The Constitution does not say how it is to be interpreted, with the Founders expecting it to be interpreted in a pre-existing framework of common law. For instance, this was used by the Supreme Court to establish judicial review, which is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Without those "activist judges" the Supreme Court would be toothless and the Constitution toilet paper.
So those are the "facts of reality", not your libertarian fantasies. As for the rest of your rant I consider it both off-topic and highly uninteresting. Actually, we're off-topic already, so I'll stop here.
"Without those "activist judges" the Supreme Court would be toothless and the Constitution toilet paper."
Without these violations of the constitution, it, rather than the supreme court, would be the highest law in the land ,and the constitution would no longer be toothless.
"So those are the "facts of reality""
At best, what you just gave me was your opinion. You didn't cite any actual facts.
"not your libertarian fantasies. "
I must guess that you're incapable of making arguments to the point, so you feel compelled to characterize me. Here you do it with two characterizations that you imagine are insulting.
"As for the rest of your rant"
Another characterization. You feel you do not have to respond to my arguments, if you just call them a rant. Also, you get to imply that I'm not being rational by calling it a rant.
"Actually, we're off-topic already, so I'll stop here."
My post, was on the topic. I addressed how the domain seizures were the latest in a historical line of property seizures, which I talked about. You didn't address seizures at all, and instead chose to attack me.
Since your entire participation in this thread has been off topic and personal, you should have never started it.
Nothing convinces me of the correctness of my arguments like my opponents being in a abject terror at addressing them.
Without these violations of the constitution, it, rather than the supreme court, would be the highest law in the land ,and the constitution would no longer be toothless.
This is not just factually incorrect, it's... Holy cow. Do you know what judicial review is? It's what gives the Constitution teeth! And I'm at least partially repeating myself when I say this!
And why do you accuse me of being, your words, in "abject terror"?
So those are the "facts of reality", not your libertarian fantasies. As for the rest of your rant I consider it both off-topic and highly uninteresting. Actually, we're off-topic already, so I'll stop here.