For the people or for the elites?

[jillian]

actually, he referred you to marbury v madison. that is the decision that says who is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. and it isn't the 'masses'. in fact, the 'masses' are the last people who are supposed to construe it.

you should try reading it, it might be helpful to you.

until then, yes, the constitution is briliant. and when you understand it, i'm sure you'll think it is even more so.

Hmmm. And what was Marbury v Madison? Supreme Court decision, wasn't it? So where do you get off saying, "Actually" to me, as though I was incorrect?

I can only assume that when you say, "Understand it", you mean, "Accept that what we tell you is correct is correct, and stop that horrible thinking for yourself stuff." And believe me, when I want lessons on being a mindless sheep led to the fleecing and slaughter, you'll be the first teacher I come to.

Keep going, please. It's fascinating. Like a particularly nasty train wreck.

she isn't getting it at all, is she?

the people who wrote the document she keeps talking about, but knows nothing about, DIDN'T WANT THE PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR IT.

lol.. they didn't even want most of 'THE PEOPLE" to vote.

they so don't get it... the 'masses' weren't supposed to infringe on people's rights. the only way to assure that was to make sure that there was a higher power that could step between the "people" and those they wanted to stomp on

 

[goldcatt]

Hmmm. And what was Marbury v Madison? Supreme Court decision, wasn't it? So where do you get off saying, "Actually" to me, as though I was incorrect?

I can only assume that when you say, "Understand it", you mean, "Accept that what we tell you is correct is correct, and stop that horrible thinking for yourself stuff." And believe me, when I want lessons on being a mindless sheep led to the fleecing and slaughter, you'll be the first teacher I come to.

Keep going, please. It's fascinating. Like a particularly nasty train wreck.

she isn't getting it at all, is she?

the people who wrote the document she keeps talking about, but knows nothing about, DIDN'T WANT THE PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR IT.

lol.. they didn't even want most of 'THE PEOPLE" to vote.

they so don't get it... the 'masses' weren't supposed to infringe on people's rights. the only way to assure that was to make sure that there was a higher power that could step between the "people" and those they wanted to stomp on

There you go applying stuff like context again. Shame on you Ms. Elitist!

The so-called Framers were well aware of the tyranny of the majority, of course. So were the States. It was one of the concepts at the center of the debates within the Constitutional Congress. But of course only idiots do things like look up original contemporary sources and actually read them.

 

[Toro]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

Actually, the founders created a government for and by white property-owning males, which were a distinct minority. Isn't the fact that they thought only white property-owning males were capable of making good decisions to vote mean that they did, indeed, think that most people were stupid?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

They teach case law in law school to avoid the distortion it does to the constitution

 

[Sheldon]

Dear moron,

You didn't read the link I provided. You don't understand the importance of that case. You have, at best, a tedious grasp on how the government functions, let alone the judicial branch.

Read this, please; it's embarrassing to watch you do this to yourself.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

This case, and the theory of judicial review it outlined, established the judiciary as a co-equal branch.

Your argument, that the Court isn't the final voice in law, is an idea that runs counter to the system of three co-equal branches of governance that the Constitution, that document you pretend to know and care about, establishes.

That you so cavalierly dismiss this case, a case that is intrinsic to this topic, is on par with dismissing the Constitution as a whole.

Reading your posts in this thread, moron, has been like listening to a virgin talk about sex.

Please stop spilling stoopid all over the place.

sincerely,
silky

 

[Madeline]

The constitution exists for the benefit of the people. So does a Physicians' Desk Reference, the "bible" of prescription drugs. That does not mean we are all equally able or empowered to interpret it, anymore than we can all read a PDR with the skill of a trained physician.

Maybe as lay people we can get up a fairly sophisticated POV on one drug, like viagra. What we cannot do is view that drug's operation on body systems of all types, subject to every imaginable disease and acting in concert with every other drug in the PDR and any other substance on Planet Earth.

Merely being able to convince yourself that you comprehend the provisions of one portion of the constitution does not demonstrate any facility to interprete it in its entirety, against its history and in light of all previous caselaw. That requires legal scholarship. And in order for whatever POV you arrive at to matter, you must be one of the Gang of Nine.

