TWO constitutional "scholars" - who in fact work 2 different places, one of which would not ordinarily employ a "constitutional scholar" - and these are such good buddies of yours, but you're not such a lawyer yourself that you begin to know where to deal with the problem. These must be guys you golf with out there in the Carolina hills. You're a schlub hanging on TER who just happens to know these scholarly guys.
And you don't bother them with e-mails, you bother them with calls, because they're too busy for e-mails, but not too busy for calls.
And maybe you said something like, is a stadium bond a due process issue, but you can't really remember, which is damn convenient. And neither of them said, well, due process is a PROCEDURAL issue, so it depends on how it went down.
Now indeed, where do you think you might find people who know the most about constitutional law? Maybe the people who WORK with it? And where do you suppose you'd find people who deal with the due process & equal protection issues of the 14th amendment on a routine basis? Yeah, defense lawyers would be a pretty good guess - but you wouldn't know that because your head is way too deep in your ass.
Zisk, why don't you stick with the truth? It's easier to remember.
For that matter, why is your ego so wrapped up in TER that you can't ask a poster, "how do you figure that?"
Arlen Specter announced he's giving up on calling for an investigation into the Patriots cheating by breaking NFL rules on videotaping, and will now turn his attention instead to public funding of stadiums.
Although so many economic studies show stadiums are a horrible waste of taxpayer dollars, I'm not sure if this is a federal issue since its always local and/or state funding. I'm not sure about federal involvement here, but taxpayers should not be subsidizing such wealthy owners and leagues.
I can actually see the feds role in this issue. The states and municipalities are usually the victims of sports franchises that are holding them hostage for multimillion dollars stadiums. The underlying threat of course is relocating the team to another state or municipality.
I don't know who else but the feds would be in a position to provide oversight.
but also think that is for the states to decide if they want to attract a new team by fleecing their own taxpayers
as for example, application of state law in violation of the 14th amendment (due process & equal protection) could be.
I assume even a hillbilly knows to read the subject matter before playing dumb. See, you fooled me entirely.
What law is there to assure a state or municipal govt is not taken over by a fascist or criminal organization?
You think about that for a while, then check the language of the 14th amendment.
Also remember there are no B&W lines.
For your benefit, here it is in its entirety:
**************************
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
**********************************
--you made some ridiculous reference to due process clause. In no way, shape, or form, is the selling of bonds, or adding a tax, to publicly finance a stadium a violation of due process. If it were, there would be no ad valorem taxes.
Now you throw out something related to 'fascist or criminal organization'. Huh? You are comparing professional sport teams to fascist or criminal organizations? And that's irrelevant anyway.
The only reference in 14th Amendment to public financing is section 4 on debt related to suppressing insurrection and rebellion (or emancipation of slaves). Again, totally unrelated.
Your free lesson was worth every penny it cost me, and not one more.
Does this mean nothing to you?
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Don't you realize that is the 1st explicit extension of due process and equal protection to state govts, and that provision was eventually responsible for extension of the bill of rights to the states? and that it makes the conduct of state agencies a Federal issue?
IOW, any irregularity in state legal processes can potentially become a Federal issue.
You are a simpleton, a fucking idiot. Try using your fucking brain at least half as much as your mouth, eh?
Walk into any court with that argument for due process and you will be laughed at. Out loud. Not even Stevens would climb out so far on that limb.
This is not a due process issue unless you want to claim that by definition anything and everything is due process issue. Talk about over-reaching. I would expect even you could comprehend how ridiculous that is. But then again, maybe you can't. You do tend to be stubborn as a mule while also being dumb as a brick.
Just for fun, I ran your "explanation" word for word by two constitutional law scholars - one in a poly sci dept and the other in the law school. The first response inquired as to what medications you were mixing together. The second response asked if English was not your native language.
Your alias should be SimpleMindedCountryLawyer.
and my buddies think you're full of shit!
And GW says you don't need to worry about no constitution nohow.
