preserve American United state Constitution in order to take away the burden of anyone else. A state issued license in not enough. Keep in mind this also means a Medical Doctor who is to determine any mental perforce as condition shall be responsible for continual demonstration of preserving American United State Constitution.

Then, No, Abiding by law is not required only, a person must preserve united State, and Constitution which is detailing a law must be legal in its use of basic principle and legal precedent both.

""Note"" Interpretations in all constitution is limited by basic principle not any enquired Knowledge as a united state.

Pregnancy abortion is just a public admission of guilt describing the crime of murder. Admissions of guilt are very hard to detail as illegal crime as they are the confession to such actions and not the crime they describe to others. Admissions are found to be Unconstitutional and are in most cases proven to be a crime outside the crime described by the self-incrimination.

If there is a technical justification science is the only organized group that performs pregnancy abortions as a united State. In vitro fertilization officially stops a human pregnancy an female specific amputation reinstates a woman’s menstruation cycle.

It should be noted that no-where in the process of in vitro fertilization does the science community state a pregnancy abortion takes place.

Isn't it a Batter or flour Cake not Dough cake? batter and dough are not equal there are a very few cakes that are really made with dough. It was not clear if such a limit was intentional or not. Sorry if it is a dumb question.

So what you are both saying is Theory is an educated opinion?

That is true but so should education. By the way accidental death is not homicide, it is not murder. While forced assisted suicide, and intentional death are still homicide. Lethal force is not, but may be. this is constitutional understanding of the use of the word murder.

President of the United States of America is and will always be for all time a lifetime position, It is marked by the separation made by republic to which there is a relief which directs Presidents to a liberty of choice as to how best serve the United States Constitutional representation for the people.

*"I am lonely over here!".

Being right in such a wrong way is a new direction by basic principle. First Amendment Freedom of Speech 2018.

No insult meant Executive Officer Trump, or Congress.

No purity much anyone can declare themselves president for life. Many men have in fact declared themselves President for life simply after being elected by the voters. Kind of the same thing but at different extremes of the scale. The oath of office many elected candidates for Presidency share however state clearly the Position of President is one of ability. This may account for the somewhat skew in describing the legal precedent set by the Title President of the United States of America.

The point of Republic united State would be to relieve him of command of executive office at which time he can take his Declaration of Presidency for life with him.

The Declaration of independence insured that all those under its independence in a United State are, and will remain Republican. The lie is it was ever a choice to begging with that a person could just make. It is a United State held public by Constitutional union which describes a Nation, it really has little impact on the person one way or the other they just become defiant in understanding it is a necessity in the right to vote.

The reality is a person would need to prove they are not a republican, and in doing so the person would be giving up there citizen ship. Which is kind of an irony as it is our inalienable right to register to vote which dictates the joining of the republic.

Does Gay Marriage minimize Marriage in any way?

Yes it is adding a sexual idea into someone’s visual description as witness, it is then asking to make confirmation of this in/on an official documented public process. If I agree as a witness with the suggestion, plagiarism, sexual undertone I am asked to commit perjury. A person would need to violate a right to privacy to be able to witness the explained thing/ public likely-hood. Confessing the hard to prove perjury publicly, I am given no common defense, the public is given no common defense to the admitted guilt other than inability to understand the crime by its complexity, and the person who admits must wait for the statute of limitation to run out. The problem is like homicides the limitation may never really take effect till after the fraud is identity publicly.

Another point of minimizing takes place on the level of immigration part of the original context of filing for Marriage license is to acknowledge the creation of a Nations growth directly. Couples of marriage share a different regulation on citizenship as children are expected by consent to marriage, consummation of the marriage was the united state equal to all men and woman couples including gay men and lesbian woman.

Specifications are an example of what you ask, possibly mathematic ratio, the process of proportioning as well.

Okay thermadgadfly two things first you are using the word if a lot. You are also using the word if, and placing me inside of a theoretic state as well. This is like playing pretend not to cause an increase in any insecurity to what is already a personal issue for you. This fact is okay and is human. I am going to take some constitutional liberties here while speaking truthfully. It is our fault when we panic, so in the event, not if, when you are being laughed at while alone hide under the table, because someone dropped their tray that made a loud bang! There are many of us right there with you under that table.

Since us, meaning both you, and I, have come to an impasse with the fascination with gum fire-arm issue as a freedom of speech somehow. I am going to give some United State direction. The argument by American constitution, or for others United State Constitution is based on a student’s not being pro-active in asking/ seeking for drills, a state of readiness which now include assaults by armed militia, and or single person. Welcome to the freedom of speech Fire does not just mean flames and objects burning.

