@volkris @bigheadtales @GottaLaff How can you have a constitution that's meant to be ignored, even in part?
"Pantyhose being good looking on a pretty lady, the state is not allowed to kill anyone"
The first is a nice factoid, but really the second part of the second would be the operative part of the sentence and of course the first half would be ignored because of the way it was written.
The remark about pantyhose is incidental to the more crucial assertion that the state should not have the authority to execute anyone. Nobody would interpret the above and say "obviously it means the state is not allowed to kill anyone only when it relates to pantyhose"
It's also notable that both the left and the right obviously disregard the constitution as an absolute statement regularly. That's why strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis tests exist for laws, so that you can violate enumerated rights but only if you really want to and it's done according to the law.
The first is a nice factoid, but really the second part of the second would be the operative part of the sentence and of course the first half would be ignored because of the way it was written.
The remark about pantyhose is incidental to the more crucial assertion that the state should not have the authority to execute anyone. Nobody would interpret the above and say "obviously it means the state is not allowed to kill anyone only when it relates to pantyhose"
It's also notable that both the left and the right obviously disregard the constitution as an absolute statement regularly. That's why strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis tests exist for laws, so that you can violate enumerated rights but only if you really want to and it's done according to the law.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2
@volkris @bigheadtales @GottaLaff Honestly, you do kind of sound like a troll here. You're not usually like this. Maybe you're just in a playful mood? I don't know.