Elsewise, you're just one of the rest of us, who are not Justices. We're also not the President, but I don't see anyone here bellyaching that we need no Executive Branch.

 

[AllieBaba]

What pure unadulterated crap.

Thanks, we don't need a group of specialized drones to "interpret" the Constitution for us.

 

[Madeline]

What pure unadulterated crap.

Thanks, we don't need a group of specialized drones to "interpret" the Constitution for us.

I don't get you people. The Gang of Nine we have today may be the MOST right-wing group to ever sit on SCOTUS. Where is all this ignorant hatred coming from?

 

[goldcatt]

What pure unadulterated crap.

Thanks, we don't need a group of specialized drones to "interpret" the Constitution for us.

I don't get you people. The Gang of Nine we have today may be the MOST right-wing group to ever sit on SCOTUS. Where is all this ignorant hatred coming from?

You just said it. "Ignorant". It's easier to dismiss reality that doesn't mesh with the agenda than to learn about it and advance a rational argument for not supporting it.

Don't get me wrong, there are quite a few intellectually honest cons and libertarians on here who can and do make a solid case for originalist schools of thought (and actually understand what that means). But there are an awful lot who think they can learn the entire body of Con Law from chain e-mails, blurbs on righty websites and sound bites from the likes of Savage and Beck. No context, no depth, and no real understanding of how the system works.

If you don't understand the existing system, how can you argue to change it and have any credibility? It's nuts. Welcome to Constitutional topics on the USMB!

 

[martybegan]

There's a difference between knowing that people can ACT stupidly, and assuming that they can't understand English when they read it. And reading a document written in plain English ain't firefighting OR engineering. It doesn't require expert training, a college degree, or even licensing and certification to accomplish.

But like every human endovor some people will chose to study it more then the aVERage bear. SOMEONE has to interpet it when disputes arise, and since lawyers have the best training when it comes to interpreting law it falls on them.

What other system would you propose? If you really want to get around the courts there is a process for it, the amendment process. You could make having the president quack like a duck for 1 hour a year made constitutional that way, and the courts, legislature and the executive could do squat about it.

A system where "ordinary" people would determine consitutional diasagreements reminds me of when the bolsheviks rounded up a peasant, a worker and a solider to be part of the negotiating team with the germans in 1917 just to satisfy thier ideology.

Nobody has suggested doing away with the court system, and I have remarkably little tolerance for "all-or-nothing" extremist straw man arguments, so don't even bother going there.

There's a big difference between having the courts to apply the law to individual disputes, and letting them dictate what the law actually is or should be. See if you can wrap your brain around that difference, and then come back.

All I ask is for you to propose another system for answering constitutional questions and you go all defensive. You ignore the substance of my point and instead go for defensive wordsmithing and appeals to logical fallacies.

Is my question that hard to answer? All I said in a nutshell was how would you change the current system of judical review? The rest is my opinon.

Grow a spine and come back to me.

 

[Madeline]

"Another system"? Like what? A bingo game?

 

[jillian]

I don't get you people. The Gang of Nine we have today may be the MOST right-wing group to ever sit on SCOTUS. Where is all this ignorant hatred coming from?

glen beck told them they're constitutional scholars if they can read the second amendment.....

they don't have to understand it.... they just have to be able to say it out loud looking at it phonetically.

 

[Madeline]

Apparently so did the Gang of Nine.

Justices affirm gun rights - Page 3 - Los Angeles Times

Again, THIS Gang of Nine did not decide Roe v. Wade or whatever case is inflaming the rightie-tighties. Roe is over FORTY years old...that Gang is now dead, mostly. THIS Gang let loose all guns, regardless of the needs of the community. You can't get further far right than Scalia unless you leave the US for a South American dictatorship. Republicans have been packing the court since Reagan.

What the **** is with all the bitching?????

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is ridiculous is the thought that anyone ever believed the meaning of the constitution should be determined by 'the people'. everything the founding fathers did was to make sure 'the people' could NOT impose their will on the constitution. THAT is why it takes such great effort to amend it. that way the torch and pitchfork crowd can't take away people's rights every time something offends their widdle sensibilities

Everything in the constitution, if properly construed, is intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, the very 'people' you talk about. the constitution doesn't even give 'the people' the right to directly vote for their president.

