This conflates the two different meanings of constitutional that are being discussed.
One meaning: approved by the Supreme Court.
Another meaning: consistent with the text of the Constitution.
Both meanings are intended in different contexts. Suppose the Supreme Court rules 9-0 that it doesn’t need a case or controversy, and that it can pass legislation. Is that action unconstitutional?
So how do you account for the reversal of Plessy? The original court just fucked up?
And he could maybe add a link for the hypocritical one where I used “constitutional” without adding “my opinion,” and was supporting the side not enshrined in caselaw.
Got that, somewhere, G?
Looks like Bricker has his strawman, now, so he should go down for his nap quietly. Now the adults can talk. 
I don’t know how you can sleep at night knowing of this abuse you have heaped on a poor, lowly Dope poster who simply wants to offer their unfounded opinion during an online debate.
Yes, the original court fucked up.
I’m sure you can dig them up. Just search for Bricker and Constitution, and check about three of’em, odds are, you’ll find an example. The Citizens United discussions we’ve had over the years would be good places to start.
Nope. As Richard Parker points out, these are two different definitions for the same word.
WTF, that’s what you’re so mad about? That’s a totally reasonable point he’s making there. Your interpretation of a text is a claim about the text; of course you should be accountable for evidence that supports your claim.
So your position is that the segregation of schools was never Constitutional?
That’s a mighty fine **opinion **you have there.
Could you provide an example or two of Bricker saying that a decision was wrongly decided, where he did not add “in my opinion” or “I believe” or words to that effect? Because I make an effort to read him, especially on legal issues, and I cannot recall any.
Or better still, somewhere that he said something was un-Constitutional, even though the Court had ruled that it was. TIA.
Regards,
Shodan
Walk down the street with an ounce of whiskey, an ounce of marijuana, and an ounce of gold in your pocket.
At certain times in US history, all, some, or none of those would be illegal.
It is correct to use “illegal,” to describe the current state of the law, even though the law may change.
It is similarly correct to use “constitutional,” to describe the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. Even though the constitution may be amended, literally by the amendment process or in its effect by caselaw.
That does not open the door to the anything-goes-it’s-all-opinion school.
Why don’t you do it?
Answer: probably he wasn’t literally saying that search would work. It was just his opinion. Not anything real.
For fuck’s sake. If I say an apple is ‘delicious’, I’m not making a claim. If I say network throttling is unethical, I’m not making a claim. If I say I believe ‘X’, the only thing being ‘claimed’ is that that is my belief. Look up ‘claim’ :
“an assertion of the truth of something”
Opinions may be defensible or indefensible, but they are not true or false.
That is one definition. And dissenting opinions in Supreme Court cases use another.
Sure is!
As an example of the former use (the interpretive use, not the use about how the SC has decided), consider this sentence from Shelby County vs. Holder
What does “unconstitutional” mean here? If you’re correct, it means, “Shelby County contends that a majority of the Supreme Court has ruled the preclearance requirement violative of the Constitution.” But that’s clearly ridiculous: the court hadn’t ruled on the issue, yet Shelby County contended the requirement was unconstitutional.
It only makes sense if they’re saying it’s unconstitutional according to their understanding of the constitution. Which is a fine claim to make.
Yes, after the Supreme Court makes a decision, we know what interpretation is binding on the land, and that’s certainly one meaning of “constitutional.” But the other meaning–“according to my interpretation of the constitution”–is a valid meaning, and one that legal scholars all the way up through SC justices routinely use in their writings.
Indeed–and that’s the difference between an aesthetic opinion and a textual interpretation.
Sadly, Bricker would disagree with you. He would say that segregation was constitutional until 1954.
I don’t believe I have ever read Bricker say that a Supreme Court decision was un-Constitutional. Even if it conflicted with the text. AFAICT he always uses the term in the first sense. Perhaps he will correct me.
Strictly speaking, and in the sense that I believe Bricker uses the term, yes. It shouldn’t be, obviously, and no doubt the Justices would be impeached and removed from office, or Congress would pass laws making an exception (which the Supreme Court would overturn, whereupon they would be impeached and removed from office.)
Regards,
Shodan
So you are saying that each person’s interpretation of the Constitution is factual, therefore either true or false, therefore a claim. :dubious: