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

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?

The statement is a tautology. (There's a better Latin phrase.) Blacks
weren't in Congress because they were slaves, and blacks didn't have the
vote because they were slaves. Only white men could enshrine liberty in
constitutional and legislative law. But civil rights legislation,
written by white men, are unconstitutional like all other law due to
lack of enfranchisement. But lack of the franchise makes laws
unconstitutional. But no one but a sitting member of Congress can write
legislation, including civil rights laws.

Mystal often appears on MSNBC, and even joined network host and former
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele just two days prior to
joining THE VIEW. During that appearance, he claimed that the Trump
administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members
amounted to "fascism".

Yes, it's fascist to take a violent thug who snuck into the country illegally
and then committed more crimes against Americans while here, and send his ass
back to wherever he came from.

Sure.  <rolls eyes>

Did any of these men have a final order of removal? Trump doesn't say.
We know in one prominent case, the man had an order from an immigration
judge that he was NOT subject to removal (as long as he didn't violate
conditions of humanitarian parole).

Let's retain probable cause, shall we? Prosecute the fuckers for crimes
committed in the United States upon indictment with probable cause.
Trump doesn't present evidence in court 'cuz there ain't none.

You can't defend Trump on this.

Literally everything is "fascist" to these people now. Most of them
don't even know what the word actually means.

Of course this is moviePig language, but Trump is merely removing
people. Where's the promised transparency?

It's a coverup.