Oh, I think you do. You have your own personal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of communist.
"while avoiding being directly resposible for the arguments they present."
Coming from you, that's a stitch. My arguments are supported by cites, quotes, and court opinion. Yours are unsupported feelings.
"and then claiming "mischaracterization".
For the third and final time, "mob rule" was not my phrase. The next time you attribute that phrase to me you'd better have a link to it. Be forewarned, I will hit abuse.
I do not assume to have my "own personal interpretation" of the US Constitution. I try to interpret it as closely as possible to what it meant to the Framers. In order to do that, I consciously disregard the currently accepted meanings of words like "commerce" and "regulate" and first try to discern what those words meant to them and then apply those meanings to the Constitution. This is something you will not do.
Coming from you, that's a stitch. My arguments are supported by cites, quotes, and court opinion. Yours are unsupported feelings.
Your arguments are "cites, quotes, and court opinion". They are no less opinion than mine. All you're doing is using them as proxy for your own opinion and insulating yourself from answering questions about the basis for that opinion. You find a quote from someone who agrees with you, submit that as your argument, and then tell anyone who questions any of it they'll have to take it up with the original author who conveniently isn't going to be available to ask.
For the third and final time, "mob rule" was not my phrase. The next time you attribute that phrase to me you'd better have a link to it. Be forewarned, I will hit abuse.
You seem to remember posting it, so I think it's pretty safe to say we'll be able to find it. I'm willing to bet that when we do, your use of that phrase is neither quoted nor attributed as being from someone else.