>Or, perhaps, that's not something known by most. I didn't struggle to understand that, I simply didn't know it.
Sorry you struggled to not understand your own concept that you put forward that because a lawyer isn't required (not true, but granting you this for the sake of this conversation), we shouldn't hold lawyers up to the standard of a lawyer anyway? That's facially silly.
I literally just repeated to you what you said to me. But, yeah, I'm the petty one.
> Sorry you struggled to not understand your own concept that you put forward that because a lawyer isn't required
What? Why are you misinterpreting everything I wrote?
> we shouldn't hold lawyers up to the standard of a lawyer anyway? That's facially silly.
Where in the world did I say this?
Or, perhaps, that's not something known by most. I didn't struggle to understand that, I simply didn't know it. Also, again, the article could have mentioned that, and I started my statement by saying maybe the article was doing a bad job conveying things.
> What constitutional issues do you believe are present?
This method of interrogation of online comments is always interesting to me. Because you seem to want to move the discussion to that of whether or not the issues are valid, which wasn't what I clearly was discussing. When you are struggling to reason around really straightforward issues like that, it does not leave me with confidence about your other judgments regarding the issues present here.