Neither do I. But that's not what we're talking about, is it? Again, off you go on some tangent.
We're talking about the way that it's interpreted, now aren't we. Not the way it's written, correct? Why is it that I constantly have to waste half a post just to get you back on topic.
Clarence Thomas and his buddies on the USSC have done far more damage to this country than Congress. And they're unelected and unaccountable. There's the danger.
Neither do I. But that's not what we're talking about, is it? Again, off you go on some tangent.
We're talking about the way that it's interpreted, now aren't we. Not the way it's written, correct? Why is it that I constantly have to waste half a post just to get you back on topic.
It looks like you were complaining about the way it is written, specifically Article III:
And as Justice Thomas well knows, he and four unelected and unaccountable others on the USSC can frustrate and overrule 535 elected and accountable congressional representatives -- so I ask again, who shall we fear more?
They are both threats if they don't follow the Constitution. An example would be Congress when they violate the Second Amendment and the USSC when they allow them to get away with it. It's a stupid question, IMO, but I've come to expect it.
Clarence Thomas and his buddies on the USSC have done far more damage to this country than Congress. And they're unelected and unaccountable. There's the danger.
The Constitution says they are to be appointed, and set up checks in the form of impeachment and the amendment process.
It appears that you indeed do have a problem with the way the Constitution is written.