ghare: Amos Quito: I think my insane gibberish deserves a serious response

No, it doesn't. Nothing anyone can say could change your mind, because you are a True Believer. A NUT, if you will. Facts actually make you cling harder to your insanity, because you are a nut. Really. Toys-in-the-attic, serious-brain-damage, hearing-voices sort of nut.

Plus, you're willfully ignorant of history and you can't write or make a point at all. On account of being a nut, probably.


Yet another stunning point-by point rebuttal to the facts, ghare. Bravo!

I stand in awe, sir. Blinded by your effervescent brilliance.

Amos Quito: ghare: Amos Quito: I think my insane gibberish deserves a serious response

No, it doesn't. Nothing anyone can say could change your mind, because you are a True Believer. A NUT, if you will. Facts actually make you cling harder to your insanity, because you are a nut. Really. Toys-in-the-attic, serious-brain-damage, hearing-voices sort of nut.

Plus, you're willfully ignorant of history and you can't write or make a point at all. On account of being a nut, probably.


Yet another stunning point-by point rebuttal to the facts, ghare. Bravo!

I stand in awe, sir. Blinded by your effervescent brilliance.

You didn't say anything substantive. How exactly does one rebut shiatting in the middle of the floor? I mean, I suppose I could shiat on top of your shiat, or smack you with my dick in a display of dominance.

2wolves: PleaseHamletDon'tHurtEm: Vermin Supreme makes about as much sense as anyone else.

Except he's on the Donkey ticket this time.

You sound all LaRouche-er.

I am not big on politics, so I had to go look that up. It was equal parts batshiat and TL;DR.

Really, I just think the guy is funny, and I enjoy watching him act ridiculous in the midst of a sea of dour poker faces.

I know I'm late to the thread, and I just wanted to tip this in - I'll say it again if a relevant thread comes up and I can post more timely--

Romney's idea of mandated healthcare - pass it onto the state - is what we do here in Canada. The Fed gives out a chunk of change to each of the provinces and tells them to come up with the rest (ironically that chunk of Fed cash is a matter of current national discourse). And for the most part, it works, though there's exceptions and horror stories like anywhere else.

Romneycare is not a terrible idea. The rest of his platform, or validity to weather political assaults, I'm not addressing - just his position on healthcare.
/ watching American politics is sad/amusing for us Canucks, and we know it's going to affect us almost as much as you guys for a variety of reasons

Serious Black: TDBoedy: Serious Black: tenpoundsofcheese: well you can define things based on the words actually used, or you can just make shiat up the way you usually do.

Okay. Let's do that!

According to Justice Laurence Silberman, when evaluating the phrase "to regulate commerce...among the several states," his inclination is to figure out what the verb regulate means. According to the Dictionary of the English Language written by Samuel Johnson in 1619, with the 4th Edition published in 1773 and the modern edition published in 1978, to regulate meant both then and now "to adjust by rule or method" and "to direct," where direct meant both then and now "to order" and "to command." In other words, purely by looking at the words actually used, Congress can require people to engage in commerce, even if that commerce is not already existing, and even if that person is not active in an interstate market. That means there is absolutely no support in the text of the Constitution that says Congress cannot require Americans to purchase health insurance.

Thoughts?

sure you did it wrong.

To order meaning "to give order or regularity to a system" not to command. Congress can no more order you to buy a car than they can anything else.

The reason STATES require car insurance is that driving on public roads is a privilege and not a right and they can police that conduct. However if you do not have a car they cannot force you to buy insurance for it...

The commerce clause's primary function is to prevent trade wars from between the states.

Are you saying that Justice Laurence Silberman is lying about his definition of the word "regulate?" I clearly cited where he got his definition of the word, and you didn't bother doing anything of the sort. What makes your completely uncited definition more correct than my meticulously cited definition?

Also, a correction on my part: it was page 1619 from the 4th edition published in 1773, not first published in 1619. I blame all the booze I'm drin ...

Lying? no...being incorrect...yes

If only they could get Gen. E. Rick to run, I hear he does well in the polls.

