templar wrote: 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 (unconstitutional) assertions. IN short, you seem to equate anarchy with constitutional government. It is not. Constitutional government is quite the opposite of anarchy.
-131-
_____________________________________
Typical.. - You can't answer my comments here: --
Replies
Address:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1079289/replies?comment=128 -- So you call me nasty names and make declarations of your own constitutional correctness.
Take it to the backroom, and I'll answer your slurs. Otherwise, you can shove it.
137 tpaine
______________________________________
I didn't call you any nasty names,
I let you know what crowd I think you belong to. Calling you a name would be done quite differently than expressing my opinion. Since you don't (won't) address the Constitutional issue I have brought up in the form of a simple question, it's hard for me to show any "constitutional correctness" in my posts to you. Skipping the usual veiled terroristic threats, what do you find in the Constitution that decides who determines Constitutionality of any issue? Either quit pretending to be a Constitutionalist and drop the dialog or answer the question. It's very clear and readily available to anyone that wants to take a little time and read the Constitution.
140 -temp-
At #131 above, -- you own words show you to be a liar.
At #133 you made a statement:
"The Constitution has specific authority given for the determination of what is and is not Constitutional."
Prove it.. Cite the Article, and the words, and your reasoning for your interpretation, -- or be branded as a just another loudmouth braggart.
.. Cite the Article, and the words, and your reasoning for your interpretation, -- or be branded as a just another loudmouth braggart.Well. lets see here. I think it wa, maybe, six months or so ago we went through this and I DID prove it, I stated the article and section and posted the language as well. (Short memory maybe?) You simply said nothing after I did, you quit responding. I asked you a question and you have't answered it. I will ask again that you answer my original question and will do so every time you post to me on this thread till you do. Unless you just simply admit that you either don't know or that you refuse to because it negates a whole bunch of stuff you profess. Trying to divert my attention, and avoid the question isn't going to work.