So you claim you have “concerns”. Rather than research, you air them here using strictest definition you can find even though you are not sure if that is the definition you agree with. You call anyone who doesn’t accept your definition (the one you aren’t sure you agree with) names if they do t like you airing your “concern” here (the concern based on a strict definition that even you are not sure you agree with).
Add in lectures on logic and a tantrum about how you refuse to vote for someone who violates your strongly felt principal that you can’t be bothered to research (or if you have, you won’t post or stand behind what you post as what you believe).... You are starting to look a lot like a troll.
I've done a bit of research, but admittedly it's not exactly interesting subject matter to me.
You call anyone who doesn’t accept your definition (the one you aren’t sure you agree with) names if they do t like you airing your “concern” here (the concern based on a strict definition that even you are not sure you agree with).
If you're talking about Ansel; it's not because he doesn't accept the definition, but because he is so utterly refuses to listen/converse.
I've had discussions with him in the past. (Some of the threads w/ the War on Drugs are particularly illuminating of Ansel's immunity to logic.)
Add in lectures on logic and a tantrum about how you refuse to vote for someone who violates your strongly felt principal that you can’t be bothered to research (or if you have, you won’t post or stand behind what you post as what you believe).... You are starting to look a lot like a troll.
I've researched, but the problem is in how trustworthy the sources are.
The courts, in particular, aren't very trustworthy (Kentucky v. King has the USSC straight up admitting that the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches… followed closely by: One well-recognized exception applies when “‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”*)
Absent the courts, it's wading through legislation — which is of questionable value, as normal acts of congress cannot alter the Constitution — and old legal texts — which, depending on age and origin, are of questionable value — and other people's research — which is also of questionable value.
So, where am I to find clear, reliably-correct answers?
* You get that? the fourth amendment which requires (1) that all searches be reasonable; and (b) that a warrant be obtained for a search flies right out the window because of exigent circumstances… and this piece of crap is from the USSC.