[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Thank you for posting this message in support of my stance.
Maybe one of these days, you (and everyone else) might learn that resorting to ad hominem attacks is an open declaration that you cannot refute what was said, so you resort to attacking the person who said it. But I doubt it.
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s in GD. In the Pit, ad hominem attacks are just good clean fun. 
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Thank you for posting this message in support of my stance.
Maybe one of these days, you (and everyone else) might learn that resorting to ad hominem attacks is an open declaration that you cannot refute what was said, so you resort to attacking the person who said it. But I doubt it.
[/QUOTE]
You really are delusional, aren’t you? I don’t need to refute you, because you have been so soundly refuted by everyone else in this thread. Liberal, conservative, moderate–they all think you are full of shit, and have provided arguments for this. You haven’t refuted a single argument that has been presented; you follow your usual MO of ignoring rebuttals of your position. All you can do is dig up one law professor from some third-rate law school in Texas. Why don’t you try to refute the arguments of the lawyers and ConLaw teachers on this board? Oh, yeah. Because you can’t.
BTW, Appeal to Authority (e.g., Professor Reece) is also a fallacy. (It is proper to appeal to, or cite, authority in the law – but in this context “authority” means case law, i.e., published decisions of appellate courts.)
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Well, it is on the list of law schools approved by the American Bar Association, FWIW.
[/QUOTE]
And Dean Treece has a Hottness Score of 6. That’s probably higher than the Hotness Score of graduates Madalyn Murray O’Hair and Dan Rather, combined.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Professor Gerald Treece of the South Texas College of Law in Houston had made this point repeatedly. Professor Treece is a well-recognized constitutional law scholar. His comment on the radio a couple of days ago was to the effect that even a C- law student would recognize the bill as unconstitutional, it was that blatant.
[/QUOTE]
That wouldn’t be this Gerald Treece, would it? Seems like an honest sort.
If the Terri Schiavo fracas taught us anything, it’s that there’s no position so ridiculous that you can’t get someone with a professional degree and a few impressive-sounding lines on his resume to go on television to support it.
Would it be too much trouble to ask for a link to, or excerpt from, Dean Treece’s analysis of why this bill is in his opinion unconstitutional?
Irrelevant side issue: Did you guys know that Wildest Bill was also from South Texas?
Ah. So that’s how he had such ready access to a reliable supply of Mexican fat-burners…
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Never said they were. What I did say, for the comprehension-challenged among us (which seems to be damn near everybody on this board), was that Congress attempted to usurp part of the President’s half of the pie.
[/quote]
Once again:
Article I, Section 8.
Congress has the authority:
Providing financial support for the armed forces is Congress’s half of the pie, and that’s what the bill covered.
Because it isn’t unconstitutional (according to the Constitution of the United States, anyway).
Given the part of Article I, section 8 I bolded, please explain in detail your reasoning. Pretend you are arguing the case to the Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=Squink]
And Dean Treece has a Hottness Score of 6. That’s probably higher than the Hotness Score of graduates Madalyn Murray O’Hair and Dan Rather, combined.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but what if we put an X on Dean Treece?