Workers In Tennessee Forced To Take Muslim Holiday Instead Of Labor Day

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you are a deceptive bastard aren't you.

My argument was that you have no support for your premise and you were too much of fairy to explain it. When you tried to create support - I showed that your thinking was ass backward and juvenile.

Why? just for starters:

Because -- the U.S. Supreme Court used state constitutions with religious tests within them to support their finding We "were" a Christian nation. Now there is no way even a deceiver like you would argue that the U.S. Supreme court was citing "unconstitutional" state constitutions to support their ruling. Therefore those state constitutions with religious tests were constitutional.

You could not have been proven more dead ass wrong. You are too much of an intellectual fairy to admit it.

You are obviously extraordinarily frustrated by this.

My support for what you call my premise has always been the Constitution itself. More than enough to emphatically dispel the confused and garbled excuse for an argument you have tried to cobble up . It’s pathetic. You scramble around trying to contrive ridiculous scenarios in other non connected cases as if they had any bearing.

The U.S. Constitution said no test, so you think that means yes test . Your latest effort for reasoning that, is nothing other than a state with a constitution cannot do anything unconstitutional. Do you really not know how nonsensical that is?
Furthermore according to you, it must be that way because a Judge trying another case did not say the state was acting unconstitutionally on another matter not in its remit and not examined by it. Surely you must feel embarrassed by now. If not , delusional disorder is unhealthy, I can only suggest you get yours seen to professionally.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

You are obviously extraordinarily frustrated by this.

My support for what you call my premise has always been the Constitution itself. More than enough to emphatically dispel the confused and garbled excuse for an argument you have tried to cobble up . It’s pathetic. You scramble around trying to contrive ridiculous scenarios in other non connected cases as if they had any bearing.

The U.S. Constitution said no test, so you think that means yes test . Your latest effort for reasoning that, is nothing other than a state with a constitution cannot do anything unconstitutional. Do you really not know how nonsensical that is?
Furthermore according to you, it must be that way because a Judge trying another case did not say the state was acting unconstitutionally on another matter not in its remit and not examined by it. Surely you must feel embarrassed by now. If not , delusional disorder is unhealthy, I can only suggest you get yours seen to professionally.

No Stu you are the dope trying to argue that the Supreme Court's decision from the 50s went back it time to make State Constitutions unconstitutional from the beginning of the Republic. You are the one making the juvenile argument, not me, you are the one who had the burden of proof not me. You are the one proven wrong by case law. You are the intellectual fairy in just about every argument we have.


Remember Stu the U.S Supreme Court said we are a Christian Nation and they used the state constitutions religious tests to prove it.

You are dead ass wrong.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

No Stu you are the dope trying to argue that the Supreme Court's decision from the 50s went back it time to make State Constitutions unconstitutional from the beginning of the Republic. You are the one making the juvenile argument, not me, you are the one who had the burden of proof not me. You are the one proven wrong by case law. You are the intellectual fairy in just about every argument we have.


Remember Stu the U.S Supreme Court said we are a Christian Nation and they used the state constitutions religious tests to prove it.

You are dead ass wrong.

jem, it may help you comprehend better were you to desist from planting your own silly arguments onto me and then blaming me for your own silly arguments. At least if you could get that far it would be one step in the right direction. Like when you at last learnt to stop spelling cite as site. That was a big step for you.

What you describe is not my argument, it never was.
I have said nothing, anywhere, about state constitutions being unconstitutional.
If you cannot understand the difference between a state constitution being constitutional and a state constitution acting unconstitutionally then you have no chance of comprehending let alone understanding much . When police act illegally it doesn't mean law is illegal , does it, you dimwit.

The childish repetition of that defunct "christian nation" idea and the false assertion that any Supreme Court has ever used an unconstitutional religious test in proof of such ideas , is testimony to your ignorance of such matters. You are clearly way out of your depth here.
First off , no Supreme Court can ever "prove" anything to the outside world in that way. It finds and makes ruling. It does not contextually "prove" by making rulings. Less yet, a Court does not "prove" anything through a Judge's opinion. It is all reason for judgement, not a way to "prove" anything as known fact.
Second, you're a total buffoon for saying any Court can do that.

Furthermore a Supreme Court does not make an act unconstitutional by ruling on it. The Court rules it unconstitutional. It was and is always unconstitutional to act against an emphatic no in the U.S. Constitution as if it means yes. The Court when upholding the U.S. Constitution is confirming that situation. It is not making it unconstitutional in law. The U.S. Constitution has already done so.

