@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:sort a the same thing Dave.
I rest my case that you are not a strict constructionist as youve implied in the past.
I am at a loss to understand your reasoning,
that I am not a strict constructionist.
farmerman wrote:
Quote:You are one, like most of us, who recognizes
that the Constitution is a living document [??] and must reflect the times.
I
disput and
reject that with ineffable emphasis.
That is the same as saying that
NO constitution exists at all
and Obama and his congress can rightly do whatever thay please,
when thay choose to do it. Saying that the Constitution "is a living document"
is the same as saying that government shoud be only a bunch of unlimited bullies.
In order to have validity the Constitution must be stable;
either be that or be a foolish joke. It shoud have been
written in Latin, a dead language, for maximal stability.
The "living document" notion is only an excuse to justify cheating,
denying that anyone has permanent rights under it.
By use of that "living document" theory, W coud have justified
his remaining in office for any number of years,
claiming that the times require it. In NYC, Mayor Rudy Giuliani
tried to get away with that, claiming that his brilliant expertise
was indispensable to the public well being because of 9/11.
The constitutional rights have been established, the same as principles
of elementary mathematics. Those political rights cannot change
without amending the Constitution as set forth in its Article 5.
David