Indeed. The constitution had 39 signers. I don’t know why you thought it was 56.
On re-examination, the constitution had 40 signers. My apologies to William Jackson.
I have never refused to recognize an obvious point.
Heh, well, you can lie to yourself and get away with it. Lie to us… not so much.
By the way, CAN you name all the signers of the Constitution?
I gather it’s important for some reason.
My beliefs are supported by the fact that there was dissent.
Even if the vote had been eight to one, the fact that one Supreme Court Justice held the law in question to be unconstitutional supports my belief that the law is unconstitutional.
Sure, I boobed up the number. I didn’t bother to look it up. It isn’t important.
That there was dissent is all that my point relies upon.
So, once more, you’re caught lying.
I’ve NEVER refused to admit that Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land. In one of my posts earlier today (are you able to read?) I acknowledged this.
You are obviously lying. You’re contradicting what is right there in text for everyone to see.
Grin! I only brought it up as mockery of Bricker’s challenge to me to name the dissenters in the Indiana Voter-ID law.
If he can make an irrelevant demand, I guess I can too. It’s very typical of Bricker’s style here. It’s akin to pointing out a missing comma or a misspelled word.
Now, if the SC ruling in question had been without dissent at all – my point would still be valid, because I can point to other cases where there is dissent!
The fact that the Supreme Court has had cases where there is dissent supports my ability, in full validity, to say that a law’s constitutionality is open to question. That very question is what the SC votes to decide – and sometimes they even reverse themselves.
Certain laws have been unconstitutional…then constitutional again! Bricker’s absolutist view of “The Law of the Land” is not capable of coping with reversals of this nature.
Good grief. Getting an admission of error from you is like pulling teeth.
So as long as there’s dissent, it’s ok to declare that the decision had no effect and was unconstitutional? And when pressed, grudgingly admit that you’re discussing your opinion?
That seems like the most useful path to you?
You must live in a confusing world.
Despite widespread confusion over the constitutionality of these laws, states keep enforcing them! How? It’s a mystery!
Hey, at least he accurately stated the Constitution had been signed. I gather you thought he meant the Declaration of Independence, but the DoI is but one of four important “signed” historical American documents:
-
The Articles of Association.
Effective Date: December 1, 1774.
Signers: 53 -
The Declaration of Independence.
Effective Date: July 4, 1776
Signers: 56 -
The Articles of Confederation.
Effective Date: March 1, 1781
Signers: 48 -
The Constitution.
Effective Date: June 21, 1788
Signers: 40
Notably, Roger Sherman of Connecticut is the only man to have signed all four.
Anyway, I don’t know if Trinopus really was thinking of the DoI when he referenced the signing of the Constitution - I’m just amused by the herpity-derp ignorance you eagerly displayed when you thought you’d discovered his error.
Please re-read my post and quote the portion you feel demonstrates any error at all on my part.
Or “herpy derpy ignorance.”
Here it is:
I readily admit that I blundered when assuming the Indiana voter ID case had been settled by a 5-4 vote.
I have not, otherwise, made any errors. I have a suite of opinions – and so do you. Disagreement is not error.
I never said that the decision was unconstitutional, and I never said that the decision had no effect. You’re making things up again.
I’ve never denied that.
Bricker, you blundered. You overplayed your hand. You caught me in a very minor and not relevant error, and tried to pretend that it invalidated my opinion. Having failed there, you now resort to false accusations.
Your debate skills are lacking. You are seriously deficient in tactics and rhetorical talent.
To explain it once again (although I wonder how you will choose to mischaracterize it this time) I say that the fact that even one Supreme Court Justice has voted to overturn a law gives support to my view that the law can be called into constitutional question. The Justice himself has called the law into constitutional question. He is on official record as saying the law violates the constitution. When I say the same thing, I am in no less company than one of the members of the court itself.
I have never denied that such laws, having been upheld, are “The law of the land.” That’s a lie on your part.
