So, the Constitution doesn't exist?

Wow - it's exactly like Bush!

Why not just register as a Republican now and save yourself further effort?

4/1/2008 2:30:46 PM

why would we go to all the trouble of making an amendment when we can do whatever the hell we want anyways?

amendments are old school

4/1/2008 2:41:31 PM

If the constitution were as cut and dry as you like to make it, there would be no need for the supreme court to interpret it. You are the one, after all, who is aguring against the interpretations of the court.

4/1/2008 2:54:27 PM

It's one thing to argue that the Constitution, and the acts that follow from it, are subject to interpretation.

It's quite another to simply to interpret them out of existence.

What's so painfully short-sighted about your point of view, however, is how easily reading restrictions on the powers of the government out of existence can be abused. Or will you be perfectly fine the next time the Supremes side with yet another Bush-authorized encroachment onto our rights? (Somehow, your love for the Supreme Court seems conditional, at best.)

[Edited on April 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

4/1/2008 3:10:19 PM

your seems far too conditional.

4/1/2008 3:11:45 PM

Unlike you, however, I am not citing them as an infallible authority. Again, will they be such an unfailing authority when they stomp all over your rights?

Recall, that this is the same institution that has put out such stellar rulings as, "3/5 of a person," "separate but equal," and "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

(Or if that doesn't suit you, let's go a bit more recent - "public use" for your property means "any use public authorities can think of. Including handing it over to big corporations for 'economic development.'")

[Edited on April 1, 2008 at 3:16 PM. Reason : Kelo - it's brilliant.]

4/1/2008 3:14:42 PM

3/5s is actually something from the CONSTITUTION. It was not a supreme court ruling.

4/1/2008 3:19:53 PM

Did you feel like making a substantial reply to the other points, or do you simply feel it sufficient to dance on a technical victory and go home? Because the point was obvious, regardless of details - the Court repeatedly upheld the non-personhood of blacks, and then repeatedly upheld segregation, forced sterilization, and a whole host of other bad decisions.

4/1/2008 3:22:49 PM

And the Court is composed of men, just like the Constitutional Convention. So quit trying to treat the words of the founders as infallible.

4/1/2008 3:24:38 PM

Who said anything about infallibility? All that's been argued for is to actually pretend written laws exist.

Seeing as the Founders were not perfect, they left in a mechanism for correction: the Amendment process. Which obviously you are too good for, so you instead choose to pretend written laws simply do not exist.

4/1/2008 3:25:54 PM

Why even had the US Code. We should just have amendments.

4/1/2008 3:41:47 PM

Well gee, I bet someone who read Article I, Section 8 could answer that question.

Anyone? Bueller?

4/1/2008 3:43:13 PM

but see, not every correct requires an amendment. Now, go make me some cookies.

4/1/2008 3:44:32 PM

Let's try a thought experiment. Can someone think of the difference between the Constitution, which defines the operating parameters of the government, and the U.S. Code, which lays out the specific laws of the nation? Can anyone think of how these two might be different?

Help yourself to a high school civics book if you're having trouble with this one.

4/1/2008 3:46:25 PM

I want chocolate chip cookies.

4/1/2008 3:57:06 PM

And I want you to help yourself to a civics lesson or two.

However will we reach an agreeable compromise?

4/1/2008 3:59:38 PM

This is why I chose to never argue with the strict constructionist crowd. Disagreeance means you are wrong. Now I want chocolate chip cookies and a glass of milk to dip it in.

4/1/2008 4:01:20 PM

Remind me of this thread next time Bush rolls over another of your freedoms, and I'll remind you of your pliable view of the Constitution.

I hear they have cookies in Gitmo, now.

4/1/2008 4:02:14 PM

As I have said many times over, violating the rights of the people as they are enumerated is completely and utterly different.

4/1/2008 4:19:51 PM

And yet both cases stem from the same disregard for written law.

Funny how unintended consequences just "happen" like that, huh? It's almost like they're related.

4/1/2008 4:21:53 PM

bttt

4/5/2008 11:57:23 PM

If you are going to make such outlandish statements, you need to back them up.

4/6/2008 12:25:24 PM