The precedent here for a person my age, in connection to stress and panic while in institutionalized education is instruction given along the lines of seeking shelter under a desk. Seek this comfort in event of notifications of chemical nuclear attack. So with a point to maintain a sense of humor I would have to tell you if you has seen my grades you would understand the lack of fear to be shot on my part. So again the stress of the overall pressure of the burden of education place a unique quality to a united state, this meaning some state of fact that is shared as close to equal in all concerns to the people in general.

I’m not sure who you are addressing Themadgadfly. I will take a liberty.

No; it is like saying the person who causes a panic can be no more responsible than irresponsible people already present at a accident. Allowing people to blame their actions knowingly on another is wrong, it is not a right. This is not only by constitutional definition it is in line with many crimes. Here again we are moving away from the freedom of speech to address a different united State.

I am going to write this as a disclaimer as well as common defense to the United States Constitution, while on the topic. It will most certainly come up at some point. A student has/may take a Constitutional right, a liberty to pull a fire-Alarm in a school, or other buildings. Howeverpublic commitment to all concerned the student must seek written consent by not only the Principle of the school/manager, the district school board/shares holder, partners, insurer and the local fire Marshal which includes all appropriate concerns of authority in this regard/owner. These establishments for many reason have right to negate a request for spontaneous test without full explanation. No more detail by united State constitution need be explained then that the Fire Department has lives that are held beyond reasonable cost for this public test by the action taken. Simple detailed information on response times is considered to be equal in every way to test by constitutional principles and legal precedent.

Can you possibly rephrase?

Yes

The state of legal debate is being changed, now it is over if a civilians action can be used to perform a public service test, or should it always be dictated by authority, tests like emergency drill. Our question is now intellectual hidden and directs the public opinion away from must all emergency drills come from authority with a proper notice? Do all school fire drills undertake this protocol? We are no longer talking about the First Amendment right by this example, it is officially a United States Constitutional Right alone, holding no amendment to change over it. A right to share access to public test.

The action was provided by civil proceedings and this means the civil court jury was acting as the grand jury, while legal counsel forget their protection of Miranda right. The mistake of the general welfare is that the Miranda right is only for the accused directly and not their associates in legal matters.

Special Note Doing something like pulling a fire alarm is not the same as yelling FIRE. Yelling fire is a public test that the public can fail. The person yelling fire is not setting the building on fire as a condition of test. There is blame yes, there is guilt yes, there is no more guilt then what everyone else at the theater now hold.

Free describes a quality of state. Therefor must have a limit by its specification.

Okay as we should keep this a freedom of speech context. Fire is no different than yelling attention by its written self-value. It is only describing a detail to be sought in the public. LOOK FOR THIS! Is what is being screamed out by an unrestricted grammar context not held by public grading. It is only the appointed cost which is not consistent and is being manipulated to a united state of blame from all who gather in a location, to one person.

I agree the dispute is not about intent, it is about the united state created by the word title with the crowd. The person who screams “FIRE “carries equal blame? Yes, equal blame. Greater blame? No, the person does not carry greater blame then all others people in the theater.

The state of legal debate is being changes, now it becomes if a civil court action is being used to dictate emergency drills must come with advanced notification or from one authority.The United States Constitutional warning comes in the way of a civil court uses a jury as its Grand Jury without the benefit of experience and protection of Miranda right

A person yelling fire when holding an incendiary device is a completely different story as they are clearly without interpretations a direct threat themselves.

Also all Council is not equal in their discriminations to Constitutional principle. Meaning there are exceptional lawyers and they should not all be blamed as a united state.

When the absence of Maranda right takes place in a civil law it effects the idea a lawyer can take part in a public crime. A lawyer is taking advantage that the person who has attacked a people, hurt them in that process cannot be found. So the person who can be found must be to blame.

Your argument is not considering that the person who yelled fire was simply mistaken. Either in a conduct of humor, or in identifying a real threat of flame. A civil lawsuit for money as vengeance does not institute justice.

No you are not responsible for a groups panic. You are blamed for the actions of others.

Free speech cannot have cost or assigned value, all things called free should have no cost, or assigned value fixed to them, that simple. The problem is somehow people believe that a basic principle is negotiable in its definition and speech is not either free or grievance as choice.

Adding additional confusion is the United States Constitution was written to perform judicial separation without its own written laws. As it may assume law of state, or grievance alone to perform separations of dispute.