his response had been ambiguous at best whether following The Constitution is mandatory, the only thing that would have saved him from being mocked and ridiculed (before being thrown out of class) would be a considered and studied foundation of life before The Magna Carter and The Enlightenment.
IOW, how due process and The Constitution were based on "natural law" * and therefore, weren't meant to be strictly applied for every single situation. Having natural law inscribed in doctrine would be . . . unnatural.
* Natural law theory is a philosophical perspective that suggests certain ethical principles and moral duties are inherent in nature and can be discovered through reason. It posits that these natural laws are universal, objective, and superior to man-made laws or conventions. The theory argues that human morality is rooted in our inherent nature and the pursuit of human flourishing.
But that wasn't the case here. TSF leaned back on "I don't know (whether I have to follow The Constitution). I'll have to ask my lawyers." That answer wouldn't fly in 5th grade civics. Not to mention the obvious: it contradicts Marbury v. Madison, where only SCOTUS decides whether The Constitution applies.
Insipid. Disingenuous. Dangerous.
= new reply since forum marked as read
