posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Oh, you again! How incessant!
you "Uh-huh. If you made this presumption, then what was the point of making this remark: "
your quote of mine " It is only moot if all states have the exact same restrictions in their own constitutions."
you "You've "presumed" all right, but your presumptions have failed you."
Go look up moot. I'll help you: " of no legal significance". And, when fed and state agree, the legal significance is the same in that no matter
where you go, you are still under that directive. But, in arguing against or for that directive, it is a state matter, and so it is not a pointless
point, and it serves for the very reason I specified in the previous post.
And, as for your statements:
"Statements such as the First Amendment prohibits Congress and not the states from infringing upon certain unalienable rights are outrageously
How is this outrageously disingenuous?
Now, enough with your arguments on semantics. If you want to win an argument so badly, go to your local elementary school. I care for significant
points - things you seem to be void of. In fact, judging your character, just stop posting on my thread - as it is almost a certainty you will
present nothing constructive.