Amos Quito: Smackledorfer: No, I'm saying YOU are a nut. Go ahead and be a nut, it's a free country, but you're a nut. Your constitution fantasies are just that. You sound like a nut, you talk like a nut, and you think like a nut. You should be handing out poorly-Xeroxed copies of your manifesto on a street corner.


That, sir, was a powerful and persuasive intellectual retort. You destroyed my argument point by point, and for that I commend you.

[APPLAUSE]

Because your response to him was something other than insulting hyperbole not so cleverly masked with a couple question marks.


If he (or you) were to address specific points rather than engaging in low-brow hand-waving, name-calling and hyperbole, your posts might warrant a thoughtful and serious response.

But when you bray like sheep, what do you expect?

Nice projecting.

Kittypie070: LerooooooooooooooooooyJENKIIIIIINS!!1! 2012-01-28 03:38:13 PM
If only George W. Bush were eligible

kity sneex up behind you wid a big ol hammer

The really, REALLY sad thing is, Dubya is a better candidate than any of the lunatics the GOP tried to foist on America this primary season, with the possible exception of Romney (who's about equal, being a political windsock who'd be controlled by his advisors/VP)

That says more about the Republican candidates (and the current GOP in general) than it does about GWB.

(I'm not counting Huntsman, Johnson and co. among the lunatics, since they ran on their own without being heavily promoted by the GOP.)

MaxxLarge: "Is there maybe a third choice we could look at?"

Yeah. I've been hearing some good things about this "Obama" cat.

He's truly the best president that conservatives can ever hope for. He got the vast majority of democrats to stop their opposition to our wars, and he managed to get democrats behind a health insurance mandate hatched by the Heritage Foundation that republicans have been trying to pass on and off for the past 20 years.

simplicimus: make me some tea: The GOP cooked their goose during the Bush years. Not likely to get any serious candidates from them unless Obama screws up his second term.

Obama doesn't need to screw up. Who is a viable D candidate for 2016? Hillary? Biden? Barney Frank?

Gavin Newson (currently Lt. Gov of California)

He just looks presidential from the start



kinda like a young Martin Sheen

A Dark Evil Omen: Amos Quito: ghare: Amos Quito: I think my insane gibberish deserves a serious response

No, it doesn't. Nothing anyone can say could change your mind, because you are a True Believer. A NUT, if you will. Facts actually make you cling harder to your insanity, because you are a nut. Really. Toys-in-the-attic, serious-brain-damage, hearing-voices sort of nut.

Plus, you're willfully ignorant of history and you can't write or make a point at all. On account of being a nut, probably.


Yet another stunning point-by point rebuttal to the facts, ghare. Bravo!

I stand in awe, sir. Blinded by your effervescent brilliance.

You didn't say anything substantive. How exactly does one rebut shiatting in the middle of the floor?


"Nothing substantive"?

This is the post that triggered ghare's strident nasal ad hominem whine.

Feel free to rebut it, A Dark Evil Omen.

The people who would vote republican (the crazy half of America) had a candidate
that even the more centrist republicans could have gotten behind. That person was
Huntsman. But NOOooooo he was too intellectual for you. Too smart. And he didn't sit
right with the retardocon media. So which loser are you going to vote for now neocons?

/the waffling, flip flopping and gnashing of teeth is going to be fun to watch from here on out.

Amos Quito: "Nothing substantive"?

This is the post that triggered ghare's strident nasal ad hominem whine.

Feel free to rebut it, A Dark Evil Omen.


To which he replied:

ghare: Amos Quito: ...derp ...

A weaker federal Government was tried. It failed. You can yearn to go back to the days of failure if it makes you feel good, and you can whine that YOU know what the founders meant (as if they were unanimous) but it doesn't make any sense.

Now I can see the "derp" bit as off-putting certainly, but you neither addressed the previous failures of a weak government in the USA, nor explained how you know the founding fathers' thoughts better than anyone else including all of our judges. But what you did do was about one step short of godwinning his post via hyperbole instead.

What is odd to me isn't that you post in this fashion, as plenty do, but that you seem to be standing firm behind it and claiming everyone else is the problem. You cherry-pick the hell out of the other side of a discussion and conflate as much as possible, then get all butthurt when they dismiss you as a nut.

