But by all means–if you HAVE some sort of logic or evidence that shows how you understand the Constitution better than Supreme Court justices… let’s hear it! C’mon, what have you got?

By your silence, I’ll assume that you have nothing to rebut my point. You lose AGAIN! (Not surprising, of course.)

You just can’t understand English, can you?

Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump would be proud of you.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15331

The silence will most assuredly be deafening.

All your babble about “original intent” is simply shorthand for “what you personally WANT to believe the Constitution should mean.”

Fortunately, it’s not up to you! It’s up to the courts. THEY decide what’s Constitutional and what isn’t… and, as I’ve shown, they’ve come down against your points over and over again. Not because they’re merely dealing with “constitutional LAW” vs. “intent.” an artificial distinction you’re trying to draw, but because they decide what the Constitution actually means. In other words, INTENT.

They’re the experts; you’re not. Get it? Just because you don’t like their rulings doesn’t mean they’re wrong, or “betraying the original intent”—because you don’t know the original intent anywhere NEAR as well as they do! They studied it, including the Federalist Papers you revere; they got legal degrees in this very subject; they made it their careers.

Understand yet? All you have to work with is attitude, not facts. The Constitution means exactly what the courts SAY it means–no more, no less. And that’s simply out of your hands, and over your head.

Keep pretending you have a magic key that lets you unlock the Secret Meaning of the Constitution that centuries of legal scholars have somehow overlooked, if it makes you feel special. Just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Public debt is not private corporation debt the last time I checked. But I see the twist now – government bailouts make it public debt, secured debtors like bondholders be damned. Then turn controlling power over to the UAW, an unsecured debtor. I wouldn’t say that’s unconstitutional. Power grabbing yes, but not unconstitutional if the corporations of GM and Chrysler take federal bailout funds which it did. The Washington Examiner had a great point about this last month:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-of-property-rights-44415057.html

But, this administration is doing exactly what so many liberals claimed W was doing. No, I’m not at all surprised at their hypocrisy. We will be turned into Statists Obamabots whether we like it or not if we have to go through another four years on top of the upcoming four years of this controlling fascism.

“Business regulation IS constitutional (14th Amendment).”

Well, you have to remember that whatever a liberal says is the truth in his or her mind. A quick fact check says this about the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Yeah, I TOTALLY see where taking over Chrysler and telling the bondholders to go to hell is all up in that text! You really shouldn’t waste your time with these wastoid libs that infest this blog. Not one of them appears to have a day job either. Most Conservatives appear to actually be working during the day and not posting much. Surprising it is not.

You can read it on the bottom of the first page of this article posted yesterday. I’ve played with him over at Bookman’s blog for a couple of months, and he’s a really sore loser.