I never respond to any posts from Elvis1Lives.
Different state constitutions produce different results. What makes you desire a rule by fiat is your unwillingness to accept the final determination by the component court.
Do the people on the other side of the speed limit debate get to “go nuts” and declare a particular speed limit unconstitutional?
That’s what has happened in this thread, and in other threads on this message board.
No cite, but I swear that I have read people say that the Citizens United decision, itself, is unconstitutional.
Which, as you know, is impossible.
While we are in agreement regarding that particular poster, here is the content of that post so technically you can respond to me instead:
Ari Berman’s analysis of Wisconsin alone may have overstated numbers, but they’re a lot more than zero.
Numerous other examples of people getting herded into the bureaucratic maze, with no way out.
How is it a symptom of “going nuts” to use an adjective like “unconstitutional”? Sure, the opinion of the person saying so may be uninformed and if they’re on this message board it’s safe to say their opinion carries no authority, but “nuts” ? Really?
Why is it impossible? It’s moot to say a SCOTUS decision is unconstitutional, but there’s always the possibility a later version of the court will reverse that decision and then it will be unconstitutional.
I ask rhetorically, to be sure. I don’t mind admitting that based on what I’ve observed of your posting history, I predict your response (if any) will be useless and vapid.
But here’s the thing… suppose someone who you believe to be of moderate intelligence and reasonable civil knowledge says that citizens united is “unconstitutional”. Sure, you could point and laugh and say “wait, it’s a supreme court decision, that’s the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional, you might as well say that black is night and war is peace, yuck, yuck, yuck”. Or you could realize that what they probably mean is “in my opinion, citizens united OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FOUND unconstitutional, and I hope that as the court changes in the future, this injustice will be corrected, but for now I recognize that it is in fact the law of the land”.
That’s assuming anyone came right out and said “citizens united is unconstitutional” in the first place.
I’m guessing the word you meant was “competent”, a court authorized to rule on the question at hand. Don’t know what a court might be a “component” of, except for a Mongolian Cluster Court.
Even so, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. There is a lot of real estate between just to the left of Calvin Coolidge and wild-eyed revolutionaries like Max and Bryan. Shit, I bet I’m the only guy here who regularly posts wearing a Che! t-shirt!
Not “demanding”, simply encouraging him to a more wholesome attitude! Your use of such an imperative shows that you are just like Hitler.
(Or maybe Sgt. Preston? Are you a big guy? He was. A husky fucker, they say…)
Heck, I’m still waiting for the cite of someone saying “nobody ever cast an illegal vote,” which was apparently so powerful a claim that Bricker thought it was analogous to the death penalty in some way, until he decided that votes weren’t like executions at all and what kind of silly-Billy thought they were in the first place?
This is a text based medium. We can only go by what is posted, not by what somebody “probably means”.
I’m not sure why you’re surprised by this. People have said that Voter ID laws are unconstitutional, in this very thread.
Yes, it is a misnomer, like saying “less” when one means “fewer”.
Results from a commonly held belief that the Constitution was created by extraordinary gentlemen as a revolutionary advance in justice and equality. Almost by reflex, they think that anything flagrantly unjust in America must be unConstitutional. And as Twain put it, there is nothing wrong with that except it just ain’t so.
Resistance is futile-prepare to be assimilated.
Punching down! Punching down! Check your privilege, native English speaker! I’m just a poor guy brought up by a Spanish-speaking parent!
So, I agree that $200 is too much.
But according to this, it’s really $20.
And that’s not $20 per election, but a one-time $20 expenditure, which Ms Frank does not allege is burdensome. She says, rather, that she refuses on principle.
So did you know it was $20 and not $200, Bryan?
Okay, now follow-up on the 299,999 other Wisconsin voters mentioned in the original article. If for one in a thousand, the burden represents a significant hardship, that’ll be 300. Now estimate the number of illegal voters. Is it still “dozens?”
I assume you (at least intermittently) care about numbers, since you asked that “3 out of 9000” thing earlier. Let me know if you still do or if you’re back to “the numbers don’t matter since the law was passed properly.”
And incidentally, was the problem ostensibly being addressed actually worth making even one citizen pay an extra $20? It remains unclear to me.
Bricker, did you read that entire article? It seems pretty damning to me. Here’s the opening several paragraphs:
Do you think it’s fair to describe Mr. Randle as “disenfranchised”, or say that his vote was “suppressed”?
I also think this comment is particularly telling:
So, injustice is acceptable so long as its affordable? Or is it that only the lazy and indolent will have their voting rights trimmed, and that’s OK because its their fault?
Been a while since twenty dollars meant all that much to me, but I remember. You?
Nonsense. There are plenty of situations, including typos, exaggeration, hyperbole, analogy, and goodness knows what else, where we do something other than literally read the precise meaning of the words that someone posts. And if you’re not certain what they mean, well, you can ask.
Or you can just think “wow, that person is a moron”, to make yourself feel better about how dumb people disagree with you are, and go on with your life.
And some voter ID laws have been found to be unconstitutional. There’s a big difference between some total crank who thinks that the IRS is unconstitutional (likely involving admiralty flags or what have you) and someone who looks at a dozen laws, 4 of which were found unconstitutional, the other 8 of which were upheld by 5-4 margins by a court that no longer exists, and argues that the other 8 are also “unconstitutional”. I leave as an exercise to the reader to determine precisely what they might mean.
Well, there’s a rumour going around that Bricker was poor and raised by a Spanish-speaking parent, so ask him if he remembers when 20 pesos were a big deal, or bolivianos or bolivars or whatever Spain was using before the euro.
Yeah, I was mildly taken aback when D’Anconia suggested we were limited to strict literalism, considering how fond this board is of sarcasm and irony. I had to wonder if he was that clueless or just trying to pull some lame defense tactic of “yeah, that’s what you MEANT but not what you SAID, so neener-neener!”
By the way, Spain was using the peseta before the euro. That was bugging me until I had to just look it up.
Oh. he’s not telling you that you are wrong because it supports his argument. He just really likes telling you you’re wrong.