Suddenly
Unregistered
S
Tony said:
(Smack!!)
Evidence?
The draft, a common sense solution.
- Thread starter ManfredVonRichthoffen
- Start date
(Smack!!)
Evidence?
Suddenly
Unregistered
S
Tony said:
It is an irrelevant question, not to mention a loaded and insulting question. I guess since your argument, if you can even call it that as at best what you have is an assertion, about the draft and the 13th amendment is falling apart under scrutiny, you have decided to ask whether I condone involuntary servitude for the purpose of....
I can't really finish that without an allegation of malice or drooling stupidity, so I guess I'll leave it at that.....
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
shanek said:
Yes, but to be fair, it in no way specifies how that jury is to be created. And the method by which one gets put on Jury duty is really the point of Suddenly's argument, not the fact of the jury itself.
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
The role of the USSC is to clear up ambiguities, to decide between two compelling arguments. If only one side of a dispute has any real validity, the USSC has no power to overrrule the clear, undisputed meaning of the Constitution. The fact that you are unable to summon any real argument to support the draft, and are forced to instead dispute the legitimacy of our questioning it at all, shows the ridiculousness of your position.
You people remind me of 1inChrist, who attempted to use logic to show that logic is flawed. To use anything but the rulings of the USSC to support the proposition that the Constitution says that it has no meaning independent of USSC rulings is to show the folly of the propostion.
You say that the Constitution says that the USSC is the sole determiner of the meaning of the Constitution. We say that the Constitution says that the draft is unconstitutional. The former cannot be valid unless the latter is; they both rely on arguing from the Constitution, rather than USSC rulings. If you attempt to pursuade lay people of your position by showing that it is a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, you are implicitly accepting that a lay person's idea of a reasonable interpretation is determative, which completely contradicts your very position. If you are asked by a lay person to defend your position, the only response that is actually consistent with your own position would be some variant of "because that's what the USSC believes". But of course, that wouldn't make you look very good, would it? So instead you pretend to not be completely dismissive of lay people, in order to support your position that the opinion of lay people matters not one whit.
And even if one were to accept the ludicrous idea that the Constitution affords the USSC dictatotorial powers, there's still the legal principle that sucessive amendments supersede previous versions of the Constitution. So you can say what you want about what the part you quote says, but the part we quote says that the draft is unconstitutional. And since the part we quote is more recent, it takes precedence.
You people remind me of 1inChrist, who attempted to use logic to show that logic is flawed. To use anything but the rulings of the USSC to support the proposition that the Constitution says that it has no meaning independent of USSC rulings is to show the folly of the propostion.
You say that the Constitution says that the USSC is the sole determiner of the meaning of the Constitution. We say that the Constitution says that the draft is unconstitutional. The former cannot be valid unless the latter is; they both rely on arguing from the Constitution, rather than USSC rulings. If you attempt to pursuade lay people of your position by showing that it is a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, you are implicitly accepting that a lay person's idea of a reasonable interpretation is determative, which completely contradicts your very position. If you are asked by a lay person to defend your position, the only response that is actually consistent with your own position would be some variant of "because that's what the USSC believes". But of course, that wouldn't make you look very good, would it? So instead you pretend to not be completely dismissive of lay people, in order to support your position that the opinion of lay people matters not one whit.
And even if one were to accept the ludicrous idea that the Constitution affords the USSC dictatotorial powers, there's still the legal principle that sucessive amendments supersede previous versions of the Constitution. So you can say what you want about what the part you quote says, but the part we quote says that the draft is unconstitutional. And since the part we quote is more recent, it takes precedence.