I really don't care.
What I care about is someone posting -
HEY! Let's all gang up and endlessly BULLY those who refuse to get down on bended knee and kiss the robes of the SCOTUS.
That IS, in essence what you said.
“HEY! Let’s all gang up and endlessly BULLY those who refuse to get down on bended knee and kiss the robes of the SCOTUS.”
Well I’m sorry that’s your interpretation of what I said.
In the nice response I posted earlier (or miss posted because I can’t find it now I point out this:
RE: My post #43 in the thread on states sending faithless electors based on popular vote (a fiction created by the media to sell controversy) http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3145825/posts
Salient point
[BARF ALERT WARNING]
— begin quote —
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson [REFERENCE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMER JAMES MILLER] noted in 1787, “... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”
Reference: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#interpret
— end quote —
To which I ask: So what Constitutional Framer do we give more credibility to? What do we base that choice on?
So the summary is: If we don’t abide by the Constitutional methods of changing the Constitution .... what right do we have to expect the other side to?
If we won’t abide, then why should they abide?