I fail to see the relevance to my earlier statement of you doing or not doing any such thing.
Do we need such precise terminology? If we call this thing a “Bill of Attainder”, referring to an arcane procedure from the era of wigs and Whigs, so what? If we can get dozens of legal beagles to declare without hesitation that it is a Bill of Attainder, so what? Nothing is going to be undone, ACORN has been screwed, unjustly, and that is that, those are the essential facts. Even friend Bricker agrees. (Well, actually, he said he doesn’t disagree, which means he agrees. I think. Never quite sure with that boy…)
Hell, if people are willing to call losing the popular vote and getting installed by court order as “winning an election”, they should certainly be willing to call this a “Bill of Attainder”. Or a “litter of ugly puppies”, for that matter.
Tell you the truth, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if elements of the Dem leadership winked, a lot of those “centrist” three legged Blue Dead Dogs wouldn’t be a bit hurt to see ACORN take a bullet. They know what the Pubbies know, that organizing and registering the poor and oppressed (of whatever stripe, for whatever reason) is to empower the left of the left. ACORN activity in a “moderate” Democrats safe district is to sow the seeds of a primary challenge.
When you work to change who has power, everybody who has power is most likely your enemy.
This was done to silence and screw a political group, to sustain and enhance the power of another set of political groups. It doesn’t speak well of any of us that we tolerate this sort of thing. It is no different from any other form of political oppression, save that it is more genteel, the gloves are softer.
So, don’t want to call it a “bill of attainder”. OK, call it Anne of Cleves, if you like, so long as you are properly ashamed of it.
That’s all well and good, but even apart from this sideshow there were numerous demonstrated reasons, politics aside, that ACORN shouldn’t have been trusted with money. Chief among this is the coverup of the embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the organization by the brother of the founder - this incident was concealed even from ACORN’s board.
There are conservative groups I don’t trust with my donations - were I on the left and in some sympathy with ACORN I might not trust them with my donation. And this is a perfectly defensible view, and in the end the one that caused the greatest dropoff in their funds.
Is this a bill of attainder? Nope - all this is is keeping the bills in your wallet. And ACORN can’t do much about that, any more than Chevy can sue to keep someone from buying a Ford.
Especially if that customer had once owned a Chevy Cavalier. But I digress.
As it applies to strictly private donations, you are correct. However, the bills produced to fuck ACORN were all about refusing Gov funding to them, even such Gov funding as they had been voted.
Sure. But “wrong” is not synonymous with “unconstitutional.” It was both wrong and unconstitutional to try to withdraw money from ACORN that they had already won as awards.
It was simply wrong - not unconstitutional - to cut off future funding.
You may ask the courts to correct “unconstitutional.” But stop asking the courts to fix “wrong.” That’s not their job.
Bricker, a quibble. Most questions before courts don’t really touch overmuch on broad constitutional questions, right? And don’t the courts exist to address these kinds of disputes within the law?
I think you were trying to address legislative remedies in your post but it came off wrong to me.
Correct. The vast majority of questions that come before courts are interpretations of statute, not constitutional questions.
My point is to say that if your complaint is, “This is a poor law, a bad law, an unwise law,” then you can’t ask the courts to fix it.
Well, that certainly settles…something. What, I have no idea, but clearly you have triumphed on the crucial issue of…wait, what was it again? Its not dispositive, is that it?
Stop asking the courts to fix things when the issue is “injustice” or "wrongness"or “lack of wisdom.”
Other kinds of definitions
- Lexical
- Stipulative
- persuasive
- theoretical
But I know you must be familiar with them and a couple others. They are part of college logic classes and are usually part of public speaking.
Yes.
Each of can be described as a technical type of definition.
Notice that whatever list you found to generate those does not include a fifth category of “technical.”
I infer you now mean to argue that your use of “Bill of Attainder” was a stipulative definition.
I wish I could say that the behavior in this thread is surprising, but, unfortunately, it isn’t.
There are more. But you asked, what other kinds of definitions are there? You implied there was only one. I could have given one and proved you were incorrect. Nor did I say they were all encompassing. I merely made the point, it is lots more than one.
Um…
Gonzomax:
Each of those can be described as a technical type of definition.
You haven’t listed other types of definitions besides technical definitions. You have listed a number of different technical definitions.
See?
ME: What other kinds of definitions are there?
GONZO: Lots! There’s lexical, stipulative, persuasive, theoretical…
ME: All of those are types of technical definitions.
And I’m sure that if I emphasize this point too harshly, elucidator will come rushing out to chide me for beating up on you again.
Congrats, gonzo – on a board that’s supposedly interested in fighting ignorance, you have successfully crafted your ignorance as a shield. Can’t criticize you for it, or I’m the jerk.