To be fair, I never said it wasn’t funny, just that a certain spectrum of the public who tend to lean far right seem to think it’s the height of comedic genius.
“We can circumvent the Constitution by passing a law!”
Literally the argument he’s making. This person teaches.
and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
But that totally means we can do it guys, it’s vague wording. Mind you that’s on the section about Amendments. So the Constitution literally says you can’t make an Amendment to change this, but he’s arguing you can totally just pass a law and do it. Because he’s a fucking idiot.
Not so sure I’d call this liberal stupidity, just Unconstitutional-ish thinking outside the box in an effort to solve one of the greatest issues in 21st Century Gov’t - gridlock in the Senate.
The gist of his argument seems to be if a court can find parts of the ACA unconstitutional because they want to, then another court can find my idea constitutional because they want to.
Isn’t this true? It’s not realistic, but it’s true.
No legitimate legal scholar thinks his idea is constitutional.
There is no reasonable reading of the constitution where it is. It literally says the opposite, in plain text.
Have you surveyed them? I think his idea is dumb and unconstitutional, but that’s my view, and I don’t feel the need to invent data.
Just when I started to think you weren’t an insufferable asshole, you prove me wrong.
Zaphod spun round, wild-eyed.
‘Ford,’ he said, ‘how many escape capsules are there?’
‘None,’ said Ford.
‘Did you count them?’ he yelled.
‘Twice,’ said Ford.
(Just trying to lighten the mood.)
Maybe that’s just you.
I actually did survey them. They all said you were dumb.
@Timex’s stock-in-trade is handwaving data away for anything he thinks is obviously dumb. @ShivaX backs him up with articles by Charles Cooke–who when I last checked did not have a law degree–and… RedState? Woah, there’s a reputable source. I think the idea is pretty dumb and totally impracticable too, but I’m just a schmo. The main effect of the article has been to give cause for a few know-nothing conservative pundits to jeer. No one else has bothered to comment or respond to it. So sure, here’s a liberal saying something that might maybe be kind of dumb but that no one with any expertise has bothered to refute?
Again, I wish this thread was about mainstream liberal policies that are dumb and why, rather than individual liberals who say dumb things. But if that’s what you’ve got, that’s what you’ve got.
Because his idea is so incredibly bad that it doesn’t even merit a serious rebuttal. It’s obviously wrong on its face.
Do you seriously not understand why it’s obviously wrong?
I wonder what some legal scholars thought about this.
I once had occasion—long ago, at a reception after a speech by Justice Anthony Scalia—to ask Justice Scalia what would happen if an amendment changing the composition of the Senate were ever passed. He replied that, offhand, he didn’t see how the Supreme Court could declare a properly proposed and ratified Constitutional amendment unconstitutional.
That said, it’s not like he just threw the idea out there as it came off his head. He’s provided significant legal and textual support for it. I’m not qualified to judge whether it is legitimate or not and, unless you are a Constitutional law expert, neither are you. Neither is Charles Cooke (I’d wager that my understanding of Constitutional law, minimal as it is, is better than Cooke’s. He’s been an American citizen for all of 10 months.) Orts is an expert. That doesn’t mean he’s right, but that, and the level of support he’s provided, do suggest they’re worth more consideration than a handwaving dismissal.
No, he’s not.
He is not a constitutional law scholar.
And really, you say you think “it’s pretty dumb”. But it’s more than that. It’s obviously wrong, on its face. It makes no logical sense.
You understand why this is the case, right?
Jesus. No. And neither do you, though you can continue to ask condescending leading questions to pretend like you do all day if you want.
To me–and maybe I’m full of shit–one major mark of a curious intellect is a cautious skepticism for conventional wisdom and a willingness to entertain novel ideas. The principles of modern physics are obviously wrong–they contradict ordinary experience in almost every conceivable way. More apropos, it’s obvious to me based on a literal reading that the Second Amendment concerns itself with militias and does not preclude firearm regulation, nor guarantee an individual civilian’s right to bear arms. And yet Heller.
Does this argument ever work for you? I try to imagine the dialog.
Person 1: I argue X.
Timex: That’s obviously wrong.
Person 1: Oh, right.
Well, quantum physics.