Even stranger is we Republicans can't figure out why Liberals are going to stick with Bama, and why you are too afraid to run anyone against him. Is for fear of being labeled a racist.
If it is then you truly are the party of the inept.

bogatti: Even stranger is we Republicans can't figure out why Liberals are going to stick with Bama, and why you are too afraid to run anyone against him. Is for fear of being labeled a racist.
If it is then you truly are the party of the inept.

Trolololol

TDBoedy: Serious Black: Are you saying that Justice Laurence Silberman is lying about his definition of the word "regulate?" I clearly cited where he got his definition of the word, and you didn't bother doing anything of the sort. What makes your completely uncited definition more correct than my meticulously cited definition?

Lying? no...being incorrect...yes

Last time I checked, just saying that you're right over and over and over again doesn't actually mean that you're right. You need to give a reason why. We have two competing definitions: one was contemporaneous to the people who wrote the Constitution, and one was pulled out of your ass. Why is your ass a better source for what a word meant in the late 1700's than a dictionary that was published in the late 1700's? Is your ass over 200 years old?

bogatti: Even stranger is we Republicans can't figure out why Liberals are going to stick with Bama, and why you are too afraid to run anyone against him. Is for fear of being labeled a racist.
If it is then you truly are the party of the inept.

Despite the lies that your faux media have spoon fed you Obama has been
a very good president. Not excellent mind you but probably the best we've had
since Eisenhower. Yes he's been better than your St. Reagan. If it weren't for
the deceitful and shameful Republican stone walling he'd have done even better.

Okay then, let's rewind a bit:


Smackledorfer: Amos Quito: "Nothing substantive"?

This is the post that triggered ghare's strident nasal ad hominem whine.

Feel free to rebut it, A Dark Evil Omen.


To which he replied:

ghare: Amos Quito: ...derp ...

A weaker federal Government was tried. It failed. You can yearn to go back to the days of failure if it makes you feel good, and you can whine that YOU know what the founders meant (as if they were unanimous) but it doesn't make any sense.


When was it "tried"? How did it "fail"? ghare is engaging in broad insinuations and hand-waving. You expect me to "rebut" such nonsense?


Smackledorfer: Now I can see the "derp" bit as off-putting certainly, but you neither addressed the previous failures of a weak government in the USA


Again, WHAT "failures of a weak government in the USA"? Be specific, and we might be able to have a rational discussion.


Smackledorfer: nor explained how you know the founding fathers' thoughts better than anyone else including all of our judges. But what you did do was about one step short of godwinning his post via hyperbole instead.


Forgive me if I fail to see SCOTUS as deity perpetually endowed with pure and benevolent motives, or if my reading of the Commerce Clause (and other side-stepping measures) doesn't reveal Federal authority to enact an endless grab in utter defiance of the rest of the Constitution.


/Oh, and fark Godwin

Amos Quito: Okay then, let's rewind a bit:


Smackledorfer: Amos Quito: "Nothing substantive"?

This is the post that triggered ghare's strident nasal ad hominem whine.

Feel free to rebut it, A Dark Evil Omen.


To which he replied:

ghare: Amos Quito: ...derp ...

A weaker federal Government was tried. It failed. You can yearn to go back to the days of failure if it makes you feel good, and you can whine that YOU know what the founders meant (as if they were unanimous) but it doesn't make any sense.


When was it "tried"? How did it "fail"? ghare is engaging in broad insinuations and hand-waving. You expect me to "rebut" such nonsense?


Smackledorfer: Now I can see the "derp" bit as off-putting certainly, but you neither addressed the previous failures of a weak government in the USA


Again, WHAT "failures of a weak government in the USA"? Be specific, and we might be able to have a rational discussion.


Smackledorfer: nor explained how you know the founding fathers' thoughts better than anyone else including all of our judges. But what you did do was about one step short of godwinning his post via hyperbole instead.


Forgive me if I fail to see SCOTUS as deity perpetually endowed with pure and benevolent motives, or if my reading of the Commerce Clause (and other side-stepping measures) doesn't reveal Federal authority to enact an endless grab in utter defiance of the rest of the Constitution.


/Oh, and fark Godwin

And here you go again. Any acknowledgment of possible validity of a Scotus ruling is conflated with saying they are benevolent gods?