Back to our regular programming. Any argument has to be based in a set of facts, which was unspecified. That's what's hilarious about your statement - there wasn't a specified set of facts. Any state law that is not applied equally is a violation of the 14th amendment - that is a matter of law.
If you want to contest that based on the authority of unstated names, then I'm gonna cite my connection with the Father Son & Holy Ghost.
If you want to break out your paypal, we can write you a memo.
I'm sure that a TER conversation is going to get the attention of 2 constitutional law "scholars" within a couple hours. But let me point out that anybody working in a polisci dept has just trashed his credentials as a conlaw "scholar"; and that there aren't a lot of law school professors who work more closely with conlaw issues than many working lawyers in several areas.
or, of course, you could post the entire text of your e-mails. But then that would open them to review, wouldn't it?
Get back to tending your still.
-- Modified on 6/18/2008 6:47:43 PM
who said anything about e-mails?
ever heard of telephone? I don't bother random people with an unsolicited email. I called two people I know. Personally. Who I work with. Personally. And read to them what you wrote. Verbatim. Get it now? And it took all of about six minutes per conversation. That is, after their laughter died down. The only part of the entire exchange I left out in reading your posts to them was the site this is posted on.
And yeah, I'm going to put out their names here on a TER board just because of your challenge. Grow the fuck up already.
You have no clue what I do or who I know. Then again, from your posts, you have no clue about a hell of a lot of things.
You expect us to believe that you personally know TWO (2) constitutional "scholars" who just happened to be waiting by the phone for your call, even thought you yourself don't know where to begin to address the problem - these boys just happen to be PERSONALLY known to you, in your posse back there in the Carolina hill country, and took your call between their constitutional scholaring, and neither of them told you, well, any legal theory depends on the factual situation - which of course you couldn't specify because it wasn't specified.
And none of the 3 of you have ever done enough cross-examination to suspect we might not believe you.
Zisk, besides being a tree-climbing goat dinkleberry, you're also a fucking liar.
TWO constitutional "scholars" - who in fact work 2 different places, one of which would not ordinarily employ a "constitutional scholar" - and these are such good buddies of yours, but you're not such a lawyer yourself that you begin to know where to deal with the problem. These must be guys you golf with out there in the Carolina hills. You're a schlub hanging on TER who just happens to know these scholarly guys.
And you don't bother them with e-mails, you bother them with calls, because they're too busy for e-mails, but not too busy for calls.
And maybe you said something like, is a stadium bond a due process issue, but you can't really remember, which is damn convenient. And neither of them said, well, due process is a PROCEDURAL issue, so it depends on how it went down.
Now indeed, where do you think you might find people who know the most about constitutional law? Maybe the people who WORK with it? And where do you suppose you'd find people who deal with the due process & equal protection issues of the 14th amendment on a routine basis? Yeah, defense lawyers would be a pretty good guess - but you wouldn't know that because your head is way too deep in your ass.
Zisk, why don't you stick with the truth? It's easier to remember.
For that matter, why is your ego so wrapped up in TER that you can't ask a poster, "how do you figure that?"
work in two different places? how about two different buildings at the same university -- holy hell, a university actually has both a poly sci dept and a law school at the same time? Whouda thunk it? And these people interact with each other? Is that possible? That they could be part of the same research center, write papers together, review each others work when the interests overlap, and meet for lunch to bitch about the administration? Nawwwwww. That never happens at a university.
bother them with calls? well since we talk fairly regularly anyway its not much of a bother. Maybe you missed the part where I stated these are people I work with. Personally. (And as it turns out, hang out with one of them, socially.) Your reading comprehension skills are fading fast. Perhaps you should stick with Harold and the Purple Crayon before trying to tackle the US Constitution. Kind of like the other day when you claimed you got a working definition of monopoly from title 5 of USC, when it only refers to behaving like a monopoly but never defines it.
You claim I am lying, without any knowledge whatsoever of the situation, and at the same time try to weasel out of it by making up scenarios under which I misrepresented your situation to them. People who supposedly don't exist. So which is it? Are you a liar or a hypocrite?
