Thanks for continuing to refer me as license plate, I really appreciate it, thanks.


Anyways, the problem with constitutional literalists or original intentists is that they really tend to have no idea what this actually would mean. Right wingers tend to think they have some kind of exclusive access to the constitution.

Now, I'm just your garden variety everyday idiot, but let me see if I can stumble my way through a few points here. I would love to be shown the error of my ways if anyone feels the need to correct me please by all means do so.

The constitution says we should only have a standing army for 2 years max.
Hum, that's a pretty huge elephant in the room for our more military minded people that post here.


I'm one of the few far leftists here who is generally against gun control but if you interpret the original intent of the right to bare arms, the public is supppsed to have access to the same weapons the military has. So technically I should be able to stroll down to larrys gun shop and pick up a thermo nuclear detonator and weaponized anthrax.


There is nowhere that I'm aware of in the constitution that declares what type of economic system we are required to have. Now I suppose you can make the argument that free markets and capitalism (I would say capitalism and free markets aren't even by definition the same thing but that's for another time) are intrinsically linked to representative democracy but you could also make lots of arguments against it. If anything that way most law makers manipulate the commerce clause it's has pretty much taken off the flood gates as far as any level of state manipulation into the markets.


Should the south have been allowed to leave the union? Totally. There is no argument against this. The very nature of the design of our nation was to be a very weak federal government. This doesn't mean the south didn't suck and their entire way of life wasn't based on the grotesque subjugating of other human beings but they had every right to leave. I've stated many times that if any states which to leave today they should be alllowed to take a hike. It's laughable because most red states can't take care of themselves so have at it.


Now here is where things get really uncomfortable:

The constitution, or just our founding fathers in general, made it very clear that the idea of the United States was that if the state stops serving the people it's is the DUTY of the people to overthrow the government. It is literally built into the frame work.

Now. Who is to say at this point who is right or wrong if they wish to overthrow the state at that point? And who is to be considered the traitor? Who is to be considered the patriot?

There is more justifications for a "well regulated militia " in the constitution than for the military.

So again, we have uncomfortable questions arising from that. What defines a militia?

What if antifa declare themselves the patriotic militia that wishes to over throw the state because the state is no longer serving the needs of the people?


These are the brutality nasty problems that tend to crop up when you start to actually look at the constitution. The constitution isn't the end all be all perfect document that was shat out of gods rectum into the hands prophets. It's a document that was written by men that have the same flaws and imperfections as any that live today.