One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said."Ah yes... Our New America
[ citing At Least They No Longer Hate Us for Our Freedom! ( who was citing Andrew Sullivan) ]
He's a former Marine, with five years of active service and 19 years in the reserve, and a legal critic of Roe vs Wade and supporter of the Alito confirmation. He's also on the Terrorist No-Fly List:And These Folks Are More Or Less Patriotically Corrector Than Whom???
( op cit )
So when folks want to talk about The Constitution, Really, PLEASE, be honest, and accept that the classical standard is that the Onus Of Proof is upon those seeking to change the status quo ante.
Which in this case is the somewhat unpleasant state that the constitution of the united states of america is merely a historico-religious Icon, and should not be confused with a document, text, or legal standard.