The law is what i tell you it is.which at first site seemed, well, just sick. Then it slowly but surely hit me that there was some merit to the idea, and to the extensions such as Privileges or Immunities Clausewhich really should have been a part of the initial text, but, well, it clearly must be another thing we can blame on Hitlary and her Rad Femi Surf Nazi's and their failure to support the president to support the troops!!!
( could it be that some patriot is taking hostages because of Hitlary's clear and compelling influence at imposing her unamericanism into the original constitution with the intention to install a Demonic Minnion of Satan DemonoCracy!!!! )
But on the other side there is the really Fuggly Approach that I was SOOO amused by:
But, this is not true. Un-Godly, un-Constitutional court rulings remain un-Godly and un-Constitutional regardless of how many times they are affirmed. Again, for the umpteenth time: No judge is bound by anything that makes him, necessarily, have to follow another judicial ruling! The only oath a judge takes is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.where we arrive at the total abandonment of the rule of law, since judges are no longer an actual part of the actual process of understanding the precedence set, nor even the constraint of the so called founding father's Intent but some sort of majikal awareness of their loyalty oath, and their loyalty oath alone!!!
[ cf Specter Says Alito Accepts As “Good Law” Griswold Case Which Was Neither “Good” Nor “Law” And Gave Us Roe v. Wade (emphasis in original text) ]
But since these folks offer us
This program examines - from a Biblical/Constitutional perspective — the record of Baptist preacher and former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee on: God & government; abortion; illegal immigration; education; and the Iraq War. When viewed from this perspective, his record is - to put it charitably — not good.Can we get a fluffer in here?
[ cf 132: Huckabee Clueless Re: Biblical/Constitutional Limits On Civil Government ]
WE HAVE A MONEY SHOT IN NEED:
In my book “Taking America Back,” in 2003, I challenged Americans to consider whether our national habit of voting for the lesser of two evils was always the best thing to do.we arrive at that interesting place where it becomes more clear why they are committed to god, family, and then repubic....
I’m glad the rest of the nation is finally starting the much-needed debate on this issue in time for the 2008 presidential election.
Here’s my thesis in a nutshell: Never vote for any candidate who doesn’t respect and revere and genuinely submit himself or herself to the authority of the U.S. Constitution and its strict limits on federal government power.
I admit I have yielded to the temptation to deviate from my own policy on one occasion – the 2004 presidential election. By then we knew George W. Bush had little understanding and respect for the Constitution, but, in a defensive strategy, to avoid the election of an outright traitor to his country in John Kerry, I wisely or unwisely decided to vote for Bush’s re-election.
[ cf “World Net Daily” Boss Regrets Voting For Bush; Blasts Richard Land’s Immoral Political Advice ]
Would this be a bad time to talk about supporting the president to support the troops?
Or should we just stay with the simpler question of how does one get to the appropraite understanding of the US Constitution, and how to correctly divine it, that does not take us into simple gnosticism....
Ok, there is also the part of the dialog here that we may want to think about the idea of having some sort of more constructive and rational debate about what IS 'the law', and in particular what is involved in the US Constitution. If for no other reason than to keep law on the side of 'legal' and not to allow it to wander off into the land of 'theological dictates' which can be done SOLELY by the means of divine revelations.
Right now I am wondering what will come of the Griswold ruling, since it seems that for reasons that are very unclear, so many americans seem totally unaware of where the founding father's were, and how they were not the sort of mystical beings who wrote the divine will in the divine gathering of the divine annointing. That somethings made the initial cut indicates one set of issues!!!
That the evil Penguin group came out with both The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" and Federalist Papers might lead the unbeleiver into the apparently mistaken belief that the Constitution Of The United States Of America was not passed down to the unwashed plebian masses on the tablets of stone, with the first article establishing that there can only be but one God....
What if there were some value in knowing how one goes about forming a constitution?