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.
