Nov 3rd, 2018, 09:28 PM
Here are logic gates that everything in the world goes by to get the same answer every time if all of the same factors are used:
The first logic gate goes as follows:
If whatever comes before conflicts with whatever comes after, whatever comes after overrides whatever comes before, unless whatever comes before was to last forever.
The Second logic gate goes as follows:
As something is upheld within the current time, it is passed within the current time. If it is passed within the current time, it is upheld with current time laws and regulations.
The third logic gate goes as follows:
No matter how much something is weighed, if it overrides it, it still overrides it.
The fourth logic gate goes as follows:
If they do not make an exception, there cannot be an exception.
The fifth logic gate goes as follows:
Some people think simplistically while other people think complexly.
The Sixth logic gate goes as follows:
To be a part of the whole, you must be a part of the whole and a characteristic of the whole.
The seventh logic gate goes as follows:
Your perception isn't always as it is in reality, but your perception feels like reality.
The eight logic gate goes as follows:
You can waiver down rights you can use, but you cannot waiver rights you cannot use.
Here are core components to beat and prove what I know in the following chapters:
All intents and purposes:
With all intents and purposes, you have all of the intents and purposes of the right;
however, if the intent isn't on the Constitution, the after, or in other words, the words on the constitution overrides the previous intents and purposes.
This is because if the before was to last forever, it would be on the constitution.
Or in other words, the words on the constitution outweighed the other intents on the constitution by overriding them.
Keep in mind they directly intend the words they do write, not the words the do not write.
This does include the parts and forms of such words as well.
Since if the intent was to last forever, it would be on the constitution, it is the same as when it is upheld on the constitution.
The words that are on the constitution are upheld within the current time, making the only intent being the words on the constitution and the forms within the words.
The words and forms that are upheld with the constitution overrides any draft before it.
Even if there cannot be an exception, some exceptions/rights weigh more than others if mentioned as a right or part of a right causing some to override the others.
Upheld:
The current time is automatically put into the past at the smallest division of time making everything to be upheld to be the same as everything to be uphold.
Time is a mere perception that had been developed a "long" time ago.
The one dictionary rule or in other words the legal definition:
The fourteenth amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Argument:
The law are laws because part of law is law. Part of law are the words on such law. Part of words are their definitions.
Keep in mind if they don't mention an exception on how you can take a part of something, there cannot be an exception.
"Equal protection of the definitions."
Then the majority definition would override the minority definitions.
State then can be considered nation since state in UN terms is nation.
This means the federal government is waving its rights down the supremacy clause by passing the fourteenth amendment and the people keeping such waiver forever.
You can waiver down rights you can use, but you cannot waiver rights you cannot use.
To be a part of the whole, you must be a part of the whole and a characteristic of the whole.
The percentage game:
If the written part of the fourteenth amendment is on the front side of the passed amendment, then using the right of once the people have the right, they have the right forever.
This would enable all rights to be equal before going to the backside of the amendment in which helps keep all rights forever.
Also, all within the supremacy clause has the right for the back side of the 14th amendment to be voided making it so the percentage cannot be used since it would outweigh the rights of the backside of the 14th amendment.
If the written part of the fourteenth amendment is on the back side of the passed amendment,
then if what comes after conflicts with what comes before, then what comes after overrules what comes before, unless what comes before was to last forever.
Since the written part of the fourteenth amendment is on the back side,
it overrides what came before it since if it was to last forever, there would not be a conflict.
In other words equal protection in regards to how things are weighed.
Is equal protection in regards to how things are weighed is a form of equal protection?
Yes, so it is included as a right.
Keep in mind the government waived its right to use this so it goes down to the people making it so the un argument wouldn't work.
This makes it so the percentage on the back of the fourteenth amendment to be void and same goes with all other amendments due to the 14th's equal protection clause.
The 14th amendment directly changed the constitution. Making it so the percentage game to be void since the 14th amendment is the after the rest of the constitution at the time and overrules the before. Just like this saying:
"If whatever comes before conflicts with whatever comes after, whatever comes after overrides whatever comes before, unless whatever comes before was to last forever."
Since all rights must be weighed equally due to equal protection of the laws is not weighed at a percent and the same goes with other constitutional rights, the side with more rights will win the case.
Knowing this enables all rights to be weigh the same as any other right.
Keep in mind, if you decide to look into the conservative and/or progress arguments, they do both beat the use of the percentage game (How judges rule, weigh things and emeritus) without conflicting with each other.
Since they do not conflict, it makes it impossible to beat unless what you know is non-conservative and non-progressive.
Name what precedent:
Before there was a precedent, there was no precedent, making it so there are no precedents can be used due to this:
"I proved that once the people have the right, they have such right forever. So if there was no precedent before there was a precedent, the non-precedent would win due to keeping it forever."
As the constitution is upheld within the current time, it is passed within the current time. To uphold a ruling you must use the ruling because otherwise you waiver your right to use such right.
If whatever comes after conflicts with whatever comes before, whatever comes after overrides whatever comes before, unless whatever comes before was to last forever. If the ruling was to last forever, then they wouldn't waiver using it.
The government waives to use all precedents by not using them at the current time even though there isn't a case regarding this issue. Even if they uphold this right times infinity for any amount of time, they waiver their right to use one or more precedent when using another precedent.
As the courts waive their right to use such precedents within the courts and their ruling, the waiving goes down the supremacy clause to the people. Once it reaches the people, the people get to keep all rights forever.
