That's fine, but your hingepoint of the nature of semantics and the word "statute" only holds water if you already assume the person you are debating has been proven conclusively wrong before it even begins.
Your posts come across less as intelligible conversation and more like the rambling of an unmedicated schizophrenic. Try focusing and not jumping from topic to topic, and also being clear and precise about exactly what it is that you are asking or claiming.
Which statement?
I have a JD, by the way. My comments on the law aren’t controversial, at least within the actual US legal system.
Or constructivism vs activism, or mandatory minimums, or precedent, or dissent? What about arbitration?
...are you just randomly listing legal terms?
My remarks on the foundations of US law — that edifice of common and statute law, constrained by the Constitution — remain accurate.
That's fine, but your hingepoint of the nature of semantics and the word "statute" only holds water if you already assume the person you are debating has been proven conclusively wrong before it even begins.
How did we get 6 companies controlling everything if the entire legal system agreed with itself?
Your posts come across less as intelligible conversation and more like the rambling of an unmedicated schizophrenic. Try focusing and not jumping from topic to topic, and also being clear and precise about exactly what it is that you are asking or claiming.
Wow that is so close to the truth, it has more to do with my time constraints but still, wow, nice work.
Like, seriously.
Why do color of law statutes remain enforced and on the books if the constitution outright constricts or discredits their legitimacy?
Did you skip the part about intentional vagueness?