Post a response to this discussion thread
They don't even make internal sense, much less espouse a defensible point of view. grundle-James and his ridiculous constitutional stylings were put to bed by Richard Bernstein on several occasions. I'd re-post some of Richard's refutations, but I'm just too damn tired of trying to teach this particular pig to sing: It annoys the pig, wastes my time, and causes the neighbors to shake their heads in exasperation.
Suffice to say that IF grundle-James' libertarian bullshit had any foundation in law OR fact, you'd see reputable attorneys advancing these arguments in real live courts of law. The fact that this nonsense isn't taken seriously by attorneys or courts is ample proof that grundle-James doesn't have the first idea of what he's talking about.
Post a response to this discussion thread