3 ms·

To keep things simple, I'll again refute the factual errors alone. > That's not a false equivalency, it's an actual equivalency. Wrong again. "This interpret

by bmelton 13y ago

To keep things simple, I'll again refute the factual errors alone. > That's not a false equivalency, it's an actual equivalency. Wrong again. "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution" != "The Constitution is Constitutional". It isn't true generally, it isn't true practically, and it definitely is not true in this instance. Beyond that, the deliberate misconstruing of its meaning, a meaning for which we have clear precedent and case law, is simply farcical. You are wrong here, I've explained why, and your refusal to accept that isn't a rebuttal. > In no way does judicial precedence rewrite the Constitution whatsoever. Yes, it does. Ratifications to the Constitution, and in fact any contract, defer in authority to the more recent amendment wherever terms are equally asserted. The term for it is "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant", which states, as I asserted, that subsequent laws repeal predecessors that disagree with them. The recency of precedent matters, whether you care to accede that it does or not. > It's actually kind of laughable that you think this is true, because of your massive beef with the PATRIOT act. Weren't you just saying how unconstitutional the PATRIOT act is, and how it steps on all kinds of other laws? I assume the point you're making here is that I'm being inconsistent by asserting that recency reigns supreme, so the PATRIOT act, being newer than the Constitution, should be most current legal interpretation? Because that is easily falsifiable. 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 states the following: A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Since the passage of the 21st amendment, Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the sale or transport of intoxicating liquors, because it would be unconstitutional. The most recent stance, in the Constitution, states that the sale and/or transport of liquor is allowed, so if Congress were to pass a law prohibiting that, it would be void. It would not, under Constitution scrutiny, _even be a law at all_, despite it being on the books and in the Congressional register. No citizen would be obligated to uphold it, no police bound to uphold it, no courts, etc. For this reason, where the PATRIOT act infringes the Constitution, it is null, void. The language comprising the PATRIOT act, specifically as referring to the 'secret lists' that lack oversight have been found unconstitutional on no less than two occasions, and predecessors to the PATRIOT act were struck down on grounds of unconstitutionality. Regardless, Congress passed it again, with minor tweaks to confuse the issue, which was found unconstitutional as well, for which the mitigation was the insertion of the FISA court, to provide oversight, which is currently what's being challenged in various places as well. If the PATRIOT act wishes to supersede portions of the Constitution, there's a Constitutionally prescribed process for that, and it's ratification. The process of ratification is not the same as simply "passing a new law" through Congress, but I'll leave the procedure as an exercise for you to Google, as it isn't terribly relevant to this discussion. > You pretend like I've been insulting your character > you're not in power, and that scares you. > you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about > I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me > you come up with these crackpot, "The US government is out of control!" theories to help sleep at night > it's just sad that someone like you can have even an infinitesimally small sway in how this country is run Those are character evaluations, that you claim not to be doing. Well, actually, they're character judgements, and one of them is a self-affirmation of your own intractability, which is something you're apparently trying to push onto me. > I want you to have to come to terms with the fact that you don't actually know very much on this topic You have no idea how much I know on the subject. As every counter you've offered is literally riddled with falsifiability, I don't know how you can continue to make the assertion that I'm under informed here. Regardless, I don't wish to impugn your character as baselessly as you have mine, so I demur, but saying things like "[when a law was enacted] has absolutely nothing to do with judicial precedence whatsoever" and then expect one to take you seriously as you insult their intelligence... it's a bit of a tough sell. > and how offended you get when I've challenged your opinion. I'm not offended that you've challenged my opinions. You really haven't. To suggest that you've challenged my opinions is to suggest that by asserting that 2+2=42, you've challenged math. As for answering your questions, I confess, I really don't desire to continue this conversation any further, and haven't for some time. This thread is a disgrace to HN, as has been both of our conduct. I've tried, and failed, to conduct the argument civilly. I'll concede that if you're trolling, as I suspect, you've won. I've been trolled into violating my own stop-loss on three separate occasions, but of course, there's an XKCD for that, and I'm as human as the next guy who argues on the internet.

diminoten 13y ago
You do this thing, when you write, where you take what you're trying to argue, and presuppose it as correct. You've done this in a number of places. First, you start by presupposing I even said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution", which isn't actually what I said at all. Had I actually written something like that, you'd be correct, but I didn't. The disagreement we're having revolves around that fact, but instead of actually arguing the point, you simply assumed it to be what you said, and then continued to draw conclusions. Every conclusion you've made on that topic after you presupposed what I said as something I didn't actually say is therefore incorrect. If you want to argue, then the point you'd be arguing is whether or not I said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution". The rest of your argument hinges on it, and I don't believe I said that at all. Then, you begin talking about "judicial precedence". I don't think you know what this phrase means, because you keep using it interchangeably with the word "law". A judicial precedence is, as far as these [0][1][2][3][4] sources tell me, is more or less when a judge hands down a ruling on a section of law that stands as a guideline for future judges to rule against that law. This is not, as you keep saying, a "rewriting" of any kind of law - constitutional or otherwise. This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the ratification of constitutional amendments. A ruling may interpret a particular part of a law or the Constitution in a certain way, but it doesn't literally or figuratively "rewrite" said law. Furthermore, judicial precedence can change over time, or be superseded by a higher court's ruling. THIS is where time matters, not in the laws as written themselves. Which brings me to my third point, your misunderstanding of how laws are written. There aren't "revisions" of laws, where you have to know which law was passed when. There is one set of laws. This set of laws gets changed over time - rewritten, modified, redacted, etc. There is, at any given time, only one body of text that constitutes federal law[5], and one body of text that constitutes state law[6]. Again, when a law is appended to these bodies of text, this has nothing to do with how or when rulings on these laws are passed down. When a law is passed, and when it's first ruled on (setting precedence, as in judicial precedence), are completely irrelevant. Then you start getting confused, and go on a bit of a rant. You're in the middle of talking about judicial precedence, and you seem to kind of mold that in with Jurisprudence, which deals with the constitutionality of laws. It seems to me you think they're related? They're not, just to be clear. You also don't seem clear on what happens to a law when it's found unconstitutional. You say, "It would not even be a law at all" which isn't true. It'd be a law. Just an unconstitutional one, at least until a higher court rules, or another court of equal level rules differently. And then we get to the part of the comment where you act like my observations are without cause or justification. Here's the thing - you seem to believe, with a high (very high) level of certainty, that you're educated on this topic. It's that very certainty that undermines your credibility, however. People who are actually educated on the topic of constitutional law don't have your confidence. It's not a very consensus-oriented topic, even among experts. I think you know where I'm going with this, but in case you don't, here are some links: [7][8][9]. Suffice it to say, you share all the hallmarks of a fanatic. And I know you think this is a personal attack, and not relevant, but I just urge you to do more than you usually do for this specific belief. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent [1] - http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-meant-by-judicial-precedence [2] - http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-judicial-precedent [3] - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Judicial+precedent [4] - http://nuweb2.northumbria.ac.uk/bedemo/Sources_of_English_Law/page_10.htm [5] - http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml [6] - http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm [7] - http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-are-overly-confident-in-their-own-knowledge-despite-errors.html [8] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect [9] - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-why-shaking-someones-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/ Edit: I can't reply any further (no 'reply' message appears), but it genuinely frightens me that you've written laws. I'm going to live on the assumption that you've just lied about that.

by bmelton 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

You do this thing, when you write, where you take what you're trying to argue, and presuppose it as correct. You've done this in a number of places. First, you start by presupposing I even said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution", which isn't actually what I said at all. Had I actually written something like that, you'd be correct, but I didn't. The disagreement we're having revolves around that fact, but instead of actually arguing the point, you simply assumed it to be what you said, and then continued to draw conclusions. Every conclusion you've made on that topic after you presupposed what I said as something I didn't actually say is therefore incorrect. If you want to argue, then the point you'd be arguing is whether or not I said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution". The rest of your argument hinges on it, and I don't believe I said that at all. Then, you begin talking about "judicial precedence". I don't think you know what this phrase means, because you keep using it interchangeably with the word "law". A judicial precedence is, as far as these [0][1][2][3][4] sources tell me, is more or less when a judge hands down a ruling on a section of law that stands as a guideline for future judges to rule against that law. This is not, as you keep saying, a "rewriting" of any kind of law - constitutional or otherwise. This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the ratification of constitutional amendments. A ruling may interpret a particular part of a law or the Constitution in a certain way, but it doesn't literally or figuratively "rewrite" said law. Furthermore, judicial precedence can change over time, or be superseded by a higher court's ruling. THIS is where time matters, not in the laws as written themselves. Which brings me to my third point, your misunderstanding of how laws are written. There aren't "revisions" of laws, where you have to know which law was passed when. There is one set of laws. This set of laws gets changed over time - rewritten, modified, redacted, etc. There is, at any given time, only one body of text that constitutes federal law[5], and one body of text that constitutes state law[6]. Again, when a law is appended to these bodies of text, this has nothing to do with how or when rulings on these laws are passed down. When a law is passed, and when it's first ruled on (setting precedence, as in judicial precedence), are completely irrelevant. Then you start getting confused, and go on a bit of a rant. You're in the middle of talking about judicial precedence, and you seem to kind of mold that in with Jurisprudence, which deals with the constitutionality of laws. It seems to me you think they're related? They're not, just to be clear. You also don't seem clear on what happens to a law when it's found unconstitutional. You say, "It would not even be a law at all" which isn't true. It'd be a law. Just an unconstitutional one, at least until a higher court rules, or another court of equal level rules differently. And then we get to the part of the comment where you act like my observations are without cause or justification. Here's the thing - you seem to believe, with a high (very high) level of certainty, that you're educated on this topic. It's that very certainty that undermines your credibility, however. People who are actually educated on the topic of constitutional law don't have your confidence. It's not a very consensus-oriented topic, even among experts. I think you know where I'm going with this, but in case you don't, here are some links: [7][8][9]. Suffice it to say, you share all the hallmarks of a fanatic. And I know you think this is a personal attack, and not relevant, but I just urge you to do more than you usually do for this specific belief. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent [1] - http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-meant-by-judicial-precedence [2] - http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-judicial-precedent [3] - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Judicial+precedent [4] - http://nuweb2.northumbria.ac.uk/bedemo/Sources_of_English_Law/page_10.htm [5] - http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml [6] - http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm [7] - http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-are-overly-confident-in-their-own-knowledge-despite-errors.html [8] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect [9] - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-why-shaking-someones-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/ Edit: I can't reply any further (no 'reply' message appears), but it genuinely frightens me that you've written laws. I'm going to live on the assumption that you've just lied about that.