Forget this issue for a moment, why on earth do you think people should give your thoughts the time of day when any disagreement forces the other party to fend off wild hyperbole? You are almost as bad as a republican accusing all liberal concepts of being communist/socialist/whatever.

so, given your inability to limit hyperbole, cherry picking, etc, I'm going to fall back on dismissing you as a nut. If you don't care, that is fine. If you do, then change.

Kittypie070: F*cking Hell, Amos, it was the government we had under the Articles of Confederation.

It worked for a while, but under the weird and still-chaotic conditions the newly independent Colonies were facing both at home and from foreign influence...the Articles proved to be weak in specific areas.

Not "bad", just weak. Coudn't be enforced.

No ability to pay the debts incurred during the Revolutionary War.
No ability to protect the frontiers.
No ability or authority to make treaties with other countries.
No ability to handle the Barbary Pirates.
No ability to fund a continued US Navy presence for force projection.

The currency itself became so degraded and valueless, there was a phrase
coined for it, "Not worth a Continental".


Hi Kittypie070.

Okay, so the original Confederacy didn't work. How did we resolve that issue? We created a CONSTITUTION, right? and it became the "supreme law of the land", did it not?

Do you see me arguing in favor of a return to the Confederacy? No, I am arguing that we abide by the Constitution, and if the Constitution is found wanting, that we AMEND it via the prescribed processes - just as we did with Women's Suffrage, the abolition of slavery, the Prohibition of Alcohol (and its subsequent repeal) etc.

But at some point our leaders began thinking that this Amendment process was too cumbersome, or they feared that THE PEOPLE would not buy into their little plans to modify society, so the Congress began passing dubious legislation, and SCOTUS began "justifying" said laws on highly questionable and broad interpretations of "clauses" in the Constitution.

For instance, many thought that the Civil Rights Act was Constitutionally justifiable under the 14th Amendment - but this justification was found wanting, but rather than going through another Amendment process to rectify the shortcomings, the Supreme Court merely SIDESTEPPED the issue entirely by "justifying" it under the "Commerce Clause".

This is insanity.

Like it or not, MOST of the powers usurped by the Federal Government today were grabbed via equally specious methods. When we allow Congress to enact any self-serving law they please (like NDAA, for example), and the Supreme Court gives these crazy laws a wink and a nod, we trash the Constitution and fall increasing into the grip of centralized authoritarianism.

In summary, I would like to see the US live up to its claim of being a "Nation of Laws" by abiding by the the Supreme Law of the Land - the Constitution.

Too radical?

Smackledorfer: Again, WHAT "failures of a weak government in the USA"? Be specific, and we might be able to have a rational discussion.


Smackledorfer: nor explained how you know the founding fathers' thoughts better than anyone else including all of our judges. But what you did do was about one step short of godwinning his post via hyperbole instead.


Forgive me if I fail to see SCOTUS as deity perpetually endowed with pure and benevolent motives, or if my reading of the Commerce Clause (and other side-stepping measures) doesn't reveal Federal authority to enact an endless grab in utter defiance of the rest of the Constitution.


/Oh, and fark Godwin

And here you go again. Any acknowledgment of possible validity of a Scotus ruling is conflated with saying they are benevolent gods?

Forget this issue for a moment, why on earth do you think people should give your thoughts the time of day when any disagreement forces the other party to fend off wild hyperbole? You are almost as bad as a republican accusing all liberal concepts of being communist/socialist/whatever.

so, given your inability to limit hyperbole, cherry picking, etc, I'm going to fall back on dismissing you as a nut. If you don't care, that is fine. If you do, then change.


At this point I'm not sure whether you failed to follow the conversation attentively, or you're just being dishonest.

Why don't you press ctrl+f and re-read my posts in this thread. You'll see that I did not start toying with anyone until ghare started in with his little games. Indeed, you will see that the first time ghare responded to me he ignored all of the points I had raised in the very post he was replying to, and that it was he who launched into the ad hominem fusillade.

I'm perfectly happy to engage anyone in rational discussion, but when other farkers act like asshats, I'm not above having a bit of fun mopping the floor with them.

