The Constitution is Gone, Hon James Clark McReynolds , Supreme Court Justice 1935

[Contumacious]

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.

I Dissent: The Legacy of Justice James Clark McReynolds

"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government. The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.
McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

.

 

[Contumacious]

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.

I Dissent: The Legacy of Justice James Clark McReynolds

"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government. The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.
McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

.

The berners, socialists , fascists, elitists, government supremacists, utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists will attempt to perpetrate a fraud by claiming that the Constitution (1787) is still in effect.

.

 

[Contumacious]

The official Supreme Court record shows a mere dissent

The judgment and decree, severally under review, are affirmed.
No. 270.
Judgment affirmed.

Nos. 471 and 472. Decree affirmed.



Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, dissenting.

Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND, Mr. Justice BUTLER, and I conclude that, if given effect, the enactments here challenged will bring about confiscation of property rights and repudiation of national obligations. Acquiescence in the decisions just announced is impossible; the circumstances demand statement of our views. 'To let oneself slide down the easy slope offered by the course of events and to dull one's mind against the extent of the danger, ... that is precisely to fail in one's obligation of responsibility.'

- See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

 

[Contumacious]

When asked if the Constitution is still relevant Nancy Pelosi responded by asking

Are you serious?

 

[Contumacious]

The berners and the socialists have declared that the US of A is Constitution (1787) FREE ZONE'


.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.

I Dissent: The Legacy of Justice James Clark McReynolds

"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government. The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.
McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

.

WOW! I'm really fucking impressed by your presentation of that book! Only problem I have with the link is it goes to Amazon.com for the book, which is not available btw, AND the quote is NOT FROM THE BOOK ITSELF, BUT FROM A REVIEW WRITTEN OF THE BOOK IN 2003!!!!

Do you really fucking believe a book review by a buyer is an authoritative source? DAMN, you're the owner of a truly fucked up displaced mind! Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

 

[Contumacious]

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.

I Dissent: The Legacy of Justice James Clark McReynolds

"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government. The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.
McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

.

WOW! I'm really fucking impressed by your presentation of that book! Only problem I have with the link is it goes to Amazon.com for the book, which is not available btw, AND the quote is NOT FROM THE BOOK ITSELF, BUT FROM A REVIEW WRITTEN OF THE BOOK IN 2003!!!!

Do you really fucking believe a book review by a buyer is an authoritative source? DAMN, you're the owner of a truly fucked up displaced mind! Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

That was a beautiful and accurate review which I will repeat for your reading pleasure as well as your edification:


"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government.

The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.

McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

GO FORTH AND SIN NO MORE.

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.

I Dissent: The Legacy of Justice James Clark McReynolds

"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government. The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.
McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

.

WOW! I'm really fucking impressed by your presentation of that book! Only problem I have with the link is it goes to Amazon.com for the book, which is not available btw, AND the quote is NOT FROM THE BOOK ITSELF, BUT FROM A REVIEW WRITTEN OF THE BOOK IN 2003!!!!

Do you really fucking believe a book review by a buyer is an authoritative source? DAMN, you're the owner of a truly fucked up displaced mind! Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

That was a beautiful and accurate review which I will repeat for your reading pleasure as well as your edification:


"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government.

The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.

McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

GO FORTH AND SIN NO MORE.

.

Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

Yup! You just may take the crown of Queen of Dishonesty away from Poly Chica at that! What the Hell is going on inside that volume you hang your hats on?

A book review, A FUCKING NON-AUTHORITATIVE OPINION, with which you happen to agree certainly is not credibly foundational in any wise. From the start, the book was based on a MINORITY opinion. That was the way the SCOTUS had been established from 1789; the prevailing Opinion of the Court and the Dissenting Opinion(s) . Stop crying about it, fool, or do something more that piss and moan like a petulant child AND legitimize your post by employing TRUTH vice DISHONESTY!

 

[Timmy]

I didn't know old Judge Mac was pro gay marriage ?

McReynolds wrote that the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included an individual's right "to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men". These two decisions survived the post-Lochner era.[15]

 

[ScienceRocks]

Somehow having a government = the constitution is gone. Now please go get drunk and add a few iq points.

 

[OKTexas]

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.

I Dissent: The Legacy of Justice James Clark McReynolds

"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government. The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.
McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

.

WOW! I'm really fucking impressed by your presentation of that book! Only problem I have with the link is it goes to Amazon.com for the book, which is not available btw, AND the quote is NOT FROM THE BOOK ITSELF, BUT FROM A REVIEW WRITTEN OF THE BOOK IN 2003!!!!

Do you really fucking believe a book review by a buyer is an authoritative source? DAMN, you're the owner of a truly fucked up displaced mind! Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

That was a beautiful and accurate review which I will repeat for your reading pleasure as well as your edification:


"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government.

The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.

McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

GO FORTH AND SIN NO MORE.

.

Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

Yup! You just may take the crown of Queen of Dishonesty away from Poly Chica at that! What the Hell is going on inside that volume you hang your hats on?

A book review, A FUCKING NON-AUTHORITATIVE OPINION, with which you happen to agree certainly is not credibly foundational in any wise. From the start, the book was based on a MINORITY opinion. That was the way the SCOTUS had been established from 1789; the prevailing Opinion of the Court and the Dissenting Opinion(s) . Stop crying about it, fool, or do something more that piss and moan like a petulant child AND legitimize your post by employing TRUTH vice DISHONESTY!

Who died and made you the arbitrator of truth, moron. Your opinion is worth no more than the guy who wrote the review.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.

I Dissent: The Legacy of Justice James Clark McReynolds

"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government. The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.
McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

.

