Yes, true enough. But against that ungenerous interpretation, I have the inescapable experience that quite often, in these discussions, “unconstitutional,” is simply a synonym for “bad public policy.” I maintain that I’m absolutely entitled to ask anyone making a claim on unconstitutionality what the specific textual basis is for the claim.
Sure, I could (again) delve into the details. But how much typing time would that take? Longer, I assure you, than the bare assertion Aescwynn took to make.
Which turns debate on its head: I’m expected to respond to single-paragraph summaries with detailed argument, and not allowed to demand specifics, in the name of generosity? Why can’t my opponents be equally generous, and lay out their claims, which as proponents of a position it is their burden to do?
But OK. Sure. I’ll post back in that thread. Because I am your monkey.
(Non-racially, of course.)
And I can already foresee what will happen: a chorus similar to this: