Brad Wardell - Skinning the frog
Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.
The American constitution isn't very complicated
Published on October 10, 2013 By Frogboy In Life, the Universe and Everything

In recent discussions, it's become clear that many people aren't really that familiar with the US constitution.  This is a shame because it's actually not very long.

The constitution is broken into two parts.  The first part lists the explicit powers the government has.  The second part are the amendments, two of which are designed to make it bloody clear that only the explicitly named powers listed are things the federal government can do.

The recently passed ACA was held as constitutional only because the court narrowly decided that the government had the power to tax people based on whether they have insurance or not.  

Most of the runaway government comes from the 3rd item below known also as the "commerce clause". It's amazing at how one little chink in the armor has been exploited so massively. The word "regulate" has been tortured into all kinds of things.

Similarly, the 16th amendment has been tortured to give the federal government all kinds of weird powers.  If you look through the constitution, the only amendment that gives the government more power is the 16th. The rest have been put in to reduce federal power. And two of the amendments were put in there as a "We aren't kidding, seriously, No joking, only the 16 enumerated powers are things the feds can do. Really!"

Since some people seem to be confused as to what the federal government is legally allowed to do here is a list:

  1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  2. To borrow on the credit of the United States;
  3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  4. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
  8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
  14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
In addition, 27 amendments were added to the constitution to further clarify any remaining question on what the federal government is allowed to do. They are:
  1. The federal government may not pass laws limiting your speech or establish an official religion.
  2. The federal government may not prevent you from buying a gun.
  3. The "" may not quarter troops in your house.
  4. The "" may may not search and seize things on a whim but only through search warrants based on probably cause.
  5. The "" may  not force you to incriminate yourself.
  6. The people have a right to a trial by jury.
  7. The people also can demand a jury in civil cases.
  8. No cruel or unnsual punishment allowed.
  9. Restates, for future progressives, that the federal government can only perform the ENUMERATED rights (we had a whole amendment dedicated to this and it still gets forgotten)
  10. Restates, for future progressives, again, seriously, NO KIDDING, that the federal government only has those 16 previously enumerated rights and everything else is left to the states. Clear enough? 2 of the 10 bill of rights designed to make sure no future progressive will think that "promote the general welfare" suddenly is a cart blanche new power. Only those 16 powers.
  11. States are immune from suits from foreigners.
  12. The Prez and Vice President are no longer the 1st and 2nd place finishers in elections.
  13. Slavery is now illegal.
  14. Equal protection of the law and everyone is gauranteed due process.
  15. All men can vote, regardless of color.
  16. The government can now collect money via an income tax.
  17. Senators are now elected by popular vote.
  18. Alcohol is now illegal. 
  19. Women can now vote too.
  20. Changes the date when congress and the president come into office.
  21. Just kidding on the booze, alcohol is legal again.
  22. You can only serve two terms as President.
  23. Washington DC gets to have a vote in presidential elections.
  24. You can't charge people to vote (i.e. no poll taxes).
  25. Clarifies succession for the presidency.
  26. 18 year olds can now vote.
  27. Salary increases for congress dont' go into affect until after the next election

See? Is this really that complicated? The federal government has 16 things it is allowed to do. But for future dumb people, the bill of rights has 2 amendments to emphasize that yes, and truly, only those 16 things are allowed.

So next time someone tells you that the federal government can do anything it wants if it passes congress or if it's popular with the people show them this. Because no, unless they can get the constitution amended to allow whatever their progressive dream they're having, if it's not listed here, it isn't legal unless they can manage to torture the 3rd enumerated power (commerce clause) or the 16th amendment further.

That said, for the most part, your STATE can go nuts.

 

Popular Articles in this Category
I need a joke today
Adobe is now officially as bad as Microsoft.
The passing of Robert Duvall
Popular Articles from Frogboy
Comments (Page 9)
10 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 
121
sareth01
on Oct 17, 2013

Reply to Flagyl

Why do this?

"When it comes to the heart disease, you disagree with the vast majority of cardiologists, the American College of Cardiology, several cardiac physiologists, and "The Father of Cardiology".  Once somebody's opinion reaches that level, it is not a personal or quasi personal attack to call your point of view strange or bizarre.  It's simply pointing out that you have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the data that is not backed up by bodies with medical authority.  For example, the cardiac care units."

Politics can abandon reason and still remain a tolerable field, while cardiologists cannot.  So, yes, my response would differ if the statement above was actually being said.  But that statement was not, and therefore irrelevant. 

So you are going to tell me that when someone agrees with a number of cardiologists, it's "group think"?! And so what if it is? They have demonstrated that they are the experts. If you wish to dispute their expertise, fine. Produce the evidence that discredits their position.

To answer your question as you worded it, yes.  Also, peer review in some situations can be group think as it is not a flawless system. Check out other medicinal cultures, they are not unified throughout the world.  Ayurveda is an interesting one with an ancient, rich history. Western medicine has its place, other medicinal traditions have theirs, they different views of the same thing.  We have a lot to gain from understanding them all!

But you don't do that...you just make some fantastic leap and call them corrupt. In fact, you say it is obvious. Ok, fine. Show it.

To me the leap is not fantastic in the slightest because I've worked for the Department of Defense.  Kill people for $$, that is the reality of that business, and look how big of a business it is.  I also noticed that corruption is pervasive in our government as I had an insider's view.

A great example would be the LIBOR scandal(and all the following incredibly glaring financial scandals), just 20 people had the influence and reigns to the entire world financial system.  Look at what they did with it.  Research the LIBOR scandal, it goes to prove that the biggest banks in the world are practicing criminals.  Corruption at the top always trickles down, I call it my "trickle down theory".

Another example would be what happened to Ron Paul in the last election.  If you followed it, you would have seen that the young vote was taken from Obama and that the GOP convention had to change a lot of rules just to ensure that Ron Paul didn't get a chance to even get on the ballot.  He was absolutely terrifying the ruling class and they did everything they could to marginalize him.  I call corruption because they don't follow their own rules.

If you follow your own path to understanding you will see it in time.  Prove it to yourself, as I am just a guy with a few bits of time here and there, and to respond to you fully would take too much of my time.  Do yourself a favor and research with the idea that "what he said was true, lets see where it leads me".  You lose nothing by pretending that it is a true statement and can inform yourself on another perspective.  After all, you only cease to have a relevant opinion when you refuse to seek for new information and new ways of thinking.

Oh also, my neighbor growing up was a retired congressman that served for 20 years in the house of representatives, he verified to me that the world is run by a few extremely powerful people.  I learned a lot more than that from him.  If you are clever you can figure out who he is from my previous posts, with some research.  

 

 

 

122
Kantok
on Oct 17, 2013

Krazikarl
reply 120

Why must we arbitrarily constrain it to the OP?  For example, maintaining that the Louisiana Purchase was illegal is a fairly extreme position.  I've put my reasoning and support for that statement above.

You said: 

Krazikarl
reply 118

With that being said, a lot of his positions are fairly extreme even by the standards of strict constitutionalists.  Yes, I'm aware of Scalia and the like.  But the simple fact is that the history of Supreme Court rulings weight extremely heavily against him, and thats all that matters in the end.

Also, people like Scalia supposedly try and divine the original intent of the founding fathers, and when you have Madison himself saying stuff here (with Jefferson backing him up), well, not even Scalia could do too much there.

You are the one making blanket statements about his positions (plural) being extreme.  So since I happen to agree with many of them... let's discuss it.  That's the point of this whole exercise, isn't it?  Or would you rather just cast aspersions around and avoid having to actually talk about what you meant?  Because if that's the case there is no point in replying to you, because it will never be a discussion.  

123
Kantok
on Oct 17, 2013

Stupid double post.

124
Dr Guy
on Oct 18, 2013

Krazikarl
reply 109
It was certainly distasteful to Jefferson, but Madison convinced him that it was technically Constitutional since it was a treaty.

That is the general consensus from scholars.  But I guess the issue is not really the constitutionality so much as it went against the very core beliefs Jefferson held.

125
Dr Guy
on Oct 18, 2013

Krazikarl
reply 120
For example, maintaining that the Louisiana Purchase was illegal is a fairly extreme position.

Actually no it is not.  It is one of the 2 mainstream positions that are debated.  It happened.  That we know.  But as Kantok pointed out, Constitution study is not Cardiology.  So there are many valid opinions on both sides.  Neither of which makes either extreme, merely different.

126
flagyl
on Oct 18, 2013

sareth01
reply 121
If you are clever...

 

I am far from clever .

 

My point was and is simply dismissing an entity as corrupt because they have power doesn't make sense. Are there organizations that are powerful that are corrupt? I'm sure. Are there powerful people that are corrupt? I am sure. Is it possible that the SCOTUS is corrupt? Sure. Do you have proof? No, I 'm not asking you for proof; I'm just saying that this can be said of ANY organization-Nabisco, General Mills, the local homeowners association, etc but it is all meaningless if you don't have proof of what you are saying. It's just made up.

 

Further, when used as a debate tool (making the unfounded assumption that someone in power is corrupt and therefore should not be listened to), it's an easy win using a strawman argument.

 

That was and is my point.

127
Frogboy
on Oct 18, 2013

Krazikarl
reply 109


Quoting Frogboy, reply 103My bizarre view on the constitution came from Jefferson himself.

Having an interest in this period of history I've read a number of biographies including ones on Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton not to mention founding brothers. It was pretty clear that the consensus was that the Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional. But our interests in getting it so strong that we looked the other way.  

Would you knock off the quasi personal attacks? 

Please read the article that I cited.

While Jefferson initial had concerns about the Consitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase, he listened to others, and was eventually convinced that, as long as Congress (specifically, the Senate) approve the treaty, it would be Constitutional.  It was certainly distasteful to Jefferson, but Madison convinced him that it was technically Constitutional since it was a treaty.  Its very well cited in the Constitutionality section of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

Modern constitutional analysis also generally concludes that the Purchase was legal.  But I'm guess that you don't believe that either, along with what the Father of the Constitution explicitly said.

When it comes to the Constitution, you disagree with the vast majority of Constitutional scholars, the Supreme Court in general, several of our founding fathers, and "The Father of the Constitution".  Once somebody's opinion reaches that level, it is not a personal or quasi personal attack to call your point of view strange or bizarre.  It's simply pointing out that you have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the document that is not backed up by bodies with legal authority.  For example, the federal courts.

First off, my basic problem with your style of debating is that you cherry pick sources on the topics you debate on. Your idea of "proving" something is to link to some individual article as if that, in itself proves your point.  A thing may be true 95% of the time but you think if you can find an example of the 5% it undoes the remaining 5%. You then conclude your argument with some sort of smear of those you disagree by calling them or their views "extreme" or "bizarre" as if your pronouncement, on its own, has some scholarly weight to it. You're not a scholar. Your pronouncements mean nothing other than demonstrating an unearned arrogance to other participants. 

In this case, I named off several biographies that discussed, at length, the constitutional concerns regarding the Louisiana purchase.  The constitution did not give the federal government the power to acquire territory.  I'm glad we did. I would have been on the side of those, like Madison, who wanted to look the other way. But at the time, it was roundly considered unconstitutional.  

Rather than endless appeals to authority, you could, for example, argue what constitutional power gave the federal government of the early 19th century the power to purchase territory. That might be an interesting debate. Instead, your role on these threads seems to be to try to shut down discussion by appealing to what you consider an authority and trying to marginalize those who disagree with you through name-calling.  If you're not interested in discussing the topic, then find another topic.

The idea that scholarly biographies on the subjects are somehow disproven because you gave a goddam Wikipedia link is insulting.  You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions but to make such definitive statements based on such a weak assertion is obnoxious.

 

128
Krazikarl
on Oct 18, 2013

Frogboy
reply 127
Rather than endless appeals to authority, you could, for example, argue what constitutional power gave the federal government of the early 19th century the power to purchase territory.

I've already done this.

We've encountered this problem with you in the other thread. When you don't want to see something, you simply refuse to read/comprehend it.  In the case of the Global Warming thread, you literally repeated the same question over and over again despite the fact that it had been answered in writing each time.

