[justshutupandtakeit]

Interesting to see that one who admits no ability in or understanding of legal reasoning feels someone should care about his blovating on such significant legal issues.

Of course, he will find a ready audience here among those similiarly gifted.

[AKbear]

The Constitution is not a difficult document to read. It's set out in fairly plain language, and was done so on purpose. It does not take a legal scholar to understand what is constitutional and what is not.

The problem is, congress, filled mostly with lawyers, obfuscate the law to the point where the ordinary citizen can't understand what is being passed. Then it takes a legal scholar to interpret what is written. It's mainly job security.

Mr. Gold is correct. And it doesn't take a legal scholar to see that.

[eskimo]

Interesting to see that one who admits no ability in or understanding of legal reasoning feels someone should care about his blovating on such significant legal issues.

What you call "legal reasoning" has, of late, become blatantly unreasonable. Today, almost no one’s life remains untouched by some egregious misinterpretation of the written words of law. To many present-day observers, “legal reasoning “ has become a précis from which any creative interpretation of words can be used to reconstruct law.

Of course, he will find a ready audience here among those similiarly gifted.

Perhaps the "gift" you scorn is simply the ability of rational people to make a measured observation.