This is why I hate people...
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:27 amI am taking paralegal courses.... I swear the shear ignorance of half the people in this class astounds me. These people are voters (probably), and are trying to get into the legal field? Why would I want some dumbass who wants to give my rights away to help me? The question, void of frame in the context below, was asking if we think the federal government should be souly responsible for determining our inalieaable rights and liberties and should some of that power be delegated to the states.
Recently, the question was asked, "Do you think there should be a universal standard of rights and liberties that should be enforced across all states, and do you think that states should be allowed to further determine rights?"
This lady responded,
[b][i]I believe that civil liberties should be held to a universal standard so that there is no variance between states. By allowing the states to determine civil liberties a person relocating to a new state may be able to claim ignorance as a defense if that person should ever claim that his civil liberties were violated and the laws differ from those of the state he moved from. [/i][/b]
First, she has no IDEA what the defense of mistake is about. Second, to me, it seems as if she is trying to give away more rights because the context of the question was basically asking if we agreed with the current structure. Meaning Federal supplies basic rights and liberties, inalienable, and the states further grant more liberties.
I thought it was funny so I decided to have a little fun and ridicule her. Lets see how it goes, I figured I'd start off with:
[b]So... if person moves from a state that granted them more liberties and protection than the state they moved to, that person shouldn't have mistake as a defense for what exactly? What are they mistaking? I thought we were talking about inalienable rights granted by the constitution and extra rights granted by the states?[/b]
Lets see if she understands how stupid she sounds.
Recently, the question was asked, "Do you think there should be a universal standard of rights and liberties that should be enforced across all states, and do you think that states should be allowed to further determine rights?"
This lady responded,
[b][i]I believe that civil liberties should be held to a universal standard so that there is no variance between states. By allowing the states to determine civil liberties a person relocating to a new state may be able to claim ignorance as a defense if that person should ever claim that his civil liberties were violated and the laws differ from those of the state he moved from. [/i][/b]
First, she has no IDEA what the defense of mistake is about. Second, to me, it seems as if she is trying to give away more rights because the context of the question was basically asking if we agreed with the current structure. Meaning Federal supplies basic rights and liberties, inalienable, and the states further grant more liberties.
I thought it was funny so I decided to have a little fun and ridicule her. Lets see how it goes, I figured I'd start off with:
[b]So... if person moves from a state that granted them more liberties and protection than the state they moved to, that person shouldn't have mistake as a defense for what exactly? What are they mistaking? I thought we were talking about inalienable rights granted by the constitution and extra rights granted by the states?[/b]
Lets see if she understands how stupid she sounds.