20080626

steffy cantsellya, nearly ineffable retard

OMG, steffyboy "kevin gutzman's droolcup cleaner" kinsella is back at it, pretending to add clarity (and, of course, an air of smoking jacket collegiality among fellow JD airheads and sellouts — well, not so applicable in the case of butler shaffer) while fucking the boat with a large unpluggable hole. stephan P cantsellya is again trying to sell falsehood, alleging that the "bill of rights" is generally (not specifically, as in the case of the first amendment) inapplicable to the states. well, i'll ask the same old question... again: where in the US constitution, droolcup retard from hell, is that inapplicability expressed statutorily?

of course, it is not. therefore, any claim to general "bill of rights" inapplicability to the states is — wait for it — extraconstitutional. these supposed stalwart bastions of "law" paint themselves virtuous for ignoring the obvious: there is no general exclusion for the states with regard to the law contained in the "bill of rights". they dodge and they run, leaving behind them with false bravado the irrelevant crappings of noting the specific exclusion of the states from the first amendment. huzzah! okay, fuckers, that's one. that's one amendment of the ten in the "bill of rights". can you try for two sequentially? yes, how about aiming for the second amendment? laugh

cantsellya gathers his one ball and launches into the attempt:
Second, as Kevin Gutzman notes, the Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of the federal government--not states, and not DC. So, as with the majority in the Kelo case, the dissent would have had the right result for the wrong reasons. In Heller, the majority is correct in how they construe the meaning of the Second Amendment; the liberals are blatantly, dishonestly wrong. But both sides incorrectly believe that the Bill of Rights applies to DC.
wrong as usual, steffy P. under the supremacy clause,
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
now, if one of you puffy slobbering dickheads wants to show where in that constitution the law of the second amendment is rendered inapplicable to states, congress, the president, the supreme court, or anyone a signatory even by implication to it, please do so. cantsellya points to gutzman apparently giving it his best shot, and what does he offer? the preamble to the "bill of rights" which, funnily enough, isn't law anywhere, let alone in the constitution in any form (law or preamble). if that law didn't match the intent of the bill's authors, well they fucked up and the law must be amended before it carries that weight.

hell, absent a full admission of the obvious, i'd like for one of these lackey LRC "originalist" fuckers to simply admit that the law does not convey the intent they assert. from there they can argue how law not contained in law then becomes law. bear in mind, of course, that when i use the word "law" in this context i'm speaking of the fictional brand of law which is at heart simply threats from arrogant bullies, which when directed at themselves — as the US constitution purports to do above all — are downgraded to empty promises.

c'mon, you retarded godawful preening LRC claptrappers; "show me the law!" laugh

the most disgraceful bit is that the lot of these dipshits would tend toward spending 15 hours in front of a judge (well, until he tells them to once again take up the direct, active robe-sniffing) arguing a single word in some parking ordinance, and the absolute impermeable nature of "written law", yet when confronted repeatedly with the full absence of their asserted position from within the law they purport to consider supreme (for practical purposes anyway), off they go into the vaporous fields of "original intent", "pseudo-state", and "preamble" whacka whacka. whoa there, horsey! back to the law with ya, fucking poser.

it. isn't. there.

seriously, go read the whole of steffy's piece-of-shit post. as always, and inevitably, you'll not find him referring to the US constitution (i.e., law) to support his position (however much he may refer to it as disguise for support). go read it. through every sentence ask yourself, "is this referring to the constitution or something else, and if it refers to the constitution, does it support his assertion that the 'bill of rights' is generally inapplicable to the states?"

[obviously, that test cannot be run on the hypothetical constitution steffy constructs toward the rear of his "argument", since it does not include a "bill of rights" and, however useful intrinsically the technique, is in this case solely a product of his stupidity/dishonesty.]

"but wait," cries the LRC-slurping moron, "didn't you see the bit about congress having local-style control over DC?"

yeah i did. and congress, just like the states (and everyone else evil or vulgar or stupid or unlucky enough to be signatory to the piece-of-shit US constitution) is forbidden in the clearest language from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. doesn't matter who. doesn't matter where. you can talk that "but DC's different" bullshit until your lips fall off and it won't get you around the clear, unconditional prohibition in the second amendment which — OMG — is not anywhere in the US constitution excluded from applicability to the states. so shove that up your ass.

steffy P's argument always and repeatedly returns to the unfounded assertion that this touted inapplicability exists. obviously, he returns to it so frequently in the hope that the reader will be dizzied into accepting blatant argument by assertion, and remonstration for argument by cold demonstration. here it is in undisguised form, less the obfuscatory mountains:

The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of the federal government — not states, and not DC. How do we know this? Because the Bill of Rights only limited what Congress could do, not States.

that is, without adornment nor mistaken omission, steffy's foundation for his assertion — the same assertion. oh, he'll take ya 'round the mountain of this year and that year, this plenary diversion theory and that tenth-amendment squortle, this supreme court faggot and that hallowed JD-toting prick... but it'll always come back — sometimes with amusing plainness — to the repetition of a premise as the conclusion. which begs the question...

[blah blah blahbhiddy blah i wonder how many people got that joke blah blah blah]

Labels: , , ,

posted by saltypig @ 20:03