[SAJ]

OK, fine. We've gotten that far. The object of the exercise is to either remove these dolts from any semblance of power, or to see to it that they cannot or WILL not exercise their misbegotten power.

The former policy is preferable, but, given the incredibly high level of political inertia in most places in the nation, very difficult.

The latter is generally distasteful, typically involves ruining reputations and related tactics -- but, take your pick. Which do you want?

Civil ''servants'', whom, as Heinlein noted decades ago ''...in a mature society are semantically equivalent to civil masters.''

Or, cringing bootlickers, afraid to do anything lest someone either sue them or kick their a** up around their ears.

Or, marginally rational humans, handed a strict code of behaviour and consistent rules of conduct, inculcated with the notion ''thou SHALT serve the public, and thou SHALT take, deservedly, all the abuse the public heapeth upon thee when thou fucketh up.''

Your choice...but you can't GET your choice until, quite literally, you demand it. To date, the citizenry has been satisfied with Door #1. This way, ultimately, lies revolution, hardly a good result.

Best wishes, and FReegards!

[TheConservator]

Interestingly, the Washington State constitution contains, in its bill of rights, a clause comparable to but more restrictive than the Federal constitution. Washington's constitution provides that the government may not take or impair private property without making just compensation.

The liberal-dominated Washington Supreme Court issued a decision several years ago effectively writing the words "or impair" out of the state constitution, saying that this clause would be construed identically to the comparable clause in the federal constitution.