Threatening a libel suit? Seriously? Even indirectly, like this, it shows a complete lack of depth or introspection. And it fits with the other arguments advanced. Silly person.
I appreciate Mr. Gregg not mentioning my name, but I believe he did it more to avoid a libel lawsuit than to spare me any embarrassment. I have no problem with standing up for what I actually said rather than how Mr. Gregg chose to summarize it. By way of background please recall that our forefathers decided to revolt against the British because, among other things, they didn’t want to be taxed if they weren’t being represented. Having said that, the women in the Arizona territory were also not represented yet laws were being passed that affected their lives, not just their purse, and so I said the law was unconstitutional because women were not represented when this decision was handed down. I referenced the First Amendment and kindly provided Mr. Gregg with a copy. To wit:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Mr. Gregg decided to place his own limitations on the amendment’s last clause based on his own interpretation which he pulled from somewhere unknown to me.
I am usually amused when someone with no legal training opines on a legal issue and considers all other opinions incorrect because they aren’t his and I usually let the matter drop, but Mr. Gregg’s writings seem to get a lot of attention so I chose to continue. Mr. Gregg expressed his opinion that the Constitution can’t be unconstitutional because it is a Constitution. I then explained that the Constitution was written by men, not God, and was therefore fallible, in fact, that’s what amendments are for. (We currently have 27). Still he continued to argue. Ignoring the obvious, such as the 13 and 14th amendments, I decided to go with something that was irrefutable proof that just because something is in the Constitution doesn’t make it “writ in stone”, specifically the 18th amendment outlawing the sale of liquor and the 21st, which was basically “oops”
It’s obvious to me that Mr. Gregg is annoyed that I refuse to agree with his interpretation and needed reassurance so he wrote his little screed, replete with misrepresentations, including his misrepresentation concerning the meaning of the First Amendment.
I don’t know about all of you, but I usually check sources before I believe what I read. I was taught to do that by my teachers who provided me with, according to Mr. Gregg, my lousy education.
A cynic might say, in response to your post, "Well, tortured logic is exactly what you should expect when you argue with a lawyer." Not being a cynic, "I am just sayin'...".
You might like this podcast:
https://soberchristiangentlemanpodcast.substack.com/p/s2-ep-31-queering-history-they-are
Threatening a libel suit? Seriously? Even indirectly, like this, it shows a complete lack of depth or introspection. And it fits with the other arguments advanced. Silly person.
I refuse to give up on America.
REFUSE.
I do think we should give up on some parts of it.
I appreciate Mr. Gregg not mentioning my name, but I believe he did it more to avoid a libel lawsuit than to spare me any embarrassment. I have no problem with standing up for what I actually said rather than how Mr. Gregg chose to summarize it. By way of background please recall that our forefathers decided to revolt against the British because, among other things, they didn’t want to be taxed if they weren’t being represented. Having said that, the women in the Arizona territory were also not represented yet laws were being passed that affected their lives, not just their purse, and so I said the law was unconstitutional because women were not represented when this decision was handed down. I referenced the First Amendment and kindly provided Mr. Gregg with a copy. To wit:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Mr. Gregg decided to place his own limitations on the amendment’s last clause based on his own interpretation which he pulled from somewhere unknown to me.
I am usually amused when someone with no legal training opines on a legal issue and considers all other opinions incorrect because they aren’t his and I usually let the matter drop, but Mr. Gregg’s writings seem to get a lot of attention so I chose to continue. Mr. Gregg expressed his opinion that the Constitution can’t be unconstitutional because it is a Constitution. I then explained that the Constitution was written by men, not God, and was therefore fallible, in fact, that’s what amendments are for. (We currently have 27). Still he continued to argue. Ignoring the obvious, such as the 13 and 14th amendments, I decided to go with something that was irrefutable proof that just because something is in the Constitution doesn’t make it “writ in stone”, specifically the 18th amendment outlawing the sale of liquor and the 21st, which was basically “oops”
It’s obvious to me that Mr. Gregg is annoyed that I refuse to agree with his interpretation and needed reassurance so he wrote his little screed, replete with misrepresentations, including his misrepresentation concerning the meaning of the First Amendment.
I don’t know about all of you, but I usually check sources before I believe what I read. I was taught to do that by my teachers who provided me with, according to Mr. Gregg, my lousy education.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
A cynic might say, in response to your post, "Well, tortured logic is exactly what you should expect when you argue with a lawyer." Not being a cynic, "I am just sayin'...".