What happens when the person you're asking doesn't give a shit what you think?

we call that the cellar.

:lol:

Hmmm, does this apply to your "perception" of what the writers of the constitution meant? And since they are all dead, how do you "know" what they meant?

There is no difference between my "perception" of what the Constitution means and what it actually says. I can only assume the writers of the Constitution meant what they said, and since they wrote many articles, pamphlets, letters, etc. explaining each of their positions, it sort of helps out.

This from the man who believes conducting foreign policy or any likely approximation thereof is unconstitutional. Sorry, radar, your legal thinking has not passed the giggle-test for quite some time now.

And if you cannot understand how somebody might conclude that is your view from reading your posts, then your faculty for understanding is grossly inferior and in great need of repair and a brushup.

Just like the rest of us, my friend. That was my point exactly, thank you for finally clearing that up.

The difference is that Radar believes he knows what they meant without possibility of variation. He only has to assume they meant what they said. His conviction is based in the idea that, rightly or wrongly, he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, what some guys meant when they wrote some words more than 200 years ago.

Just figured I'd get that out there.

Since we're getting things out in the open, I should tell you that I'm not sorry about your finger.

me either, that's what you get for taunting a dolphin.

fixed
 

Fixed better

Conducting foreign policy? Is that code for "starting illegal wars"? It's most certainly not against the Constitution to trade with other nations or even to befriend them. This is the best foreign policy you can have.

My thinking is as serious as it gets, and my policies work in the real world. Your laughably stupid desire to be in a state of perpetual war against those who pose no threat to us is not realistic economically, it violates the Constitution, it violates common sense, and it violates all libertarian principles.

I'd comment on your thinking, but it doesn't seem like you do any.

Yes, I must assume. I must assume that when the founders wrote down words, they actually knew what they were writing, and they knew how to speak the English language. What they wrote was very articulate, intelligent, and cogent and leaves no doubt that they did know what they were writing and did speak and write the English language. Therefore their words mean exactly what they say.

When they say the federal government has no powers that aren't enumerated in the Constitution, they meant exactly that. I suppose an insane person might assume that they were insane when they wrote the words and didn't mean what they actually wrote. As a sane person with the same level of intelligence as our founders and exactly the same desire to strictly limit government powers, I wouldn't make any such assumption.

If you think the Constitution means anything other than what it says, and what I've consistently said about it, you prove your own stupidity.

Think you did it there for me.