When a state has been acting unconstitutionally since the beginning of the Republic (as you phrase it) 'till they are brought to task in the 50's , then ipso facto they have been acting unconstitutionally since the beginning of the Republic.

It doesn't take a Supreme Court to understand that no does not mean yes. It does however take a bunch of zealot religious wingnuts like yourself to make a fool of themselves, to all but themselves, in saying no in the U.S. Constitution actually means yes.

 

[jem]

no you are making up constitutional law as you go along and you have no idea what you are talking about.

You are the one trying to say yes is yes and no is no... I have no clue what deluded shit you are thinking.

My arguments are guided by the principles of jurisprudence and the Supreme Court. Yours must be guided by LSD.

As predicted you are now arguing bullshit because you are too much of fairy to actually explain you position.

You are the one making the argument... I am the one saying you were clueless because you have no support for the argument. Don't try and blame me because the Supreme Ct told you were wrong.

 

[jem]

Stu's quote:

"If you cannot understand the difference between a state constitution being constitutional and a state constitution acting unconstitutionally then you have no chance of comprehending let alone understanding much . When police act illegally it doesn't mean law is illegal , does it, you dimwit."

By the way STU just wtf does this mean above. Do you have any idea what you are talking about.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. But I suspect you have dreamed up a distinction without a difference.

You are now anthropomorphizing the constitution. In your LSD dreams a state constitution acts unconstitutionally? How does it do that?

It seems to be that you are trying to use legal jargon - but you have no idea how to use it properly or even what it means when you read it.

That would be fine... no one needs to go to law school.

Your problem is that you are trying to act like a law professor but you are not even a legal secretary.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Stu's quote:

"If you cannot understand the difference between a state constitution being constitutional and a state constitution acting unconstitutionally then you have no chance of comprehending let alone understanding much . When police act illegally it doesn't mean law is illegal , does it, you dimwit."

By the way STU just wtf does this mean above. Do you have any idea what you are talking about.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. But I suspect you have dreamed up a distinction without a difference.

You are now anthropomorphizing the constitution. In your LSD dreams a state constitution acts unconstitutionally? How does it do that?

It seems to be that you are trying to use legal jargon - but you have no idea how to use it properly or even what it means when you read it.

That would be fine... no one needs to go to law school.

Your problem is that you are trying to act like a law professor but you are not even a legal secretary.

All you've got, all you've demonstrated, and no more clearly than above , is an ability to bitch. There's no substance in anything you say.
Every post you make is either full of bellyaching , an illogical attempt at reasoning , or some confused rhetoric or other.

As surmised, you're obviously not bright enough to see the difference between the two distinct things I mentioned.

You blurted...
"Now there is no way even a deceiver like you would argue that the U.S. Supreme court was citing "unconstitutional" state constitutions to support their ruling. "

I responded....
"If you cannot understand the difference between a state constitution being constitutional and a state constitution acting unconstitutionally...."
I bet you still don't get it.

...try this see if it helps any... a state constitution requires a religious test. In every other way that state constitution does not act contrary to the U.S. Constitution. It was formed properly and legally-it's very existence is constitutional. The state constitution is acting unconstitutionally in a certain respect. That's clearly obvious and as wretched as you are at comprehending anything that has the word religion in it, even you should have managed to grasp the essential difference there.


Let me put it this way jem, all the things you say I am doing above are projections. Turn them back onto yourself and you will have achieved something at last. It will be a recognition of where you go wrong.

You see, for example , you cannot speak as if you know something others don't about law school, law and the Constitution , when you didn't even know the distinction between cite and site before the many attempts I made to show you . Your problem is that basic. Pathetic sums you up

 

[jem]

You argument has been reduced to citing typos. Good for you.

Nice try on your anthropomorphizing. Have you straightened out your jargon? Your argument is still wacked. The state constitution was acting how? You are incapable of framing your argument after two tries. When are you going to give up an admit that you know nothing about jurisprudence without cutting and pasting or worse.

Anything to avoid reality.

Stu's horrible reality that the U.S. Supreme Court cited those very same Constitutions with religious tests as proof we are a Christian nation.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

You argument has been reduced to citing typos. Good for you.

Nice try on your anthropomorphizing. Have you straightened out your jargon? Your argument is still wacked. The state constitution was acting how? You are incapable of framing your argument after two tries. When are you going to give up an admit that you know nothing about jurisprudence without cutting and pasting or worse.

Anything to avoid reality.

Stu's horrible reality that the U.S. Supreme Court cited those very same Constitutions with religious tests as proof we are a Christian nation.

