It's funny, because in the couple of months I've been on FR, I've encountered a number of different debating tactics. There've been some who've distorted what I've said, some who've just responded in these total tangential non sequiturs, and some who just get plain nasty. But you have a very unique style - you just outright dismiss points that contradict your position, and don't even bother to deal with them. It's actually kind of amusing.
In the four years + that I've been here, your type comes and goes constantly. -- You clowns somehow assume your bafflegab style of bull makes 'points'. It seldom does. - Thus, most of it is dismissed, leading to your little snits, like this one.
- You are right, it's amusing.
But just in case you're willing to actually do some debating, I'll say this once again for your, uh, consideration. Due process refers to the actual process by which a law is administered. It has nothing to do with the kind of restriction on activity that the law imposes.
That is your amusing opinion, contradicted by the USSC opinion I posted yesterday. - You're trumped.
I know that you want it to mean more than that. I know that your political philosophy calls for a very minimalist approach to governing (which really isn't all that bad a philosophy), but the law says what it says, not what you want it to say. Now you can dismiss that as nitpicking all you want - as if the meaning of the words contained in the laws has nothing to do with what the law actually says! - but you'll just be building a wall of ignorance around yourself (and judging from the results, it looks like construction is coming along just fine).
Another fine little meaningless rant. Amusing.
------------------------
Thanks for your admission. Rare honesty from a statist.
So let's see: I was saying "Live and let live", and you were demanding federal intervention to right the wrongs in your locale, but I'm the statist. Ah yes, it's all clear now... (?)
-- You weren't saying that, & - I wasn't either. - In context, you made a 'statist' type admission. - Which is why you didn't repost it.
-----------------------------
Nope, the constitution doesn't give the feds the power. The political system has. YOU are the one confused.
What do you think, the 14th amendment enforces itself? What would have been the point of passing it if they didn't expect the feds to intervene to make it stick?
The 14th gives the 'feds' no power to violate legitimate state power. ---- It merely restates the limits. State cannot violate the individual inalienable rights we have always possessed.
-------------------------------
You've made my point, - in 'bold'. -- The 14th is not the problem here. The states submit to the feds for political reasons, not constitutional ones.
Well, sure, in a paragraph that size, you can pluck out just about any sentence in isolation and have it say something that was never intended. Allow me to highlight the points that would pluck it back into context: "That [referring to judicial harassment using the 14th amendment as a pretext], combined with their dependence on federal subsidies to do just about anything (which often is necessitated by the increased costs that litigation imposes), creates a culture of total submission to federal authority within state governments." In other words, 14th-amendment litigation makes states vulnerable to all sorts of Jesse Jackson-style pressure groups, and weakens their resistance. The increased costs that result from such litigation, along with the measures they have to take to avoid it, increases the states' dependence on Washington, which in turn further erodes their sovereignty. Get it? (why do I ask)
Indeed, why bother? -- Your own words keep digging you into that same 'political' hole.
Our political system is corrupt, -- not the constitution.
---------------------------------
Read some history. There are dozens of USSC decisions citing the 14th. Try 'findlaw'.
I wasn't asking for all the cases which cite the 14th, I was asking you which ones you think were essential to furthering the cause of liberty in this country (or does Findlaw have a tpaine Hall of Fame section?) I think you'd be adamantly opposed to any attempt to change the Constitution in way that removes that power of the feds. Is that true? No. Really? So you wouldn't be opposed to a repeal of the 14th amendment? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
-- Really? -- I suppose you think you've made a clever 'point' again. This is getting boring. Close to dismissal time.
I'd be very interested in seeing whatever evidence you might have that the framers of the 14th amendment intended to overturn or even water down these laws.
To be valid, common criminal law requires a victim, an injured party. -- You want the state to be that injured party....Apparently, you want the state to enforce 'morals' as a majority defines them.
Nice try at evading my question by impugning my motives for asking (speaking of straw men). Maybe you'd like to try answering it, now?
No thanks.
-- I answered, - you aren't happy, and call it evading. I'm just gonna dismiss yet more of your pointless bull.
If there were other posters on this thread - even one - who react to what I have to say the way you do, then I might be inclined to think that the problem is with me, not you. But as I said, your obfuscational abilities are quite unique. And by the way, you're the only one on this thread who's been doing any snitting. The rest of us have been holding normal conversations, in case you didn't happen to notice.
That is your amusing opinion, contradicted by the USSC opinion I posted yesterday.
Real profound observation there. Of course that opinion was contradicting what I had to say, because I was contradicting it. But apparently you don't want to get involved. That says enough.
Another fine little meaningless rant. Amusing.
Yup, I didn't think you'd actually want to discuss the subject, once the logic didn't start heading in your direction. It's also amusing that you think you can score more points by using my own word back at me. Cle-verr!
You weren't saying that, & - I wasn't either. - In context, you made a 'statist' type admission. - Which is why you didn't repost it.
And I notice you didn't repost it either, in order to prove your point. This is what I said: "I'm happy to let you and the rest of the people of your state work things out for yourselves. I'll deal with my state." In other words, "Live and let live." And yes, you were calling for federal intervention, whether you acknowledge it or not. Unless you really think the feds should just stop worrying about trying to enforce the 14th.
The 14th gives the 'feds' no power to violate legitimate state power.
Now there's a nice little Clintonesque line. Sure they have no power to violate "legitimate" state power, but as the SCOTUS opinion that you keep bringing up makes perfectly clear, the federal courts claim full authority do decide on their own what constitutes "legitimate" without giving any concrete understaning as to how they're to decide that - meaning, they can just inject their own personal opinions at pleasure. And my, how they do.
Indeed, why bother? -- Your own words keep digging you into that same 'political' hole. Our political system is corrupt, -- not the constitution.
That wall of ignorance is still holding strong, I see.
I answered, - you aren't happy, and call it evading. I'm just gonna dismiss yet more of your pointless bull.
Here, you're really showing your true colors. You were all too happy to answer me back when you thought you had a great answer for me - remember that non sequitur about "victims" which I shot out of the sky? - but then once you're painted in to a corner, "I'm just gonna dismiss yet more of your pointless bull," even though my question hadn't changed, only your inadequacy at answering it.
And no, you didn't even come close to answering the question. I asked you what evidence you had that the framers of the 14th intended to overturn these various state laws I mentioned, and you responded with your own tin-pot ideologies as to what you considered a "valid" law - as if I truly wanted to hear any more of your wisdom on that subject.
Anyway, you can dismiss all you want - you said that earlier in the thread, remember? But then you started up again with me, all on your own. Feel free to start up again any time you like.