Unfortunately, many people now believe that our Constitution and our rights in the Declaration of Independence even the very rule of law are silly.
While I agree with the that statement, based on what you have said thus far I would put you in that category. Although it has always been here is some form, there has been a rise in what I would call "constitutional extremism" a form of interpretation that is ignores a lot of history and government to present the constitution as the only rule of the land. Even the framers didn't intend for it to be read that way, and it ignores several hundred years of government progression, evolution of the rule of law, jurisprudence, and our own basic history.
I'll tell you the two things that one of my professor mentors told me in law school:
1) "if you want to be a constitutional scholar, there are only about 10 of them, they all went to Ivy League schools, and before you can be considered even knowledgable on the subject you need to have read everything they have written and understand the flaws in each argument and the praises of each."
I'll give you a start if you are interested - Erwin Chemerensky wrote an excellent primer on understanding the constitution. It's not perfect, but it gives a person a great foundation, including context, for beginning to study the constitution. I caution you, my older addition is about 1200 pages and it may be longer now.
2) "every law, regulation, statute, etc... Is written in blood." What he meant was every single government action is solving a problem and it cost some American something of value (including maybe their life). The problem it is solving for or even the logic and meanings of words might not be readily apparent so reading the statute is not enough, you need to read the notes, the case law, other cases it cites, basically all the other ancillary information called jurisprudence before you can say you are knowledgable on a particular law.
IMO, that is the root of all this trouble and the big divide here in the USA in the first place.
The root of the problem is partisan politics, lack of good education on the subject of government, and the dunning-Kruger effect.
If you don't like what I say, read the laws I quote (title 18 and Amendment 5) and tell me where you believe I am mistaken.
Ok:
1) you don't understand there are different types of laws beyond criminal
2) you don't understand the scope of government agencies or the people holding office within them
3) you assume YOUR interpretation of how you read the law is the correct one and ignore any jurisprudence
4) you don't know how to properly cite anything correctly (hint there are more than 1 title 18's and I don't think you meant the constitutional amendment on prohibition)
5) you don't understand the actual powers the constitution grants or how it is deficient and why it relies on a larger body of government.
And those are just the basics. I'm sure if we spoke longer I could find more.
It's not that I don't like what you say, I find it highly entertaining. To me when you call for members of the FAA to be put in jail it's as if you said we should put Mickey Mouse in jail because he didn't make you laugh. See? Entertaining, but not something I can take seriously at all.
What doesn't work here or anywhere else is when people don't agree they attack each other instead of debating the law or the physics of a thing.
Don't take this as an attack, think of it like you are a 10 year old trying to tell a seasoned airline captain the ins and outs of trying to shoot an approach into JFK under severe weather conditions. You just don't have the knowledge, experience, or self awareness to know that you Lack those things to be having a conversation that merits being taken seriously.
Calling another man's convictions, oath to the Constitution and the rule of law 'silly' gets our society nowhere.
I am in a constant state of learning. I always assume I don't know enough and have to be open and ready to receive knowledge that may change my outlook and opinion. When it comes to government and law making you can't afford to have "convictions" because they are Static. Convictions are good for morals, general manners, etc but not something as ever changing as the law. I have no appetite for humoring your ego when you bring too little to the conversation. You may think your position or convictions are unique but I've had this same conversation complete with "I am reading x law, you tell me how I am wrong" at least a hundred times this year alone and in every singe case the other person's lack of knowledge, training, and experence has been the weak point. This one is no different. It's not an insult to tell someone the need to learn more about a subject, and be more open minded about what they learn, but if they choose to take it that way I can't help it, this medium doesn't allow me to smile, nod, and walk away.
I will humor your ego in the way: I 100% agree with your approach to this with respect to sending STEM kits to kids in school and your approach with kids in general, including leading by example. So keep up the good work in that area.
Aim higher, Geeto67. For you, your country and our society.
You as well.