In this case, I have already explicitly answered that question as has the link that I used had you bothered to read either.  I'll repeat myself:

As the Father of the Constitution pointed out, the Lousiana Purchase was done by a treaty.  The Constitution explicitly grants the President the right to negotiate the treaty.  The treaty then went through the Senate as required by the Constitution.  The funding went through the House as required by the Constitution.  What exactly do you want?

Frogboy
reply 127
First off, my basic problem with your style of debating is that you cherry pick sources on the topics you debate on. Your idea of "proving" something is to link to some individual article as if that, in itself proves your point.  A thing may be true 95% of the time but you think if you can find an example of the 5% it undoes the remaining 5%. You then conclude your argument with some sort of smear of those you disagree by calling them or their views "extreme" or "bizarre" as if your pronouncement, on its own, has some scholarly weight to it. You're not a scholar. Your pronouncements mean nothing other than demonstrating an unearned arrogance to other participants. 

I only have time to respond to so much - I'm not writing my PhD thesis, so I'm not going to grind out each and every subpoint.

Also, since I have good reason to believe that a lot of my stuff isn't being read (see above), I'm not terribly inclined to go through every single subpoint since it will just get TLDR'd.

Finally, YOU are the one who started this thread with the express purpose of lecturing others about the Constitution.  So if you want to claim that I'm being arrogant about it, fine, but you are being TREMENDOUSLY hypocritical if you say that since you started the thread with the express purpose of lecturing to others on it.

Frogboy
reply 127
Rather than endless appeals to authority, you could, for example, argue what constitutional power gave the federal government of the early 19th century the power to purchase territory. That might be an interesting debate. Instead, your role on these threads seems to be to try to shut down discussion by appealing to what you consider an authority and trying to marginalize those who disagree with you through name-calling.  If you're not interested in discussing the topic, then find another topic.

The idea that scholarly biographies on the subjects are somehow disproven because you gave a goddam Wikipedia link is insulting.  You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions but to make such definitive statements based on such a weak assertion is obnoxious.

Sigh, we are back to this again.

Listen, I don't like to call people out on fallacies on the internet again since it makes people upset.  But I guess I'm going to defend myself here again.

The fact that I happen to cite sources for my arguments is not an appeal to authority.  If you honestly think that citing sources for factual statements is an appeal to authority, you are simply clueless.  Simply asserting facts is not good enough - they need a source.  I tend to be careful in establishing my facts, and therefore will provide evidence that such facts exist.  Hence, I provide links.  This is considered good practice in any reasonable field.  If you disagree, you are simply being silly.

On the other hand, "I read some unnamed biographies on some founding fathers, therefore what I say is authoritative" IS an appeal to authority.  It is not citing sources BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY NAME ANY SOURCES.  I didn't call you on it because it isn't polite to play that game on the internet, but you are starting this process, so I'll defend myself this time.

Anyway, I've cited my sources.  My links have repeated links to scholarly sources if you actually bothered to read them (which you probably didn't).  On the other hand, you have cited exactly 0 scholarly biographies on the subject to back up your arguments ("some unnames ones that I read this one time" doesn't count as a citation).

As I've pretty clearly shown, if you'd like to play the citation game, I'm more than happy to go there.  I love citations.  I use them all the time.  Go read how many links/citations I've provided to my sources in this thread.  Compare this to EVERYBODY ELSE COMBINED.

In any case, I have repeatedly been willing to establish my position with careful and repeated citations.  You have not - you have simply asserted your position and vaguely insisted that others back you up.  Then you accuse me of having weak assertions?  Listen, I'm not claiming to have a PhD thesis here, but its a heck of a lot more than you've done.

So anyway, if you want to play the citation game, lets play the citation game.  If you don't want to play it, fine.  Its the internet, and I get that most people don't play that game on the internet.  But if you don't want to play the citation game on the internet, don't complain that I cite my sources and you don't.  That's just odd.

129
Frogboy
on Oct 18, 2013

You're clearly not listening. Repeating your previous non answers with a "that's just odd" makes it clear you have no desire to discuss topics with those who don't share your view.  

