• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional terms, do they have meaning, do they have weight?

ttwtt78640 said:
First of all, UI laws are not "of a general nature" since they apply specifically to a subset of the population who meet predefined conditions. You asked for the terms for qualifying for state UI benefits and were given a rather detailed answer. In response you repeat the same (canned?) assertion - which is simply an exercise in time wasting. HAND
Click to expand...

This is the concept:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
Click to expand...

Your insistence on unequal outcomes based on inequality is just plain silly. Right wingers only allege to believe in natural rights in abortion threads.
Vote blue not red!
 
danielpalos said:
How did you reach that conclusion? I can easily type the same thing on the Internet, but that would be a fallacy. I prefer the ethical high ground of resorting to the fewest fallacies in any argument.



Why do you believe the above recognition of equality of outcomes is invalid?
Click to expand...

Equality of outcome is never listed in the constitution.
Point me to any section if you believe I’m wrong.

When your next reply does not include a section of the constitution which authorizes federal authority to include equality of outcome, you’ll know you were wrong, as will everyone who reads your next reply
 
supremeLaw said:
Equality of outcome is never listed in the constitution.
Point me to any section if you believe I’m wrong.

When your next reply does not include a section of the constitution which authorizes federal authority to include equality of outcome, you’ll know you were wrong, as will everyone who reads your next reply
Click to expand...

This is Constitutional law and it recognizes the equality of outcome of general operation of the laws. Why do you believe it doesn't?

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities,which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
Click to expand...
 
danielpalos said:
This is Constitutional law and it recognizes the equality of outcome of general operation of the laws. Why do you believe it doesn't?
Click to expand...

Lol. Thank you for Proving my point.
You were unable to direct me to any portion of the constitution which authorizes equality of outcomes.
 
Rich2018 said:
Still waiting for your explanation of what a RingWorld is and what nuclear fusion doesn't already give us.
Click to expand...

Lol. I’m learning not to expect replies with answers from some people when they are proven wrong. But good luck getting a reply with an answer Rich.
 
supremeLaw said:
Lol. Thank you for Proving my point.
You were unable to direct me to any portion of the constitution which authorizes equality of outcomes.
Click to expand...

I cited a State Constitution. Why do you have any problem whatsoever arguing your opposing view or do you only have fallacy to work with?

Sec. 6. Laws uniform. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the
general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities,
which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
 
danielpalos said:
I cited a State Constitution. Why do you have any problem whatsoever arguing your opposing view or do you only have fallacy to work with?

Sec. 6. Laws uniform. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the
general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities,
which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
Click to expand...

Sec 6 is the equal application. None of this says equality of outcomes. I rest my case
 
supremeLaw said:
Sec 6 is the equal application. None of this says equality of outcomes. I rest my case
Click to expand...

You need more practice and less false pride or you may get stuck as a vice corporal.

The legislature is denied and disparaged in enacting any laws which deny the equal outcome of equal protection of the laws.

upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
Click to expand...

They have no authority to deny or disparage, equality of outcome.
 
danielpalos said:
non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point. you believe equality of outcome is a joke.
I’m so glad to hear you explain why you didn’t answer, because you laugh at the concept of equality of outcome. Now I understand your view. Thanks
 
danielpalos said:
You need more practice and less false pride or you may get stuck as a vice corporal.

The legislature is denied and disparaged in enacting any laws which deny the equal outcome of equal protection of the laws.



They have no authority to deny or disparage, equality of outcome.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the legislature cannot pass law which grants equality of outcome. I’m glad you took a stance and now I know you oppose equality of outcome.
 
Only illegals don't care about the laws. Only practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy blame the less fortunate.

What's wrong right wingers, is this not an immigration thread?

Vote blue not red!
 
supremeLaw said:
Those who vote blue forgot to blame their side for passing unconstitutional legislation like the affordable care act which is in direct opposition to the quote you wrote above. We know you must be upset those in blue passed such a law which violates equality of application.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't. The right wing simply hates the Poor.

Vote Blue not Red!
 
supremeLaw said:
Did you want me to argue you didn’t support voting blue?
LOL!!! Even you couldn’t turn this one into a game of going in circles but you sure tried. Lol.
We’re done. I won’t be replying to the people who go in circles, can’t offer a straight answer and ignore difficult questions. I’m sure you’ll reply to this with something witty to help yourself save face on this loss and that’s fine, whatever makes you feel better. Good evening
Click to expand...

What circles are you talking about; everyone knows I am the truest witness bearer on this forum. Why should anyone, take You seriously?
 
supremeLaw said:
Lol. I’m learning not to expect replies with answers from some people when they are proven wrong. But good luck getting a reply with an answer Rich.
Click to expand...

It's like debating with a talking doll

He'll post some randome, meaningless quote as an answer whenever you try to pin him down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom