That doesn’t sound like a Gangster Octopus to me at all. I demand some truth in advertising–go break somebody’s kneecaps instead.
Newsflash: you are.
In that case, of course, you’d be right. But you’re making a statement that a reasonable reader can easily infer as a factual statement about the current state of the law.
Rational people can disagree on whether the Court’s action was wise, or just. But when you flat-out assert that you have the constitutional right to integrated schools, and you’re standing in 1899 somewhere: you’re wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A resident - no, the Mayor - of Wrongville. Because although you believe the Constitution shold be read to say that you do, the fact is that in 1899, it’s not. And you cannot claim this “right.” If you sue your local school district, you will not win. If you march into the wrong color school, you’ll be marched out.
Now, obviously you know all that. Obviously you mean to say, by saying “Segregation of schools is unconstitutional,” is that this is your belief of a correct reading of the Constitution. I get that. But by saying it that way, you’re transforming a valid matter of opinion into an inaccurate recitation of fact for your listeners, who are not unreasonable in hearing your statement as one of fact.
So picture this. You’re standing there in 1899, and you say, “Segregation of schools is unconstitutional.”
“Interesting,” I reply. “I did not know that.”
“And quartering troops in times of peace in a home without the owner’s consent is also unconstitutional,” you add.
“Fascinating,” says I.
You’ve used precisely the same mode of description for two things. One is simply your view, unsupported by case law. One is a matter of solid, black-letter constitutional law. Yet, according to you, it makes perfect sense to describe them both in precisely the same way.
Bollucks to that, mate.
Yes, I did read your post. You said:
Hint, if I quote your post that means I read it.
So you are getting on Bricker for not being able to guess if a statement was to be taken as a statement of opinion or of fact.
It would be like me saying ‘mhendo called me a dumb fuck in the Pit. This means that he is now going to get banned for life from the Dope.’ when I actually mean ‘According to my reading of the Pit rules, mhendo should be banned from the Dope for calling me a dumb fuck’*
The error lies with the original statement, not Bricker.
Slee
*I really don’t give a damned. Been called much worse by much better people.
Why is everybody getting caught up in this supposed fact/opinion distinction. It’s a complete red herring and not relevant at all.
Bricker has argued not that people aren’t allowed to have opinions on what the Constitution would say if they got to write it; what Bricker has said, and what I and some others controvert, is that the Constitution means what the courts say it means. This is not a debate pitting what is with what ought to be; it is a claim that the Constitution has no freestanding meaning that can be grasped without repair to, or in contravention with, caselaw interpreting the provision in question.
Its kind of like reading the Bible in your native language translation and making your own theological decisions accordingly, without reference to the established priesthood who are empowered by Church orthodoxy to decide for you.
Take the dreaded 2nd (please! fa-dump-bing!). Not the slightest doubt in my mind what it says, not the slightest doubt in the mind of people who believe precisely the opposite. That the Supremes have decided in shall be interpreted a certain way as a fact of law, the power of the law, has no real bearing. They’re simply wrong. It’s still a fact, but its a wrong fact, not a true fact. Wouldn’t change my opinion of the issue in the least.
If the Supremes interpreted the 2nd Amendment to forbid private ownership of muskets, but demanding all state militias to be armed with black-powder muzzle loaders, and that could be enforced, then it would be a fact, but still wrong. In my opinion.
It’s a good thing law isn’t decided by your opinion, then.
Fortunately for us it’s decided by people who have some concept of what the law really is rather than public opinion.
If my posts provoke you to pointless sneering, might be best if you just skip over them? I won’t mind. Most likely, won’t notice.
Except the problem with that is that the Constitution didn’t change between 1899 and 1954. Well, it changed a great deal, but the 14th amendment didn’t. The text of the 14th amendment was the same in 1899 and 1954. If the right to integrated public facilities is fundamental to the 14th amendment, then that right is created with the passage of the amendment, and Plessy v Ferguson was wrongly decided and based on an incorrect reading of the amendment.
Now it’s true that in 1899, nobody would recognize that right, but that didn’t mean that the right didn’t exist. It was just being violated.
I have read him in GD. He is pedantic and useless to debate with. I noticed this years ago. Why bother pitting him for something so damned common?
I have read him in GD. He is pedantic and useless to debate with. I noticed this years ago and ignore him unless it is a response to something I posted.
Why bother pitting him for something so painfully common? In fact why waste your time at all?
Is pointless sneering to be differentiated from mocking rhetoric, then?
And that is why you fail.
You don’t understand how people who aren’t lawyers actually talk about these things. You can stamp your feet and yell at us for doing it in a way you don’t like, but it’s only going to reinforce the idea of you being a didactic jackass.
You can modulate your approach, or keep shouting into the wind. Your call.
Well, it’s not relevant to you, but it’s certainly relevant to me.
OK, I accept this as true. Just as I imagine you will accept the incontrovertible fact that abortion is unconstitutional, given that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause provides a substantive due process right to life to unborn children. This will become settled law at some future point when the Supreme Court gets around to realizing it, but it’s no less true right this very instant.
Right?
And this is why the fact/opinion distinction is important, to run off inane counterarguments like this one.
Precisely. Apparently all I have to do is say, “Hey, they overruled Plessy, they overruled Bowers, so someday they’ll overrule Roe. And my opinion is just as valuable as anyone else’s!”
That’s crap. If you want to talk about what should be, go ahead. If you want to cloak your statements with the mantle of authority of this is, then you need to be right, or accept that you’ll be corrected.
I suspect you may have missed the irony of chiding Bricker for doing a poor job of advancing understanding in a thread entitled Bricker, you are not a law professor.
Actually, in a discussion on abortion, I would have no problem with a poster saying, “Abortion is unconstitutional.” Because I’m not a fucking retard, I’d realize that since everybody in the thread knows that abortion is currently legal in the U.S., that the person is clearly saying that they interpret the Constitution as prohibiting abortion. Now, I wouldn’t agree with that interpretation, but I’m not going to object to their right to make it. My arguments as to why it isn’t unconstitutional could certainly include current law and any reasoning that the courts have put forth on the subject, but it certainly wouldn’t consist of, “It’s currently legal, therefore it’s constitutional.” As has been observed, the Constitution is a static document; our interpretation of it isn’t.
And if I want to have my statements unwittingly dressed in the mantle of authority by someone else so they can be pedantically pummeled, all I have to do is talk to you!
Everyone else is talking about ‘should be’ when they say something is or isn’t constitutional. “A is constitutional” does not equal “A has been decided to be constitutional” for the rest of us. You can be as prescriptivist as you like, but the usage has left you behind.
If I go in Great Debates and say “The second amendment doesn’t confer an individual right to bear arms” the ‘answer’ isn’t “Nu-unh, the Supreme Court says it does.” Because it’s Great Debates, not General Questions. You don’t have debates about settled facts. “The sky is blue.” “I… concede your point?”
Bricker, there’s no more dodging it. The question is here for everyone to see, you’ve been plainly ignoring it until now. It’s time to put this to rest; answer the damn question.
No, the sky doesn’t have a color. You **perceive **the sky to be blue. You’re wrong to say the sky is blue. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Aren’t I so much smarter? Look at me! No, look at me! See how smart I am!
He’s admitted (is that the right word?) that he is many times here.