[Lumberjack]

Your comments show that you clearly are unable to read into my comments. Our ultimate veto is the 2nd Amendment, its our trump card, its the way we keep the nation from falling into Tyranny. If the Congress legislated tomorrow that we could burn Jews in their homes, and the President signed it and the SCOTUS upheld that law, how much do your legalistic wranglings matter? They wouldn't.

People falling back on the 2nd amendment, however, would provide quite a check on that law though, wouldn't it?

Understand now?

[lugsoul]

Is it your contention that if a group of citizens overthrew the government in an armed uprising - assuming, of course, that the arms that these citizens bear according to their second amendment rights are sufficient to trump the rather considerable arms possessed by the gov't - because that group of armed citizens disagreed with an interpretation of the constitutionality of a law made by any or all of the branches of the government in accordance with constitutional procedures - THAT would be a "constitutional" manner of properly interpreting that law? No sir, that would be a coup d'etat. If you want to exercise the power of citizenship, vote the bastards that passed the law out of office and elect some bastards who will uphold the constitution. But don't tell me that I can live with your interpretation at the business end of your gun barrel. That would be a rather Maoist approach to things, dontcha think?