Elie Mystal is a flagrant racist and wholeheartedly ignorant of the US Constitution, despite claiming to be an authority on the subject.
Discuss.
Black so-called legal scholar claims Constitution is TRASH!
Posts
Total:
14
-->
@oromagi
Yes, it is a link to what I want to say in its entirety to illicit a conversation on the matter, but what I have written in that statement exceeds the 3,000-character limit in this forum. Moreover, photos are not allowed within the comments in this forum. So, linking to my blog is appropriate.
Want to participate, read my statement at my blog and then reply in kind here.
Otherwise, stop whining about what and where I write my introductory OP that is linked to in order to circumvent the 3,000-character limit.
-->
@TWS1405
The blog post starts off with a series of ad-hominem attacks, insults; to which you then begin paraphrasing the book, quoting individual snippets that you then attack.
This doesn’t appear an honest or intellectual critique of any of the books collective theses; which would involve a summary of what the primary arguments are, the underpinning data, justifications and reasoning: which you then dismantle point by point.
What this is, appears to be a collection of quote snippets with no inherent context or supporting arguments, which you then trash.
Given that none of the original text is accessible or linked in detail, and that you clearly haven’t rigorously quotes the detail: I can’t tell whether your paraphrasing is accurate, or intentionally misrepresenting the books point, nor can I tell whether your arguments correctly reference all parts of the argument, or address key justifications.
This appears to be a largely one sided rant about what you claim the book says, and what the arguments mean, without any attempt to do so honestly.
In this respect, the most likely conclusion is that this is just a collection of straw men and misrepresentation used as an attempt to spin one’s own tires and linked as pattern of what is stating to appear like spam in order to drive traffic to your blog post.
-->
@Ramshutu
You are an IGNORANT dick. Your retorts are meaningless garbage. From this response going forward, I am intent on ignoring you.
You are a sanctimonious prick who deserves no attention. A pseudo know-it -all. An obnoxious prick.
So post away. I will never, ever respond to you beyond this posting.
Why? Cause you are a TROLL!
Period. Fact. Period,
Adieu
(not an obvious point, but it is clear given past behavior you will retort with some superfluous comment that means nothing to no one but yourself)
-->
@TWS1405
You are an IGNORANT dick. Your retorts are meaningless garbage. From this response going forward, I am intent on ignoring you.You are a sanctimonious prick who deserves no attention. A pseudo know-it -all. An obnoxious prick.So post away. I will never, ever respond to you beyond this posting.Why? Cause you are a TROLL!Period. Fact. Period,Adieu(not an obvious point, but it is clear given past behavior you will retort with some superfluous comment that means nothing to no one but yourself
Ad Hominem: your attacking me, not the substance of my argument.
By all means - take one argument the author made and let’s explore it in depth, but it’s very difficult to have a meaningful conversation or debate over a one sided attack on a bunch of arguments that are unclear if you have correctly represented.
-->
@Ramshutu
By all means - take one argument the author made and let’s explore it in depth, but it’s very difficult to have a meaningful conversation or debate over a one sided attack on a bunch of arguments that are unclear if you have correctly represented.
Each italicized quote is word for word from his book. It is not paraphrased. All his words. I merely chose not to note page numbers. But I have my list of quotes used with page numbers, so I can refer back to it for you if needs be. What use would it be though, if you do not own the book. Or do you?
Each quote is correctly represented. It would be dishonest to do otherwise.
You pick an argument I've made rebutting that racist elitist, and let's explore it in depth.
21 days later
-->
@Ramshutu
Yeah, that's what I thought. You never had any real interest to engage my argument...you just took it as yet another opportunity to personally attack me.
-->
@TWS1405
Elie Mystal is a flagrant racist and wholeheartedly ignorant of the US Constitution, despite claiming to be an authority on the subject.Discuss.
Elie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent—covering the courts, the criminal justice system, and politics—and the force behind the magazine’s monthly column “Objection!” He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. His first book, the best-selling Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, was on March 1, 2022.
Mystal is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, a former associate at Debevoise & Plimpton, and a lifelong New York Mets fans. One of those things is not like the others. Prior to joining The Nation, Mystal was the executive editor of Above the Law. He’s a frequent guest on MSNBC and Sirius XM. He will resist.
-->
@Shila
His first book, the best-selling Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, was on March 1, 2022.
So a racist. Got it.