Now, if you'd care to address the issues, we can start with my post that ghare first replied to, or with my post replying to Kittypie070 above.

Your move.

Mrtraveler01: Amos Quito:

[www.wisdems.org image 401x380]


Oh c'mon, Mrtraveler01, you and I have had (semi) rational discussions on this topic before.

Is that really your best effort?


/BTW, I like my interpretations of the Constitution better than yours
//Why? Because they're MINE, obviously!


:-)

PEROT '12!

Man, I know I"m good when nobody takes me on.

You think if maybe the occupy movement came right out of the gate shouting "we are against everything that Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are", it might have clicked with more folks? Just wonderin'.

HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: Mrtraveler01: Amos Quito:

[www.wisdems.org image 401x380]


Oh c'mon, Mrtraveler01, you and I have had (semi) rational discussions on this topic before.

Is that really your best effort?


/BTW, I like my interpretations of the Constitution better than yours
//Why? Because they're MINE, obviously!


:-)

So I guess you don't have any explanation for why you think the entire Supreme Court got it wrong on Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. U.S.


Read my comments up-thread.

Should give you a hint.

HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: Mrtraveler01: Amos Quito:

[www.wisdems.org image 401x380]


Oh c'mon, Mrtraveler01, you and I have had (semi) rational discussions on this topic before.

Is that really your best effort?


/BTW, I like my interpretations of the Constitution better than yours
//Why? Because they're MINE, obviously!


:-)

So I guess you don't have any explanation for why you think the entire Supreme Court got it wrong on Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. U.S.


Read my comments up-thread.

Should give you a hint.

Well, I see that you're a Ron Paul fan, so I shouldn't be surprised that you're against federal intervention to prevent discrimination. Still, if you believe that the entire Supreme Court was wrong about that specific case, you should be able to list a few reasons why. I mean, you brought it up as evidence of the insane way that the government was grabbing power, right?


Here is the Commerce Clause - in its entirety:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

Here is the gist of the government's argument in Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. U.S. (new window)

QUOTE:

"In response, the United States countered that the restrictions in adequate accommodation for black Americans severely interfered with interstate travel, and that Congress, under the United States Constitution's Commerce clause, was certainly within its power to address such matters."

[...]

The Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act's Title II in question. While it might have been possible for Congress to pursue other methods for abolishing racial discrimination, the way in which Congress did so, according to the Court, was perfectly valid

You just read the Commerce Clause. Is that what it says?

And if so, is there any thing or any activity that the Feds cannot "regulate" to their little heart's content under this "clause"?

Of course the PROPER (and only legal) way to have addressed this issue was not by side-stepping the Constitution and justifying the Act via "justification" that amounts to "BECAUSE WE SAID SO" - and that would have been by amending the Constitution via the prescribed methods.

They did it for Women's Suffrage. They did it to enact (and repeal) Prohibition? Why not Civil Rights?

Weren't them neeegroes worth the trouble? Or was there some other reason?

If the Civil Rights Act (and other laws, Departments etc) are worth having, why are they not worth the time and effort of enacting them via the prescribed Constitutional method?

As I said - it was a power grab.

HighOnCraic: How was it a "power grab" when state laws in the South were even more oppressive?


As you made not even a token attempt at rebuttal, I take it that you agree that SCOTUS justifying the Civil Rights Act (and others) under the Commerce Clause was constitutionally groundless.

Correct?


HighOnCraic: A couple of Jim Crow laws in the state of Georgia:

"All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."

"It shall be unlawful for any amateur white baseball team to play baseball on any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of a playground devoted to the Negro race, and it shall be unlawful for any amateur colored baseball team to play baseball in any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of any playground devoted to the white race."

Why is state-level micromanaging acceptable, while a Federal act banning state-level micromanaging is offensive to you?


It has NOTHING to do with "offensive", and everything to do with legal and legitimate.

Amendment X: (new window)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thou shalt not exercise powers that are not granted unto thee by the Constitution. Should thou desire MORE powers, thou shalt petition for an AMENDMENT via the processes prescribed under the Constitution.

THOU SHALT NOT MAKE ILLEGAL POWER GRABS.

Is that clear?

