[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion

Rick Edit Control

Leo

2/20/2012 6:31:00 AM

Are there any known issues with Microsofts Rich Text Box Control that I
should know of, should I not bother with it and find another one?

--
ClassicVB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-sep...
41 Answers

Gary Forbis

6/19/2008 2:10:00 PM

0

On Jun 19, 7:05 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
> B1ackwater wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:13:13 -0500, David Hartung
> > <d_hart...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
> >> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
> >> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
> >> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
> >> the Constitution.
>
> >> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
> >> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>
> >>http://tinyurl....
>
> >> From the piece:
> >> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>
> >> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
> >> of the decision:
>
> >>     * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
> >> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
> >> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
> >> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>
> >>     * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
> >> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
> >> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
> >> U.S. military.
>
> >    Good. That's how it OUGHT to be. Our committment to those
> >    'inalienable rights' ought not end at the beach. The less
> >    sympathetic the prisoner, the more attention needs to be
> >    paid to ensuring his rights are rigorously observed.
>
> The more basic point is that the Court reviewed a law which the
> Congress, as the Constitution allows, had removed from the Court's
> purview. In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have acted in an
> unconstitutional manner.
>
> Do you approve?

The Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of a law.
Congress cannot write a law that puts it outside the Court's perview.
There is a process to ammend the constitution.

Nicklas

6/19/2008 3:19:00 PM

0

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:05:11 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>The more basic point is that the Court reviewed a law which the
>Congress, as the Constitution allows, had removed from the Court's
>purview. In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have acted in an
>unconstitutional manner.
>
>Do you approve?

Yes, we "approve"

OUR law says that the court CAN review laws IT deems
inappropriate

The Legislature cannot "remove" law from being reviewed

bw

6/19/2008 3:47:00 PM

0

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:05:11 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:

>B1ackwater wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:13:13 -0500, David Hartung
>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>>> the Constitution.
>>>
>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>
>>> From the piece:
>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>
>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>>> of the decision:
>>>
>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>
>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>>> U.S. military.
>>
>>
>> Good. That's how it OUGHT to be. Our committment to those
>> 'inalienable rights' ought not end at the beach. The less
>> sympathetic the prisoner, the more attention needs to be
>> paid to ensuring his rights are rigorously observed.
>
>The more basic point is that the Court reviewed a law which the
>Congress, as the Constitution allows, had removed from the Court's
>purview. In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have acted in an
>unconstitutional manner.
>
>Do you approve?

Yes.

Mostly because the idea of congress having the power
to blindfold the USSC at will is absurd, dangerous
and not in keeping with the balance-of-power concept
the whole govt was designed around. The ONLY way to
get things past the USSC is to amend the constitution
using the approved process.

David Hartung

6/19/2008 4:21:00 PM

0

B1ackwater wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:05:11 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> B1ackwater wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:13:13 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>>>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>>>> the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>>
>>>> From the piece:
>>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>>
>>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>>>> of the decision:
>>>>
>>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>>>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>>
>>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>>>> U.S. military.
>>>
>>> Good. That's how it OUGHT to be. Our committment to those
>>> 'inalienable rights' ought not end at the beach. The less
>>> sympathetic the prisoner, the more attention needs to be
>>> paid to ensuring his rights are rigorously observed.
>> The more basic point is that the Court reviewed a law which the
>> Congress, as the Constitution allows, had removed from the Court's
>> purview. In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have acted in an
>> unconstitutional manner.
>>
>> Do you approve?
>
> Yes.
>
> Mostly because the idea of congress having the power
> to blindfold the USSC at will is absurd, dangerous
> and not in keeping with the balance-of-power concept
> the whole govt was designed around. The ONLY way to
> get things past the USSC is to amend the constitution
> using the approved process.

What do we do when the Supreme Court act in an unconstitutional manner?

George Grapman

6/19/2008 4:27:00 PM

0

David Hartung wrote:
> B1ackwater wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:05:11 -0500, David Hartung
>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> B1ackwater wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:13:13 -0500, David Hartung
>>>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet
>>>>> Daily, or for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises
>>>>> several interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who
>>>>> wrote the majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and
>>>>> blatantly violated the Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is
>>>>> it not proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>>>
>>>>> From the piece:
>>>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked
>>>>> aspects of the decision:
>>>>>
>>>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners
>>>>> in Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law
>>>>> specifically exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>>>
>>>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections
>>>>> it affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo
>>>>> Bay under U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so
>>>>> controlled by the U.S. military.
>>>>
>>>> Good. That's how it OUGHT to be. Our committment to those
>>>> 'inalienable rights' ought not end at the beach. The less
>>>> sympathetic the prisoner, the more attention needs to be
>>>> paid to ensuring his rights are rigorously observed.
>>> The more basic point is that the Court reviewed a law which the
>>> Congress, as the Constitution allows, had removed from the Court's
>>> purview. In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have acted in
>>> an unconstitutional manner.
>>>
>>> Do you approve?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Mostly because the idea of congress having the power
>> to blindfold the USSC at will is absurd, dangerous and not in
>> keeping with the balance-of-power concept
>> the whole govt was designed around. The ONLY way to get things
>> past the USSC is to amend the constitution
>> using the approved process.
>
> What do we do when the Supreme Court act in an unconstitutional manner?

