[mrustow]

How many times does the Supreme Court have to rule in direct oppostion to the clear meaning of the words in the constitution before Williams and others figure out that the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the land. The Supreme law of this land is what ever 5 of the nine Supreme court justices say it is.

Time after time people bring cases that go to the surpreme court based on what the constitution says in the matter. As we have learned once again that is a dumb thing to do. If one wants to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court Case one should never ask what the law or Constitution says. Those Documents are worhtless predictors. The only question is are their 5 votes on the court to support a case. If there are not it does not matter what the constitution says. It matters what the judges say.

I see you're one of those people whose posts I'm going to have to avoid, so that I don't end up eating the business end of a .38.

"Constitution? We don't need no steenkin' Constitution!"

[Common Tator]

"Constitution? We don't need no steenkin' Constitution!"

I did not say we don't need one. I said we don't have a constitution whose words mean anything to the people that are charged with interpreting it.

If words mean what they say, then why are people who rely on the words of the constitution to protect them so often disappointed?