3 ms·
What you're missing in your first paragraph is that legitimacy is being given to what is illegitimate, and when that failure has taken place, it then becomes pe
by JasonFruit 7y ago
What you're missing in your first paragraph is that legitimacy is being given to what is illegitimate, and when that failure has taken place, it then becomes permanent, because, after all, if the Supreme Court says it's okay, who am I to argue?
I'd be less inclined to say, "spawn of the devil… for the enslavement of mankind," than "parasitic beast bent on survival at any cost." (If it were less parasitic, fewer accountants would be needed.) Like a tapeworm, the government parasite doesn't require malice to be harmful.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoA mechanism that allows the obviously illegitimate clearly will have no legitimacy itself, and so can't legitimise anything in particular. I don't see what the fuss is about?
- JasonFruit 7y agoWould you use the Dred Scott decision to prove your point? What about Korematsu, Yasui, or Hirabayashi v. United States?