Mickey?
We’ve already established your reading skills aren’t so good earlier in this thread, so I doubt anyone’s going to regard you as an authority on the matter.
Or was it not a “reading error” in the same way not knowing which number is bigger isn’t a “math error”? Should we instead say “‘Shit you should have learned while watching Sesame Street’ error”? 
As I read those words, I heard them delivered in Goofy’s voice. For reasons that are obvious.
I love this.
“This is unconstitutional!”
Bricker is either :
1.) stupid enough to think that the writer is implicitly asserting ‘this has been ruled on by a court and found inconsistent with the Constitution’, when in fact the matter has not been ruled on, thus necessitating his ‘helpful’ corrections
or
2.) asshole enough to know what they actually mean, that it is implicitly a presentation of their opinion, but decides to abuse and berate them anyway.
And he is here, in this thread, telling us that it’s option #1. That’s he is too stupid to know how people actually talk and write.
So, everybody, in future threads with Bricker - please remember to hold his hand, as he is not a strong reader, and when he starts to go after someone for using the word ‘unconstitutional’ in the non-legal sense, remind him that they’re not using it the way he thinks they are.
If we all work together, maybe we can help him sound it out.
Wait! It was like this, wasn’t it?
Seriously, though, you don’t think we should have certain expectations of poster in Great Debates that might be stricter than in, say, IMHO? Shouldn’t GD be an actual debate forum, not a chit-chat room. Not that there’s anything wrong with a chit-chat room, it’s just that not everyplace is or should be one.
When someone says “it’s unconstitutional” in GD, I think they should either put up or shut up. Or, just say “sorry, I wasn’t meaning for that to be taken literally. You are correct, it’s not unconstitutional”. But to dig in and claim that we can all declare the constitutionality of a thing however we like to do so makes for low quality debate. You can get that in a million places on the internet. Why do we need one more place like all those other places?
“Please, people, take my side against the mean ol’ Bricker!”
Sorry, Goofy. GD should have standards, and they should include being accountable for claims like “unconstitutional.”
Actually, what I think people find annoying is when Bricker points out that the matter has been ruled on, and has been found to be inconsistent with the Constitution.
Typically, it runs like this -
Some Random Bozo Who Does Not Know Better: This is un-Constitutional!
Bricker: Actually, the Supreme Court ruled in State of Ohio v. Bonzo the Wonder Sloth that it was Constitutionally acceptable for an elected official to scratch himself in public, 6-3, Justice Ginsberg dissenting. The Court upheld the lower court decision that the sloth’s due process rights were not violated by the scratching.
SRBWDOKB: No fair! I’m going to Pit you!
Fun (and penis) ensues.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sorry, but what other way would they be using the word “unconstitutional”?
I mean, if you think something is “unconstitutional” shouldn’t you be on the hook for explaining WHY you think that? Similarly, if you say something is “illegal” shouldn’t you have to kinda show which laws and/or federal regulations (I do learn new stuff here) that are being broken?
If not, then what would a poster want others to do after stating “It’s illegal!” or “It’s unconstitutional!” Just say “Golly, I feel the same way! Let’s hug!”?
I love the fact that the word “unconstitutional” apparently now has opposite meanings. It can mean things that are in conflict with the actual Constitution, or it could mean things that aren’t, but in the mind of the speaker should be. So on the one hand we have things that conflict with the Constitution and on the other hand we don’t. But guess what, they’re both 'unconstitutional!" :smack:
Sick burn, bro.
Because you’re trying to apply a standard based on … nothing. There is no definition of unconstitutional that says ‘…after final determination of a court’. It’s exactly like someone saying ‘unethical’ or ‘immoral’ - you can certainly ask them for their underlying reasoning, but going “HAHA YOU DOPE, no court said it was unethical!” is unproductive, unhelpful, and frankly - THAT’s the behavior you don’t want in Great Debates.
Bricker is insisting that everyone use ‘unconstitutional’ in the legal term-of-art sense, and browbeating people who do not as a distraction from his lack of argument. Actually, fuck that, he’s going beyond the legal term-of-art sense, because you can bet your ass that there have been some four person Court minorities who, in their dissenting opinions, described a law as unconstitutional even though the majority had just determined it was.
This idiot wants to apply a standard that even Supreme Court justices do not use.
You’re right, they should explain why they think that! I’m not saying they shouldn’t. It is a matter of opinion, and opinions can be defended! But that’s a wholly different question than what Bricker does.
It’s not a claim, Diptard, it’s an opinion. I know you’re still working your way through numbers, but maybe schedule a little reading study, soon.
I do not think that “unconstitutional” is exactly like saying “unethical” or “immoral”
Everyone in America operates under the same Constitution, but not everyone has the same ethics or morals.
Yes, that is exactly what it means-- after determination by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter. That’s the way it works. We may, of course, disagree with the court, but try telling that to the jury.
If that were the only way he exhibited his idiocy, it might be defensible - but it isn’t, and it’s not. See, here’s the magic of constitutionality in the legal sense - it can change! Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education. Did the underlying articles of the Constitution change between those decisions? Nope!
So people can disagree with Supreme Court determinations! And that doesn’t make them wrong. They may be right someday, if enough judges who agree with their view get on the court! There’s a difference between “This is unconstitutional, despite what the court says!” and “No court has ever ruled this to be constitutional!” And Bricker either knows they’re not saying the second version, or should know.
Then again, he doesn’t seem to be a very good lawyer. Sucks at reading, and I’ve never seen him persuade anyone of anything. Maybe he just wears a tie well.
And not everyone interprets the Constitution the same way. That’s the point.