There is more and i haven't proof read through this since it has been a while since i touched this. If you need further explantion, just ask here!
The first logic gate goes as follows:
If whatever comes before conflicts with whatever comes after, whatever comes after overrides whatever comes before, unless whatever comes before was to last forever.
The Second logic gate goes as follows:
As something is upheld within the current time, it is passed within the current time. If it is passed within the current time, it is upheld with current time laws and regulations.
The third logic gate goes as follows:
No matter how much something is weighed, if it overrides it, it still overrides it.
The fourth logic gate goes as follows:
If they do not make an exception, there cannot be an exception.
The fifth logic gate goes as follows:
Some people think simplistically while other people think complexly.
The Sixth logic gate goes as follows:
To be a part of the whole, you must be a part of the whole and a characteristic of the whole.
The seventh logic gate goes as follows:
Your perception isn't always as it is in reality, but your perception feels like reality.
The eight logic gate goes as follows:
You can waiver down rights you can use, but you cannot waiver rights you cannot use.
Here are core components to beat and prove what I know in the following chapters:
All intents and purposes:
With all intents and purposes, you have all of the intents and purposes of the right;
however, if the intent isn't on the Constitution, the after, or in other words, the words on the constitution overrides the previous intents and purposes.
This is because if the before was to last forever, it would be on the constitution.
Or in other words, the words on the constitution outweighed the other intents on the constitution by overriding them.
Keep in mind they directly intend the words they do write, not the words the do not write.
This does include the parts and forms of such words as well.
Since if the intent was to last forever, it would be on the constitution, it is the same as when it is upheld on the constitution.
The words that are on the constitution are upheld within the current time, making the only intent being the words on the constitution and the forms within the words.
The words and forms that are upheld with the constitution overrides any draft before it.
Even if there cannot be an exception, some exceptions/rights weigh more than others if mentioned as a right or part of a right causing some to override the others.
Upheld:
The current time is automatically put into the past at the smallest division of time making everything to be upheld to be the same as everything to be uphold.
Time is a mere perception that had been developed a "long" time ago.
The one dictionary rule or in other words the legal definition:
The fourteenth amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Argument:
The law are laws because part of law is law. Part of law are the words on such law. Part of words are their definitions.
Keep in mind if they don't mention an exception on how you can take a part of something, there cannot be an exception.
"Equal protection of the definitions."
Then the majority definition would override the minority definitions.
State then can be considered nation since state in UN terms is nation.
This means the federal government is waving its rights down the supremacy clause by passing the fourteenth amendment and the people keeping such waiver forever.
You can waiver down rights you can use, but you cannot waiver rights you cannot use.
To be a part of the whole, you must be a part of the whole and a characteristic of the whole.
The percentage game:
If the written part of the fourteenth amendment is on the front side of the passed amendment, then using the right of once the people have the right, they have the right forever.
This would enable all rights to be equal before going to the backside of the amendment in which helps keep all rights forever.
Also, all within the supremacy clause has the right for the back side of the 14th amendment to be voided making it so the percentage cannot be used since it would outweigh the rights of the backside of the 14th amendment.
If the written part of the fourteenth amendment is on the back side of the passed amendment,
then if what comes after conflicts with what comes before, then what comes after overrules what comes before, unless what comes before was to last forever.
Since the written part of the fourteenth amendment is on the back side,
it overrides what came before it since if it was to last forever, there would not be a conflict.
In other words equal protection in regards to how things are weighed.
Is equal protection in regards to how things are weighed is a form of equal protection?
Yes, so it is included as a right.
Keep in mind the government waived its right to use this so it goes down to the people making it so the un argument wouldn't work.
This makes it so the percentage on the back of the fourteenth amendment to be void and same goes with all other amendments due to the 14th's equal protection clause.
The 14th amendment directly changed the constitution. Making it so the percentage game to be void since the 14th amendment is the after the rest of the constitution at the time and overrules the before. Just like this saying:
"If whatever comes before conflicts with whatever comes after, whatever comes after overrides whatever comes before, unless whatever comes before was to last forever."
Since all rights must be weighed equally due to equal protection of the laws is not weighed at a percent and the same goes with other constitutional rights, the side with more rights will win the case.
Knowing this enables all rights to be weigh the same as any other right.
Keep in mind, if you decide to look into the conservative and/or progress arguments, they do both beat the use of the percentage game (How judges rule, weigh things and emeritus) without conflicting with each other.
Since they do not conflict, it makes it impossible to beat unless what you know is non-conservative and non-progressive.
Name what precedent:
Before there was a precedent, there was no precedent, making it so there are no precedents can be used due to this:
"I proved that once the people have the right, they have such right forever. So if there was no precedent before there was a precedent, the non-precedent would win due to keeping it forever."
As the constitution is upheld within the current time, it is passed within the current time. To uphold a ruling you must use the ruling because otherwise you waiver your right to use such right.
If whatever comes after conflicts with whatever comes before, whatever comes after overrides whatever comes before, unless whatever comes before was to last forever. If the ruling was to last forever, then they wouldn't waiver using it.
The government waives to use all precedents by not using them at the current time even though there isn't a case regarding this issue. Even if they uphold this right times infinity for any amount of time, they waiver their right to use one or more precedent when using another precedent.
As the courts waive their right to use such precedents within the courts and their ruling, the waiving goes down the supremacy clause to the people. Once it reaches the people, the people get to keep all rights forever.
There is more and i haven't proof read through this since it has been a while since i touched this. If you need further explantion, just ask here!