Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if you had cancer, you would consider seeing an accountant first?
ahhh I see you missed my point. you must be a bit slow I would avoid hiring you for sure. no I would see a doctor that is a specialist with a very good track record and reputation, with out any medical malpractice suits against him
So you would trust the opinion of an accountant over a medical doctor on medical issues?
Perhaps I know what I'm talking about?
That really depends on whether the account and the medical doctor shared their educational background with me, or tried to keep it a secret while I decided which one was more creditable to give me an opinion on a medical issue. That's what you did, you wanted us all to accept your "superior knowledge" on the constitution without telling us if you're a plumber, lawyer or unemployed wantta be rock star.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Since you're all apparently con law scholars, you must clearly understand what this amendment means. When are you entitled to a civil jury?
I mean, clearly the meaning of this is plain, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68
So you're looking for "libs" to post things on this topic, then you'll drop your "zinger" and prove you know everything about everything?
^^ This.
Betamanlet, don't you think it's just a little childish to spend your days on here making these bitter posts branding all "libs" as the same and trying to pick some ridiculous straw man argument?
Because I'm a lawyer, I took con law, passed the bar. I know more about the constitution than you do, and I have proven it in this topic.
So is it possible that liberals are wrong on obamacare when they didn't know what the 7th amendment meant?
Wow.
I'm a lawyer too. I also took con law (I and II) and passed the bar.
However, knowing "the constitution" does not add much to the most robust debate about the constitution --- that is, is its most controversial portions adaptable document to be read in spirit, or a static document to be read on its face?
Oh, and making illogical conclusions such as "If you didn't get the 1st day law school lecture on the distinction between common law and equity, you don't understand the 7th Amendment, so you must a) be a liberal, and b) not be able to discuss any of the other Amendments" is very.... um.... nonsensical.
I don't know why you think the premise of the thread or the conclusion you draw is in any way compelling?
After all, the ACLU is chock full of constitutional lawyers. Liberals.
When you stop using google to create a thread and become the owner of the forum, you can then dictate how people should respond, please.
Didn't realize google held the rights to the 7th amendment. Try again, libbie.
You guys are CLUELESS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