Amos Quito: And if so, is there any thing or any activity that the Feds cannot "regulate" to their little heart's content under this "clause"?

You are acting like this is new with the civil rights legislation.

SCOTUS was allowing the commerce clause to vindicate rules about farmers growing wheat that was for their own personal consumption, i.e. not sold to anyone period back in 1942 (Wickard v Filburn). So why would anyone think of civil rights rulings as an new broadening is beyond me.

HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: As I said - it was a power grab.

You're overlooking the way that state power was being abused.

Once again, I'll cite this Mississippi law: "Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five thousand (5,000.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

Isn't that an obvious violation of the First Amendment? Why was it such a bad thing when the Federal government ordred the Southern states to stop violating the Constitution?


I agree that the law as presented (a cite would be nice) was egregious, and likely violated the First Amendment.

Are you suggesting that the Feds (or others) were powerless to challenge such a law without violating the Constitution? Are you saying that the ONLY way that such laws could be defeated is by violating the Supreme Law of the Land?

Vlad_the_Inaner: Amos Quito: And if so, is there any thing or any activity that the Feds cannot "regulate" to their little heart's content under this "clause"?

You are acting like this is new with the civil rights legislation.

SCOTUS was allowing the commerce clause to vindicate rules about farmers growing wheat that was for their own personal consumption, i.e. not sold to anyone period back in 1942 (Wickard v Filburn). So why would anyone think of civil rights rulings as an new broadening is beyond me.


The Civil Rights Act is merely a prominent example. I do not oppose the Civil Rights act in general, rather in the way that it was enacted.

Similarly, I do not oppose sex per se, but I do oppose rape. See the difference?

Also you are correct. SCOTUS began flagrantly thumbing their collective nose at the Constitutional process - allowing the Federal Government to grab power unconstitutionally - long before the CRA.

How do prior offenses make these violations any more justifiable?

Amos Quito: How do prior offenses make these violations any more justifiable?

Stare Decisis. How does it work?

/in before Dred Scott decision

HighOnCraic: It has NOTHING to do with "offensive", and everything to do with legal and legitimate.

Amendment X: (new window)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thou shalt not exercise powers that are not granted unto thee by the Constitution. Should thou desire MORE powers, thou shalt petition for an AMENDMENT via the processes prescribed under the Constitution.

THOU SHALT NOT MAKE ILLEGAL POWER GRABS.

Is that clear?

If justifying the Civil Rights Act (and others) under the Commerce Clause was constitutionally groundless, you'd think at least one Supreme Court justice would've dissented in the case. I don't need to rebut your claim when I've got a bunch of Supreme Court justices on my side.


Might makes right. Got it.

Big fan of Authoritarianism?


HighOnCraic: Now explain how the Tenth Amendment allows states to violate the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment.


Please show where I have ever made such a claim.

Thanks in advance.


HighOnCraic: Seriously, how can you say that Federal intervention was illegal and and illegitimate, and ignore how oppressive segregation was?


Because Federal intervention was (and is) illegal and and illegitimate due to the violation of Constitutional processes used to enact it.

Segregation was indeed oppressive and needed to be addressed. But why should we tolerate the trashing of the Constitution when perfectly legitimate methods were (and are) available?

"Okay, so you got raped and you're pregnant. But look at the bright side! I'm sure you'll have a BEAUTIFUL baby! You should be grateful for that violation!"

HighOnCraic: I agree that the law as presented (a cite would be nice) was egregious, and likely violated the First Amendment.

Are you suggesting that the Feds (or others) were powerless to challenge such a law without violating the Constitution? Are you saying that the ONLY way that such laws could be defeated is by violating the Supreme Law of the Land?

Citation: Link (new window)

How is using Federal power to overturn an unconstitutional state law a violation of the Constitution?


It isn't UNLESS the Feds violate the Constitution to do so. They didn't have to, but they did.

Again, why bother with an amendment for Women's Suffrage and Prohibition but not Civil Rights (et al)?

Is the question that difficult to answer?

Vlad_the_Inaner: Amos Quito: How do prior offenses make these violations any more justifiable?

Stare Decisis. How does it work?


Not very well when the precedents they relied on were themselves in violation of the Constitution.

Yes?