 | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) I'm not convinced that the enjoyment value of the .debate group is added to when you make statements such as that one, which some may perceive as unnecessarily combative. I suggest you temper your words. I'm comfortable with the extraction I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Here’s a convoluted but well-intended hypothetical (with a hugely compressed timeframe). Let’s say Guy A commits an act in January that’s against State Law X, he’s convicted, and he’s sentenced to 10 years in the big house. He appeals on the (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm guessing it would have to jump the hoops again. Maybe opinions on the law changed in the meantime, and it wouldn't have passed after being made constitutional. (...) Ex Post Facto applies, preventing him from being punished according to a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) You have an exasperating habit of picking at irrelevent details when debating, and to my eye, the wording of your post suggests that you were doing it once again (though you didn't pounce on my grammar error, which is a bit surprising). When I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) You have many exasperating habits, but exhaustively enumerating them here is not likely to be productive. I think you need to get over your notion that I'm out to persecute you or whatever paranoid notion it is you hold. (...) I don't see the (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) Dude, you've flat out told me to stay out of discussions where I've had more authority to participate than you, or where the only person who really had authority to answer was known to be incommunicado at that time. You may not be seeing (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) I guess it depends on who you think gets to interpret the constitution and define our rights. The Supreme Court has at least sometimes supported the understanding that Larry and I share (I think), that the 9th is an umbrella for all rights (...) (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) Prior to 1965, the 9th Amendment was not used to restrict the states from excercising their 10th Amendment rights. At that point, it was used to safeguard the privacy of one's home, but subsequent citations of the 9th Amendment have shown that (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution [may offend] —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I have a friend who, when we were kids, tended to use the F-word far too often. He was careful never to do this in front of his parents. On the one occasion he did, his father ordered him to "Stop f*$%£@&g swearing". I suppose, this is a case (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
