[robertpaulsen]

"So what is wrong if the proof of that claim is requested?"

Nothing.

But, as you point out, it was usually only MrLeRoy who requested it (and quite frankly most of the time he requested it simply to see if the poster was able to back up the claim, not because he needed the proof -- an annoyance, really).

Just about everyone on the pro-WOD side lets these "but it's unconstitutional" claims slip on by. Or they take the initiative and post the truth themselves.

[tacticalogic]

Or they take the initiative and post the truth themselves.

I have yet to see such "truth" that will withstand scrutiny based on an "enduring document" view of the Constitution.

[CSM]

"But, as you point out, it was usually only MrLeRoy who requested it (and quite frankly most of the time he requested it simply to see if the poster was able to back up the claim, not because he needed the proof -- an annoyance, really)."

Yep, and at least one other person wanted to see that proof of the claims (me, in most cases anyway). Now that he has been banned those requests are not going to stop. Is the main benefit of the ban the fact that those making the claims will no longer be annoyed by having to prove their claims?