Remember: Any law that violates our Constitution is ILLEGAL...

[SnoopDog]

And, if our government passes any law that violates our Constitution, they represent a rogue government who effectively has illegally taken over our government.

The ONLY legal means to change our Constitution is thru the Amendment process.

Of course this will sink... at least I put in my 2 cents tonight!

[RC]

1. Who's army you going to use to enforce that?

[SnoopDog]

2. Just facts my friend...We all should be enforcing this fact...

[tech3149]

8. Well let's see

Current Armed Forces staffing is at about 1.4M, reserve forces about the same. Just a SWAG(scientific wild assed guess) is that local/state police would equal those numbers. With a national population of 289 million, if 10% of the population went to the streets, our total military force and the NG and local and state police would be facing an opponent that outnumbers them 10 to 1. An emotional interpretation from my pov is that half or a third of those military/police forces will choke on the idea of firing on the people that they swore to protect and defend.

[LiberalFighter]

23. My understanding is that it takes at least 1 guard for every 10 prisoners

to control.

It probably would require more just to corral everyone.

[gumby]

3. Try taking that argument to a "Strict Constructionist"

They'll tell you that God wants to kill you even if you're innocent.

That's what the SCs "interpretors of the Constitution" have already said. Who ya gonna call?

[Internut]

4. Correct me if I am wrong, but

as far as I know, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. So if the Supereme Court considers a law and does not strike it down, it by definition does not violate the Constitution.

[SnoopDog]

5. No, I would say that the Constitution takes precedence as

it this the document that created the Judgeship, thus its creator.

Meaning, you literally could have a Judge state that the ENTIRE Constitution is invalid... that would be un-Constitutional and thus ruled an invalid argument.

That is why true statesmen debate the merits of a judge, strictly requiring the judge will preserve our Constitution, and prosperity for all life and our home.

[Internut]

7. Since there is no higher authority

than the Supreme Court in deciding what violates the Constitution and what does not, I think the Supreme Court's opinion would be final.

Let's say you think some law violates the Constitution. Let's say the Supreme Court decides that it does not. What is your next move?

[FreedomAngel82]

9. And this is why

Bush is pushing his right wing extremist judges. For the Supreme Court. Even if he's out of office and all his rightwing neonazi's are as well they'll still be there to carry out their plans. All he has to do is have Poppy call them or he call them up. He's wanting these people for a purpose. Our Constiution no longer matters. Neither does the Bill of Rights.

[Internut]

10. As far as I understand these matters,

the Constitution no longer matters for a very long time already. Only the Supreme Court's opinion of the Constitution matters.

As for Poppy calling the judges and telling them what to do - I don't think so. Once a Supreme Court judge is approved, he is there for life. He cannot be removed. He is paid pretty well. Please explain, what possible pressure can be applied to such a judge - short of threatening to kill his relatives?

Nah, those judges, if approved, will decide what they decide based on their own reasoning, not on outside pressure. There have been examples before of Republican appointed Supreme Court justices who turned out to be pretty liberal. Stevens and Souter come to mind among the more recent appointees. Blackmun, Brennan and Warren as well.

[LiberalFighter]

24. SC opinion is only final at that point in time

Next move will have to wait until the SC changes or another opinion on a different law demands a different opinion.

[Internut]

26. True -

and there have been precedents of just such an occurrence.

[Massacure]

27. Impeachment.

[Toots]

21. Supreme Court has ruled many times that certain unconstitutional laws

are legal. Take the "No Knock Policy" It specifically goes against your constitutional right to not be searched without warrant. So does breathalizer tests. When they search your car without warrant or now with Patriot Act every thing in it is unconstitutional. Able to arrest an American and whisk them away to a foreign country, not allow them legal council or a trial by jury or just basic American Rights. supreme court ruled it Legal. Whatever the Extreme Court rules that is the Law and one reason they want so badly to stack the courts.

[suigeneris]

53. Correct, of course. nt

[thecai]

6. Thanks For The Encouraging Reminder!

The problem is they've been getting away with destruction of The Constitution for years. The patriot acts make the corruption "legal". The patriot acts need to be scrapped, Bush needs to be impeached, and the laws against corrupt gvt. need to be enforced.

[Yupster]

11. The ONLY legal means to change our Constitution

is thru the Amendment process.

Interesting.

I'd like to hear your opinion on Roe v Wade then.

