Not remotely so. The claim itself may be offered without evidence, certainly–but the correct response isn’t “Nuh uh,” nor is it even, “Nuh uh, because there’s no SC decision on the matter.” A proper response is, “what’s your reasoning?”
Note that the reasons offered may be significantly less stringent than the reasons offered in a courtroom.
I know it’s great around here to yell, “Cite?” But I disagree completely with the necessity of your approach. In debate, a gratuitous assertion may be simply gratuitously denied.
So, yes: if I assert a claim without substantiating it, a proper response is certainly to say “Nuh uh.” The burden for any claim is on the claimant to provide evidence.
This is fair, although in the context of the other responses to the thread, I think the meaning was pretty clear. The person arguing in favor of the law had not cited any case law, but had argued merely from his personal feelings. So a response directly to that person, absent clarification, would normally be assumed to be in the same spirit.
But, even if I concede that both readings are equally plausible, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to ask for clarification before jumping in with condescending law-professor bullshit like “Unless the President has appointed you to a federal bench somewhere…”?
Wouldn’t it be even more appropriate, when talking about “wiping asses” with the Constitution, to follow it with some acknowledgment that despite the tone of utter certainty that phrase conveys, the only ass involved is the one the speaker is talking out of?
Yes, especially in MPSIMS, as I think **Bricker ** likely agrees in retrospect.
ETA: haha. or not. 
Oh, no… let me be clear on that. For MPSIMS, yes, absolutely true. I’m sorry about that, as I’ve already said, and will take the opportunity to say again. For MPSIMS, the response was absolutely uncalled for and inappropriate.
I’m defending this as a GD response. For MPSIMS, it was assholish and wrong.
You should feel free to mention relevant information, so long as it’s tempered by the realization that no one else is likely talking about that.
ME : “I believe the Constitution guarantees X.”
Bricker : “Settled law says you’re wrong.”
ME : “Then, you may logically extrapolate that I believe settled law has reached the wrong conclusion.”
Why is that proper? In what way does it move the discussion forward? If your interest is in victory, sure–you’ve derailed the other person’s train of thought, and score one for the Brickmeister. But if you’re interested in understanding the other person’s point of view–or even in developing a deeper understanding of the issue–you’ve failed.
IME, people in general like to divert debates and discussions to their areas of expertise and interest. This includes lawyers, who accordingly like to change discussions of what the law should be to discussions of what it is.
I’ve not noticed whether it’s especially pronounced in the case of Bricker specifically, but it’s a general issue in these types of discussions.
You can occasionally catch them making “should be” arguments. Hilarity ensues.
Okay, fine, how’s this?
Poster: Hey guys, I calculated that a cup of water has [number of molecules in a cup of water] atoms in it!
Bricker Scientist: Water is a molecule, not an atom, you fucking retard. Go back to kindergarten.
Actual Scientist Who Isn’t a Pedantic Asshole: Actually, water is a molecule, not an atom. You probably meant that a cup of water contains [number of molecules in a cup of water] **molecules **of water. If you were counting total atoms, the cup would contain three times as many, in a ratio of two hydrogen for every one oxygen.
I just wanted to pull out a few really good quotes for emphasis:
Thanks for summing up so well what bothers me about Bricker’s response in the thread.
It wasn’t a correction. It wasn’t, “You said XYZ, but I think you mean ZYX.” It was, “You said XYZ when you should have said ZYX, and therefore you are wrong.” Pure pedantry.
:smack: I don’t know how that extra n crept in there. I spelled it correctly in the main thread. Stupid fucking work computer where I have to use stupid fucking IE that doesn’t have a stupid fucking spellcheck. … Stupid fucking.
If I declare than an action is the equivalent of wiping one’s ass with Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, that is fundamentally less compelling or persuasive than declaring that an action is the equivalent of wiping one’s ass with the Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution is more than a statement of American philosophy, the meaning of which is subject to much debate. It is also a legal document with enforceable meanings determined by courts. The Constitution’s status as the bedrock of American law, as more than just a text stating some good but ambiguous principles, is exactly why so many people seek to show that their personal beliefs about what is just coincide with what the Constitution requires. Having the Constitution on your side actually means something, while having Thoreau on your side is just nice.
Saying that an action violates the Constitution, when courts have held otherwise, carries the unwarranted but hidden implication that the action in question violates settled and enforceable law in addition to the principles the speaker finds in his interpretation of the Constitution. Invoking the Constitution is a way of inflating one’s position beyond an argument based merely on the principles one finds important. You can criticize **Bricker **for jumping in without first clarifying whether a poster was talking about constitutional principles as the poster sees them, or about the Constitution as a legal document. You should equally criticize posters who invoke the Constitution, instead of, say, Paine’s Common Sense, precisely because of the role the Constitution plays in our legal system as being more than a statement of philosophy, but who then claim they were merely invoking the unenforceable principles they happen to see in that document.
