drooling fools pretending to instruct
“Why do Americans get the Constitution so wrong?” — an article which, naturally, gets the constitution wrong.
[…] On this day, 223 years ago, the U.S. Constitution was born, giving Americans the freedoms that they hold dear, the freedoms that men and women have died to defend. […]
the constitution doesn’t do shit. it sits there for scoundrels and men of resistance to point to or ignore, as appropriate. the 10th amendment alone is the most ignored law in world history.
[…] I witnessed this lack of understanding recently when I was standing in line at a movie house behind a woman who objected to the theater’s policy of searching purses and backpacks. She indignantly told a theater employee that her purse could not be inspected, citing the Fourth Amendment’s protection against illegal searches.
She did not know that, in general, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private businesses – [sic] only to governments. The movie theater has a right to require a bag search; she has the right to take her business elsewhere. […]
yeah, it’s easy to point to the fourth amendment and pretend there’s no tie to businesses, but that’s wrong. as the fourth amendment (like many critical parts of the constitution, shittily written) is increasingly pissed on by those sworn to support it, american business imitates this toxic behavior as security theater. one is a direct outgrowth of the other. a fucking movie theater? that recent trend cannot be disconnected from the source — the failure of what the article worships as if on knees, servicing its every holy syllable. bah.
[…] The Constitution is smart enough to not trust the president, either Democrat or Republican. It eschews dictatorship, laying out a tripartite government. It safeguards justice. The Constitution pioneered the do-over, allowing for amendments dictated by the will of us, the people. […]
oh, c’mon. “the will of us, the people” is such vacuous horse shit that repeating it is, of course, getting the constitution right, for it blows. this jackass notion is praised under the pretense that the constitution is primarily amended via article V, a demonstrable falsehood; it is amended by violation, and by the edicts of <=9. "amendments" 13–15 are invalid under the constitution even though posing as created under article V. and a policy for amendment was a breakthrough? not going to bother researching. don't care, because the point's foundation is a joke. and yeah, the constitution lays out "a tripartite government" while installing the vice-president (executive branch) as president of the senate (legislative) and placing no useful constraint over the judicial branch, our true "leaders" (masters). all hail spooner.
If not for the First Amendment, you might not be reading this essay. And every champagne toast should begin with a nod to the 21st Amendment. I’m grateful for the 19th Amendment, which came too late but arrived just in time, giving me the right to vote.
where to start? the first amendment hardly needs to be invoked for an article sucking up to the state. the 21st amendment was the partial recovery from a disaster enabled by what? the constitution that obviously does not enshrine or protect individual unalienable rights. toast the 21st amendment? fuck you, moron lion calandra, “Jennings Fellow with the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia”, for screwing the most important point regarding the constitution: it does not, nor can it, give you the right to do shit. the text relevant to that specific fuckup:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
even the constitution, disaster of a supposed legal document (unilateral “contracts” are impossible), recognizes that the supposed right to vote — more properly the right to not need to vote — already existed. it was the interference with it that got removed, however sloppily. in the end, however, no human has the right to initiate force against another, which is normally what the supposed right to vote is. so simple? it’s so many layers removed from a simple fuckup that nearly every part of the article requires a pamphlet to explain to morons its full dastardly nature. the article is rank worship of the state, dressed in “objective” criticism.
fun question: has federal “funding” paid for any of the national constitution center, bastion of constitutionalism and idiot lion calandra’s employer?
January 16th, 2011 at 14:47
[...] nonsense is to be expected anymore: 8) Identify one right or freedom below guaranteed by the first amendment. A. Right to [...]