I have certainly never said – go ahead and use your robot skills to find an exception – that a Supreme Court decision has “no effect” or that a Supreme Court decision was “unconstitutional.” You made that shit up, and you’re paying for it now in the loss of esteem of every person reading this thread.
A year or so ago, I wronged you, by accusing you of being reluctant to admit your errors. I was corrected in this, by persons who are not at all your friends in this forum. You have just made the same blunder with regard to me, accusing me of refusing to admit my error. I have done so multiple times now, and you are proven very wrong.
You would also benefit from an antiperspirant.
Another error on your part.
To begin with, states have a history of enforcing unconstitutional laws. The Jim Crow era comes to mind. The abuse of force is far from extinct in the United States. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of the chiefest exponents.
Oh, and, secondly, you lie again: I never said that a law that is unconstitutional (by three or four of Max the Vool’s criteria) cannot still be the Law of the Land, and thus enforced. You keep making this childish blunder.
Okay, here’s the relevant part of his post, or at least I assume you assume it was relevant, since you quoted it:
And the relevant part of your reply:
Why are you even invoking the DoI (and its 56 signers), unless you thought that Trinopus meant the DoI when he said “signed the Constitution”. Well, the Constitution was signed, so regardless of what he may have meant to say, there’s nothing factually incorrect about what he did say. Indeed, the context suggests he meant Constitution and not the DoI, since the rhetoric was about your alleged expertise and the DoI is not relevant to this issue.
Or maybe you were aware that both documents had been signed and you just decided to say “56 signers of the Constitution” as an example of a factual error - but it would be your factual error, since Trinopus didn’t mention the numbers of signers of any document in the post you quoted.
Basically, you fucked up. It’s over a trivial matter of no import, but I’ll be genuinely surprised if you’d admit it, instead of trying to spin it in some way.
Meantime, when I visualize you typing that post, it always comes with a soundtrack of your imbecilic giggling: "Herpity-derp, he said constutushun when ever’buddy nose dey signed the decleration of inderpendence, hyuk hyuk hyuk!’
It makes me chuckle.
Y’know, I completely missed that bit. It’s vaguely amusing, sort of like Gaudere’s Law. He schooled me (properly) for miscounting a vote – and then miscounts the signing of the founding document of the U.S.A.
Far from relevant; it’s like Obama talking about the 57 states, or George Bush talking about Pearl Harbor Day being September 7. It doesn’t really undermine Bricker’s understanding of the constitution.
It does make him look a tad silly, scolding me for a blunder and then making one of his own. I just call it karma.
Also, of course, this entire side-show has, as noted above, been a huge digression away from the real point of the thread: voter suppression. Bricker loves to divert the point. He’ll do anything to avoid facing the facts, and the facts are the voter ID laws have been proven – hell, GOP officials have bragged about it – to have the purpose of diminishing Democratic voter turn-out.
That’s what the man is defending.
Bricker cracked some skulls in this thread. Few things funnier than sanctimonious left-wingers being called on their bullshit and subsequently flailing around in an attempt to defend themselves.
Oh. So that’s the problem. I can only speak for myself, but …
If I post in all-caps “HERE’S A QUESTION FOR THE LEGAL-LOOKUP BOT”, along with a link to an image of an Esquire with a stick shoved up his rectum, then I’m asking for your legal opinion.
Otherwise I’m expressing an opinion about wise social policy.
I think similar remarks apply to most posters here, as they’ve made clear and as you’d know by now if you weren’t so insufferably dense.
That IS funny, though I wouldn’t limit it to left-wingers. It applies to bullshitters of all types.
Well, I’ll step forward and say that I find this troubling. Not because I particularly think that ex-felons shouldn’t get to vote, but because whatever arguments there are either way, the decision should not be being made by someone who benefits politically. Did governor McCauliffe do this purely for crass political gain, or does he honestly believe it is the ethical course of action? The fact that we can’t possibly know is troubling.
(That said, there are any number of reasons why this is less troubling than voter ID laws, including the obvious one that it’s granting voter rights rather than restricting them.)