You contine to propose some pretty radical ideas, which you see as “axiomatic”, without providing anything in the way of support for them.

I’m guessing that you didn’t catch that I was paraphrasing the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

Radical? Yeah.

If that is the case, then I would think that you would support the idea of limiting the power of the courts to make laws without any checks or balances. Strangely, you do not do so. You have an very odd notion of limited government.

Flenser, you’re arguing with someone else again. I don’t recall at any time saying anything about the power of the courts, and in fact just checked with “Search…” and find no time at which I spoke at all about the power of the courts.

I’ve pointed out on several occasions now that youu were making arguments to me about things I hadn’t said. I’d say something about “putting words in my mouth” except it’s clear its not so much that as the voices in your head that you’re responding to.

I will, however, point out that I said specifically that I’d prefer the government not to have the power to get into these things at all. I presume, therefore, that it’s the voices in your head again; echoes of other arguments you’ve had with other people, who you’re somehow confounding with me.

Like so many “social liberals”, you see the world as composed of individuals, who bear with them innumerable “rights”, and the state, which functions as the adjudicator amoung all the individuals whenever their “rights” conflict with each other.

Yup. Me. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. George Mason. John Locke. John Marshall.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See Amendment IX.)

Buncha goddamn radicals.

But then, I was pointing out how radical the American Experiment really was.