An observation:
Weston White wrote:... I do not really get the point of mincing phrases so much on this form, it serves only as a distraction really. ...
The word, "mincing," is normally used as an adverb:
So, "mincing phrases" would be "dainty or delicate phrases." Somewhat like "small phrases."
I don't think that's the meaning of your sentence. Are you substituting "mincing" for "mixing?"
However, "mincing" can also be used as a verb, though you won't find it in a dictionary:
That fairly accurately describes how one should approach the subject of law. When reading the text of a statute, regulation, opinion, etc., it's important to parse the words.
You have to accurately understand the subject of the statute, regulation or opinion, and you have to accurately understand the arguments made before opening mouth and inserting foot.
I'm not trying to be critical of your writing. I'm only pointing out what seems obvious to many on this forum, and others, and that is, how important it is to read a text accurately.
Practice writing and rereading your post before submitting it to review. Practice reading the text of a statute and noticing the small connecting words, such as "or" and "and." Practice doing the same thing with a court opinion before concluding what it is you think they said.
Unfortunately, many in the tax movement err by not reading more closely. They often hang themselves by overlooking the simplest of language and grammar that changes the meaning.
I believe that's what's happened here in the discussion of Fundamental Law.
EDIT: It's been discussed before, but learning to
diagram a sentence would be helpful.
2nd EDIT: Having read some of the other posts, learning to use a
dictionary would also help.