I'm sorry you think thst linking to a single example somehow demonstrates a very broad assertion. I don't think, at this point anyone is going to be able to help you.  

It's a classic issue where the person thinks there is only one correct opinion and thus if you just explain it enough they will recognize that. Those who resist are either dumb, ignorant, extreme, or just aren't reading what you write.

I think it best if we leave the discussion at that. I won't be responding further to you.

 

130
Borg999
on Oct 18, 2013

I thought this article was relevant:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection

For those of you who don't think Wikepedia is a good source of accurate info...Wiki articles often cite sources. Before "writing off" the article, it may be worth reviewing the sources provided.

131
Frogboy
on Oct 18, 2013

Borg999
reply 130

I thought this article was relevant:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection

For those of you who don't think Wikepedia is a good source of accurate info...Wiki articles often cite sources. Before "writing off" the article, it may be worth reviewing the sources provided.

I think Wikipedia is a good source. My problem is when a source is used to Provide a generalization when it's only citing an example. If I say e Louisiana Purchase wasn't constitutional that's my opinion.  It's an opinion that was widely shared at the time. I am not intending my opinion to be treated as a universal truth because in matters of law it's all interpretation. Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court, at the time, said it was. 

People can and will have debates in such things. I don't, however, like it when somorone tries to marginalize or trivialize so some else's interpretation with ad hominems (bizarre,  extreme,  weird, strange, etching.).  That has no place here.

if someone wants to say "Well Madison thought it was constitutional" and provides a source I'm fine with that. Good for him. So what? If you think that ends the debate then fine, move on.

132
Alstein
on Oct 18, 2013

Frogboy
reply 127



Rather than endless appeals to authority, you could, for example, argue what constitutional power gave the federal government of the early 19th century the power to purchase territory. That might be an interesting debate. Instead, your role on these threads seems to be to try to shut down discussion by appealing to what you consider an authority and trying to marginalize those who disagree with you through name-calling.  If you're not interested in discussing the topic, then find another topic.

The idea that scholarly biographies on the subjects are somehow disproven because you gave a goddam Wikipedia link is insulting.  You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions but to make such definitive statements based on such a weak assertion is obnoxious.

 

 

Ok, what Constitutional power gave them the right?  I'd argue it this way.

 

The President can make treaties with foreign powers, the Senate confirms those treaties. 

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


This is the Supremacy Cause.

 

This at least gives some cover for this, though folks who cherish the Tenth Amendment heavily will disagree.

 

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of this interpretation in 1920 in Missouri vs Holland.

 

I'd argue that whether this was Constitutional was something that could have been debated, but there are arguments on both sides, and it widely viewed as constitutional now, outside of perhaps some fringe groups.

 

I do think an argument based on whether the federal government could pay money would have more merit, but given indemnities often existed in peace treaties at he time , I think that would be a very weak argument.

133
Krazikarl
on Oct 18, 2013

Frogboy
reply 129
I'm sorry you think thst linking to a single example somehow demonstrates a very broad assertion. I don't think, at this point anyone is going to be able to help you.  

You don't just get to waive away facts that are inconvenient to your arguments.  That is everything that is wrong with the world today - people are so partisan and biased because they stubbornly refuse to see anything that doesn't fit their preexisting worldview.

As soon as you see something that doesn't fit your view of Global Warming or the government or the Constitution, you immediately reject it and toss it out.  You have repeatedly done it in this thread and the other one.  Then you accuse others of being biased.  So typical.

I'm happy to continue the discussion, but I'm the only one furthering the conversation.  If you want to continue the discussion, you need to provide some valid reason for why my numerous counter examples don't apply or are inadequate.  So far, you basically say "NUH UH".  

I carefully construct and cite a number of counter examples to a broad assertion that was presented.  It then gets dismissed with "isolated example, NUH UH".  Come on now.

 

Anyway, I've repeatedly  cited sources which show that the Supreme Court, lower federal courts, various founding fathers, and various constitutional scholars disagree with your broad claims.  You have cited exactly 0 sources to back up anything you claim.  If you want to further the conversation, the ball is entirely in your court.  Provide an actual argument beyond a bald assertion that you are right about something.  I've provide reasoning and citations to pretty much everything that I've said.