And the fact that a bunch of yahoo's think they KNOW what the constitution means when scholars have been discussing these issues for hundreds of years (BECAUSE REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DIFFER) is EXACTLY why you're not the ones who are supposed to construe the constitution.

Finally, BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUE THE CONSTITUTION BELONGS TO THE SUPREME COURT. It says so in that document you like to talk about but haven't an ounce of understanding about.

Fahrshteit?

Of COURSE it says that in the Constitution. That's why I've asked repeatedly for some time now for you and the Justice jock-sniffer friends you ran in here to rescue - which is like having the Three Stooges rescue the Keystone Kops, by the way - to merely prove me wrong by citing the specific quote that says so, and all I keep getting is, "you're so stupid, the fact that you're asking proves you're stupid, everyone knows it's there, just go look, it's right there, you should just KNOW where it is, you OBVIOUSLY haven't read the Constitution, I'm so much smarter than you."

Quit ******* DODGING the question. Quit ******* informing me that it's RIGHT THERE and just ******* SHOW ME where right there is. Quit telling me how stupid I am to have to ask the question and PROVE IT BY ANSWERING ME.

I know you're lying. You know you're lying. By watching you, everyone ELSE knows you're lying too now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

actually, he referred you to marbury v madison. that is the decision that says who is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. and it isn't the 'masses'. in fact, the 'masses' are the last people who are supposed to construe it.

you should try reading it, it might be helpful to you.

until then, yes, the constitution is briliant. and when you understand it, i'm sure you'll think it is even more so.

Hmmm. And what was Marbury v Madison? Supreme Court decision, wasn't it? So where do you get off saying, "Actually" to me, as though I was incorrect?

I can only assume that when you say, "Understand it", you mean, "Accept that what we tell you is correct is correct, and stop that horrible thinking for yourself stuff." And believe me, when I want lessons on being a mindless sheep led to the fleecing and slaughter, you'll be the first teacher I come to.

Keep going, please. It's fascinating. Like a particularly nasty train wreck.

Yes, it is. It fascinates me immensely to ask a simple question and get everything BUT the answer. And the more you congratulate yourself for how smart you are in place of proving it, the funnier you get.

How many dodges have you guys made yet? Shall I go back and count how many posts it has taken you jackasses so far to NOT cut-and-paste a simple Constitutional quote?

Tell me again what a brilliant job you're doing proving how stupid I am.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmm. And what was Marbury v Madison? Supreme Court decision, wasn't it? So where do you get off saying, "Actually" to me, as though I was incorrect?

I can only assume that when you say, "Understand it", you mean, "Accept that what we tell you is correct is correct, and stop that horrible thinking for yourself stuff." And believe me, when I want lessons on being a mindless sheep led to the fleecing and slaughter, you'll be the first teacher I come to.

Keep going, please. It's fascinating. Like a particularly nasty train wreck.

she isn't getting it at all, is she?

the people who wrote the document she keeps talking about, but knows nothing about, DIDN'T WANT THE PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR IT.

lol.. they didn't even want most of 'THE PEOPLE" to vote.

they so don't get it... the 'masses' weren't supposed to infringe on people's rights. the only way to assure that was to make sure that there was a higher power that could step between the "people" and those they wanted to stomp on

Oh, I get it, all right. You can't answer. EVERYONE gets it now.

Perhaps if you spent less time with your head under the Justices' robes, you would still be able to understand simple English with short words: Quote. Me. The. Constitution.

I'll even help you out, Lawyer Twit, since this is obviously so damned complicated for you.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

In case you don't recognize it, that's the full text of the US Constitution. Now take your little cursor (that's the thing that generally looks like an arrow), move it over the words that give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, drag the cursor until the words are highlighted, copy it, and paste it in here.

