It could be, depending on the logical structure of the argument. A non-sequitur point that has emotional impact is what I was referring to. Your comment above doesn't seem to be a part of either of our points. I was referring to the idea that I refuse to enforce the law, and that I said I wanted to live in a free republic. Those would be valid points if they had anything to do with my argument. They don't. Instead they're emotional filler.TheWizard wrote:For your edification, wanting to obey the law as written is not making an emotional point.
If it's pretty well documented, you should be able to find convincing evidence rather quickly. So show me.Illegals immigrants vote in droves - why do you think the Democrats are so hot to maintain 'sanctuary cities'? In a sanctuary city, you can't ask "Are you here illegally." They get drivers' licenses, and they use them to vote. This is pretty well documented.
Some people are trash, and that's a fact. It isn't the root of fascism. The root of fascism is saying "this specific type of people are trash". I'm not calling out any specific group. It's granular and integrated across the entire human race.And saying that "some people are trash" is the root of fascism. You start your fascist support by saying, "We are better than they are, and we know how to lead." Historically speaking, that is precisely how to start a fascist regime. Again, this is not an emotional statement, it is a fact grounded in history. Franco, Mussolini, Perone, Hitler, Stalin - they all said the same thing to ground their support.
And what do we use to set the precedent? More laws? And how do we justify those laws? Other laws? Ad inifinitum? Just keep going back to the law books? What happens when we run out of books? What precedent sets the precedent of the ten thousandth precedent? This is most certainly circular unless you admit there is a foundation to it.Finally, laws being based on other laws is not circular logic, it is also history. If you want a law based strictly on ideals, you actually have to go back thousands of years and study Hammurabi. The 'beating heart of a legal system' has nothing to do with popular moral sentiment, it has to do with precedent.
That foundation is not precedent and is not more "law". It is fundamentally a system of structured morality. Built upon that foundation are many layers of legal systems, and those layers precede each other upward like you mention.
If a law is made that goes against our collective moral sense, the law must be questioned. If the law is not allowed to be questioned, it's a step toward fascism.