From: Mxsmanic on
Hatunen writes:

> What, to you, determines whether something is constitutional?

Whether or not it conflicts with what the Constitution says.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Tchiowa on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
> > What, to you, determines whether something is constitutional?
>
> Whether or not it conflicts with what the Constitution says.

Then you missed yet again. Because the Constitution doesn't ban any of
the things you talked about.

From: Mxsmanic on
Tchiowa writes:

> Then you missed yet again. Because the Constitution doesn't ban any of
> the things you talked about.

Yes, it does, in the amendments I cited. For example, conscription is
unconstitutional because it is involuntary servitude, and civil
forfeiture is unconstitutional because it deprives people of property
without due process.

The reason there is still a Constitution is that the government simply
ignores it when convenient to do so. Thus, it's possible for
Americans to crow that the Constitution has survived for over two
centuries even as they routinely fail to heed it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Tchiowa on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tchiowa writes:
>
> > Then you missed yet again. Because the Constitution doesn't ban any of
> > the things you talked about.
>
> Yes, it does, in the amendments I cited. For example, conscription is
> unconstitutional because it is involuntary servitude, and civil
> forfeiture is unconstitutional because it deprives people of property
> without due process.

Conscription is *not* involuntary servitude and the courts have already
rules that it doesn't violate the Consitution. Civil forfeiture must
involve certain laws and courts and thus does, in fact, follow "due
process". Again, the courts have ruled on that.

So keep trying.

> The reason there is still a Constitution is that the government simply
> ignores it when convenient to do so. Thus, it's possible for
> Americans to crow that the Constitution has survived for over two
> centuries even as they routinely fail to heed it.

The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not followed.

From: The Reid on
Following up to Mxsmanic

>> which clearly does not include fakes, numbnuts.
>
>What defines a "fake" credential?

work it out for yourself.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap