In reference to my previous post, if you look at the comments.
Are we not yet done with this quarreling over what is legal and not legal, Constitutional and not Constitutional and whether the Constitution was a flawed document? What difference does it make? It is not in use, but if the shell of what it was can be used as a tool to hammer the Marxists that have co-opted it for their own use when it serves them and ignore it all together when it is not useful, do we really have to have this argument?
Let me spell it out. There is no Constitution. The fact that it exists on paper somewhere is wholly irrelevant. Why do you think I have largely (not completely, but largely) refused to reference it over these past few years? I used the Constitution, not as a shield as some seem to think, but as a reference point to demonstrate that our government was no longer bound by it. It was in the vain hope to give some courage to those who thought our government was somehow still legitimate. Everything I have written on the Constitution, even when I wrote the book, was to illustrate the fact that it was not in use by our government and that all of the machinations of the Supreme Court were, if not designed, at least instructive, that they knew how to get around all those pesky words.
The only thing the Constitution is good for now, is to bludgeon the Marxists, to make them violate it, to explain their violation and watch them make logical fools of themselves when they try to justify their illegal actions. That's all. Nothing more.
More @ Christian Mercenary
I do not see any reason to knock the Constitution, but rather the idiotic Supreme court judges that make it mean whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteIt should be "interperated" using the meanings as understood at the time. Period.
DeleteThat is clear. I hope the Supreme Court starts to get the message
ReplyDeleteHope is we have, but maybe enough!
DeleteAs I understand it, a return to the Constitution would be an enormous change. So, I doubt it will happen.
ReplyDeleteVoters wouldn't like it. To give an example, the Interstate Highway system is justified as "Defence" spending, as I recall. That is spurious. And there's no mention of healthcare in the Constitution, no mention of social security. And Congress would need to justify America's involvement all over the globe. Only Congress may declare war.
The list would be very long on the things that are not Constitutional. Marriage is obviously between a man and his wife. Abortion seems to me a state issue; maybe someone else could argue differently.
If we truly returned to the Constitution, voters would likely adopt a new Constitution, especially as the demographics change.
What it boils down to is the military is loyal to the politicians, not to the Constitution. So, they and the Court interpret things as they please. And our institutions, eg. law schools, falsely claim the Constitution says all we interpret it to mean today.
So, I guess this is all an example of how written laws aren't really the source of power. The average voter can't understand written law, so the laws hold little real power. We interpret the truth through our authorities, who then tell us what we should believe.
We interpret the truth through our authorities, who then tell us what we should believe.
DeleteSad.
Thanks for the reply. Sorry for rambling a bit. I'm much too young to be an old man :p
DeleteNot at all and thanks.
DeleteRather than trying to "save the nation" though, people should just try to save their own children. And if they have time, then save their kin.
ReplyDeleteWho's powerful enough to "save the nation"? Do those trying to "save" it really even know what they're doing?
Raising a few kids well is a big accomplishment in itself.
Raising a few kids well is a big accomplishment in itself.
Delete& homeschool.
"It should be interpreted using the meanings as understand at the time".
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely!! There are plenty of very good reference materials available for just that purpose!