So, now you deflect and avoid substantiating your assertion, and continue to pretend the evidence is to be found in the links you provided, but still fail to quote those passages from your links which you allege refute my specifically stated contentions.
Additionally, one of your links is from 2012, and has absolutely nothing to do with the current actions taken by the State of Texas. And, your other link is from August 18, 2023, making it irrelevant to the Texas Senate and House Bills just passed.
I am not avoiding anything. If you want to read the rulings I posted links. They know more then you and me combined. Unlike you I might disagree with ruling but don’t go make up stuff like this.
One of your links is from 2012, and has absolutely nothing to do with the current actions taken by the State of Texas. And, your other link is from August 18, 2023, also making it irrelevant to the Texas Senate and House Bills just passed.
I’m still waiting for you to quote from my STATED CONTENTIONS, and then provide a rebuttal to what you quote.
How are we to engage in a productive and fact- finding discussion if you refuse to engage in a fact-finding dialogue?
Most of what you refer to as “walls of text” is, well researched documentation substantiating my contentions.
I guess, in this day and age, it is more fashionable and easier to post unsubstantiated opinions, and disparaging remarks, than to do some research and share that research with those who seem interested in a subject.
So you read them then you should understand that the courts ruled back then that states could not make laws for enforcement which directly applies to TX. I have a feeling you had no idea and are now trying to save face.
[quote=“johnwk2, post:66, topic:245714”] I
guess, in this day and age, it is more fashionable and easier to post unsubstantiated opinions, and disparaging remarks, than to do some research and share that research with those who seem interested in a subject.
[/quote]
So the SC rulings are unsubstantiated opinions.
No need to debate someone who refuses to acknowledge simple facts like actual supreme court rulings. Good day.
Those are your words. Not mine. But, do keep in mind, what makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
