[tpaine]

templar wrote:

Well, OK, so ... according to the Constituiton: Who is given the authority to determine what is and is not repugnant to the Constitution?

Ultimately, every man is his own judge of what law he follows.
For instance, booze prohibition failed because millions of Americans refused to obey its repugnant 'law'..

OK, tpaine, where is that in the Cosntitution?

Our free will is self-evident. It didn't need to be enumerated.

The Constitution specifically addresses this issue. To me, it is starting to look like you believe in some part of the Constitution but not others.

Yep, you have a lot of strange ideas, imo.

What is any different between you and any other person that finds some part of the Constitution objectionable and decides to ignore it?

'Ignoring it' is your straw man. I don't ignore it.

BTW, "booze prohibition" ended because Congress and the States went through the Constitutional process of repealing the ammendment, not because people disobeyed the law.

Civil disobedience sparked repeal.. It's happening again, now, - in the drug war.. --- And in the prohibitions on guns.. People are disobeying drug & gun laws by the millions

[templar]

tpaine, I've pretty much come to consider you a lunatic fringe type. You either have not read the constitution or you don't even begin to understand what you read. And you never answer any question about where something is in the constitution unless it suits your (anti-constitutional) Purposes, because much of what you claim is constitutional is not, and the constitution addresses very specific issues that you seem to ignore in favor of your own (unconstitutionjal) assertions. IN short, you seem to equate anarchy with constitutional government. It is not. Constitutional government is quite the opposite of anarchy.