This book is a waste of time. The author uses no logic throughout the book other than to blame all the problems of America on white people. In the very first chapter he declares that he or his children have to live in fear that they might be shot by a police officer when the truth is they’re far more likely to be shot by another black person. He also conveniently forgets to talk about BLM founder Patrice Cullors who embezzled and misappropriated funds (millions) that were supposed to be used to help disenfranchised blacks. He also doesn’t mention how the constitution didn’t keep him out of Harvard. This guy is a black racist who just wants to whine about slavery and how all white people are racist. He needs to look in the mirror and take an inventory of his own racist attitudes. This book is a waste of time time and money. He clearly bought his way onto the bestseller list through MSM pandering.
Total trash written by a total racist. Talks about a racist calling everyone else a racist and that's in every chapter. Horrible book without intelligence or integrity. Just more indoctrination woke BS. Harvard is turning out a bunch of crazed, privileged professors who should be thanking America instead of constantly disparaging her. The book is a disgusting representation of America taking a horrible turn in the wrong direction.
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @ShilaHis first book, the best-selling Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, was on March 1, 2022.So a racist. Got it.This book is a waste of time. The author uses no logic throughout the book other than to blame all the problems of America on white people. In the very first chapter he declares that he or his children have to live in fear that they might be shot by a police officer when the truth is they’re far more likely to be shot by another black person. He also conveniently forgets to talk about BLM founder Patrice Cullors who embezzled and misappropriated funds (millions) that were supposed to be used to help disenfranchised blacks. He also doesn’t mention how the constitution didn’t keep him out of Harvard. This guy is a black racist who just wants to whine about slavery and how all white people are racist. He needs to look in the mirror and take an inventory of his own racist attitudes. This book is a waste of time time and money. He clearly bought his way onto the bestseller list through MSM pandering.Total trash written by a total racist. Talks about a racist calling everyone else a racist and that's in every chapter. Horrible book without intelligence or integrity. Just more indoctrination woke BS. Harvard is turning out a bunch of crazed, privileged professors who should be thanking America instead of constantly disparaging her. The book is a disgusting representation of America taking a horrible turn in the wrong direction.
Elie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent—covering the courts, the criminal justice system, and politics—and the force behind the magazine’s monthly column “Objection!” He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. His first book, the best-selling Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, was on March 1, 2022.
Mystal is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, a former associate at Debevoise & Plimpton, and a lifelong New York Mets fans. One of those things is not like the others. Prior to joining The Nation, Mystal was the executive editor of Above the Law. He’s a frequent guest on MSNBC and Sirius XM. He will resist.
-->
@Shila
Elie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent—covering the courts, the criminal justice system, and politics—and the force behind the magazine’s monthly column “Objection!” He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. His first book, the best-selling Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, was on March 1, 2022.Mystal is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, a former associate at Debevoise & Plimpton, and a lifelong New York Mets fans. One of those things is not like the others. Prior to joining The Nation, Mystal was the executive editor of Above the Law. He’s a frequent guest on MSNBC and Sirius XM. He will resist.
Cut n pasting someone else's words describing the racist Mystal's so-called resume, over and over isn't an argument. A law degree doesn't make one intelligent in the law, and I proved that in my rebuttal towards his book. One doesn't need a law degree to best a so-called law school graduate. I know. I've done it. Several times.
-->
@Greyparrot
This book is a waste of time. The author uses no logic throughout the book other than to blame all the problems of America on white people. In the very first chapter he declares that he or his children have to live in fear that they might be shot by a police officer when the truth is they’re far more likely to be shot by another black person. He also conveniently forgets to talk about BLM founder Patrice Cullors who embezzled and misappropriated funds (millions) that were supposed to be used to help disenfranchised blacks. He also doesn’t mention how the constitution didn’t keep him out of Harvard. This guy is a black racist who just wants to whine about slavery and how all white people are racist. He needs to look in the mirror and take an inventory of his own racist attitudes. This book is a waste of time time and money. He clearly bought his way onto the bestseller list through MSM pandering.Total trash written by a total racist. Talks about a racist calling everyone else a racist and that's in every chapter. Horrible book without intelligence or integrity. Just more indoctrination woke BS. Harvard is turning out a bunch of crazed, privileged professors who should be thanking America instead of constantly disparaging her. The book is a disgusting representation of America taking a horrible turn in the wrong direction.
Thank you! Well said!!
-->
@TWS1405
Race baiters gonna hustle as long as there are players.
