If you could, how would you change the Constitution?

[vel]

If you want to understand the Constitution, don't ask a lawyer, seek the counsel of an historian.

How would you know?

[Observer]

If we use you as the standard, it is obvious that lawyers know little or nothing about the Constitution. Experience shows that you are not unique in that regard.

[vel]

If we use you as the standard, it is obvious that lawyers know little or nothing about the Constitution. Experience shows that you are not unique in that regard.

"We?"

You're referring to your fellow high functioning morons.

"Experience?"

You have as much relevant experience as you have relevant education.

You don't have shit Obsurder, and you can't even get your own story in order, let alone being qualified to judge your superiors.

Obsurder Goes Down Again

[IM2]

WTF does badnews know about the law? He's too busy running away by hitting the lock funciton.

The Super Chicken Cartoon Theme Song	Small | Large

[Observer]

"We?"

You're referring to your fellow high functioning morons.

"Experience?"

You have as much relevant experience as you have relevant education.

You don't have shit Obsurder, and you can't even get your own story in order, let alone being qualified to judge your superiors.

Obsurder Goes Down Again

You are such a pathetic little fellow.   

[vel]

You are such a pathetic little fellow.   

Really?

Then you ought to be able to explain how you can claim that what happened to Rand Paul was both unconstitutional based on a section of the Constitution that prohibits his "Arrest" and that what happened to Rand Paul was not an arrest.

I'm not holding my breath. As usual, when you're caught in your blatant hypocrisy and rank stupidity, you pretend it didn't happen.

It happened.

[Observer]

The legal definition of "arrest" varies from state to state. In some states, an arrest is effected when a person's freedom of movement is taken away. It doesn't even require a government official, nor does it necessarily pertain to someone detained for suspicion of criminal activity.

In other states, an arrest can only be effected by a sworn law enforcement officer or government official with powers of arrest.

It is real simple, you dipshit shyster. Aren't you embarrassed that almost everyone you encounter is more familiar with the law than you are?

[Case_Closed]

WTF does badnews know about the law? He's too busy running away by hitting the lock funciton.

You mad, bro?

[Mornac]

Sorry I missed this Undecided. Allow me to answer belatedly:

I'm just trying to figure out what the implications of your proposal would be.  I'm not steadfastly against it, but I suspect that it would lead to a situation in which those who are more affluent would have an undue influence on the political process of the country.

If you don't think that's the case, I'd like to have it pointed out where I'm off-base.

--No, you are correct in essence. The more affluent would have a larger influence but I wouldn’t describe it as “undue”. After all, they do more financing of the thing so it follows that they should have more say about where the money is going. If you take it to its natural conclusion you would realize that the interest of the affluent would be to keep more of their own money i.e. have less of it confiscated by the government. Hence, they would vote for people who would lower taxes. Those people of course, would not want to make a poor impression on those to whom much is given in the way of tax-funded benefits, but at the same time they no longer wish to stick it to the wealthy who have the bulk of the votes. The only solution would be to throw over-funded unconstitutional bureaucracies into a bonfire and enjoy the warm glow. The ultimate conclusion would be the advent of politicians who want everyone to pay the same amount of tax and the least amount of it being wasted on idiot bins like the EPA, the Department of Education, and the GSA. Who can argue with that (other than a numbskull like “flyboy”)?