CandidGamera, is this Onion articlenot funny to you?
OK. My point never was that you should be able to march into federal court, tell the judge,“This law kinda sucks, man,” and expect a favorable ruling. In fact, I like to think that I have pointedly avoided commenting on the mertis of the First Amendment defense to stolen valor (here I will tip my hand: you would lose in court, and I would need to see a little more argumentation to get me to believe that wearing unearned medals is a speech act within the scope of the First Amendment). My point was that it is not appropriate to confuse the way our Constitutional jurisprudence operates–and changes positions–with the independent, extrinsic, and admittedly subject-to-controversy meaning of the Constitution.
Bricker, in his post that set off this entire series of thread(s), would appear to deny this when he wrote, “Unless the Predsident has appointed you to a federal bench somewhere, I don’t see why we would take your interpretation as the right one, and the actual Congress of the United States and an actual federal district judge’s as the wrong ones.”
Again, I’m not saying that we, as citizens or as attorney or as judges, are not compelled by binding caselaw. However, it is not correct to assert that an account of what any given provision of the Constitution means is determined by caselaw–caselaw, after all, only explicates those provisions. Now, I readily concur that naked assertions of one’s opinions about meaning are pretty uninteresting, and it is infinitely more persuasive to include snippets of caselaw or theory of governance to buttress one claims. Nevertheless, it is not correct to say that valuable observations about the meaning of any provision of the Constitution (or indeed, any law or regulation or contract or linguistic thing subject to judicial interpretation) cannot originate from the text alone and apart from the architecture of caselaw that has built up around it.
This is really more a description of a principle that helps organize how the common law system works than it is a description of the real world.
I should offer hugs and puppies, eh?
In GD, I expect that the other person will have the vim and vigor necessary to explain and defend his own view, even against – most especially against – a misinterpretation by another. So, no, no hugs and puppies for someone who wants to believe his own personal “experience” of the Constitution should be viewed as so strongly probative that expressing it is near-indistinguishable from actual, verifiable case law interpreting the Constitution. What’s next – upset because I reject someone’s describing the First Amendment by interpretive dance?
I will simply say that the discussion here, while interesting, does not seem to rise to a level whereby Bricker deserved a call-out in the pit. Plus he has offered a mea culpa with respect to his tone for MPSIMS.
Except the discussion in question was about whether or not it should be legal to wear a uniform and/or medals; the Constitution is a legal document, and “Common Sense” isn’t. Just because some people like to use the Constitution to prop up their arguments where it doesn’t really apply doesn’t mean that all cases are so. So when someone says or otherwise suggests that it’s unconstitutional to make it illegal to verbally claim the medals or wear the uniform/medals, after it’s already been made clear **in the thread itself **that it is currently illegal, I fail to see how anyone with two brain cells to rub together can possibly interpret the statement in any way but, “This is my **personal opinion **about how the constitution **should **be applied to this particular legal case.”
Once again, you’re not answering the question. YOur approach is fine for scoring points; it sucks for advancing understanding.
It’s hilarious, I even linked it on my Facebook a few days ago. It’s not analogous here, if that’s the point you’re trying to make. Nobody here is making up shit to put into the Constitution; we’re interpreting differently what is already there.
If I say the First Amendment gives me the right to burn the American Flag, it doesn’t matter whether the Supreme Court agrees with me or not. I’m not making a statement about the legality of such an action.
Segregation of schools is the spot-on example. If I’d said ‘Segregation of schools is unconstitutional’ in 1899, I would not have been wrong. I would have been disagreeing with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. There was one dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson - does that mean that Justice was “Wrong”? No, it means rational people can disagree on such matters.
So when I enter a thread in Great Debates and say the FCC’s de facto censorship of network television is an unconstitutional burden on free speech, what I’m not looking for is some didactic jackass to come in and tell me my opinion is wrong because 5 or more schmucks in robes say differently.
and
Again, I’m sorry for my lack of participation/posting (facing brutal deadlines). I just wanted to pop in and reiterate that, as mentioned in the OP, this was not a pitting. It was part of a conversation in another thread. Between the overall hijack and the length of my reply, I thought it prudent to take it out of that thread, and the Pit is the proper forum to do that in. Not in a get too animated for GD so take it outside kind of way, but in a wow,this is a long post to a long derailment so it doesn’t belong here. Where does it go? kind of way. That is, I didn’t get all pissed off at Bricker or wake up with a full diaper and decide to vent. It’s not on, nor have I brought it. While there is a small modicum of dyspepsia, there is no vitriol and therefore no real pitting to get.
Then I respectfully offer up my own mea culpa. I apologize.