Simple, right? So I'm quite sure that your response to this post will be the aforementioned quote, rather than another asinine, longwinded, and unsolicited lecture from you on your "brilliant" understanding of what the Constitution means and the Founders thought. If I wanted your opinion on anything, EVER, I'd shoot myself, so please stop deluding yourself that it's meaningful to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Keep going, please. It's fascinating. Like a particularly nasty train wreck.

she isn't getting it at all, is she?

the people who wrote the document she keeps talking about, but knows nothing about, DIDN'T WANT THE PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR IT.

lol.. they didn't even want most of 'THE PEOPLE" to vote.

they so don't get it... the 'masses' weren't supposed to infringe on people's rights. the only way to assure that was to make sure that there was a higher power that could step between the "people" and those they wanted to stomp on

There you go applying stuff like context again. Shame on you Ms. Elitist!

The so-called Framers were well aware of the tyranny of the majority, of course. So were the States. It was one of the concepts at the center of the debates within the Constitutional Congress. But of course only idiots do things like look up original contemporary sources and actually read them.

If her interpretation of what the Constitution means and the Founders thought is laughably pathetic and uninteresting, YOURS would require new technology to measure its vapidity. I'll give you the same help I gave Lawyer Twit, since it's apparent that neither of you have ever looked the Constitution up in your inane lives.

Simple instructions: Quote. Me. The. Constitution.

Here's the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Go to it. Your next post will doubtless be the painfully simple-to-find text awarding the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court, because anything else at this point would be a particularly humiliating admission of defeat and surrender.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In another thread, I saw an intersting post by Jillian mentioning how we have Constitutional Scholars to interpret the Constitution. And I had to sit back and ask myself: Why?

The Founders created a government for and by the people. It wasn't a government designed to benefit only the elites.

The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions. We can understand English. And the Constitution isn't a complicate document. The idea that the people don't understand what it says is ludicrous.

And yes, there is caselaw, but caselaw is often wrong. That's why there was a Written Constitution, so that it would remain as the structure for the government. And that people could always refer back to it to keep their leaders in check.

We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves. Stop treating people like children or you'll be surprised when they treat you the same way.

Actually, the founders created a government for and by white property-owning males, which were a distinct minority. Isn't the fact that they thought only white property-owning males were capable of making good decisions to vote mean that they did, indeed, think that most people were stupid?

Not entirely true. First of all, black property owners could and did vote (because yes, there were black property owners). Second, it's wasn't so much that they thought non-property owners were stupid, but that they thought non-property owners were not invested in the system enough to be trusted with a say in the system. And given our more recent history of people voting themselves goodies with other people's money, I'd say the Founding Fathers had a good point about reserving the vote to those with "some skin in the game", as they say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dear moron,

You didn't read the link I provided. You don't understand the importance of that case. You have, at best, a tedious grasp on how the government functions, let alone the judicial branch.

Read this, please; it's embarrassing to watch you do this to yourself.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

This case, and the theory of judicial review it outlined, established the judiciary as a co-equal branch.

Your argument, that the Court isn't the final voice in law, is an idea that runs counter to the system of three co-equal branches of governance that the Constitution, that document you pretend to know and care about, establishes.

That you so cavalierly dismiss this case, a case that is intrinsic to this topic, is on par with dismissing the Constitution as a whole.

Reading your posts in this thread, moron, has been like listening to a virgin talk about sex.

Please stop spilling stoopid all over the place.

sincerely,
silky

Dear moron:

I don't give a fat rat's ass WHAT you think the case you cited did or didn't do, or why you think it was so wonderful, because . . . let me go slow for the logic-impaired among us . . . I DIDN'T ASK YOU FOR A SUPREME COURT CASE. Not once, not ever. It has no smucking thing whatsoever to do with what I did ask, and thus was an irrelevant waste of my time and a paper-thin attempt at dodging the question.

Please stop spilling dishonest all over the place.

Sincerely,
Cecilie

PS Same offer to you as to the other two Justice jock-sniffers: Quote. The. Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

There's the Constitution. Anything other than the very simple quotation I have requested ad nauseam will be a humiliating admission of defeat and surrender. No more running and hiding.

C.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you always like this?

I really shouldn't be giving you the attention you crave, and the validation that attention implies, but I just want to watch you spaz on this post, too.

Let's go back through the thread, starting on page one where you decided to plop your ass in here. This was your first demand, to Papa Jack:

I tell you what, Punkin. You show me anywhere in the law where the Supreme Court was created as and appointed to be the "final arbiter of our laws", and I'll consider the possibility that we NEED them to be. Until that point, I will pigheadedly persist in believing that this isn't a dictatorship with a handful of oligarchs ruling us all.

