Reply With Quote
Are you a lawyer?
That lawyers are professionals at twisting what the law was meant to be.
Are you a lawyer?
No.
Does one need to be to see that?
See what? *You* opined that this cons utional law professor with 40 years of experience doesn't know what's uncons utional. I personally will give the benefit of the doubt to the teacher everytime over a person that has zero education in law in general, much less on cons utional law in particular.
(Which doesn't mean I agree with his opinion on this particular topic, however)
a post from a right-wing dumb "inside the box" of conventional thinking. Don't expect any solutions from such a benighted asshole. Conservatives want to conserve the country on THEIR self-enriching, privileged path down the hole.the cons ution is "evil" and we need to get rid of it so we can give "real freedom" a chance
/cliffnotes for the dumb s
No time to get into it now, I have to get ready for work. Love working the holidays and getting those extra bux...
Consider for example the pros and cons as to the legality of the Alien and Sedition Acts. There are cons utional provisions to abandon the rights as we think we know them.
I have no intention to argue cons utional law with you either. Actually, this already has gone longer than it should.
They do not share judicial concerns. They select justices that share their political ideals. It's not the goal of the executive branch to interpret the cons ution, only to enforce the laws that are created by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch. The president's job isn't picking a justice, it's nominating one. We still have the senate to approve/disapprove of the nomination. I wouldn't call them directly responsible. They are responsible only for the nominations. Of course, no one in the USSC was nominated by anyone but the president. One could argue that it's the same thing but if your child came to you with a toy and said "can I have this?" and you kept saying "no" until he showed up with one you felt ok about, who's responsible for that child having that toy? I'd say you. It's about as good of a checks and balances system as we can get. If that many elected leaders are corrupt, we're ed anyhow.
How do you think laws get overturned or created in the first place if people aren't constantly questioning the validity of the law? Laws aren't handed down by a god, they are just rules our elected have decided to enact to solve an existing problem. Sometimes those overreach their cons utional boundaries and get overturned or amended. Even judges don't agree with all the laws, they just interpret them.
Truth doesn't rest on whether or not the person talking has a bias.
And wow surprise surprise a ty semantic argument.
He doesn't choose, he nominates. what do mutually exclusive mean?
And wow Fuzzy with the "didn't read but I know the answer" premature ejaculation.
I explained that already with the analogy.
If the senate wasn't involved, there would be no oversight to his selections, just like how a parent tells a child what he can and cannot have even if the child is the one who picks it. Because there is some oversight, it's not as cut and dry as saying "The executive is directly responsible for the composition of the USSC." when the senate has to approve the nominations.
You act like I do not get your ty semantic argument. You apparently do not get the notion of mutual exclusivity or lack thereof.
slavery is never mentioned in the Cons ution. You are both an idiot and a liar, and probably pro-slavery.
He said 'about' slavery. What do you think the 3/5 rule was 'about?'
South Carolina voted against the 3/5th rule.
The word is never mentioned, but it's certainly in there.
They probably wanted their slaves to count for more -- the slaves they had enslaved through the practice of slavery.
The 3/5 rule penalizes states that held slaves. That's why South Carolina voted against it.
Thanks for acknowledging it was about slavery.
Thanks for acknowledging you agree with South Carolina.
You'll have to show where I agreed with them.
Chump-dumper and South Carolina both opposed the 3/5th rule.
So your support of the 3/5 rule reflects your support of slavery.
If you're just going to pitch straw all DMC-style, I'll just Godwin the thread and get it over with.
I wouldn't mind it they brought the 3/5 rule back and replaced slaves with stupid people
The 3/5th compromise wasn't about slavery. It was about taxation of the state. It's dishonest (shocker) to say that it was about slavery just because slavery is mentioned. It was not geared to effect slavery, even if it did inadvertently. It's the same as charging a property tax on otherwise unimproved land because there's a shed on it, then saying the law is about sheds.
Fuzzy and CD are fixated on the "racist" shtick so much they cannot see past it. It's really an ineffective way for adults to converse, the finger pointing and derailing of threads as they try to run the racist pick and roll.
Regardless, I'm pretty sure CD never heard of it and was under the false impression that slavery was talked about in the cons ution which is why Fuzzy came in and attempted to bail him out with a semantic argument.
Now watch him say he trolled.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
