It is you that imagine that I have said that our Constitutional principles are vague. What I had said is that "your Constitutional principles" are vague. There is a clear difference. Furthermore, I did not just say it as though it were grand pronouncement as you so often do, I explained how "your" Constitutional principles are vague.
I posted a thread about our Constitutions principles. Now you seem bent on turning it into a flame fest with personal insults.
Hmmm, I've not been to that thread. Sounds like a little imagination of false persecution here.
Dream on that you've discredited Article VI, wherein "judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included; -- Article VI does not specify any exclusions."
I did not say anything that can be even remotely interpreted to discredit Article VI of the US Constitution. I did however (several replies back), correct you on your inaccurate citing of Article VI as requiring that we support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land," further advising you to "go re-read it." I assume you did, and discovered your error. But instead of admitting your error, as any honest honorable person would do, you chose to twist Article VI to fit your purposes by using a spurious claim that it does require it, as "it does not specify any exclusions."
Up until this statement of yours (that Article VI "does not specify any exclusions"), I believed you to be at least a Constitutional strict constructionist. But this "Article VI" position you have taken is the opposite of strict constructionism. So in my next reply I told you that it "sounds a lot like a judicial activist position." In your reply back, you conveniently failed to answer the point, resorting instead to ranting about what is "logically obvious" and what "is not logical" with regard some vague notion of yours having to do with an 'obligation' and a false assertion regarding an "exemption." So I then replied back "that you ran at high speed from the challenge that this interpretation of Article VI is nothing more than judicial activism." Finally you reply:
Your off the wall opinion that I or Roland interpret Article VI as authorizing activism is not a 'challenge', its ludicrous.
First off, it is not my "opinion," that you "interpret Article VI as authorizing activism." I've never said it, I've never as much as implied it. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
Second, the name "Roland" has never appeared in any prior reply written by me, here on this thread or, on any other thread at any time in the past. I don't even know who he is, let alone what his opinions are. Why would you say that I have an opinion on how Roland interprets anything?
Yep, everyone must obey valid Constitutional laws. - That is NOT a vague & phony statement..
I agree, and I never once said otherwise. So Why bring it up?
Oh. When you use the the words "Constitutional principles" they are most certainly vague.
Only to you.
First off you have interchangeably used on this thread Constitutional principles, laws of the land, and even the Constitution itself. You have also used the same term "Constitutional principles" for describing that well written concise piece the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles." In short it is impossible to know what you are talking about when you use the two word term "Constitutional principles." I call that vague.
Your delusion of grandeur really shows itself, especially in how you handle almost every disagreement with you. That is that you turn so many of the disagreements with you into a disagreements with the constitution and/or the Constitutional principles.
I posted a thread [ entitled "Declaration of Constitutional Principles."] about our Constitutions principles. Now you seem bent on turning it [this issue] into a flame fest with personal insults.
Hmmm, I've not been to that thread. Sounds like a little imagination of false persecution here.
BS, -- here's what you said about that thread back at #117:
jackbob wrote:
I finished reading the the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" [by Jon Roland] yesterday, and found it to be extraordinarily concise, profoundly accurate, and very well written.
Your off the wall opinion that I or Roland interpret Article VI as authorizing activism is not a 'challenge', its ludicrous.
First off, it is not my "opinion," that you "interpret Article VI as authorizing activism." I've never said it, I've never as much as implied it. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
Second, the name "Roland" has never appeared in any prior reply written by me, here on this thread or, on any other thread at any time in the past.
I don't even know who he is, let alone what his opinions are. Why would you say that I have an opinion on how Roland interprets anything?
Why? -- Your own words belie you, thats why..