[Radar]

To draw from the Utah Woman thread, the truth is YOU BELIEVE that people SHOULD have certain rights under what you call Natural Law--and your simply stating it as fact does not change the lives of the millions of people who do not have those rights in practicality.

It's not a matter of what I BELIEVE. It's a matter of fact. If you don't believe in gravity but step off the Grand Canyon, you'll still go splat. It is a natural law and is no less immutable than natural rights. Whether or not someone is being prevented from exercising thier rights is irrelevant, they still have them.

If I rob you and take your property, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to own property. If I lock you up in my basement, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to be free. If I kill you, it doesn't mean you don't have a right to live. It just means I have violated your rights. Rights don't go away when you vote on them, they can't be sold, traded, taken or given away.

YOU BELIEVE that many current government actions are unconstitutional, and are free to challenge them, but at what point does the reality that they are happening, and will in all likelihood will continue to do so, have to be accepted?

Again, you keep taking facts and dressing them up as opinions. It's not a matter of me believing most of what our government takes part in is unconstitutional, it's a fact regardless of what I believe. I accept the fact that they are happening, but they are happening illegally because government is violating their limited authority.

Here's a question for you. At what point of government violating your rights, usurping power, and committing mass murder do you personally get off your ass and take up arms against the government? What exactly would motivate you to stand up for your natural rights? Would they have to kill your family because they think you've got guns like Randy Weaver? What would it take?

America is on the brink of totalitarianism and it's leaning over the edge. If we don't do something now to get rid of the Democrats and Republicans (and the irresponsible "something for nothing" attitude shared by many Americans), it will be impossible to avoid the harsh reality a bloody second American revolution.

So, just to recap, the following things have no bearing when considering if something is constitutional:

NOTHING other than the Constitution itself has a bearing on whether or not something is Constitutional or Unconstitutional.

The opinions of Congress, The declarations of the President, The case law of the Judiciary, Any of the previous actions of Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court.

None of those have any bearing on whether or not something is Constitutional other than amending the Constitution (within the specific areas in which congress is given authority to legislate) but this does.

The "plain reading" of the document itself.

The plain reading of the Constitution without an attempt to "interpret" it or "determine original intent" will prove or disprove whether something is Constitutional. Some look for loopholes and try to argue over a particular word like "militia" to confuse people when the meaning of the entire document is clear.

No part of the Constitution limits our natural rights, but it does place severe and specific limits on the powers of government and which areas they hold authority to legislate over. The scope of government powers is very limited.

Sorry for calling you a little nuts earlier. That was out of line. I should have just let your arguments speak for themselves without the name calling.

My arguments are intelligent, rational, articulate, historically accurate, factual, philosophically sound, reasonable, logical and cogent. I back up everything I say and If you take issue with any of my arguments, feel free to mention your objections so I can address each of them. I can discuss your concerns with you or we can just toss insults back and forth. It's up to you. In either case I'm on solid ground.