In reply to Gina...........Well said in theory. The Doc’s statements aside----I’d like to expound upon a Constitutional infraction exploited to interpose law where very limited authority is vested. The Courts. The Supreme Court in particular, whose very name would propose sovereignty when in fact in it’s intended origin was allocated no totalitarian fiat. The investiture of Law by the consent of the people was vested in Congress where in which also rested the power to redress any Supreme Court decision. Case law, in ambit, was not a gavel of political debate, until the Courts breached their Constitutional scope two hundred years ago. The preeminence of the nine Supreme Court Justices is by no legal means Constitutional. The grievances appealed to this branch has fed jurisprudence to amicus curiae and foreign law. Today it is the precise means to abridge Congressional power to sustain or remand and thus ascertain Law wherein the requisite of consent is something to be desired.

In reply to Jane’s warning and Tilly......remember some people believe the world is comprised of ‘grass is green, rocks are hard, and the sky is blue.’ No other thoughts are able to ‘penetrate’ except that which captivates or amuses the physical senses. Thus the enclosed pentagram (one point up) where of which in alchemical depiction reveals man in his lowest state of consciousness.