6/21/2013 4:14 PM
Glad dahs covered that for you. Is it clear now?
6/21/2013 4:14 PM
FWIW, I get that saying they "CAN"T" is simply being an idealist.   I prefer to live in the real world.   If 20% of my life is spent living under a law that is later revoked, they DID pass a law.   That's just a fact.
6/21/2013 4:15 PM
It's clear that he's almost as dumb as you.    Almost.

Tell me again how the Feds can't pass any laws pertaining to marriage because it's a state right.   That's a good one. 
6/21/2013 4:16 PM
6/21/2013 4:17 PM
No, I think you're an idiot.  I didn't say they can't pass the law, but that they can't legally make laws regarding many things.  It doesn't mean they won't try, but it's still unconstitutional and the laws will correspondingly eventually be found to be unconstitutional.  It may take a while.  For example, the case that made laws against homosexual activity unlawful, 2003's Lawrence vs. Texas, was specifically raised against a 30-year-old law, and some of the other states' laws that were effectively nullified by the decision were much older than that.

Again, as with your Civil War secession analogy, I don't really see where you're trying to go with this.  How does the fact that Congress passed an unconstitutional piece of legislation and that it managed to stay in force for a while, albeit being consistently successfully challenged in lower courts, prove that the law was justifiable in the first place?  I don't see the point you're trying to make here.  The common thread between these two ridiculous arguments seems to be that you think the Federal government can do whatever it wants.  This is patently untrue, per the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is going to back that position up very soon.  I fail to see how anything you say has any bearing on the legitimacy of the law.  Just saying it exists doesn't prove anything.
6/21/2013 4:17 PM
Soon followed by...



6/21/2013 4:18 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2013 4:17:00 PM (view original):
No, I think you're an idiot.  I didn't say they can't pass the law, but that they can't legally make laws regarding many things.  It doesn't mean they won't try, but it's still unconstitutional and the laws will correspondingly eventually be found to be unconstitutional.  It may take a while.  For example, the case that made laws against homosexual activity unlawful, 2003's Lawrence vs. Texas, was specifically raised against a 30-year-old law, and some of the other states' laws that were effectively nullified by the decision were much older than that.

Again, as with your Civil War secession analogy, I don't really see where you're trying to go with this.  How does the fact that Congress passed an unconstitutional piece of legislation and that it managed to stay in force for a while, albeit being consistently successfully challenged in lower courts, prove that the law was justifiable in the first place?  I don't see the point you're trying to make here.  The common thread between these two ridiculous arguments seems to be that you think the Federal government can do whatever it wants.  This is patently untrue, per the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is going to back that position up very soon.  I fail to see how anything you say has any bearing on the legitimacy of the law.  Just saying it exists doesn't prove anything.
Too long.  You're not interesting enough to post that much.  Shorten it up.  I read the first sentence.

They CAN and DO pass laws that "overstep" their limits.    FACT.
6/21/2013 4:19 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
It's clear that he's almost as dumb as you.    Almost.

Tell me again how the Feds can't pass any laws pertaining to marriage because it's a state right.   That's a good one. 
Next week (or whenever the ruling comes down) the law will get tossed. When it does, you need to come back to this thread and admit that you are a dumb mother ******. If the Supreme Court rules that DOMA is constitutional, I'll do the same.

Deal?
6/21/2013 4:25 PM
I ask you guys "can I rob a bank?"

Mike says "Sure you can."
BL says "No, that's illegal."

I go on to rob banks for 17 years before being caught.  Mike says I can rob banks, and I did for 17 years.  BL was right in saying it was illegal.

Is this essentially what you're arguing now?  I'm upset with myself for coming back to read these last few pages.  I'm confused what the point of this current discussion is.
6/21/2013 4:26 PM
There is no point. Mike is retarded.
6/21/2013 4:35 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
It's clear that he's almost as dumb as you.    Almost.

Tell me again how the Feds can't pass any laws pertaining to marriage because it's a state right.   That's a good one. 
Next week (or whenever the ruling comes down) the law will get tossed. When it does, you need to come back to this thread and admit that you are a dumb mother ******. If the Supreme Court rules that DOMA is constitutional, I'll do the same.

Deal?
I'll come back in 17 years and admit.   I expect you to admit it right now. 

Again, if a law is passed and held for 20% of your life, did it not exist?
6/21/2013 4:37 PM
Right now, a 35 y/o gay man has been unable to legally marry, according to the Feds, his partner his ENTIRE ADULT LIFE.

Tell him how the Feds can't pass laws pertaining to marriage. 
6/21/2013 4:38 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/21/2013 4:25:00 PM (view original):
I ask you guys "can I rob a bank?"

Mike says "Sure you can."
BL says "No, that's illegal."

I go on to rob banks for 17 years before being caught.  Mike says I can rob banks, and I did for 17 years.  BL was right in saying it was illegal.

Is this essentially what you're arguing now?  I'm upset with myself for coming back to read these last few pages.  I'm confused what the point of this current discussion is.
Nope, you're dumb.   Not as dumb as BL but possibly dumber than dahs.   Congrats.
6/21/2013 4:41 PM
If you say so.
6/21/2013 4:41 PM
I do.  In fact, I insist. 
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.