Assumption #1: The words of the Constitution are the law of the land and are binding upon all branches of government, include the justices of the Supreme Court.
Assumption #2: The words of the Constitution mean way they say, and should neither be added to no detracted from.
The Sixth Amendment says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The Supreme Court has construed the Sixth Amendment to forbid the police from wiretapping a suspect's car after arraignment and with a warrent from a magistrate on the basis of denial of the suspect's right to counsel. But the 6th Amendment only says that a suspect has the right to counsel during trial--it does not say that his car cannot be wiretapped where the police have a warrant. On the basis of my common sense and the two propositions above, I conclude that the Supreme Court ruling has no merit. Anyone can rightly look at that particular ruling and say that the case was wrongly decided, whether or not they have a law degree or a special expertise in constitutional law. Obviously the Supreme Court justices are in a position of power so their decrees must be obeyed. But their power does not mean they are right and everything they say should be treated as gospel. If people believed everything the Supreme Court said, we would be giving ourselves over to an oligarchy.
Interesting example. But not really appropriate to the point I was making about logical propositions.
Note how you relied on a background and knowledge of the rule of law. You start with knowledge of the Constitution and you roll in knowledge of the Supreme Court findings and what those findings mean.
Now, imagine if I, a complete idiot on this particular topic said that it is obvious, by the right of
certiorari that The Supreme Court was right and you were wrong!
You of course would come back and say "
Certiorari has
nothing to do with this topic! Don't be an idiot! Sure the Supreme Court has that right and obviously acted on it when it heard the case, but that has nothing to do with the
decision!"
And then imagine if I were to repeat it several times. "By certiorari, the Supreme Court ruling in the case True Blue mentioned was correct and True Blue is in error!"
Then you ask me to do the following:
1. Define certiorari
2. Explain how certiorari relates in any way to the 6th ammendment
I wave around some commentary (using really big words, because I can, you see, I actually have a really big vocabulary) that includes the concept of "Supreme Court" and "inaction" and somehow I link it back to "speedy trial" and since the Supreme Court has the right of certiorari, I tie it all up without ever actually technically addressing the giant gaping hole in my point.
And then I
never actually explain point-by-point how I think Certiorari makes the Supreme Court decision correct and your opinion incorrect.
But imagine,if you will, in this dystopian future, where I
repeatedly make the claim and then loudly proclaim how I have shown it to be true.
What would you think of me then? Would you think I should be dispensing legal advice?
Even more so if the lay person has a proposition that it unassailable.
Well, demonstrably your point has been shown to
not be that. It has been assailed by professionals in the fields you have attempted to play in. You have been shown how you are in error, or you have been asked to explain yourself fully to the scientists.
The natural laws are unassailable propositions that can substantiate the position of a lay person and discredit the opinion of a highly-trained scientist. As I have shown, a lot of scientific ideas have no merit on the basis of the 2nd Law.
Well, I claim by
certiaorari and
laches and
estoppel that you are clearly in error.
See? You have been asked numerous times to back any of your claims up.
I understand the math is probably too hard, I'll admit it gets hard for me too. But indeed
when you talk about this stuff you can and will be called out to back it up with the math. You have done nothing of the sort.
You see, that is why I would never have the cojones to stand up to a physical chemist with expertise in thermodynamics and tell them they are wrong without expecting to be raked across the coals six ways to sunday over my lack of math skills. I wouldn't even be able to approach the chalkboard. And then, of course, I don't think I'd be able to
continue to tell the thermodynamics professor that he or she is wrong and I am clearly right. And the more I balked at doing the math the more I'd look like I'd lost.
This is why I know not to get in a debate over thermo with someone more skilled than myself. (And truth be told, thermo is not my bag nor has it ever been. But I know enough to see how it can be
misapplied.)
When dealing with the second law topics, I think you really need to learn what US38 and others have pointed out to you. You must go back to first principals and
show us how the rest of the world is wrong and you are right when it comes to your "unique" and error-riddled application of the Second Law.
If you think the Second Law is something people in the sciences treat lightly, please readjust your set. This is a very important topic in thermodynamics and one people much smarter than you have spent entire careers working out.
Please be respectful of their work and show us how
your unique application of the 2nd Law is correct. You've been given the formula, work it out.
If you like I can recommend a couple of Thermodynamics books (Fermi "Thermodynamics" for one) and a couple others that might be worth your time to read.
Or you could do P.W. Atkins
Physical Chemistry. It's one of my faves.
Much of evolution and associated theories fall into that category. One doesn't need to be a full-time scientist to recognize this.
One doesn't need to be a full-time scientist to critique science, but one
must know some science.
Sadly you have shown yourself to be somewhat deficient in this area.
Unless, of course, you are willing to hire
me to represent your company in front of the USPTO. I've had that extension class and I do get to hang with the IP folks at my work.
If you do hire me to head up your legal department, I'll have to ask for a significant salary raise over what I get right now. I'm a scientist. We don't get paid "lawyer scratch".