- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
This thread is not about the 9th Amendment.
More weaseling.
This thread is not about the 9th Amendment.
The Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, various letters, and the Articles of Confederation are not law, have zero authority, and cannot be used as evidence before the Supreme Court. They don't matter.
Those were not used as evidence, which is what I said, that they're inadmissible as evidence.
The Justices themselves are free to use whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it's admissible as evidence.
This thread is for understanding the Moderate view, not for arguing that the Moderate view is right or wrong. I will not answer your question in this thread, but I will invite you to return to the topic.Is the "Moderate view" correct, or isn't it? Yes, or no? Take a stand.
This thread is for understanding the Moderate view, not for arguing that the Moderate view is right or wrong. I will not answer your question in this thread, but I will invite you to return to the topic.
SCOTUS uses them as a basis for rulings, we aren't arguing a case, we are discussing the basis for decisions.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a good eveningThat is the weaseling I expected.
Yes, the Justices can use them, but not the Prosecution nor Defense.
How do you not understand that the parties with a dispute are not the same party as the Court?
The Justices can use references to decide a case that the Prosecution and Defense are not allowed to use when presenting their arguments.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a good evening
Thing is, I only have your word for it. You, someone I don't know, from the internet.That's ridiculously wrong. As wrong as calling the sides, when arguing before the Supreme Court, "Prosecution" and "Defense." If you knew what you were talking about, you'd call them "appellant" and "respondent."
Thing is, I only have your word for it. You, someone I don't know, from the internet.
If I've used an incorrect term, that doesn't invalidate my argument. All it does is discount my own authority, but as I'm not using my own authority in the first place, that discount doesn't matter.
You haven't provided any source material at all, while I have, so believe me I do not take your word for it. Good morningAnd you don't need to take my word for it.
You haven't provided any source material at all, while I have, so believe me I do not take your word for it. Good morning
Mhmm ok, sure I didn't :roll:You have provided no source material for your claim that parties are not allowed to even argue documents like the Declaration in front of the Supreme Court....
Mhmm ok, sure I didn't :roll:
InB4 "show me where you did, then"...just proves you didn't consume what has already been provided. Lame.
So, "yuh-HUH!!!" OK.
As I said, if you cared about truth, if you cared about arguing in good faith, you'd find out if you're right. Not to "win"; just to be honest, and correct.
Iv'e explained before that there is no "win" on this thread. There is no victory for any party here, including myself. This thread is for educating others on the Moderate view. That's it. There is no 'win' condition, not even for me.
Moderates welcome corrections.What's the point of "educating" anyone on a theory that's incorrect?
Moderates welcome corrections.
Please link to a credible 3rd party source for any point you feel I was incorrect on.
Please remember that this thread is for explaining the Moderate view, not for arguing that Moderates are right or wrong. Your sources showing that I have not correctly represented the Moderate view are appropriate, while sources arguing against the Moderate view per-se are off-topic.
The only evidence I have dismissed are Founding Father quotes, and I gave my exact reasons why. Simply watching the complete OP video would have told anyone that Founding Father quotes were uniformly dismissed by Moderates. Did you not watch the OP video in its entirety before making your very first post in this thread, as you should have?Plenty of people have done that. You've ignored and dismissed all of it.
I ask you again -- what's the point of "explaining" or "educating on" something that's incorrect?
The only evidence I have dismissed are Founding Father quotes, and I gave my exact reasons why. Simply watching the complete OP video would have told anyone that Founding Father quotes were uniformly dismissed by Moderates. Did you not watch the OP video in its entirety before making your very first post in this thread, as you should have?
Moderates welcome corrections.
Please link to a credible 3rd party source for any point you feel I was incorrect on.
Please remember that this thread is for explaining the Moderate view, not for arguing that Moderates are right or wrong. Your sources showing that I have not correctly represented the Moderate view are appropriate, while sources arguing against the Moderate view per-se are off-topic.
That's a topic for a different thread.But the "Moderate view" is wrong.