Yes, my opinion has less validity than yours, which you spout freely and then deny others the privelege.
"Lick the boots." Got it. Thanks.
The constitution didn't say that Sherman's troops couldn't rape southerners on their way through, either, so that must've been okey-dokey as well. Maybe we could ask Chase what he thought of that? Wait a minute, why even bother... let's just ask Lincoln, since he is ultimately the arbiter of his own power.
Never has their been collusion by all branches of government against the people as there was during post-war "reconstruction." Dare someone question that validity of their acts? Not so, because Non-Sequitur will remind them that men with guns stand ready to protect their political power at all costs - well, actually only the cost of your life, but losers who think they're "free enough for now" are a dime a dozen.
Touchy, touchy, touchy. I've never denied you the right to spout your opinions, I have simply pointed out that in terms of what is Constitutional and what is not then your opinion is meaningless. As meaningless as my own. The only opinions that count are those of the members of the Supreme Court itself.
The constitution didn't say that Sherman's troops couldn't rape southerners on their way through, either, so that must've been okey-dokey as well.
The Constitution is silent on the subject of murder, too, but that doesn't mean I think that it is legal. That's because I don't confuse Constitutional law with criminial law or civil law.
Never has their been collusion by all branches of government against the people as there was during post-war "reconstruction." Dare someone question that validity of their acts? Not so, because Non-Sequitur will remind them that men with guns stand ready to protect their political power at all costs - well, actually only the cost of your life, but losers who think they're "free enough for now" are a dime a dozen.
Now you're getting just plain silly. But that's OK. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it.