Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

You have no relationship to the constitution and wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face. I bet you think the ACA is unconstitutional.

 

This post actually made me shout, out loud, "Yay, stupid!"

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

You have no relationship to the constitution and wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face. I bet you think the ACA is unconstitutional.

 

wow... intelligent refute there I must admit... Ya got me there conner.....

 

go away now so the big kids can talk....

 

Describing yourself as a consitutionist is nonsensical

then help me out oh wise one!!!

 

what would you call me?

Posted (edited)

then help me out oh wise one!!!

 

what would you call me?

 

Tell me what why you call yourself a constitutionalist and then I'll label you (since you asked)

Edited by TheNewBills
Posted

Well, yeah... but that's largely because "consitutionist" isn't a real word.

 

ok... is Constitutionalist OK??? does it meet the spell check criteria???

 

Tell me what why you call yourself a constitutionalist and then I'll label you

 

You made your post according to my questionnaire answers... tell me oh wise one!!

Posted

 

 

You made your post according to my questionnaire answers... tell me oh wise one!!

 

LOL I made my post in response to you saying you consider yourself a constitutionalist. So go on, what makes you say this? What does this even mean to you....

Posted (edited)

You have no relationship to the constitution and wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face. I bet you think the ACA is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court seemed to think it was unconstitutional. Parts, anyway.

 

I don't always agree that the constitution says whatever the SC says it does, but I'm curious how you see it.

Edited by Rob's House
Posted

The Supreme Court seemed to think it was unconstitutional. Parts, anyway.

 

I don't always agree that the constitution says whatever the SC says it does, but I'm curious how you see it.

 

not final b/c infallible, infallible b/c final...etc...

Posted
ok... is Constitutionalist OK??? does it meet the spell check criteria???
Well, it's certainly a start. You're using actual words now.

 

However there are still a good many issues with your self-ascribed lable, the largest of which being that there are so many different stages, phases, and interpretations of the US Constitution that it renders your phrasing meaningless.

 

Are you a strict constructionist? Are you Hamiltonian? How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison? How about the Louisiana Purchase? What of Lincoln's executive war powers? The list is endless.

Posted

Well, it's certainly a start. You're using actual words now.

 

However there are still a good many issues with your self-ascribed lable, the largest of which being that there are so many different stages, phases, and interpretations of the US Constitution that it renders your phrasing meaningless.

 

Are you a strict constructionist? Are you Hamiltonian? How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison? How about the Louisiana Purchase? What of Lincoln's executive war powers? The list is endless.

Dick
Posted
Dick

Hardly. I'm a firm believer that people should understand the words they use to lable themselves, and that those words should be unambiguous. He's labled himself a "Constitutionalist", but which version does he adhere to?

Posted

Hardly. I'm a firm believer that people should understand the words they use to lable themselves, and that those words should be unambiguous. He's labled himself a "Constitutionalist", but which version does he adhere to?

 

Well...for all you know, he used the right word, and you misunderstood it. He picked the label.

Posted (edited)

Well...for all you know, he used the right word, and you misunderstood it. He picked the label.

It's impossible for him to be wrong, and that's rather my point. You can't argue a position regarding Constitutional Law and not assume the lable of Constitutionalist unless your position is that the document is irrelevant and should be done away with. I'm asking that he be more specific, because his lable is so broad that it's functionally meaningless. Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Posted

It's impossible for him to be wrong, and that's rather my point. You can't argue a position regarding Constitutional Law and not assume the lable of Constitutionalist unless your position is that the document is irrelevant and should be done away with. I'm asking that he be more specific, because his lable is so broad that it's functionally meaningless.

 

You're no fun.

Posted

 

 

You're no fun.

 

As much as this pains me, Tom is right here. You are being a major dick. Thank me, my saying this brings youins like really close together. :-)

Posted

How asking someone to clarify and refine a viewpoint they've volunteered into a public forum after pointing out the flaws and even giving some examples can be construed as dickish I'll never know. Unfun I can see, but not dickish.

Posted

How asking someone to clarify and refine a viewpoint they've volunteered into a public forum after pointing out the flaws and even giving some examples can be construed as dickish I'll never know. Unfun I can see, but not dickish.

 

Lighten up. Didn't you know Thursday was tolerance day?

Posted

Lighten up. Didn't you know Thursday was tolerance day?

I'm far more tolerant than I should be, every single day. I don't need a holiday. My life is an exercise in zen-like patience. ;)

 

On a serious note, I hope Cinga will engage me. This is a great topic that gets buried here, and I'd like to change that.

×
×
  • Create New...