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