[SnoopDog]

13. Row v Wade states that abortions are legal...

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing that - right?

[Yupster]

29. Well there was no constitutional right

to an abortion for 200 years.

Then one day the court changed the constitution by interpretaton and discovered a constitutional right to an abortion.

The Constitution was changed without any amendment or amendment process.

So are we to be against that too, or are we only to be against constitutional changes by interpretation if we disagree with them.

[Ravy]

34. Not all rights are defined in the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights declares special rights and restricts the Government from ever infringing on those rights. There is most definitely (in my opinion) a right to privacy, against government intrusion into my private affairs. While this is not spelled out in the Constitution, does not mean the rights do not exist.

[SnoopDog]

37. You cannot change the Constitution without an amendment...

So, in reality, only a law was enacted...

[Yupster]

61. Laws are passed by congress

or other legislative bodies.

Judges do not pass laws.

Roe versus Wade is not a law. It was never passed by any legislative body. It was a judicial ruling.

It was a constitutional change by judicial interpretation, not by constitutional amendment.

[suigeneris]

54. That's silly. There was always the right,

but no citizen had ever asserted it before as a liberty interest.

You don't think our rights come from the Constitution do you? Back to school if you do.

[beaconess]

67. The Constitution was not "changed."

The Court ruled that the Constitution guaranteed a right to privacy - and always has - and that the right to privacy encompassd the right to be free from undue government interference in their homes, property, and persons and that includes the right of a woman to choose whether to continue a pregnancy.

The Court didn't change the Constitution. It simply ruled that a long-standing constitutional right protected the right to an abortion.

[Internut]

70. Funny, isn't it, that the "right to privacy" extends to

abortions, but does not extend to smoking or growing, marijuana in your own house. I mean, what could be more "private" than that?

Or could it be that the Supreme Court will, in ten or twenty or fifty years, suddenly "discover" that the right to put whatever substance you want into your own body has "always existed"? Or maybe it will "discover" that there is a "right" to grow whatever plant you want? What a surprise that would be.

[many a good man]

12. Congress can pass any damn law it likes

Court's role is to adjudge its constitutionality. There's no penalty in passing an unconstitutional law. Its perfectly legal.

What scares me about this filibuster fight is that the Senate is about to break its own rules, and the Court has no jurisdiction. The only redress we have is to throw the bums out in the next election and live with the consequences...

[SnoopDog]

14. I guess I would disagree... Any law that violates the Constitution is ..

illegal. Just because our government let it happen does not make it right.

The Patriot ACT clearly violates the "against unreasonable searches and seizures" clause of the 4th Amendment. There can be no other interpretation. If this evil administration wants to search you house without asking, then a new amendment must be put in place.

Remember, our Constitution is the basis of ALL OUR LAWS and can Never be violated (unless amended...).

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[many a good man]

15. Sorry. That's a fact, Jack

There is a distinction between "legal" and "right."

Any law passed is legal until its challenged in the courts and overturned. The court decides which cases it feels like hearing. Constitutionality is only what five old people in robes think it is. That's our system of government.

As long we can elect representatives to the legislature, it comes down to the people. Our only remedy is to elect reps that will overturn bad laws, and change the people who sit on the bench. Or call a Constitutional Convention.

We need to get busy!

[Mythsaje]

44. Call a constitutional convention.

Huh. Now there's an intersting idea. Maybe someone should do just that.

[Internut]

16. "Unreasonable" is in the eye of the beholder -

or, in this case, in the eye of the Supreme Court. Whatever it decides, that's the Constitution. It's the final arbiter. You cannot appeal its decisions. So - if in your and my eyes the law is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court decides that it does not violate the Constitution, guess whose opinion wins.

[SnoopDog]

17. Lets say these pricks in office decide to

'make all guns illegal'.

Well, that is totally contrary to the Constitution. So, if a judge says they are indeed illegal what happens?

I guess that is when the ULTIMATE court of appeals decides - that would be the citizens...

[Internut]

18. You were talking about what is legal and what is illegal -

what the Supreme Court decides is, by definition, legal. Whether it is correct or not is a matter of personal opinion.

[SnoopDog]

19. so, you don't believe in the Constitution...?

[Internut]

20. Non-sequitur.

What exactly in my statement are you disagreeing with?

[SnoopDog]

22. In my example...

I stated a point that 'guns are now illegal' and to make more of a point "Americans do not have the right to bear arms'.

