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.
Ms Green, I feel like the fundamental disagreement between Mr Gregg and yourself is semantic.
You appear to define "unconstitutional" similarly to "undesirable". Mr Gregg appears to define it more literally: "not consistent with the constitution".
I am not a lawyer, but as a lowly engineer I venture my view that this difference of opinion on the definition of "unconstitutional" is the essence of the split between living constitutionalists such as almost-Justice Garland and originalists such as Justice Gorsuch.
Note: I use these two examples deliberately, as more prominent proponents of these views cross over; see Justice Sotomayor and Justice Alito on the 4th ammendment, for example.
As for not mentioning your name, my reason for not doing so was as I stated. The thought of a libel lawsuit never even crossed my mind. Why would it? I did no more than disagree with your argument and by extension with those of the progressive Left.
You haven’t answered my question, but you’re making a lot of assumptions. I am not, nor have I ever been, a progressive. By the same token, I am not a Trumper either, both for the same reasons. I don’t think either group is good for the country.
You should probably give more thought to libel suits, but that’s another conversation. Holding someone up to ridicule by misrepresenting what they said, in writing, is libelous even if you don’t mention their name if that person’s identity can easily be identified. As I don’t use aliases, my name can be easily found by anyone who cares to look. As you attacked my ability is an attorney, that is libel per se. I wouldn’t even need to prove damages. But no worries. I won’t be suing you. In any event, you still haven’t answered my question.
Obviously, I disagree with all of this. The idea that this or that provision of the Constitution was or is unconstitutional is a logical absurdity. The Eighteenth Amendment was never unconstitutional. Once duly approved and ratified, it became part of the supreme law of the land, and so it remained until it was repealed by means of the Twenty-First Amendment. The same reasoning applies to all other amendments, including the Thirteenth and Fourteenth.
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'...".
Replying now to myself, I hasten to add that I have great respect for the legal profession, and some of my best friends are lawyers. (Not a snarky comment).
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.
Ms Green, I feel like the fundamental disagreement between Mr Gregg and yourself is semantic.
You appear to define "unconstitutional" similarly to "undesirable". Mr Gregg appears to define it more literally: "not consistent with the constitution".
I am not a lawyer, but as a lowly engineer I venture my view that this difference of opinion on the definition of "unconstitutional" is the essence of the split between living constitutionalists such as almost-Justice Garland and originalists such as Justice Gorsuch.
Note: I use these two examples deliberately, as more prominent proponents of these views cross over; see Justice Sotomayor and Justice Alito on the 4th ammendment, for example.
As for not mentioning your name, my reason for not doing so was as I stated. The thought of a libel lawsuit never even crossed my mind. Why would it? I did no more than disagree with your argument and by extension with those of the progressive Left.
You haven’t answered my question, but you’re making a lot of assumptions. I am not, nor have I ever been, a progressive. By the same token, I am not a Trumper either, both for the same reasons. I don’t think either group is good for the country.
You should probably give more thought to libel suits, but that’s another conversation. Holding someone up to ridicule by misrepresenting what they said, in writing, is libelous even if you don’t mention their name if that person’s identity can easily be identified. As I don’t use aliases, my name can be easily found by anyone who cares to look. As you attacked my ability is an attorney, that is libel per se. I wouldn’t even need to prove damages. But no worries. I won’t be suing you. In any event, you still haven’t answered my question.
Obviously, I disagree with all of this. The idea that this or that provision of the Constitution was or is unconstitutional is a logical absurdity. The Eighteenth Amendment was never unconstitutional. Once duly approved and ratified, it became part of the supreme law of the land, and so it remained until it was repealed by means of the Twenty-First Amendment. The same reasoning applies to all other amendments, including the Thirteenth and Fourteenth.
Do you agree that one of the reasons for the Revolutionary War was that the American colonists were not represented?
And that question is relevant to constitutionality, how?
Who are you and why are you interfering in my conversation with Mr. Gregg who still hasn’t responded to my question.
Sorry, but this isn't a private conversation.
I’ve made my various points and said all I feel that needs to be said. Take it or leave it.
Yeah. I figured. Having a dialogue is a lot more difficult than having a monologue. Reacting like a typical bully. Have a blessed day.
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'...".
I would quarrel with your use of the word "logic"...
Yeah, well...English is only my first language, and I'm still working on it.
Replying now to myself, I hasten to add that I have great respect for the legal profession, and some of my best friends are lawyers. (Not a snarky comment).