Maybe you also missed the part where I said I read the exchange to them verbatim (yes, including the profanities - these guys are not prudes). Kind of hard to misrepresent your own words. Or will you know claim I'm lying about that too? Or is your excuse that its not what you said, but what you meant to say that is relevant, because you are too stupid to be able to put your own thoughts down properly into words?
And as for I should ask you how you came up with that, I did exactly that. My first reply inquired very succinctly what does the 14th amendment have to do with municipal decision on selling bonds to finance a stadium and your reply, in its entirety:
-----------------------------------
Your free lesson in common sense
Posted by SimpleCountryLawyer, 6/18/2008 8:21:01 AM
What law is there to assure a state or municipal govt is not taken over by a fascist or criminal organization?
You think about that for a while, then check the language of the 14th amendment.
Also remember there are no B&W lines.
------------------------------------
Obviously not everyone interprets the Constitution the same way. Otherwise there would be no need for the SC. But my guess is their eyes rolled when you went off about about protection from "fascist and criminal organizations" as somehow being relevant to the topic at hand. But that's just a guess.
Perhaps if you spent a little less time trying to decide which childish alias to use, and a little more time putting some thought into what you read, and write, you'd have fewer problems.
-- Modified on 6/19/2008 6:55:22 AM
(1) You're a liar.
(2) Bizarro is right, academics are underemployed parasitic loons.
(3) You can't read - noting your quotation of SCL above contains no assertion, only a question.
(4) You're a fucking idiot.
Considering also that a B&W answer to the issue of due process is that it's a procedural question depending on how something went down, I think (1) looks easily most likely. Not to eliminate the other possibilities, but that's my tentative ruling.
We note that a polisci guy would have referred you to a law prof, who would have hemmed and hawed for 3 paragraphs before telling you it all depends, we're thinking you're not only a liar, but a fucking liar.
You are just totally full of shit.
"We note that a polisci guy would have referred you to a law prof, who would have hemmed and hawed for 3 paragraphs before telling you it all depends, we're thinking you're not only a liar, but a fucking liar."
No, "we" don't note anything. Its just you, always has been, no matter how many different aliases you choose to post under to give the appearance of it being more than just you.
So you are apparently an expert on the field of poly sci now too. You know exactly what any one in poly sci would do. No matter how much expertise someone has, any response to a question dealing with the 14th Amendment must be met with "gee, I don't know --- you better go ask someone in the law school". You are an idiot. Have you ever read a book on constitutional analysis by a poly sci prof? There are lots of them, some even authored by the guy I work with. Why should he defer to anyone else?
And of course you know exactly how any law prof would respond. They would all just mimic your position because you know everything. You are by far the most egotistical bastard on the boards.
First you claim I must be a liar because everyone has to take your position. Then when that doesn't work, you claim I must have misrepresented the whole scenario because everyone must take your position. When that didn't work, you decide that the two particular scholars I deal with must be lunatics, because...wait for it....everyone must take your position.
Have you ever shown anyone here proof of your supposed law degree? No? Gee, then I guess you must be lying about that.
Basically it all boils down to you are an ignorant fuck who spouts off about everything despite knowing so little - you even act as if you know how academics interact with each other despite you never being one.
Jesus, get over yourself already.
even if you can't address the points made, we should still believe your highly fucking improbable story about your authorities who can't explain their position.
Get back to Festus and have another round. Your story can't get less credible.
I know that anybody who would telephone anybody else to whine about a TER argument is certifuckingfiably insane.
tripartite committee meeting to resolve this issue once and for all.
We can conference call you. If I don't get deported 1st.
it's "Lying Piece of Shit".
We'll even get your own statue.
you need to review Mathews v. Eldridge.
if you don't pay the postage on the little bastards' child support check.
I'm an expert constifooshional law scholar, and so is my brother Travis. It's not like it seems, we're all Zisks because everybody is related in these parts.
And he really telephoned us jus like he said, and we laffed our hineys right off!! OK, so it was because he makes them funny noises on the telephone. It's still true, we laffed.
