[ancient_geezer]

A better starting point would be to determine first just what the founders actually said and expressed in the Constitution, as oppose to what many may pretend or wish it says.

I find there is too much myth and wishfull thinking out there with a pretense of being fact.

[citizenx7]

Yes, Geezer, its easy to be in a mode that wishes for the plain definitions and words of the Constitution were adhered to. But wait a minute, anything legislated after the Constitution, but contrary to the Constitution - is null and void. There is no statute of limitations that apply.

Well, with that in mind, I don't seem to notice anything in Mr. Schulz's speech, that I find a problem with. Why don't you start with that, what can you point out that deserves being scorned, or praised there? What is there that is contrary to what the founders said, or that is laid down in the Constitution? I would appreciate your insight.