Oh. When you use the the words "Constitutional principles" they are most certainly vague. First off you have interchangeably used on this thread Constitutional principles, laws of the land, and even the Constitution itself. You have also used the same term "Constitutional principles" for describing that well written concise piece the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles." In short it is impossible to know what you are talking about when you use the two word term "Constitutional principles." I call that vague.
Your delusion of grandeur really shows itself, especially in how you handle almost every disagreement with you. That is that you turn so many of the disagreements with you into a disagreements with the constitution and/or the Constitutional principles. You are not the walking embodiment of the Constitution and its principles.
Then we have your continual taking statements out of context, often leaving out the key qualifiers of such statements. It quite obvious that you do this so as to make to make it possible to avoid hard considerations and enabling you then to either repeat your self or make sniffling comments to the challenges you could not answer. Your sophistry is not very convincing.
I see that your fondness for repeating your self over and over again has not subsided. As you now demonstrate by repeating that earlier discredited notion that while "judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included, Article VI does not specify any exclusions." I see that you ran at high speed from the challenge that this interpretation of Article VI is nothing more than judicial activism. Cowering from that challenge, you immediately put forth the very vague and phony statement that "--Everyone in the USA is subject to laws 'made in Pursusance thereof' --- of Constitutional principles." What ever you want that to mean at some later juncture.
Then as a final quote of me, not taken out of context, that "I have never implied that people are "exempt" from the laws of the land, as you imply." Your answer was most enjoyable:
Whatever. You're playing wordgames again. That tactic is getting old.
You know everyone makes mistakes from time to time, don't get so upset when someone points out one of yours. Life does go on. Enjoy it.
Oh. When you use the the words "Constitutional principles" they are most certainly vague.
Only to you.
First off you have interchangeably used on this thread Constitutional principles, laws of the land, and even the Constitution itself. You have also used the same term "Constitutional principles" for describing that well written concise piece the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles." In short it is impossible to know what you are talking about when you use the two word term "Constitutional principles." I call that vague.
Yes, you do.. -- Now, moving on --
Your delusion of grandeur really shows itself, especially in how you handle almost every disagreement with you. That is that you turn so many of the disagreements with you into a disagreements with the constitution and/or the Constitutional principles.
I posted a thread about our Constitutions principles. Now you seem bent on turning it into a flame fest with personal insults.
You are not the walking embodiment of the Constitution and its principles. Then we have your continual taking statements out of context, often leaving out the key qualifiers of such statements. It quite obvious that you do this so as to make to make it possible to avoid hard considerations and enabling you then to either repeat your self or make sniffling comments to the challenges you could not answer. Your sophistry is not very convincing. I see that your fondness for repeating your self over and over again has not subsided. As you now demonstrate by repeating that earlier discredited notion that
Dream on that you've discredited Article VI, wherein "judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included; -- Article VI does not specify any exclusions."
I see that you ran at high speed from the challenge that this interpretation of Article VI is nothing more than judicial activism.
Your off the wall opinion that I or Roland interpret Article VI as authorizing activism is not a 'challenge', its ludicrous.
Cowering from that challenge, you immediately put forth the very vague and phony statement that "--Everyone in the USA is subject to laws 'made in Pursusance thereof' --- of Constitutional principles."
Yep, everyone must obey valid Constitutional laws. - That is NOT a vague & phony statement..
What ever you want that to mean at some later juncture. Then as a final quote of me, not taken out of context, that "I have never implied that people are "exempt" from the laws of the land, as you imply." Your answer was most enjoyable: Whatever. You're playing wordgames again. That tactic is getting old. You know everyone makes mistakes from time to time, don't get so upset when someone points out one of yours. Life does go on. Enjoy it.
I enjoy it a lot, and one of my joys are reading your funny little rants.
Thanks..