The founder/framers did not set the Constitutional framework of governing up with Judicial Review, wherein the Supreme Court was to deem what was and was not Constitutional...that is something that became a "tradition" with Marbury v Madison... so since we are willy-nilly just throwing traditions out, perhaps we should throw out that one and just let state courts decide if a law is Constitutional or not, eh?
So you were admitting to name calling then. OK.
What I admit was you were not calling me names specifically, except through your name calling of what you believe my posts signify... you came back at me omitting actual evidence, logic or substance with which to refute my arguments, solely the utilization of disparagement... which is not actual debate; or if so considered, certainly a very poor substitute, yano?
The founder/framers did not set the Constitutional framework of governing up with Judicial Review, wherein the Supreme Court was to deem what was and was not Constitutional...that is something that became a "tradition" with Marbury v Madison... so since we are willy-nilly just throwing traditions out, perhaps we should throw out that one and just let state courts decide if a law is Constitutional or not, eh?
That would comport, be more in alignment with the actual original on forward Constitution.
First of all, what gives you the impression I am angry? Second, you don't know me, my history or much of what I have complained or not complained about in the past, so it would be highly suggested that one might go gore one's silly ox someplace else and in some situation in which one perhaps knows a little something of which one makes the decision to speak...
That is piled horse manure, and you know it. It all depends on which people and which rights.