That your best shot, accusing me of being a lawyer? The entire lexicon of epithets and perjoratives at your disposal, and thats the best you can do.
Reread my post to you. You said you were "ordinary" and not "a lawyer". My #443 was a compliment. It was a slam on lawyers, not you. I'm not trying to give you my best shots, but rather my best arguments.
Here's another example of a pitiful, even semi-deranged 'shot':
"-- you need to go off in a corner with tpaine and come to grips with your assertion that majority rule canceling out fundamental rights is OK, as long as its a super-majority.
Where he comes up with the delusion that we are advocating that a super-majority can cancel out fundamental rights is simply beyond rational comprehension.
As we've seen, sampleman & crowd do indeed want a system where Congress [and States/cities] can simply pass any law that seems popular at the time, and leave it to the electorate to decide if it was 'right'.
-- Unable to rationally debate the constitutionality of this specific issue, they simply ignore any mention of it..
How about an answer Sampleman ? You haven't bothered to have one of those in the last dozen or so of your posts.
"-- Running away from the issue isn't a good sign for your argument's strength. --- How about being brave and making one? --"
Or is this your new 'style' -- where you include me in your 'tar baby' imaginings, then don't have the guts to ping me to debate the issues you raise?