OK, gotta run now, the still needs tending.
Personally. Who I work with. Personally. And read to them what you wrote. Verbatim.
And they said, "who is this zisk fucker, and why is he on TER arguing about the 14th amendment? We don't fucking believe you, and besides, leave us alone. We're all fucking dead."
They all said the same thing. Isn't it amazing?
Except one pointed out that Zisk is Slovenian for goat dinkleberries.
and laughed their asses off and said you are full of shit.
Oh, I forgot, they said to include the photographic proof.
-- Modified on 6/19/2008 2:16:19 PM
and not too close related to Original Zisk or his bruver Homer or sister Ofelia.
It's true what they say, I get on the telephone to them all, and I laff on the telephone, becuse Cousin Zisk make such funny noises.
We are NOT TOOFLESS INBRED LIARS! Its NOT TRUE! An we are often sober.
arguing with Willie.
"Walk into any court with that argument for due process and you will be laughed at. Out loud."
We think not. Too much energy to laugh. What they say is, "Brief me by ________".
So we're thinking here is that Willie's right, you're a fucking liar whose head is so far up your own ass that you lost sight of where your own credibility went.
Or, we could look at it this way - if you're so certain, why can't you cite authority, instead of anonymous buddies in irreproducible conversations?
This is the internet, pal. We already know you're a dog.
You want us to believe that you called your buddies in the polisci and law schools back there in carolinas; and they were waiting for your calls, and they didn't say, "why don't you talk to a lawyer", or "it all depends" or "due process is a procedural issue". In fact, you relayed (or they took) a question as a statement. And they were the only "scholars" in the USA who could give you a one line snark for an answer to anything - let alone the 14th amendment.
You didn't cutnpaste an email. In fact, you didn't take it up in our own legal dept. You know these scholars so well, but none of you realize that declarations of fact on the internet have to sustain themselves, because nobody cares or even wants to know if you're a bot.
Sounds to me like you were talking to Travis & Festus in the Plumbing & Still Maintenance Dept. No doubt they are your buddies, given you seem like a pretty good customer. Or I suppose it could have been your therapists' voices riccocheting around in there. In any case, something a constitutional lawyer might call inherently incredible.
So, we have just one last question: did you tell them you were arguing on TER?
-- Modified on 6/19/2008 10:47:01 AM
I'd tell you were a John Lott clone but you are too ignorant to know who that is, and too stupid to figure understand the reference even with the aid of Google.
All the rest of this is bullshit and you know it.
"You didn't cutnpaste an email."
If I were to use email, and then do a cut and paste, you would just claim it was edited anyway. You are so full of shit.
More red herrings about how you keep stating "they were waiting for my calls." How many different times will you try that line? What nonsense. Called one guy, spoke to him for a few minutes. Other guy wasn't in the office, and called him at home. We also made plans to have dinner tonight. We actually call each other from time to time. We're colleagues. Colleagues do that. At least human ones do. I have no idea what you do.
And yes, they gave longer responses as well but none of it supported your position whatsoever. Things along the lines of "I have no idea where he is coming from" or "I don't see how Specter would possibly rely on the due process clause" etc etc. I decided to share the snarks specifically because you are such a strutting ass.
"So, we have just one last question: did you tell them you were arguing on TER?"
---you're reading comprehension skills are at absolute zero at this point. You keep proving that. I already stated specifically that I left out that one piece of information in my conversations with them, as its the one thing totally irrelevant. If I read the entire post, verbatim, who gives a fuck where the post is? Learn how to read before you attempt any other posts.
I'm sure your other multiple posts under different aliases are just as moronic and intentionally deceiving. I have no intention of reading them.
One day you'll get a life of your own, and will no longer need to pretend to be so many other people. When that day comes, who knows.
instead of this elaborate bullshit about calling your buddies the scholars.
We can tell you hang with scholars, just by the way you think.
torcher you.
they said, and I quote verbatim, "Woofwoofbowwowwow!"
