[Defend Liberty]

I understand (and am quite sympathetic with) your interpretation, actually, but the reality of the situation is we’ve got a lot of work to do convincing lawyers and judges that “yes” really means “yes” and “no” really means “no” — and that “Congress Shall Make No Law” means “Congress Shall MAKE NO LAW” — etc., etc. .

Rationalizing it is acceptable to violate the Constitution to suit a particular agenda only invokes others with different agendas to do the same by violating other parts of the Constitution. In the end there will be no Constitution because all of it will have been violated and a completely different form of government, other than the limited government principles our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution, will emerge.

Socialists have been usurping the Constitution for decades and your remedy is to use the same strategy. That line of reasoning does not uphold the Constitution but instead achieves the very goal socialists seek to achieve and you claim to oppose.

[hal ogen]

Stakes! Stakes! We need more stakes to drive through the heart of this monster. Through the courts, through de-funding, through anything anyone can do to resist and dissemble this anti-Freedom, anti-American drivel that the DIM/LIB asshats have foisted upon America. Death to this creation of the anti-American, America-hating leftists. Death to the MONSTER!

[filbert]

Socialists have been usurping the Constitution for decades and your remedy is to use the same strategy. That line of reasoning does not uphold the Constitution but instead achieves the very goal socialists seek to achieve and you claim to oppose.

I advocated no "remedy" other than convincing lawyers and judges that the Constitiution means what it says. I fail to see how you and I disagree in any tangible way. In any event, I see no productive purpose in continuing our little discourse. Fare well.