Show me a dictionary definition that says that. IOW : Cite?
You are right. I wish there was some final arbiter of which laws are Constitutional and which ones aren’t.
Oh, sweetie, do you need remedial reading classes too? Damn, I had assumed a higher literacy rate on this board. When someone who isn’t an asshole lawyer says “X is unconstitutional!” they are expressing an opinion, not a claim of fact. Everybody knows that. Even assholes who pretend not to.
Wow, a few more of you and we’ll have to upgrade the short bus to a regular sized one! 
You will only be banging your head against the wall debating with him. He isnt interested in listening to any one elses opinions.
When the Democrats tried to slip America a mickey, the Republicans countered with a Donald.
The only remedy is for us all to get goofy.
That’s okay, it’s fun anyway 
So saying “the White House is purple” is just expressing an opinion, because they might paint it someday. Therefore it isn’t wrong to say the White House is purple. Gotcha.
I would recommend that you stay away from the brown acid. The brown acid is not too good. But that’s just my opinion.
Regards,
Shodan
Candidgamera, you’re sort of right, but mostly wrong.
When someone says something is unconstitutional, they’re not saying it’s nasty. They’re saying it’s forbidden by the constitution, according to their interpretation of the constitution.
Yes, there’s a subjective piece to that, just as there’s a subjective piece to any interpretive act. I might say, reasonably, that Starship Troopers is a fascist book, and someone else might say, reasonably, that it’s not, and we can have a good discussion around that.
But not all interpretations are equal. If someone else claims that Starship Troopers is a paean to pacifism, they’re full of shit. That’s not a reasonable interpretation.
How can we tell? We look at the evidence provided. I can show various speeches throughout Starship Troopers that support my view. My opponent can counter by showing other scenes, or by disputing the idea that the speechifiers are mouthpieces for Heinlein’s opinions, and so on. Evaluate the evidence offered. The person claiming it’s pacifist will have no, or shitty, evidence.
Bring it back to the Constitution. Some views are reasonable. You think that the second amendment is constrained by the well-regulated militia clause? You think it’s not? Both are reasonable opinions. Both sides can marshall supporting evidence.
You think the first amendment doesn’t apply to political speech you disagree with? Not so reasonable.
I disagree that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter for what’s constitutional, although they place a heavy thumb on the scale. When a decision is 5-4, that means that among the most qualified constitutional scholars in the land, there’s serious disagreement about what’s constitutional. It’s reasonable for folks in GD to take the side that four justices took.
What’s not reasonable is to treat it as a de gustibus situation. Although we may argue over what’s constitutional, we should bring evidence to that argument. Court cases comprise very strong arguments. The writings of constitutional scholars comprise strong arguments. The writings of those who wrote the Constitution comprise strong arguments. Anything else, you should recognize may still be an argument, but it’s not gonna be as persuasive.
So yes, there’s absolutely room for disagreement about what’s constitutional. But some views are stupid, and some evidence is shitty. Bricker, whatever else he does, brings his A game to arguments about constitutionality, and that’s to everyone’s benefit. If you’re not bringing your A game, don’t complain about ownage.
I’m both confused and offended, babycakes, that you called me sweetie and an asshole all in the same post. I’m afraid I’m not going to be able to sleep with you anymore until you clarify your feelings for me so I can make the necessary adjustments to my emotions.
You’re correct up to that point. And partially correct beyond that. Yes, some interpretations of the Constitution are not defensible, and anyone who says something is unconstitutional needs to be ready to back up their opinion. You and I are on the same page as far as that goes.
Bricker doesn’t (consistently) ask people to defend their interpretation of the Constitution. If that was what he did all the time, I wouldn’t have even brought this up. No, he pounces on those people as if they had made a counterfactual claim - he did just that thing a couple of posts ago, if you’ve been paying attention to this thread.
For Bricker, the constitutionality of something is a fact. (Except, again, when a liberal court made the ruling, then he, and only he, gets to assert that it was ‘wrongly decided’.) He’s basically verbally abusing people for not using language the way he wants them to.
Again, I bet we could find dozens of 5-4 court decisions in which the dissenting portion disagrees as to the Constitutionality of a statute. Are they, factually ‘wrong’? Of course not, that would be an idiotic assertion. They’re making an argument and expressing opinions, because ultimately, Constitutionality is decided by opinion.
So if Jack B. Poster says that the laws struck down by Citizens United were constitutional, he isn’t wrong. He doesn’t need to utter the magic mantra ‘in my opinion’. He is not deserving of abuse. Challenge, certainly, but not abuse.
Asking someone why they think something is unconstitutional is abuse? Come on, man.
Which post are you talking about?
WADR I think you are making the same mistake as CandidGamera - conflating what should be Constitutional with what is Constitutional. Even in the case of the 5-4 decision. 4 Justices in that case thought that it should be Constitutional vs. 5 who thought it should not. But then the case is decided, at which point we know what is Constitutional whether it should be, or not.
It would be like saying that Hillary Clinton is President because she got more of the popular vote. Saying she should be President because of that might be a discussable point. Saying that she is President is a misstatement of fact. IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
No, it isn’t. I just said it wasn’t.
But she COULD be President at some future time, so it is not a misstatement
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sorry, Goofy. GD should have standards, and they should include being accountable for **claims **like “unconstitutional.”
[/QUOTE]
That one. It explains his whole view of the process right there. (Except the hypocritical part with the double standard for himself.)
Fair enough. Can you link to a thread where Bricker is being abusive to someone for stating their opinion on the Constitutionality of something without backing it up with facts?
Starvie, you need to agree on a safe word in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
On a message board supposedly devoted to fighting ignorance, Goofy argues that the ignorant deserve an equal place in the discussion.
Obviously this argument arises from self-interest, but even taking that into account I am amazed he has the willingness to offer it.
Sorry. Not “argument.” It’s “opinion,” which should insulate it from critical review.
Not in this lifetime, lovable Disney character!