Dear Rick, Allow me (please) to expound upon the Constitution. Lesson No. 1 of the United States Constitution: The simple fact of the matter is that nine Supreme Court Justices (well actually 4 ½ -you never can tell with Kennedy) wipe their backside with it daily. Lesson No. 2: Pick a better case than Everson to impart unto me one of the most recklessly used quotes by one of the biggest embarrassments of the history of the bench. Lesson No. 3: The US Constitution has been and is being outsourced, and in it's stead European Law and the suggestion of a Global Court of Justice is unfortunately referenced in far too many opinions. Given his self-evident Constitutional understanding, we must assume then that Rick fully admits the impotency within our own Constitution and the eminent necessity of submitting such to the totality of foreign courts. (Which is exactly what is happening) Now, many people clap their hands in anticipation of a proposed civilian fleet of 'Brown Shirts' (one of Obama's quid pro quo of presidency) to enforce this new national security (nudge, nudge-- wink, wink) but this logic is as inherently flawed as the former KKK member Rick unwittingly refers to. The 'supreme law of the land' is what the amicus curiae says it is, and more than not, the friends of the court writing such have many ties to National Socialism (and other sick things) abroad. It is this same "strong sense of logic," that the Court applied to the First Amendment to uphold the Constitutional Right of virtual child pornography, but criminalize a political ad in November. -Or granting habeas corpus to foreign war criminals in active war time. -Or redefining "public use" as a private corporation's entitlement to a citizen's land under the Fifth Amendment. But all of this, past and present, is in fact irrelevant when the object is to eliminate any political dissidence caused by the patriotism of the originalist; which would reduce all of us to nothing more than slaves. The role of religion in relation? Often times religion is a moot point and only a pseudo-sanctimonious declaration for self-gain, but real religion is like freedom: one could hardly hypothesize a rightful working definition of such, but you know without a doubt what it is not. It is that kind of religion that is absolutely antithetical and dangerous to the enslavement of the American people.

I acquiesce though, you proved what you know and what you do not and it would be unfair of me to continue a debate in this standing, although I will oblige any question you may have. (If I am able to so do) I hope that it is that you are unaware of the above facts and cases, and do not actually support such views in your logic.

Bear with my grammar, my expertise is in thinking not typing. Forgive my big fancy words, I did not recognize them as being such, but give me a break. My eight year old son and I jest at Thrasymarchus's pathetic attempts to dispute Socrates! I guess you pick up the lingo after years of study.