Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Regular MSNBC Guest: All Laws Passed Before 1965 Should Be "Presumptively Unconstitutional"
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:02:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <vt1b0p$ihrk$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vt0ejl$3inef$10@dont-email.me> <vt0vdi$6rq6$3@dont-email.me> <vt18g1$e0ka$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 22:02:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9978400d53a73ad4fcf3e219add5848d";
	logging-data="608116"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18F+2cAVw2YHRLXsr/w42V3"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZX/ekivaW2RgXmfPBAKr/A++C8g=
Bytes: 3062

On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:19:29 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut.
> 
> Here's a citation to the story Ubi the shithead plagarized.
> 
>
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/regular-msnbc-guest-all-laws-passed-before-1965-should-be-presumptively-unconstitutional
> 
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> Apr 7, 2025 at 1:30:50 AM PDT, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Regular MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal 
>>> claimed on Tuesday that virtually all laws passed prior to 1965 should be 
>>> considered "presumptively unconstitutional".
> 
>>> "Yes, absolutely," Mystal declared. "One of my premises for the book is that 
>>> every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively 
>>> unconstitutional, right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were 
>>> functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote 
>>> here."
> 
>> This flesh-blob and his goofy white 'fro is not only ridiculously hard-left
>> but he doesn't even make any sense.
> 
>> First, it's *still* the case that not everyone who lives here can vote here.
>> Foreign nationals, both legal and illegal, cannot vote even if they live
>> here.
> 
>> He says every pre-1965 law is unconstitutional but the Constitution itself is
>> a pre-1965 law. So this idiot must believe the Constitution is
>> unconstitutional, which is a logical and legal impossibility.
> 
> Does that include the post-Civil War civil rights legislation written by
> the Radical Republicans, all of which was found CONSTITUTIONAL and in
> force by the Supreme Court under Earl Warren? Even Hansberry v. Lee
> (Hansberry was the father of Lorraine Hansberry) was decided in 1940,
> under Charles Hughes.
> 
> Does that include the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

And since the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865, well before Mystal's cutoff,
I guess slavery's back on the menu, boys!