Quote Originally Posted by Twangbanger View Post
Because, "nobody" can agree on what the Constitution means - therefore "nobody" can agree on what constitutes a "threat" to it. Much less what it means to "uphold" it.

Hell, some people think Trump is a threat to the Constitution. Time to prosecute? By whom? For what?

How do you prosecute Tlaib and Omar? I am not an expert. I can only assume you "disagree" with something they have promoted. But the actual principle in use seems to be, that as long as ideas are promoted in accordance with the "democratic" process, anybody is allowed to propose anything. It does not form the basis for a prosecution.

Frankly, I think in each of the 60 or 70 times a year this question gets raised on INGO, it is the result of religious people whose minds freeze at the word "oath." They are pre-disposed to believe words written on paper are non-negotiable for all time, and are simply unable to use reason in discussing it. They have a problem accepting that in a non-theocratic society, not everyone has to believe the way they do.

Again, like Kut said: vote them out. Why won't people do that? There you have your problem. I understand politicians are snakes. But the idea that "the people" form some repository of wisdom that is able to counter them, is taking hits by the day. Watch any democratic primary debate for proof.
This! Rep'd