Please no. Please no god.

Didn't the mods give you an ultimatum or conditions or something?

Does Ultranationalistic Constitutionalism really exist? Google's just showing me stuff about Sri Lanka.

You do realize that "ultranationalist" is invariably a pejorative, right? I'd love to see a link to an Ultranationalist Constitutionalist manifesto or something which can illustrate this group's beliefs. It's quite intriguing, assuming it's more than the unsubstantial online loonery such as what Sicarius puts up from time to time.

At any rate, it's good to have you back, Professor.

diplo, the least you could do is provide a link to an explanation as to what it is, otherwise you may somewhat appear to some as possibliy a tiny bit snooty or a troll.

at a guess i guess its some kind of nation that rigidly obeys a strict written unchangeable form of law and has a very selfish imperialist foriegn policy.

but wait, how are you going to defend a postion from foul language? if you do not fight fire with fire, how will you possibly put out all the fires???

(although defending a position by hte pure obscurity of it might turn out to be a very successful tactic - the fire can't burn what the fire can't find; as my mummy always used to say, before she burn the house down and was taken away...)

Oh gods, he's back...

is that like the Natural Law party in the US? basically a rigid paleo-conservative view of the US constitution that still thinks blacks should only count as 3/5 human and property owning white males are the only ones who should have voting rights? THAT kind of constitutionalists?

Unfortunately Babak I have the unnerving feeling that might be _exactly_ the kind of thing we're talking about here.

As an amusing aside, there is a Natural Law party here in the UK too. However they couldn't be more different from the Natural Law in the USA.

Our Natural Law party are basically weird hippies who think that if you study enough yoga, you can learn to fly, and if everyone spends their time flying instead of doing destructive things, the world will be a better place.

"still thinks blacks should only count as 3/5 human"

Huh? Reread the Constitution.

Oh, this has to just be trolling, or else sheer stupidity.

Come ON:

I mean, there are dumb names for political parties (like the Green Party... it was a joke, folks, relax...) but really:

"Ultranationalist Constitutionalist?"

That, broken down, really boils down to "a super patriotric person who adheres strongly to the Constitution and is guided by it."

First of all, as degrees of patriotism and such in this context are completely subjective, and all parties in their own way may claim to be patriotic, that first bit, "Ultranationalist," is totally and utterly a waste of time, space, words, and breath.

And all the second bit means is you adhere to the Constitution- again, like any party; the end suffix implies that that it (the Constitution) would be seen especially as a guiding force, with particular and strong emphasis, and while this is not a ludicrous notion, it cannot by itself be claimed to be the basis of a party distinct from one already established, as such strict adherence to the Constitution and usuing it as a particularly strong guid is already a feature in existing parties and pople, for example, there are those on the Supreme Court who wee the Constitution that way.

So... yes. That'll be all, then- good lord, and I thought that I could be annoying, but YOU...

"Ultra" nationalist suggests a fair degree of xenophobia.

Sri Lanka
Constitutionalism and nationalism (c. 1900–48)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/561906/Sri-Lanka/24265/Constitutionalism-and-nationalism-c-1900-48

@ Babak & Jamiet99uk

The Natural Law Party in the U.S. is the same thing. Transcendental meditation will solve every problem.

Possibly Babak is thinking of the American Independent Party. (Or the Constitution Party, with which they are sometimes affiliated and which is larger, but they don't have the same history of racism.) Incidentally, the AIP nominated a black man (Alan Keyes) for President last year.

should be ‘the same thing as in the UK’

@master warrior, what is the point of telling us you have a new point of view without telling us what it is?

Thanks Toby Bartels I was about to say that I thought the Natural Law party in the US was the same as the one mentioned in the UK, (but I hadn't had a chance to google it yet to be sure).

it is obviously either a defence of obscurity, or an attempt to over-hype the release of his new political manifesto. :P

Hello Professor!

I'm on the major activities committee that books speakers on a weekly basis for my school this year. I feel like we have a pretty heavy bias in favor of historians/political figures/authors and would like to get someone from the sciences in. Would you be interested / willing to to travel to Chicago on my school's dime for a talk?

@ lulzworth - Look out - he might take you up on it then show up as his 13 year-old self and leave you holding the bag for the bill (you can't sue a minor) as well as possibly get you in trouble for encouraging a minor to cross state lines without the permisison of their guardian.

why can't you sue a minor

I can verify that I have met The_Master_Warrior in real life and he's not a minor. He's about 40 years old and a college professor in Massachusetts.

I think you can, with a bit of legalistic wrangling. The easier thing to do would be to sue the parents, though.

However dubious the good professor's claims to having a PhD in Airplanes is, I doubt that he's not an adult.

He doesn't have a phD in Airplanes. Last time I met him he was working In Computer Forensics for the Federal Buro.

Just checked the PA Rules of Civil Procedure and there is def. no bar to suing a minor. Not sure why you'd sue the parents if there were no valid theory of liability, either.

@ hellalt:

It's a valiant effort to compete with Doc's (Can we call you Doc?) level of trolling, and I commend the effort. But I really don't think it's possible.

My understanding is that you can sue a minor, but not for breach of contract because a minor can not legally enter into a contract, therefore there was nothing to breach. If you make a contratc with someone and suspect they may be a minor, they need a guardian to sign along with them for the contract to be valid. In this case, there would be a contract involved.

Where he might get away with it is if everything presented to him indicated that the Professor was actually a legal adult. Then he could sue diplofool ...er... The_Master_Gamer for fraud.

Yeah, contracts with minors are unilaterally voidable by the minor party. Of course, you could sue on a quasi-contractural theory like quantum meruit to prevent unjust enrichment (don't ask me for chapter and verse on that; Contracts was a while ago...).

Fraud is a tort so you're good to go.

No, you cant call me Doc yet. In about a year you will be able to do so as I'm going to finish the PhD in Internet Psychology. I'm not sure how I would like to be called though. Perhaps Dr. Internetologist would be a good title :P

whoops I was wrong about quantum meruit, nm disregard that

geez I should also say that this is not legal advice and none of you are my clients :/