Standard-issue idiot thinks that his oath to support and defend the Constitution does not mean understanding and interpreting the Constitution. Perhaps he is unaware of how language works and how one must interpret words in order to support and defend written words.
Of course this absolute mouth-breather is referring to the idiotic viewpoint that our Supreme Court interprets the Constitution for us. That view requires one ignore Article Six of our Constitution which requires all officers of the United States, to include Supreme Court justices, take the same oath to support the Constitution (which would be a silly requirement if the Supreme Court justices were interpreting the Constitution for everybody and therefore writing the Constitution themselves with every opinion).
Even if this dingus thought that was how it works (he doesn't), certainly Sua Stupidity here doesn't get an order from his boss and then tell his boss to "standby one" while he hits up West Law in order to research case law to make sure that he's acting in accordance with the Supreme Court's case law. He doesn't do that.
What he does, however, is spread anti-American unconstitutional horseshit on social media along with his comrades.
And in case anybody is keeping score, Sua and his un-American friends are winning. Mightily.
Posts
Stupidity is claiming to understand the Constitution while simultaneously advancing the absurdly dumb idea that it doesn't provide for judicial review. The fact is everyone knows it must be interpreted, and everyone is happy to interpret it according to their own ideology. Pretending otherwise makes you as irrelevant as the lies George Washington never told. Of course, you're not pretending very effectively. A Trumpist in sheep's clothing.
ReplyDelete"Stupidity is claiming to understand the Constitution while simultaneously advancing the absurdly dumb idea that it doesn't provide for judicial review."
DeleteI didn't make any claim one way or another about judicial review. The Constitution says nothing about judicial review. Article III is tiny, not much is said, but the judicial branch is given the power to decide cases and controversies. It says nothing about the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution for the other three branches. It relies on officers of all branches to interpret the Constitution in Article Six.
You may lack the character to reason, "Ah shucks, I really wish I could do X because I personally think X would be a good thing to do and my boss told me to do it, but dog gone it, I can't do it because the Constitution, when I read it fairly for what it says and not for what I want it to say, says I can't." And many like you also lack that principle.
But not all of us. Some of us are better than you. Cheers.
"Some of us are better than you."
DeleteAbsolutely correct.
But the Constitution is silent on the matter of character. One needn't be better to avail himself of any of its protections, among them the right to debate what it means.
Don't treat it like scripture. When you do that, you damn it to the fate of scripture, which is to be assigned innumerable meanings, the divergences of which are employed to make us feel better about ourselves, but also as justification to kill others.
The Constitution assumes character as a given. At least the character, rare as it is today among our public "servants" in uniform and without, to do what you said you would do and what you're paid to do. It assumes that because it requires an oath in Article Six.
DeleteWe're not talking about being better in order to avail oneself of its protections, we're talking about an armed government employee like Sua Stupidity having the character to provide that protection to those who pay him. In this case, an employee who is not interested in debating what the Constitution (that he swore to support and defend with truth faith and allegiance and without purpose of evasion) means because he has abdicated that responsibility entirely. Which makes just following orders so much easier to do.
I don't treat the Constitution like scripture. This is not some religious exercise in the slightest. I treat it like a contract I might have as a home builder. If I am paid to build a house, I will build the house as I am instructed and agreed to do, and not the way I'd rather it be built to save me some costs or to advance myself in some way. This isn't some religious thing, this is basic professionalism and basic integrity.
It is amazing the lengths you and yours will go to prop up your purposes of evasion to justify not doing your job as you swore to do. Despicable and the very reason our nation is literally being conquered before our very eyes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMr. Anonymous, this you?
Deletehttp://www.pickyourbattles.net/2011/06/mental-reservation-purpose-of-evasion.html
Okay, well even though you have nothing more to say, I appreciate you stopping by. It's a real compliment to see what staying power I have with America's domestic enemies. That lack of character, lack of confidence, and of course the lasting fascination with your betters who gave you honest feedback in the past that resulted in this display of you still struggling with it, is something I truly treasure. Cheers.
Delete