Online users
???: Message???: Message  

Response continues, with an idiot:
Re: op-ed writer: "WAHHHHHH!!!!" -- TEEBONE Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE

10/02/2019, 21:22:39

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Reply to @Barry Hirsh: Well then no point in having any laws at all, since criminals dont obey laws.
Reply to @Redz28livez2019: Laws that penalize malum in se criminal acts are legitimate. Laws that are malum prohibitum (i.e. that make illegal anything those in power merely wish to be illegal) are not. When it comes to fundamental rights, Scalia rightly wrote in D.C. v. Heller (2008),

"[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

Yes. Just so.

(And, thanks for making my point by not addressing the irrefutable facts I elucidated.)


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Modified by TEEBONE at Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 21:23:38

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page