That would be in direct conflict with the Constitution. It would be impossible for a judge to rule for that as it directly violates the Constitution.

My story is that if a judge says guns are illegal, then the Constitution takes precedence. And if our government goes along with guns are illegal, without an amendment, that would represent a overthrow of our government. The citizens then would have every right to revolt against that.

Our Constitution is the basis for all of our laws or at least should be.

You keep arguing that a judge has final say and I say 'not if it directly violates the Constitution".

[Internut]

25. I do not say that "a judge has final say"

I do say that "the Supreme Court has final say". Yes, if a legislature passes a law making firearms illegal, and if the Supreme Court is asked to rule on its constitutionality, and if the Supreme Court (that is, five or more Supreme court justices) says that the law is, in fact, constitutional, then yes, the law is constitutional. That is how the system works.

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

[suigeneris]

55. He's right. There is no question. Marbury v Madison. nt

[many a good man]

28. Under our Constitution, Supreme Ct is the supreme law of the land

The Supreme Ct has final say according to the Constitution.

Its job is to interpret the Constitution. If we don't like their interpretation our only recourse, under the Constitution, is to amend the Constitution. Only their interpretation is valid, not yours or mine.

You don't like the Constitution?

Regarding your gun analogy: the right to bear arms is one of only two amendments to the Constitution that has NEVER been argued in front of the Supreme Court. Hypothetically, if it was and the Court declared that gun ownership was constitutional ONLY to members of state militias, then gun ownership would become illegal for private citizens who were not members of the state militia.

Our govt was designed to be a system of laws, not of men. That's why its important that judges make their opinions according to precedent and law. That's why a minority of the Senate can block the nomination of judges-- to prevent tyranny of the majority.

[SnoopDog]

32. Can you provide me the Article in the Constitution that states your point?

[Yupster]

30. You are right Internut

If the Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment to mean that all guns are illegal, then that's what it means however ridiculous.

In fact, if the Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment to mean that all men must wear red socks then that's what it means.

A group of creative lawyers could always write the language to connect the dots, not that it would even be necessary to do that.

[Internut]

31. Yupster - I know it, but a lot of people fool themselves

by the "Constitution is the main law of the land" slogan (original poster among them).

The Constitution is basically a fairly useless piece of paper that is used as a justification/cover for Supreme Court decisions that may or may not relate to what it says or what its intent was.

The Supreme Court is the main law of the land. Not the Constitution. I, personally, think that gives USSC way too much power, but who the hell am I.

[SnoopDog]

33. Since I am the original poster, again I totally disagree...

Internut, this is the Document that began our Country. This is the absolute rule of our country.

When push comes to shove, a Defender of the Constitution actually has the higher moral ground.

As I post above, site the Article in the Constitution that states that the 'Supreme Court is the main law of the land".

Please, enlighten me, oh one who would 'trash the Constitution'.

[SnoopDog]

38. Coward - check post #35

[suigeneris]

57. No, no, no. Here is where we part company. nt.

[SnoopDog]

58. Can you imagine a real American saying...

"The Constitution is basically a fairly useless piece of paper "...

That is why I am not letting up on my posts...

Thanks for your post...!

[Internut]

62. In the other post you agreed with the following statement:

"...since there are no limitations placed on such interpretations, you can see how that gives the Supreme Court the power to ignore the Constitution (while, of course, paying lip service to it)."

Once you agree to that, that is an admission (in my book) that the Constitution by itself is not relevant. It is only as relevant as the nine old men/women sitting in Washington, DC allow it to be - and they have bent and perverted it enough times to make it not relevant, except as a lip-service backup to their decisions.

[beaconess]

68. As an African American who has relied on the Constitution

to vindicate and protect her rights - rights that others in our society always assumed were guaranteed to them - I don't at all see the Constitution to be a fairly useless piece of paper."

It has been the saving grace of this country. I treasure and revere it.

[Internut]

69. What you relied upon was not the Constitution -

but the way it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Constitution itself is practically irrelevant, except at most as a guideline - the Supreme Court is the main law of the land.

[beaconess]

42. Right - the nuclear option doesn't violate the Constitution n/t

[SnoopDog]

46. However....

Article 2 Section 2 states that the President (paraphrasing) will require two thirds of the Senators concur on appointments.

Independent of what Senate rule apply, and given that the Constitution is the 'supreme law of the land', 66 senators are required to place a judge... Period...