Dick said, "Go fuck yourself", and George said, "anything you say, Dick" and Dick said, "not you, you fuckin idiot" and George said, "then which fuckin idiot" and Dick said, "get close enough that I can hit you with this here shotgun" and George said, "let me get Scooter on that", and Dick said, "Like I said to begin with" and George said, "we don't need no stinkin constitution nohow anyway" and then I called up BK, and he says it's CONSTIFUCKINGTUTION and if you don't spel rite, it won't google, and so that's your problem!
IMHO, he is still looking for a way to fuck with the NFL since old Arlen is in the bag for Comcast.
interstate commerce is the term you are looking for, though that has become a dirty word for Federal involvement among righties. Of course the leagues are all cartels, but not per se restraints of trade - just very easy to step over the line with excess shenanigans.
Probably more likely to find Federal monetary guarantees or involvement somewhere, anywhere in there.
I am nothing short of amazed - indeed, FUCKING amazed - to find you 2 acknowledging that bread & circuses may not be the best plan for use of tax money.
You may be amazed that I would listen to the contrary argument.
I get to watch football regardless of who is getting fucked. That aside, the NFL franchises are holding the cities hostage with their threats of relocation. I believe in free enterprise, but there is nothing free about this.
You may be amazed that nothing you say or do amazes me. You alternate between extremely lucid and completely off the wall. I gave up predicting which one of you is doing the posting long ago.
and he will be the only one who thinks he's clever
That guy sure is under your skin, isn't he!
Maybe if you tried harder to keep your stories straight, it wouldn't be so easy for him to persecute you.
some *basic* antitrust law. After all, Al Gore invented the internet to keep you iggorant.
I keep forgetting that righties think the world started persecuting them by inventing the alphabet.
And I keep forgetting that if a rightie doesn't understand something, it's always proof the rest of the world is persecuting them, never a clue that they don't understand something.
The REAL proof that Democrats are hopelessly fucked up is that being Republican isn't good cause for commitment.
was exactly the fucking I was referring to. Cmon JackO, keep up, I was actually agreeing with you.
and quit calling me a republican, if you want to be known as an idiot,partisan democrat that's your business. I wouldn't join either one of those two fucked up parties on a bet.
a restraint of trade. Like multiple listing services, there wouldn't BE a business without the league's agreement to cooperate.
These cooperative arrangements can easily step over the line into anticompetitive practices, but threatening to move or go out of business doesn't do it. That's just playing on simple-minded consumers, which is what life is about.
What you're talking about often seems to involve underhanded local good old boy politics, but those aren't anti-trust violations.
well,i did used to have a lot of dogs in fights!
that he can point to - such the Bayh-Dole or some legacy that is a household piece of legislation. He will thump his chest - make big.... and in the end - abandon this non-cause much as many other causes he has abandon - meanwhile porkrolling into PA unnecessary stupid projects while ignoring the true NATIONAL issues of the day....
Illegal immigration
education
National security
National Sovereignty
Health care & Insurance reform
Energy independance
Election reform
The goddamn war in Iraq
There that enough? when they tackle these then and only then can the look to state and local issues... sheese.... they should do their fuckin job.
I notice you always spell Specter's name with an 'o' at the end. Is that a reference to him being a nut like Phil Spector or something? I don't get the joke.
granted anti-trust exemption dating from the NFL-AFL merger that also allows all 32 teams to collectively negotiate TV contracts.
there are all sorts of situations - especially when coupled with intellectual property, as common in entertainment industries - where a licensing regime is not a restraint of trade, usually because the trade restrictions are reasonably necessary to even bring the product/service to market.
what about USFL v. NFL, decided in 1986 for the NFL? that was a monopoly case, was it not?
No, you got it wrong. The jury found in favor of the USFL and that the NFL was an illegal monopoly with regard to television networks and stadium access in certain markets. But the jury award for damages was $1m which was trebled to $3 because it was an anti-trust case.
not $1m. It was indeed tripled...to $3.