" wrote in
:

On 18 Aug 2012 21:23:12 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some
of the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and
skyrocketing in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will
take the people, all of us, to bring about REAL change in our
country.


How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful
status quo vehicle.

But Han, you're one who doesn't care a fig about the Constitution,
particularly as a "status quo vehicle".

Keith, that is a non-sequitur to me. Maybe you can explain ...

You're constantly pushing an anti-Constitutional agenda, at least one
that gives even lip service to a durable Constitution.

With all the anti-constitutional activities ever since (as I remember it)
the Tonkin resolution, why blame it on me? I am not a constitutional
scholar, and my rantings don't carry any weight to responsible people
other than bringing up discussion points. As a matter of fact, the
SCOTUS can't agree on many constitutional affairs, and I am truly amazed
it has been only verbal fisticuffs (if I can call the disagreements
between justices that, especially in the ACA case). If what I say is
anticonstitutional, I need to apologize. It isn't meant to be. OTOH,
whatever you refer to, it is my interpretation of what IS constitutional.

Yes, the fact that there are amendments to the Constitution means it
is subject to revision (and re-revision, a la prohibition).

Fine. Then amend it, if you don't think the US doesn't stand up to
your Holland. The rules are enclosed inside. Good luck!

If you drive that a little bit further, you'd have to go back to, and
hand everything over to the original occupants of this land.

Moreover, as I
understand the Constitution, it prescribes a division of powers, with
(I think) the SCOTUS as the last arbiter. AT least that is the
current interpretation. I think it was Scalia who in an interview
re-iterated what Roberts had said in slightly different words. We are
loath to overturn on ideology if the legal phraseology can be
interpreted in favor of a passed law.

What I meant as a status quo vehicle was that Congress has difficulty
making laws (certainly at the moment) that would re-interpret previous
laws. And with that I mean to say that once a law is on the books,
changing for instance dividends and capital gains into ordinary income
for tax purposes is difficult. Lobbyists and all.

Um, that's *not* unintentional. The Constitution is all about
"gridlock". It's not a bad thing at all.

I think you're right on the things in those last 2 sentences.

Sorry, I may make less sense now than I first thought. Damned
whooping cough ...

Blame it on the drugs. ;-)

Guys, do yourselves a favor and get the booster vaccination for
pertussis, I think it is call Tdap. I've been sick or sickish for
months now, and the coughing is terrible.

I had it as a teen. Wasn't fun.

It surely isn't either as adult. Less bounce-back.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid