At no point did I ever state: "the Constitution establishes nothing but only limits power", this is another one of your fanciful fabrications where people say something they never said. I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say. If you can only attack someones grammar by rewriting it to be deserving of attack, how do you expect to come to any reasonable conclusions about law? Your obvious belief that law can be invented grossly misunderstands law.
If I misread you I'd like you to help me understand you better, but I have to say it's a bit confusing to object at this point. I quoted your remark once and you didn't object, I paraphrased it in the next post and you didn't object. This feels more like trying to take something you regret saying back than anything else. You're welcome to take it back. I'm here to learn, not to "win 'an argument. But if you take it back, then you're left not explaining what you think the Constitution does in the first place, so you're going to need to do that.
I did not write as if the Constitution fixed a time limit to the republic it established, you "interpreted" it that way. That was clear in your reply and needed no clarification from you. I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say. Here is the problem with your arguments, you seem to be having a hard time grasping what is being said to you. For example; when I say: "Those who create the government, get to limit it...", you respond by claiming it has somehow become unclear what is meant by it. It is odd that a respected grammar teacher such as yourself would get so confused by a little pronoun agreement.
My friend, I wish you would spend less time being sarcastic and more time explaining your beliefs. It's true I've had quite a hard time understanding you from time to time. I can tell you think what you're saying is important so I wish you would explain it. Instead you refuse to say anything, continue to make and repeat assertions, and only say from time to time "No no that's wrong" but never explain what's right.
Let me be perfectly clear; people preexist government, they create government to protect their rights, this is the way it works, this is why we have governments. So, when the people create the government they get to limit that government, it is their prerogative. Any person who understands the law, when reading your claim that you have never seen a satisfactory account of right and wrong, will take that with a grain of salt, and would be wise to suspect you have many moments of righteous indignation when you have been trespassed upon.
Again the first part of your paragraph and second part seem oddly mismatched. First you say people preexist government, and I agree. But the question is, does some kind of Natural Law exist? If it does, I've never seen a satisfactory account. I only see human law, concocted by brute force and social compromise. I say this is all the Constitution is, when it comes down to it. You seem to want to say it's something more, but you won't explain what, except to say that it should be obvious. Vexing indeed.
Have a wonderful GREAT COLLAPSE!