WOW! I'm really fucking impressed by your presentation of that book! Only problem I have with the link is it goes to Amazon.com for the book, which is not available btw, AND the quote is NOT FROM THE BOOK ITSELF, BUT FROM A REVIEW WRITTEN OF THE BOOK IN 2003!!!!

Do you really fucking believe a book review by a buyer is an authoritative source? DAMN, you're the owner of a truly fucked up displaced mind! Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

That was a beautiful and accurate review which I will repeat for your reading pleasure as well as your edification:


"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government.

The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.

McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

GO FORTH AND SIN NO MORE.

.

Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

Yup! You just may take the crown of Queen of Dishonesty away from Poly Chica at that! What the Hell is going on inside that volume you hang your hats on?

A book review, A FUCKING NON-AUTHORITATIVE OPINION, with which you happen to agree certainly is not credibly foundational in any wise. From the start, the book was based on a MINORITY opinion. That was the way the SCOTUS had been established from 1789; the prevailing Opinion of the Court and the Dissenting Opinion(s) . Stop crying about it, fool, or do something more that piss and moan like a petulant child AND legitimize your post by employing TRUTH vice DISHONESTY!

Who died and made you the arbitrator of truth, moron. Your opinion is worth no more than the guy who wrote the review.

Logic, common sense and intellect are the final arbiters, dipstick! A book review by an unknown on Amazon.com presented as an authoritative source from the book itself is fucking dishonest conduct by the standards of any honest and reasonable person. However, there could be exceptions among folks in Tejas who are all hat and no cattle trying to prove they're not as fucking ignorant as their fellow travelers with the bent of their own dishonest ilk, Tex!

 

[OKTexas]

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.

I Dissent: The Legacy of Justice James Clark McReynolds

"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government. The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.
McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

.

WOW! I'm really fucking impressed by your presentation of that book! Only problem I have with the link is it goes to Amazon.com for the book, which is not available btw, AND the quote is NOT FROM THE BOOK ITSELF, BUT FROM A REVIEW WRITTEN OF THE BOOK IN 2003!!!!

Do you really fucking believe a book review by a buyer is an authoritative source? DAMN, you're the owner of a truly fucked up displaced mind! Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

That was a beautiful and accurate review which I will repeat for your reading pleasure as well as your edification:


"the book vindicates the important and long-ignored truth that McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists. The modern, mainstream revulsion towards McReynolds is a direct reflection of how far we have strayed from our founding principles of federalism and decentralized, limited government.

The mere mention of such ideals and how they are routinely violated by the modern federal government elicits the same scorn heaped upon McReynolds himself.

McReynolds, like Jefferson, recognized that the more power we yield to central government for the ostensible purpose of doing things FOR us, the more government will be empowered to do things TO us. While McReynolds understood that the Constitution must grow and change to suit the times, he also understood that the only appropriate means for doing so lies in the amendment process. The power of judicial review is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not to amend it, and the fact that such silent alteration happens regularly now without dissenters such as McReynolds is ominous to say the least."

GO FORTH AND SIN NO MORE.

.

Are you trying to depose Poly Chica from her position of Queen of Dishonesty?

Yup! You just may take the crown of Queen of Dishonesty away from Poly Chica at that! What the Hell is going on inside that volume you hang your hats on?

A book review, A FUCKING NON-AUTHORITATIVE OPINION, with which you happen to agree certainly is not credibly foundational in any wise. From the start, the book was based on a MINORITY opinion. That was the way the SCOTUS had been established from 1789; the prevailing Opinion of the Court and the Dissenting Opinion(s) . Stop crying about it, fool, or do something more that piss and moan like a petulant child AND legitimize your post by employing TRUTH vice DISHONESTY!

Who died and made you the arbitrator of truth, moron. Your opinion is worth no more than the guy who wrote the review.

Logic, common sense and intellect are the final arbiters, dipstick! A book review by an unknown on Amazon.com presented as an authoritative source from the book itself is fucking dishonest conduct by the standards of any honest and reasonable person. However, there could be exceptions among folks in Tejas who are all hat and no cattle trying to prove they're not as fucking ignorant as their fellow travelers with the bent of their own dishonest ilk, Tex!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Your thinking your opinion carries any more weight than the next person, is exactly that, laughable.

 

[Contumacious]

I didn't know old Judge Mac was pro gay marriage ?

McReynolds wrote that the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included an individual's right "to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men". These two decisions survived the post-Lochner era.[15]

He supported the rights guaranteed by the old, now irrelevant , Constitution (1787).

 

[Contumacious]

Somehow having a government = the constitution is gone. Now please go get drunk and add a few iq points.

Yo berner

having a constitution which allows government officials to have UNlimited powers and which allows the creation of a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state means that the Constitution (1787) is gone.

 

[Contumacious]

BUMP

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.'

lol

Don't forget the bleeding-hearts and artists...

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong; hyperbolic libertarian loons can be truly amusing.

 

[Contumacious]

'Folks, according to the berners and the socialists The Constitution (1787) has been abolished. The powers of the government are now unlimited . Our "rights" have been reduced to privileges subject to their discretion.'

lol

Don't forget the bleeding-hearts and artists...

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong; hyperbolic libertarian loons can be truly amusing.

Does the Honorable James Clark McReynolds comes accross as a standup comedian?

McReynolds was a man of consistent, context-neutral principles who attempted to preserve our Constitution from the grasping hands of utopian zealots and judicial abdicationists.


.

 

[Agit8r]

Shouldn't this be in History?

 

[Contumacious]

Shouldn't this be in History?

It should be

but the powers that be don't want Americans to panic

they want you to believe that we can have a Constitutional Republic where Comrade Sanders can be elected and all that jazz is Constitutional.


.