your work below is so misguided it is funny. If you are trying to say that something found unconstitutional in the 1950s means it was always unconstitutional - you are going to need write one hell of a law review article. And you are probably going to need to get a law degree. You are not competent to make that statement nor have you studied enough law to even understand what you are saying. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain it to you. Let me just promise you - so far you have proven you have no grasp of jurisprudence. Especially because you are factually incorrect. The funny thing is that your logic is so weak you again fall flat on you face. The very existence of the case and that ruling proved my statement. Religion was so much part of the fabric of this country that state constitutions required people to believe in God to hold office. Some even required stronger beliefs. The fact the case existed proved my point. The ruling was inconsequential. Constitutional or not - my facts were proven. You must have failed logic and debate in high school - assuming you are old enough to take high school level courses.
You don't know what I've got jem boy. It is however perfectly clear that no lawyer fit to be called lawyer, or worth their salt for that matter, would go through law school spelling cite as site. I'll take no lessons on jurisprudence from someone that gaumless. So you think that any act or process which is not consistent with the Constitution (unconstitutional) is in fact not always unconstitutional. Then it follows from that perverse logic of yours that a criminal act of itself is not always a criminal act. What are you trying to do, suggest that there is no definition of wrong-doing in law ? If something is found unconstitutional then by definition it always was unconstitutional. Murder found was always muder. Then as officers of their state, they and their state constitutions, were always acting against the U.S. Constitution. As officers acting on behalf of a state, it is reasonable to expect , they never had any right to form a code requiring people to carry out such a practice contrary to the U.S. Constitution. You are trying to argue that nothing is wrong until it is found to be. So your wrong-doings only started when you were caught . Ridiculous.It was always incorrect for you to spell cite as site. It didn't become incorrect when you were found to be doing it. It is the case that religon often and actively encourages the silly, the absurd, the contradictory , the perverse and the immoral to be considered normal and acceptable practice within its realms. That is what you have got. However the U.S. Constitution will always remain above all that . Thank goodness.
Your lack of logical thinking was just made perfectly manifest for all to see. I made no such statements. I challenged you to prove your point. Apparently your lack of competence in the area, makes you illogical. Let me help you: What is your thesis: That a supreme court case in the 1950s - does what makes state constitutions - unconstitutional back to the constitutional convention? Is that really your argument? What is your support for that thesis Is your support controlling or do you have sound jurisprudence? What are the counters to your thesis Distinguish those counters Conclusion It is up to your to prove that a Supreme Court ruling in the 1950s makes State Constitutions - unconstitutional back to the ratification of the constitution. That is one hell of thesis- prove it with sound jurisprudence. Next, then realize even if you do - it is irrelevant to the point I made. My statements are not invalidity by your potentially unsound point. You are way out of your comfort zone here Stu. Your logic sucks and your juris prudence sucks.
.."does what makes state constitutions - unconstitutional back to the constitutional convention? " First try communicating in English. Then perhaps you can be shown where you are not grasping even the simplest of concepts. Language , legal or otherwise. "It is up to your to prove that a Supreme Court ruling in the 1950s makes State Constitutions - unconstitutional back to the ratification of the constitution." Warmer now. Ratification of which constitution are you talking about here? The state's own constitution or the U.S. Constitution? I suggest this. 1.Read what is being said to you . 2. Then try again to understand what has actually been said. 3.There may be some words in it like Constitution and Unconstitutional which you could look up in the dictionary. That would be a good start 4. Then check with me the parts of what was actually said that you still don't understand. Coherently if you can manage to. Instead of getting all confused and tied up in knots trying to make me produce a "thesis" which I don't need , or construing silly arguments I didn't make, because you can't comprehend the point, just ask yourself which part of - - if something unconstitutional is found unconstitutional then it was always unconstitutional , all the time - - don't you understand. Then get back to me. You tit.
nice evasion -- If you were worth the time perhaps I would spend the time spell checking or sentence checking. I have a typing problem - you have a logic problem which has festered into into a lack of balls. How come you won't state your thesis about the the Supreme Courts decision. You were acting like a big time legal eagle and that somehow your argument trumped AAA. Y Yet now you won't even explain your inarticulate argument. You are intellectually bankrupt.
My company used to have this "Personal Holiday". This allow individuals to take it the way they wanted.
Ok but in this case, how can non-muslims complain if the muslims are in the majority at the workplace? Or even a big enough minority that their wishes get listened to? If I have to put up with jesus freaks closing western society down for days on end around xmas and on Sunday, then said jesus freaks can't complain if some muslims want to close down an assembly line to kneel down and say Allah Akhbar.
That is the logic I was supporting on this thread. I agree. However, I would like to see our immigration polices subjected to a popular vote. I do not like to see the will of the people subverted by our politicians. What we have now is a an immigration policy designed to weaken the control of the majority. Teddy Kennedy threatened and executed on his plan.
" I would like to see our immigration polices subjected to a popular vote." We don't have direct popular vote on federal immigration policies. We don't even have a direct popular vote on the presidency. If you can get a Constitutional Amendment to change the way our system of representative government works...go for it. Or get the people to work with the current system and vote in different politicians... The will of the people is not subverted, the people who have voted in the current politicians have only themselves to blame... If immigration policy is really such a strong populist issue, then it should be easy to find a populist candidate to run on this issue.
semantics my friend what do you call a politician who get major contributions for "access"? You call him what? I call him corrupted. Legally - perhaps but corrupted nonetheless. Did you see the public will get fired up last year when they were going to try and pass the "amnesty bill" Just the fact that they tried shows you that the gov't is not following the will of the people. But - that is a side issue. I like libertads idea about using the internet to empower the people. it is time.