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 (unconstitutionjal) assertions. IN short, you seem to equate anarchy with constitutional government. It is not. Constitutional government is quite the opposite of anarchy.
______________________________________
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.
-- So you call me nasty names and make declarations of your own constitutional correctness. 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.