[Danae]

Well then Zippy, why do we follow the Constitution which was written and signed in 1787? Hum? Or is that irrelevant too?

Its amazing to me that people can actually discount the LITERATURE that was written and that the Constitution DREW on for its language and principles as if they were irrelevant.

I suppose you think that ALL literature is worthless then as well.

Your argument has zero logic.

[r9etb]

Well then Zippy, why do we follow the Constitution which was written and signed in 1787? Hum? Or is that irrelevant too?

Well, then, zipless... if you don't know the legal difference between the Constitution and some book written by a Frenchman in 1758, you shouldn't be attempting to instruct the rest of us in logic.

[Jack Black]

Well then Zippy, why do we follow the Constitution which was written and signed in 1787? Hum? Or is that irrelevant too?

Because, Pinhead, it was adopted as the Supreme Law of these United States, something you can't say about your French Law dictionary. The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine was widely circulated and presumably read by most of the founders. It is not a part of our legal system and can not be sighted as such, much less be the basis for tossing a President out of office, either.

In other words there is a BIG difference between possible sources of Constitutional Thought and the Document itself. Even The Federalist Papers are not law, just old writings. You get the difference, right?