Possibly, if you’re obsessive-compulsive.
This is untrue. And if it were true, it would reflect better on me than on you – unless you admitted that you preferred to count slaves as zero fifths of a person.
The Southern states wanted to count slaves as full people. That would give them a disproportionate share of the House of Representatives. The Northern states wanted them to count as zero, because they had no vote but allowed the states that kept slaves in slavery to benefit from the slaves’ numbers.
Of course, you had no idea about this. Someone mentioned three-fifths to you nice, and you dimly seized on it being a bad thing. People should count!
In any event, my “hyper-Constitutional” view certainly includes Art V of that document. And therefore it also includes Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which changed the three-fifths counting scheme you discuss from Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. The Fourteenth Amendment now provides that representatives shall be apportioned counting the whole number of persons in each State. And of course the Thirteenth Amendment forbid slavery, which is also part of the Constitution.
You, on the other hand, have no real interest in the Constitution. Even apart from your woeful ignorance on the Three-Fifths Compromise, you are perfectly content to cast aside its many guarantees to reach the legislative result you like. The Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government, but when that government duly passes a law you don’t like, you demand it be erased. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, but when it approves the law you don’t like, you demand its decision be ignored.
My advice to you is night school, with a good civics class.
Several times over the course of my life – certainly enough to know my name.
We’ve already established your lack of much real knowledge. Bragging about how little you know isn’t helpful.
No.
Do you drive? How did you prove your identity to the state motor vehicle department?
I imagine you never attended school, and thus you parents never needed to provide your birth certificate to the school.
People so incurious and sheltered as you describe would be unlikely to ever know of such an error.
But society is unwilling to coddle such people by crafting laws that exempt them from the real world, in which people attend school, play sports as kids, get driver’s licenses as teenagers, get passports, and show eligibility to work.
No, but frankly, if I were to make a list of all the persons I know in the order in which I would rely on their advice for how I sound, your name would not appear for several thousand pages.
Sent from my TRS-80 using Tapatalk HD
Hey, septimus, let me ask this: If SCOTUS or a state supreme court renders a decision you don’t like and/or you feel is incompatible with the principles of the relevant federal or state constitution as you understand them, is your preferred response (if possible) to abolish that court and substitute your judgement for theirs?
Personally, I agree that World War 2 veterans shouldn’t be coddled. I mean, what have they done for us lately?!
Or simply abolish that particular judgement and substitute yours?
Sent from my TRS-80 using Tapatalk HD
I don’t see how one could pick and choose which judgments to abolish and substitute without effectively destroying the authority of the court overall, but let’s let septimus (and Trinopus) answer for themselves, shall we?
Every drop of pus that drools from your mouth is more ignorant than the last. You know nothing whatsoever about me. But your nastiness is on display for all to see. And you’re so addled you “need” to concoct a fantasy about my knowledge of the Constitution. :smack:
I’ve not idea what your stupid ignorant question is. Do you honestly think I (or indeed most Californians half a century ago) needed a birth certificate to get a driver’s license?
You say you’ve fondled your birth certificate several times. I suppose it was out of narcissism rather than any legal necessity but, assuming your fondling had some purpose, is your grasp of simple logic so inept as to conclude the following?
[INDENT]***I, Brickhead, needed my birth certificate several times.
Therefore every American needed his birth certificate several times.
***[/INDENT]
I retract any kind word I ever said about you, you vicious ugly moron.
Well, septimus, now that the matter of how you feel about Bricker has been (I trust) thoroughly resolved, how do you feel about the authority of supreme courts, vis-a-vis post 9283?
Obviously. So completely obviously that we must be miscommunicating.
If someone puts himself forward as an NFL expert, and at the beginning of the season predicts that the Broncos will win the super bowl, and the broncos end up getting to the super bowl and then losing, our impression of the prognosticator’s level of NFL expertise is vastly different than if the Broncos end up in last place in their division and don’t make the playoffs.
Similarly if someone says before a decision that they believe that it will and should be upheld, and then it gets struct down 5-4, well, what did we learn? I mean, obviously they were wrong. But the argument that they found persuasive was also found persuasive by 4 out of 9 of the leading (and by-definition authoritative) experts in the world. In other words, it’s clearly a reasonable and plausible and legally justifiable position to hold. It ended up not carrying the day in this case, but it’s not worthy of derision, unless you also believe that 4 out of 9 supreme court justices are morons.
