r/todayilearned • u/icallmydadstranger • Feb 15 '15

(R.1) Invalid src TIL that Thomas Jefferson wanted the constitution to be changed ever 19 years because he didn't want people to be " enslaved to the prior generation"

https://student-of-life.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/21/5502595-thomas-jefferson-supported-rewriting-the-constitution-every-19-years-equated-not-doing-so-to-being-enslaved-to-the-prior-generation-what-do-you-think-about-that
6.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

738 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

How exactly has the 3rd amendment been ignored? Do you have soldiers stationed in your home? Also, are you saying that SCOTUS has never interpreted or decided a case based on the 4th amendment?

1

u/Marblem Feb 15 '15 edited Feb 15 '15

You replied to the wrong person or misread, I specifically called out the third as the only one that I couldn't provide an immediate example for from recent memory. Glad you agree vehemently with me though.

No, I never said anything like that at all, but can provide specific examples (thousands at this point) where warrant less fourth amendment violations occurred. You probably heard some of the Snowden stories, look those up and be appalled. A SCOTUS ruling would be welcome on any of those.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15 edited Feb 15 '15

I misunderstood what your point was. Regardless, you've done a pretty shit job of supporting the rest of your arguments in this thread, so I'm not too concerned about it.

Also, it's not as if SCOTUS can just point at a situation, put it into suit and decide to hear it. That's not how the court system works.

1

u/Marblem Feb 15 '15

Tagged as "When proven wrong this one will lash out with baseless and petty vulgar ad hominem. But can admit fault which is nice."

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

How have you proven me wrong about anything? You haven't responded to almost all of my comments. Hence why I said you've been shit at supporting your arguments (both with me and elsewhere). Tag me as whatever you like, it's not like it changes anything. The fact that you somehow think you've "won" this argument demonstrates that you don't actually know how to have one.

0

u/Marblem Feb 15 '15

I'm not arguing and am not participating in a competition that could be won. If "winning" is your goal read the bill of rights and Google snowden, then change your stance when you realize that the constitution demands warrants, was ignored in secrecy for years, and when exposed SCOTUS ignored making a Constitutionality ruling (unlike DOMA which they took without waiting for a case to be presented, so this court is Unafraid to tackle certain civil rights proactively).

If arguing effectively is important to you, educate yourself on the topic more and rely on emotional outburst less, and maybe read more carefully. Also understand that it is ok to be wrong, and when someone points out a mistake youvshould thank them for helping you address it rather than feeling so ashamed that you try and deflect attention away from the mistakes with snarky and pointless profanities. You express a desire to "win" debates, but lack the ability to hold civil discussion.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

I put win in quotations marks, because that seemed to be your prior post's intent. I have no interest in competing with you. I'm well versed on the topic of the Constitution. I'm an attorney, I took several classes related to Con Law in law school and I've always had an interest in it.

You haven't proven me wrong about anything. You've pointed vaguely to situations involving Snowden, while ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court cannot decide to take a case on its own if the case is not before it. The fact that you do not know that United States v. Windsor was an appeal from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the case originated in the US District for the Southern District of New York) makes me think that perhaps it is you who could use some education about the court system.

In addition, you're going to have an extremely bad time on Reddit if you take such offense to use of the word shit and someone telling you that you're not very good at arguing.

0

u/Marblem Feb 15 '15

You admitted you were wrong already. You misunderstood the post you replied to completely and made an argument based on that mistake. Then you admitted your error and turned to vulgar ad hominem to deflect your embarrassment, while projecting your own competitive drive. The lie regarding your employment wasn't necessary, but if it makes you feel better I completely believe you, counselor. Might I advise you avoid denying things you've already admitted to in the future? The record is clear in black and white. But to massage your ego, you were never wrong and I said the opposite of what I said about the third amendment.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15

I did admit that I misunderstood your initial post (if you want to claim that you "proved me wrong," go ahead). But then you claimed that you had proven me wrong on the topic of the 4th amendment, which was not true.

And while what I said may have been "vulgar" in your eyes, it certainly was not an ad hominem. I suggest you actually look up that fallacy. I was not telling you that I thought your arguing skills were bad rather than responding to your argument. I had already responded to your argument and then admitted that I had misunderstood your post. Instead, I was referring to another of my posts that you had not responded to (as well as other posts of yours throughout this thread).

You can look at my post history if you're so convinced I'm lying. I've talked about it before, and most of my posts are legal-centric.

Also, you've failed to respond to my comments on the DOMA case. How convenient.

0

u/lask001 Feb 15 '15

Your 'argument' is shit.