Once again you've added nothing. Just more moan and groan at me.
You've become a troll artist jem with nothing to offer. All you do is repeat that I am wrong. Your like a child crying your wrong your wrong over and over and nothing more. You'll probably make yourself puke in a minute to attract attention.
There was no typo, you are just plain ignorant when it comes down to it.
So f*kd by religion that whenever the word appears your brain goes straight to ga ga land.

I've offered you explanation, description, law, facts, reasons , opinion, information, details and rebuttal on just about every point you brought up. ...and what do you do in return... ignore it copy some unconnected irrelevant nonsense from Wiki and winge how I and everyone else who doesn't swallow your bullshit is wrong.
You are a dimwit, no doubt about it.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Once again you've added nothing. Just more moan and groan at me.
You've become a troll artist jem with nothing to offer. All you do is repeat that I am wrong. Your like a child crying your wrong your wrong over and over and nothing more. You'll probably make yourself puke in a minute to attract attention.
There was no typo, you are just plain ignorant when it comes down to it.
So f*kd by religion that whenever the word appears your brain goes straight to ga ga land.

I've offered you explanation, description, law, facts, reasons , opinion, information, details and rebuttal on just about every point you brought up. ...and what do you do in return... ignore it copy some unconnected irrelevant nonsense from Wiki and winge how I and everyone else who doesn't swallow your bullshit is wrong.
You are a dimwit, no doubt about it.

O.k. if you enjoy pretending to practice law explain this.

in 1989 the U.S. Supreme court said this about the 1892 Ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Holy Trinity vs. the United States.

"The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy review of the 'mass of organic utterances' establishing that 'this is a Christian nation,' and which were taken to prove that it could not 'be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation.'" Id., at 471.


Your case was from when the 1950s.

So how could those religious tests have been unconstitutional in 1892 if they were used as support for a Supreme Court finding that we are a Christian Nation. And then the case was referenced by the Supreme Court in 1989.


Please do not try you piss ant b.s. -- try citing cases and legal authorities to support your premise.

1. Try proving Trinity has been over ruled
2. Try proving the U.S. Supreme Court would have cited Trinity if it had over ruled it without explaining that it was not longer go law.
3. Try to explain the same in light of Justice Scalia remarks.
4. Try explaining any point in time in which the Supreme Court over ruled it self.
5. Try explaining supporting any of your argument with law and cases.
Unless you cite on point legal authority I will consider your argument to be the worthless illogical piece of shit it is.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

O.k. if you enjoy pretending to practice law explain this.

The only one pretending anything here jem is you.

Quote from jem:

Your case was from when the 1950s.

So how could those religious tests have been unconstitutional in 1892 if they were used as support for a Supreme Court finding that we are a Christian Nation. And then the case was referenced by the Supreme Court in 1989.

Simple. Those religious tests were unconstitutional in 1892 because what you say is bullshit.

You show no evidence whatsoever that The Supreme Court found "we are a Christian Nation" .
Furthermore even had the Supreme Court so found ....... which it did not , as the opinion of one Judge which is what you use, is not the Court's finding or the Court's ruling anyway, such a finding had it even existed, could not have any bearing let alone alter the clear meaning in the U.S. Constitution where "..no religious test..." can only mean what it says irrespective of any imaginations of a "Christian Nation".

Quote from jem:

Please do not try you piss ant b.s. -- try citing cases and legal authorities to support your premise.

1. Try proving Trinity has been over ruled
2. Try proving the U.S. Supreme Court would have cited Trinity if it had over ruled it without explaining that it was not longer go law.
3. Try to explain the same in light of Justice Scalia remarks.
4. Try explaining any point in time in which the Supreme Court over ruled it self.
5. Try explaining supporting any of your argument with law and cases.
Unless you cite on point legal authority I will consider your argument to be the worthless illogical piece of shit it is.

Why the hell would I want to explain with totally unconnected case law completely irrelevant to any legal bearing on something, when already in my previous posts, it has been clearly shown to anyone with any idea at all , in plain English and in law, where a state and its constitution can and always did act unconstitutionally in a specific regard.

Your persistent and uneducated blundering default to Trinity, as if it were a panacea to all the perverted logic which has the defense of religious prejudice behind it, is just one more element which betrays that total incapability and lack of any skill you have in recognizing or understanding legal authority in any event.

Time to now go back screaming and shouting, stamping your feet in frustration at being so wrong that having called yourself a lawyer you cannot bring yourself to face up to the fact that even if you were, it would be a piss poor one, good only at bringing the profession into disrepute.