[DiogenesLamp]

You aren't interested in learning where you are wrong, and it is usually a waste of my time to try and tell you anything.

You know very well that Abortion and Homosexual marriage are not in the US constitution, but our courts have put them in there anyways.

The fundamental point here is that you can put stuff in the US Constitution that is not in there, and so the argument "But that isn't in the US Constitution!" is meaningless when confronted with sufficient political power.

[Reily]

But you’re making the same argument made in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas’s majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the Constitution. Seeing things in the text that aren’t physically there eventually means the text is irrelevant. That’s the “Living Constitution” idea. This is what the Left does to the Constitution. After awhile there is no Constitution restraining state power, it just a matter of which group of political thugs intimidate or shout the loudest. Maybe that’s where we are today but advocating it is hardly a conservative stance.

[DoodleDawg]

You aren't interested in learning where you are wrong, and it is usually a waste of my time to try and tell you anything.

I've learned a lot during my time here on FR. And one thing I have learned is that the chance of learning anything useful or even factual from one of your posts generally hovers somewhere between zilch and none.

The fundamental point here is that you can put stuff in the US Constitution that is not in there...

So I've seen from many of your past posts.

...and so the argument "But that isn't in the US Constitution!" is meaningless when confronted with sufficient political power.

Your contempt for the Constitution is duly noted. So I see.