Re: Regular MSNBC Guest: All Laws Passed Before 1965 Should Be "Presumptively Unconstitutional"

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!