I think you're doing a disservice to the US Constitution and people who took an oath to defend it. With the millions of lawyers in this country, do you not find it strange that there is not outcry about what you perceive as it's unconstitutionality?
If you depend on the integrity of lawyers to back your argument, I suggest you start patching the hole in the ship of your argument sir. It is leaking, and wants to leak besides.
These emergency contingency centers have been in effect all during the Cold War. They were not ruled unconstitutional. These are not unconstitutional.
And where, pray, where were these things ruled on, precisely? Further, even if they were ruled on, where is the Constitutional authority for their existance. Its one thing to rely on feeble old witherspoons in black robes to back you up, its another to point out where in the Constitution this "shadow government" was authorized. It wasn't, never was, never will be short an amendment.
I've taken the trouble to read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers, not to mention the Articles of Confederation and the Magna Carta, sir. Nowhere, nowhere, is this fallacy addressed, except in the dreams of those who would be Ceasar.
The problem with the SCOTUS is that it relys on prior rulings, when in fact that is not what it is suposed to to. It is supposed to weigh the case in question against the Constitution and determine whether it meets Constitutional muster or not. The fact that they do not do this is telling of their lack of integrity.
It falls to the 10th. Like it or not, it falls to the 10th friend. Pack you jurisprudence bags on the subject, the Constitution does not speak of this, thus it falls to the 10th.
If they were ruled on by the Supreme Court, that in fact would make it Constitutional. You seem to not even cede such a basic thing and yet you claim to be a defender of the Constitution. If they havent been ruled on, then the Constitutionality is not being questioned.
, Its one thing to rely on feeble old witherspoons in black robes to back you up, its another to point out where in the Constitution this "shadow government" was authorized.
,/I> Shadow government is an emotive appeal by you and by thw Wash.Compost nonetheless. Those guys in black robes are the interpreters of what is or is not Constitutional. Now if you dont like that may I suggest you find another Constitution or start a revolution.
It wasn't, never was, never will be short an amendment.
Again, you are showing a simplistic look at the Constitution. Many things are not in the Constitution and are still Constitutional. You have to look at laws that spring from the Constitution. If you choose not to, fine, but dont think that your fringe interpretation has any merit in reality.