-->
@TWS1405
I’m not sure why you’re accusing me of not responding considering you’ve essentially given up on replying to my arguments in every one of your threads I’ve been in
I managed to find a few sample chapters of the book: Let’s look at one of the bigger chunks you posted:
Chapter 3, titled "Everything you know about the second amendment is wrong" is likewise based on a false premise, resulting in an equally achieved false conclusion.
Let’s go back to this at the end.
Within a few sentences he makes a completely false assertion about the events that took place at the Capital on January 6th.
Technically correct, but likely mundane as it’s been my experience that most published books like this normally take over a year to go through the publishing process - so may simply have been written after officer Sicknicks death - attributed to violence initially, but before the cause of death was ruled. Either way; you present this as if it’s critical to the point the author is making; but it is not - this is really more of a throwaway statement - making this complaint a red herring - as it completely evades the central point the author was making here - which was that you don’t need guns to overthrow the government, and pointed out the disparate treatment that would have occurred has the crowd been predominantly white.
Mystal then rambles on about self-defense:
"Self defence is a philosophical right, but that right was not grounded in the “original” meaning if the second amendment; self-defense is not mentioned once in the text of the Constitution."
You claim the author rambles about self defence, and then go on to quote him but removing a key portion of the quote (I took the liberty of including the full quote above, with the chopped out part in italics) that appropriately sets the context. He’s clearly not claiming that self defence is not a right at all - but that the original meaning of second amendment was not to provide self defence. This makes what you did a clear cut example of quote mining.
Neither is the right of women to have an abortion, yet Mystal is a staunch supporter of it, even citing the Constitution in support of it.
This is called a tu quoque - attacking someone for alleged hypocrisy rather than attacking his point. Importantly, you have absolutely missed the authors point here:
The pro abortion and second amendment arguments would only be in conflict if his argument was that if a right is not explicitly written - it doesn’t exist. That isn’t his argument at all; meaning that you’re objection also misrepresents his point - and is thus a straw-man.
His point, and he’s pretty explicit - is that the original intent was never self defence, it’s an evolution of the second amendment - a modern interpretation; while the modern interpretation may be reasonable - why shouldn’t this new evolved meaning take into consideration the realities of the modern world - this is almost explicitly what he goes in to say.
The pro abortion and second amendment arguments would only be in conflict if his argument was that if a right is not explicitly written - it doesn’t exist. That isn’t his argument at all; meaning that you’re objection also misrepresents his point - and is thus a straw-man.
His point, and he’s pretty explicit - is that the original intent was never self defence, it’s an evolution of the second amendment - a modern interpretation; while the modern interpretation may be reasonable - why shouldn’t this new evolved meaning take into consideration the realities of the modern world - this is almost explicitly what he goes in to say.
This is an ad hominem; you’re attacking him, not his point.
Just because self-defense isn't mentioned doesn't mean it isn't intended, because it is in the historical context. In order for the people to defend a nation, we must first be able to defend ourselves. In other words, #selfdefense. Just like how women have the right to an abortion via the right to privacy in their medical status and decisions.
The book explains that for 200 or so years - the second amendment was understood not to be about personal defence - how various rulings bear this out, and it wasn’t until the 1970s - and a fairly recent Supreme Court ruling that changes it. It cites court rulings that interpretation of the second amendment was in relation to a well regulated militia - and that the change relates to how the NRA began pushing the self defence position from 1977. You appear to ignore all that, and suggest that his argument that the second amendment is invalid because self defence was intended; this is both a straw man as you are misrepresenting his point - and a fairly dishonest one, because you chop our the fundamental points he makes whilst critiquing the rest.
Here is where Mystal really goes off the deep end regurgitating another poorly asserted argument through the prism of racism by Carol Anderson:"There was an original purpose to the Second Amendment, but it wasn't to keep people safe. It was to preserve white supremacy and slavery."
This is so ridiculous on its face it is almost not worth dignifying with a response or retort, but prudence demands one. The root history of the second amendment can be traced back to free men defending their home, land and family rooted in self-defense (i.e. self-preservation).
This links mostly validates the argument of the writer. In section IV - the politics of the founding fathers - the entire argument about guns, and the politics behind the second amendment was not about self defence - but around protection against government control of the militias. Which is exactly the point the author is making. While the history of gun rights goes back hundreds of years - the background do them do not necessarily impact what the second amendment was intended to do. While I have no doubt the founding fathers probably wanted people to be free to defend themselves personally a that wasn’t the purpose of the amendment. Recall your own argument below: “Complete rubbish! If that were even remotely true, then the amendment would reflect that in the language and it simply does not.”
