Clint Stroupe analyzes an Anti-42 argument:
I am not a lawyer. In fact, I am not a paralegal or even a law school dropout. In fact, I did not even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, there are some things about the law that I believe many of us are able to sort out using logical thinking and looking at legal precedence. Perhaps it is this general love of honest logical thinking that makes me find it irritating when those who might technically have a law degree (although judging from the personal injury commercials on television simply having such a degree may or may not really be that big an accomplishment) attempt to use it to imply that even the most outlandish, untrue assertions somehow have merit simply because a lawyer stated them. While I have tremendous respect for those who have completed the course of study to obtain a law degree, such a degree does not necessitate the person is correct or even being intellectually honest in his or her arguments or opinions. Today, I read an article by an attorney who was attempting to make the case that Initiative 42 was nothing short of being “Pandora’s box” ready to unleash evil upon the great state of Mississippi and its unsuspecting public. I have heard some of the same points from the article being used by some lately as factual and the basis of their issues with Initiative 42. While I in no way mean to cast doubt upon the character of the individual doing the writing, the more I read, the more I found the article so full of faulty logic, half-truths, and fear mongering examples that I thought its “arguments” worthy of a response, even from an untrained legal mind such as my own.