DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**gkruCRi1** · 01-21-2007, 06:21 AM

It isn't about whether we agree or disagree with the decision. How do you figure that it's even relevant to this thread?

The relevant thing is, you are fallaciously comming to a negative conclusion from affirmative premisses.

Basically your argument is akin to saying that since SCOTUS said that all horses are mammals... that necessarily means that dogs are not mammals.

Face it,the term "no law ex post facto law" means exaclty that... no ex post facto law. Qualifiers are simply irrelevant in this context.

The clause only came up when you raised it in reply to a post I wrote.

What I face is that the clause means only what was said in that case and no more because that is the only opinion that counts in our system for what the clause means. There isn't anything fallacious about that stance. Do you deny that the courts interpret the Constitution and their decisions are binding?

01-21-2007, 06:21 AM	#16
gkruCRi1 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 505 Senior Member	It isn't about whether we agree or disagree with the decision. How do you figure that it's even relevant to this thread? The relevant thing is, you are fallaciously comming to a negative conclusion from affirmative premisses. Basically your argument is akin to saying that since SCOTUS said that all horses are mammals... that necessarily means that dogs are not mammals. Face it,the term "no law ex post facto law" means exaclty that... no ex post facto law. Qualifiers are simply irrelevant in this context. The clause only came up when you raised it in reply to a post I wrote. What I face is that the clause means only what was said in that case and no more because that is the only opinion that counts in our system for what the clause means. There isn't anything fallacious about that stance. Do you deny that the courts interpret the Constitution and their decisions are binding?
	Quote