"The founding fathers drew from Biblical principles….."
The Meaning, History, & Purpose of the Second Amendment ~ The Imaginative Conservative
The source you cite mostly asserts it’s conclusion, offering more Bible quotes to support the right of general self defence than reference to any individual that influenced the second amendment - of which there were none. I can’t really find any legal argument or reference to the thinking of the drafters as opposed to just citations of what they had in their head
Mystal then "retorts" the following:
"The Second Amendment is in the Constitution because Patrick Henry and George Mason won a debate against James Madison. Henry and Mason wanted the Second Amendment in there to guard against slave revolts"Complete rubbish! If that were even remotely true, then the amendment would reflect that in the language and it simply does not. See the above quote and cited links regarding the #TRUE history of the second amendment, which has absolutely nothing to do with "preserv(ing) white supremacy and slavery."
An appeal to the stone; followed by an argument by assertion. Indeed, you leave out multiple sections of the book that goes onto explain exactly why this conclusion can be reached. It’s also partially backed up by your own link above.
The basics he lays out are pretty clear. Madison proposed the bill of rights - including the second amendment - as an electoral promise given because of the issues Mason and Henry raised; the specific issue was that the federal government controlled the militia and meant the government could legally disarm them; and render them ineffective; and as the North outnumbered the south - and detested slavery (as Henry pointed out), the North could neglect the south’s militia - which were their primary means to put down slave rebellions. Thus, on a practical level - yeah - the main objection was a worry that the North could enact laws that prevented the south from putting down slave rebellions.
Don’t want your militia disarmed? Then let’s put in an amendment that says we can’t disarm the militia. Why on earth would you expect the amendment to spell out why the militia was needed?
The basics he lays out are pretty clear. Madison proposed the bill of rights - including the second amendment - as an electoral promise given because of the issues Mason and Henry raised; the specific issue was that the federal government controlled the militia and meant the government could legally disarm them; and render them ineffective; and as the North outnumbered the south - and detested slavery (as Henry pointed out), the North could neglect the south’s militia - which were their primary means to put down slave rebellions. Thus, on a practical level - yeah - the main objection was a worry that the North could enact laws that prevented the south from putting down slave rebellions.
Don’t want your militia disarmed? Then let’s put in an amendment that says we can’t disarm the militia. Why on earth would you expect the amendment to spell out why the militia was needed?
This next statement just demonstrates the sheer ignorance of the intent and purpose (i.e. red herring fallacy) of the second amendment on Mystal's part:
"The Founders didn't know that guns would be used in over half of the nation's suicides."
What do suicides have to do with the price of Tea in China! Nothing!
You are quote mining - taking the authors quote out of context:
"The Founders didn't know that guns would be used in over half of the nation's suicides. We know. The founders didn’t know that guns would be used in over half domestic partner homicides. We know. If the second amendment has evolved to incorporate the right to self defence, surely it’s evolved to allow us to make it harder for people to kill themselves or their spouses”
The author is explaining that the original intent of the amendment has evolved; and if this is the case, then why not also incorporate these other factors too. You’re clearly taking this quote out of that intended context - and what relevance to suicides and domestic abuse have? He goes onto explain it in part of the quote you chopped out.
Mystal once again goes down the Cry Wolf racism Syndrome path with the following ridiculous notion:
Appeal to the stone.
"Gun rights are not about self-defense. They literally never have been. Gun rights are about menacing, intimidating, and killing racial minorities, if necessary."Reading this it becomes painfully clear that #ElieMystal knows absolutely nothing about the #SecondAmendment. This position, clearly seen and written through a divisive and racial prism is so patently absurd that I am not going to dignify it with my own written response. Rather, I will just cite evidence that conclusively disproves Mystal's victimhood mentality version of the intent of self-defense and the Second Amendment.
Out of the three links the first and third mostly agree with the author, that the original explicit intent was assumed to be something else up until recently - it’s not clear how any of them rebut the central premise of the writer that this argument is completely new since the 1970s; nor do they challenge the fundamental background and implied purpose of it. Indeed - two of the sources are basically making the point he’s rebutting.
So in summary - you missed out and failed to mention the authors key points - you’ve repeatedly taken his quotes out of essential context to attack them. And you’ve spent your time ridiculing a selection of individual quotes as ridiculous.