|
A few days ago, I posted a link to the article that appeared here regarding the Republican efforts to block a bill to increase the cap on liability for the BP oil spill on my Facebook page. Today I got a response from one of my right-wing friends, who parrotted back what I can only assume is the "standard issue" right-wing talking point on the subject.
"Changing the liability cap, AFTER the event is UNCONSTITUTIONAL--- Ex Post Facto. e.g., Can I increase my automobile liability insurance to cover a serious crash I had last week? NO! Why not? Answer: It would be unfair to the insurance company that insured me, with the statistical expectation that I would not have a serious crash, rather than paying out, beyond previous policy limits, based on a certainity ( I already had the crash.). Ooops! They did that in the "Health Care" legislation. It's called, "No exclusion for pre-existing conditions". So, if I am consciuos, I can get health insurance in an ambulance enroute to a hospital. Obama...........Americas first and finest Imam !!!!!"
Here was my response to him (Part 1):
"You see, it's always a tricky business when you attempt to tell an attorney what the Constitution says. Would you like me to explain why your response is wrong, or would you rather just rest on the notion that your talking points have won the day (Reich-wingers often prefer blissful ignorance to being educated as to why they're wrong--they'd rather cling to their ideology rather than the truth)?
I never tell my doctor that his diagnosis is wrong, and I never tell my auto mechanic that I know better than him what's wrong with my car. They were extensively educated in their fields and I'm just some schlub who's picked up a little information along the way. And if I were a layman, I'd never attempt to explain the Constitution to an attorney either. But here we are."
Then my cousin chimed in with this:
"I wondered how long it would take you to reply...he gave it away with the straw-man fallacy about Islam at the end, too. Darned logic! How can you browbeat people into silent mindless submission if they keep throwing things like logic in your face? The "reich-wingers" don't care if the ignorance is blissful or not. Any old ignorance will do... And besides, while I'm not an attorney, I'm pretty sure that the Constitution doesn't speak to issues of liability. Does it?"
And I followed it up with this:
"That's true, but there's also a much easier explanation than that one. Rather than give an entire class on the subject, just know that Ex Post Facto laws were referenced in the Constitution as one member of a group of three: Ex Post Facto, Habeas Corpus, and Bills of Attainder. What strikes you as the common theme among these three things? Ever heard of an attorney filing for Habeas Corpus in a civil proceeding? Wanna know why not? Because those three specific legal concepts only apply to criminal cases.
Retroactivity in civil matters happens ALL THE TIME. It's written into the body of legislative bills ALL THE TIME, and it's 100% enforceable ALL THE TIME. Retroactivity does NOT equal Ex Post Facto anymore than your 5th Amendment right to counsel allows you to get a free, court-appointed lawyer to represent you when you're being sued civilly for burning a cross on your neighbor's lawn.
Awwwww. And that little talking point sounded SO convincing, too. Darn the luck! I bet it goes over gangbusters with people who don't know the law, though. Most right-wing talking points DO really resonate with people who don't know enough to realize that they're utter crap."
And then I capped it off with a flourish:
"Hey, it just occurred to me that under this logic, all the gay people who got married in California in the few months when it was still legal..........are ALL still considered legally married, aren't they? Because ex post facto laws are ALWAYS unconstitutional, right? RIGHT?
People who know too much are dangerous, and people who know absolutely nothing are dangerous, but there's NOTHING more dangerous than a person who knows JUST ENOUGH to be wrong (but be totally convinced he/she's right) about any given subject."
He never responded. Kinda like how the SAME guy never responded when I pointed out the little Ray Stevens video ("Come To The USA") was suggesting that we should be more like China, Sudan, and Iran. I tell ya, most of the people who repeat right-wing talking points only know enough to repeat them. They literally have no idea what to do once you shoot them down. The right-wing screamers are sending their little footsoldiers out into battle woefully underprepared.
|