Any member of the House can introduce articles of impeachment.

Docky Wocky

6/19/2008 7:26:00 PM

0

Gee. I guess if the Supreme Court makes a boo-boo, the only recourse the
citizenry has is to straighten them out is straightening them out - just
before the funeral services.

Since the three branches are supposedly co-equal, then I suppose the
executive and legislative branches could get together and overturn anything
they did by a 2/3 majority vote.

Boy! I bet nobody would ever top these imperial lawyers after all, so the
first option is probably the best one.

Now all we need to see is Bush telling them to go pound sand, and the
Democrat controlled congress to vote to tell them to go pound sand....er!

I keep forgetting the Democrat controlled congress lacks the guts to tell
anyone to go pound sand - so it must be a collusion of congress and the
supremos to get to what we're seeing now.


David Johnston

6/19/2008 7:38:00 PM

0

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:20:44 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:

>B1ackwater wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:05:11 -0500, David Hartung
>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> B1ackwater wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:13:13 -0500, David Hartung
>>>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>>>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>>>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>>>>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>>>>> the Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>>>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>>>
>>>>> From the piece:
>>>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>>>>> of the decision:
>>>>>
>>>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>>>>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>>>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>>>
>>>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>>>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>>>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>>>>> U.S. military.
>>>>
>>>> Good. That's how it OUGHT to be. Our committment to those
>>>> 'inalienable rights' ought not end at the beach. The less
>>>> sympathetic the prisoner, the more attention needs to be
>>>> paid to ensuring his rights are rigorously observed.
>>> The more basic point is that the Court reviewed a law which the
>>> Congress, as the Constitution allows, had removed from the Court's
>>> purview. In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have acted in an
>>> unconstitutional manner.
>>>
>>> Do you approve?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Mostly because the idea of congress having the power
>> to blindfold the USSC at will is absurd, dangerous
>> and not in keeping with the balance-of-power concept
>> the whole govt was designed around. The ONLY way to
>> get things past the USSC is to amend the constitution
>> using the approved process.
>
>What do we do when the Supreme Court act in an unconstitutional manner?

Justices serve lifetime appointments. Under the Constitution they can
be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a
majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted
by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one
justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice
Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but
the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chase?s
opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing
but because they disagreed with his decisions.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_2/supreme_court_of_the_united_s...

George Grapman

6/19/2008 7:53:00 PM

0

David Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:20:44 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> B1ackwater wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:05:11 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> B1ackwater wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:13:13 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>>>>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>>>>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>>>>>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>>>>>> the Constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>>>>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the piece:
>>>>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>>>>>> of the decision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>>>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>>>>>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>>>>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>>>>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>>>>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>>>>>> U.S. military.
>>>>> Good. That's how it OUGHT to be. Our committment to those
>>>>> 'inalienable rights' ought not end at the beach. The less
>>>>> sympathetic the prisoner, the more attention needs to be
>>>>> paid to ensuring his rights are rigorously observed.
>>>> The more basic point is that the Court reviewed a law which the
>>>> Congress, as the Constitution allows, had removed from the Court's
>>>> purview. In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have acted in an
>>>> unconstitutional manner.
>>>>
>>>> Do you approve?
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Mostly because the idea of congress having the power
>>> to blindfold the USSC at will is absurd, dangerous
>>> and not in keeping with the balance-of-power concept
>>> the whole govt was designed around. The ONLY way to
>>> get things past the USSC is to amend the constitution
>>> using the approved process.
>> What do we do when the Supreme Court act in an unconstitutional manner?
>
> Justices serve lifetime appointments. Under the Constitution they can
> be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a
> majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted
> by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
>
> No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one
> justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice
> Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but
> the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chase?s
> opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing
> but because they disagreed with his decisions.
>
> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_2/supreme_court_of_the_united_s...


In 1970 Gerald Ford introduced articles of impeachment against
Justice Douglas but the effort went nowhere.

Gogarty

6/19/2008 7:55:00 PM

0

David Hartung

6/19/2008 8:05:00 PM

0

Gogarty wrote:
> In article <bZadnZ7u7PYN-sfVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> d_hartung@comcast.net says...
>>
>> B1ackwater wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:13:13 -0500, David Hartung
>>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>>>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>>>> the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>>
>>>> From the piece:
>>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>>
>>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>>>> of the decision:
>>>>
>>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>>>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>>
>>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>>>> U.S. military.
>>>
>>> Good. That's how it OUGHT to be. Our committment to those
>>> 'inalienable rights' ought not end at the beach. The less
>>> sympathetic the prisoner, the more attention needs to be
>>> paid to ensuring his rights are rigorously observed.
>> The more basic point is that the Court reviewed a law which the
>> Congress, as the Constitution allows, had removed from the Court's
>> purview. In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have acted in an
>> unconstitutional manner.
>>
>> Do you approve?
>
> Where does the Constitution put any laws enacted by Congress beyond review of
> the courts?

My reading go Article III, section 2 seems to indicate this.