[JCBreckenridge]

“given that you apparently prefer a “living Constitution,”

Actually, it’s you who refuses to accept what the constitution says. I’m arguing that we should follow the constitution, even when it says something that we don’t like.

Radical, eh?

[Carry_Okie]

Actually, it’s you who refuses to accept what the constitution says. I’m arguing that we should follow the constitution, even when it says something that we don’t like.

Actually, it’s you who refuses to accept what the constitution says, because you had to redefine the term, "subject" to get away with interpreting it the way you do. That's rubber language, the essence of a "living Constitution." I’m arguing that we should follow the constitution IN ITS ORIGINAL MEANING, even when it says something that YOU don’t like.

Next time try reading the links you're given for a change. You might actually learn something.

[Jeff Winston]

Actually, it’s you who refuses to accept what the constitution says. I’m arguing that we should follow the constitution, even when it says something that we don’t like.

Radical, eh?

For some of these people, radical indeed.