I'll be waiting on that PRECISE, WORD FOR WORD quote from the Constitution where it "provides for our Highest Court to do just that", but I won't hold my breath.

I'll take the bolded section in two parts.

You show me anywhere in the law where the Supreme Court was created as and appointed to be the "final arbiter of our laws",...

So, since you put "final arbiter of our laws" in quotes, it was assumed that it's the verbatim phrase you were demanding. Of course, at this point, you'd already looked up the Constitution on-line and had skimmed through Article 3. Nowhere in there did you see "final arbiter of our laws".

This is why you've been pressing this point. You know you're safe in it. The Constitution does not, and has never, explicitly stated such.


...and I'll consider the possibility that we NEED them to be.

This is bullshit. You already knew the answer to your above demand at this point, which means everything beyond it is nothing but ego flexing.

Let's move on.

Nobody has suggested doing away with the court system, and I have remarkably little tolerance for "all-or-nothing" extremist straw man arguments, so don't even bother going there.

There's a big difference between having the courts to apply the law to individual disputes, and letting them dictate what the law actually is or should be. See if you can wrap your brain around that difference, and then come back.

This entire quote is when I figured out you're an idiot. The two paragraphs don't square.

You said you don't want to do away with the courts system, which I agree with. Doing so would be a Bad Thing.

To be more specific, though, it was the bolded section where I really, for sure, knew you're a stoopid. Our court system, which you've admitted you don't want to do away with, has been set up in a hierarchy in which cases climb through that hierarchy on appeal. The very nature of a hierarchy means that, at some point, somewhere, the case has to stop climbing.

So by accepting the courts system, as you have, you also tangentially accept its hierarchical nature where some court, somewhere, has to be the final voice. But you didn't? You say you want to uphold our court system, but contradict yourself by questioning judicial review. Whether with the states' Supremes or SCOTUS, there must be a final voice in the judiciary; you can't accept our court system without accepting that. Wrap your brain around it.

I'm going to try this one last time: Because of Marbury, that voice is with SCOTUS.

To emphasize this point, and to provide background as to why it is, and the argument for SCOTUS being the proverbial line in the sand, I linked you to the case on the hope you might read it. You didn't. You haven't ever. And you won't.

I even quoted some relevant excerpts explaining why the power of judicial review is important for SCOTUS and for the viability of the Constitution, and the way in which the power was interpreted from Article 3 within the context of the Constitution. That post of mine was the answer to yours. You wanted to know where in the Constitution the power comes from, I showed you the interpretation, but you're clearly a stone-hard literalist that can't make her case (did Jesus fly on pterodactyls, too?).

The thread had moved on at this point. It was accepted that judicial review is an implied power, so it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution, so therefore can't be quoted directly. You know this. But it's against your agenda in this thread.

You had only one mission here: to pick a simple premise and stick to it even though the thread has moved on, just so you can prop up your sense of intelligence.

You could've, if you were actually interested in discussion, argued for why such a power should be reserved for the states' Courts. But you didn't.

You persisted with the point that had already passed its expiration date but you were too self-absorbed to care. It's all about you. Your continued demands to "Quote. Me. The. Constitution", while in your mind a sure-fire victory if only you kept blobbing along, betrayed your complete ignorance on what was going on in this thread.

Now, if you need me to break out the ******* crayons and draw you a picture so you understand what I said, let me know. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your bullshit and get on it.

I just want to take this moment to tell you how much I have come to enjoy watching you throw pie in your face.

It fascinates me immensely to ask a simple question and get everything BUT the answer. And the more you congratulate yourself for how smart you are in place of proving it, the funnier you get.

It fascinates me that you're still asking the question. That's why people are saying you "just don't get it". Because you don't. You're making this thread about what you want, about asking people to do something you know they can't. All in the attempt to fatten your self-righteous indignation.

Waddle on out of here, cesspool. This thread passed you by before we got to the second page, but you're too stupid to realize it, and you're too stupid to realize how stupid you are, which is why I headed my love note as "Dear Moron". And, you need to work on your mockery skills.