Frogboy
reply 129
I think it best if we leave the discussion at that. I won't be responding further to you.

I'm always willing to entertain that there might be other interesting viewpoints.  HOWEVER, you will need to present some reasonable argument.  You just present bald assertions of broad principles with little support.  You then reject all the counter examples that get presented as not worth paying attention to.

Broad assertions with numerous counter examples don't exactly convince me.

134
Kantok
on Oct 18, 2013

Krazikarl
reply 133

Broad assertions with numerous counter examples don't exactly convince me.

Says the guy responsible for:

Krazikarl
reply 118


With that being said, a lot of his positions are fairly extreme even by the standards of strict constitutionalists.  Yes, I'm aware of Scalia and the like.  But the simple fact is that the history of Supreme Court rulings weight extremely heavily against him, and thats all that matters in the end.

A completely specific assertion full of very direct supporting points.  

Bravo to you.

The fact remains that constitutional interpretation is a discipline founded and based upon ideology and opinion.  It's not science.  It never will be, despite how much "experts" like to try to construe it otherwise.   

We can easily have discussion about how we should interpret 230 year old documents and we can discuss how they should be applied today, but trying to pass off calls to authority as if they are the end of the discussion is dumb.  They don't end the discussion.  They merely inform it.  They provide further detail to show why one thinks the way they do.  This isn't science with testable, provable hypothesis.  It's educated opinion hopefully grounded in a consistent world view.  

Stop acting like a link to a Wikipedia article (and even all its attending source links) somehow validates your opinion as the correct one.  

The purpose of discussions like this is to be challenged by those who disagree with you in order to learn as a part of forming and strengthening or changing our opinions as we decide for ourselves.  And, if we're doing it right, to be entertained int he process.  The point isn't to be right or vindicated, certainly not on some internet forum.  I feel like you miss that point in some overwhelming need to have everyone agree with you.  

135
Krazikarl
on Oct 18, 2013

Frogboy
reply 131
People can and will have debates in such things. I don't, however, like it when somorone tries to marginalize or trivialize so some else's interpretation with ad hominems (bizarre,  extreme,  weird, strange, etching.).  That has no place here

You have to differentiate between somebody criticizing your views and personal criticism.

Also, you have to realize that I first showed that the vast majority of the modern legal system (in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court) in addition to the rest of the federal government, in addition to many Constitutional scholars, in addition to many founding fathers explicitly disagree with you.  On that basis, I think that it is fair to call your views extreme.  Given that I first carefully showed WHY I consider your views extreme (with citations!), I think that my use of adjectives absolutely has a place.

I also don't get why you think that "extreme" is such a crazy label here.  You disagree with essentially the entire judicial branch (with an admitted view exceptions like Scalia) and the entire legislative branch and the entire executive branch on the Constitution.  I don't think that its unfair to characterize your views on the Constitution as extreme.

With regards to the logic again: I first showed that your views didn't match those of the majority of the experts (scholars, the courts, etc), then used the adjective.  This is not not ad hominem by definition.  An ad hominem would be to first apply the adjective, then draw the conclusion.  To first demonstrate the property, then label it is just a characterisation.  You have the logical order flipped on ad hominems.

For example, this is an ad hominem: "You are extreme, therefore, you are wrong"

This is not (it is just a basic generalization): "This sources show that your views are outside of the mainstream, therefore, you are extreme"

10 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 
Meta
Views
» 475939
Comments
» 149
Category
» Life, the Universe and Everything
Comment
Recent Article Comments
Adobe is now officially as b...
LightStar Design - March 202...
I need a joke today
Wincustomize.com Is 25 Years...
Star Control: Origins - Eart...
LightStar Design - February ...
How about Windows 12?
The passing of Robert Duvall
LightStar Design - January 2...
50 Years of Architectural Dr...
Sponsored Links
Terms of Service Privacy Policy About Us Contact Us Stardock.com
© 2026 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.
JoeUser v1.0.0.0