“No, all it ‘means’ is that you’ve finally begun the ad hominem attacks”
Let the record reflect that she called me a 2 year old and I called her a unicorn believer.
“signaling that you adhere to a ‘living’ Constitution instead of the Original Intent of the Founders.”
You’re showing your ignorance of the Constitution and our legal system. Legal precedent is not a “living” Constitution argument. It’s real law and how we decide problems that arise in law.
“Look Tin: case By the time that case was heard in 1884, the bastardization of our founding document had already begun. “
Oh, I see...Pink unicorns giving strawberry milk again eh?
LOL! No, I said arguing with someone who supplied no source for their assertion was LIKE arguing with a 2 year old.
Your inability to differentiate between the 2 concepts is not my problem.
-----
Legal precedent is not a “living” Constitution argument.
If you don't know what the legal definition of legal precedent, it is. You were provided that definition in post 75.
1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment.
Your 1884 case was not heard by an appeals court, thus no 'legal precedent' was set. Your attempt to behave as if there WAS one when by legal definition, there was not, illustrates your belief in a living Constitution.
-----
Oh, I see...Pink unicorns giving strawberry milk again eh?
Your lack of response to the Greisser case is quite telling. It was almost identical to the Look Tin one yet had totally desperate determinations.
Guess the slavish devotion to your federal masters has blinded you into giving a more rational, mature and insightful response.
-----
So tell me...what will you do when the federal government defines 'militia' only as law enforcement officers?