[SoothingDave]

This isn't a courtroom, and when you exhibit the misunderstanding of the Constitution and its purpose that you do, it is no wonder that you receive the response you do.

Once again, you have failed to answer a question of mine. My last post asked "And you're OK with this?"

That's a valid question to ask, given your arguments here. I think you should try to answer it.

SD

[Jim Verdolini]

"This isn't a courtroom, and when you exhibit the misunderstanding of the Constitution and its purpose that you do, it is no wonder that you receive the response you do.
Once again, you have failed to answer a question of mine. My last post asked "And you're OK with this?"

That's a valid question to ask, given your arguments here. I think you should try to answer it."

You confuse recognition of reality with being Ok with it. I speak about what the Constitution IS while you speak of what you wish it were. I contend that it is you who are confused over the issue.

Your argument is a lot the the medieval religious about angels dancing on the head of a pin. It is entertaining but has little to do with the actual nature of God.

Your view as to what the Constitution should mean and say has little to do with the reality of what it really does say.

You say I misunderstand the Constitution while YOU are the one who failed to produce a constitutional argument on the second.