On 1/5/2011 4:35 PM, dave wrote:
On 01/06/2011 01:49 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 1/4/2011 9:42 PM, wrote:


Interpretation allows its intent to be ignored.

The belief of an interpretation like that is to deny the foundation of
the constitution and 300 Yrs of established law.

Judges interpreting laws and case law has been a new development of the
last 100 years.

Coincidentally the Progressives have been active in colleges and
politics in America the last 100 years.


And how about those Progressives that gave us the progressive income tax
and the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Then they gave us Prohibition.

Wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Don't confuse the Progressive Movement with today's liberals; two
different animals sharing the same root word.

What happened in 1710 of such legal import that you keep referring to it?

When discussing "original intent" please remember the Founders were
middle class farmers who tended toward liberal democracy. The
Federalists were the liberals. The antifederalists were the
conservatives. None of the founders was rich by today's standards.

So it was your Liberals who made institutional slavery a constitutional
right?

I wondered when Liberals would fess up and admit that they like slavery.
It's already obvious to me that Liberals are all for slavery because
they want the the entire unwashed masses to be slaves to the elite and
superior intellect of the ruling elite Liberals.

Welfare/Redistribution is all about forcing reliance on the government
just as black slaves had to rely on their Masters good will and legal
standing in the community.