If you don’t see a world of difference between that and someone saying “I believe this law is constitutional” and then it gets struck down 9-0, well, then we’re just speaking different languages.
(And yes, I’m aware that it’s still the law of the land either way.)
Hey, it rhymes!
You were the one that accused me of counting an African-American citizen as three-fifths due to my fidelity to the Constitution, and thereby showed you didn’t understand the three-fifths rule. And still don’t. And didn’t understand amendments. And still don’t. That’s the beauty of it: I don’t need to concoct anything. You did it to yourself.
Absolutely no one is shocked.
No.
But as a society, we are prepared to dismiss anyone who claims to be paralyzed by his inability to harmonize the name he wants to use to vote with the name the legal system is prepared to recognize. Randall’s supposed surprise at discovering his actual name on his birth certificate is irrelevant – what he now needs to do is register to vote under that name, or change his name. It’s very simple.
Yeah, your earlier restraint was evident. But now, now the gloves are off?
I’ll consider myself warned.
Septimus is still reeling at the discovery that the guys who wanted slaves to count as zero were the good guys in that debate, and that counting slaves as a whole person would have been a disastrous move.
Give him some time. He’s flustered. He needs to read Mother Jones to be told what to think now.
Interesting redundancy in the language of the phrasing of the language.
Weird, isn’t it? He doesn’t seem to understand what everyone does when the Supreme Court makes a ruling they disagree with. How can he not, however, given that he’s on the pro-life side and disagrees with Roe vs. Wade?
My answer to your question is, of course ,no.
My answer to his question is: very much what the pro-life advocates are doing: try to arrange things for a new hearing on favorable terms. This means supporting Senatorial and Presidential candidates who will confirm and appoint Supreme Court nominees who hold my views, and hope that a new case can come along to change the law in the way I think is proper.
It involves political activism, consciousness-raising, and campaigning. It’s how the game is played in a democracy.
(The biggest difference is that I would not use the criminal, racketeering, and terrorist methods employed by the pro-life movement. I disagree with Citizens United, but that hasn’t prompted me to fire-bomb a corporate headquarters.)
I believe two of them are. It was three until fairly recently.
You’ll not find me saying that the Roe v. Wade results were unconstitutional.
They were unwise, and represent social policy with which I disagree.
And part of “consciousness raising” is declaring victory in advance, by asserting that the current ruling is unconstitutional?
See, that’s where I think your facade is weak. I argue for pro-life change, but not by declaring that the current case law does not have legitimate effect. You argue for pro-voting-ease by declaring that your view is the constitutional one and the obvious corollary is the the Supreme Court’s view is somehow illegitimate. How can you say otherwise? What do you mean when you say the laws are unconstitutional, and you know there’s a Supreme Court decision that says otherwise?
You think Antonin Scalia was a moron?
#yourenothelping
Is permitting a political party to stack the electoral deck in its favor unjust? Pretty simple, really. Don’t need Mother Jones for that, Mother Goose will do.
Is this the only thing you’ve been right about so far? Is that why you keep trying to make it the definitive question?
I’m mildly curious when “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” as adjectives became the sole property of the various supreme courts. Is there a trademark issue at play?
This is how I picture a reasoned exchange:
A: Law X is unconstitutional.
B: Not according to the prevailing SCOTUS ruling Rubber v. Glue.
This, however, is overreaching:
A: Law X is unconstitutional.
B: Why should I trust your opinion? YOU’RE HITLER!
Bricker:
I think it’s pretty unreasonable for you to claim that “It’s unconstitutional” = “I want to change the law by fiat”, even if there is a standing decision of constitutionality by the SCOTUS. Unless the poster has proposed a specific, extra-judicial or extra-legislative method for voiding the law, the most reasonable interpretation is that the poster is simply voicing his opinion about disagreeing with the court.
On the matter of septimus’ post, you are absolutely correct in calling him on his claim that you, or any of us posting here, would interpret the constitution in such a way as to ignore the 13th and 14th amendments. That was just silly on his part. However, it does appear that you are making a leap when you claim that his post shows a lack of understanding of how the 3/5 rule got into the original constitution. If I had to guess, I would guess that he does know the history, as do most regular posters around these parts. Either way, that one little snippet is hardly definitive in terms of what his understanding is.
Well, plus it’s kind of immature (and frankly, smacks of desperation) to claim someone is “reeling” if they haven’t responded yet. Most of us have, y’know, lives and shit.