A Constitutional Amendment would be required to change any rule on this, including 'nuclear options".


Article 2
Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[Internut]

47. The "two thirds of the Senators present concur"

refers to the "make Treaties" part, not to the "shall appoint" part. Did you notice that semicolon? That indicates that whatever follows is independent of what precedes it.

[SnoopDog]

49. You got me on that one!!!!

By the way, who's side are you on...?

[beaconess]

51. The Constitution does NOT require 2/3 majority for appointments

Read it again - it requires 2/3 majority for TREATIES. And then in a separate clause (separated by the semi-colon), it sets for the requirements for presidential appointments, including judges - that they shall be done with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. It does not require any particular proportion of votes for these appointments. The fact that it is silent as to the proportion for such appointments, while setting out the proportion necessary for treaties is further proof that there is no such requirement.

[SnoopDog]

35. Here is the final passage from the Constitution to set you'all straight...

Please note that the Constitution 'shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

Seems that ALL OF YOU that posted your crap about the Supreme Court are all 'messed' up!

Please read our Constitution - it is a wonderful document.


Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Internut]

39. Article III gives "judicial power" to the Supreme Court.

That means that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution ("The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made"). No limits to such power have been instituted. Thus the Supreme Court is free to interpret the Constutition in any way it likes.

[SnoopDog]

40. It absolutely does not say that to the extent you stated...

You are pulling your comment from 'where the sun don't shine' ...

Your entire premise 'holds no water' and is specifically debunked in Article III, Section 2.

What else you got?


Here is the Section:

Article III
Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[Internut]

41. You may disagree -

but that is the article and the section that gives the Supreme Court the "judicial Power" in the cases that arise "under this Constitution". The "judicial Power", with Constitution, or any other law, involves interpreting it, deciding whether it applies or not, and making judicial decisions accordingly. This is pretty clear.

If you think "judicial Power" does not mean "power to interpret the law and to decide whether it applies" - please explain what the words "judicial Power" mean to you in this context.

[SnoopDog]

43. It would be my position that...

this Article of OUR Constitution states that the Judiciary power does not allow for the judiciary to validate our Constitution, rather, it administers the power of the Constitution as it applies to such things as Ambassadors, or conflicts between States, or citizens of same or different States. etc.

Never does it state, explicitly or implicitly, that the courts argue the validity of a Constitutional provision....




Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[Internut]

45. Of course the court cannot "argue the validity of a

Constitutional provision" - that's a given. What it can do (and has to do, except in extremely simple cases) is to interpret the Constitutional provisions, and decide whether they apply to a given case or not, based on that interpretation. Since there is no limit whatsoever set on such an "interpretation", the interpretation can possibly completely invalidate the provision (without, of course, directly saying that it does).

Once again, please explain how, in your opinion, the Supreme Court can apply its Constitutionally-given "judicial Power" without having the power to interpret the Constitution and decide whether it applies in a case or not.

Once you agree that interpretation is required, and since there are no limitations placed on such interpretations, you can see how that gives the Supreme Court the power to ignore the Constitution (while, of course, paying lip service to it).

[SnoopDog]

48. The exact point you make - is my point....

My original post states that any law that our so-called government makes that is contrary to the MY Constitution is illegal. And those you pass the law are traitors.

Your direct quote "Of course the court cannot argue the validity of a Constitutional provision" states that, indeed the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (and that is in the Constitution as well).

Our Judiciary can only apply our established laws governed by the Constitution to Ambassador, States, etc.

Again, my point is saying that this evil fascist administration CANNOT make any law that contradicts the Constitution. It is ILLEGAL. A renegade Judiciary that allows for a violation of the provisions of the Constitution in and of itself is therefore invalid as well.

[Internut]

50. What you're missing is that the Constitution itself

specifies who decides whether any law contradicts it or not. The Supreme Court decides that. Not you. Not me. Not the President or Congress. Since the power to interpret and apply the Constitution is vested by the Constitution itself in the Supreme Court, its decisions by definition cannot be un-Constitutional.

You don't like that. I see that. I don't like it either. But that is how it is. Your naive belief that if you repeat something that is demonstrably false several times it makes it true is baffling.

[SnoopDog]

56. Thank you o'wise one, however you are doing the same thing...

The Constitution states explicitly that the Judiciary can only apply its rulings between States, State and Citizen, etc. It does not allow the Court to decide a Federal Law, rather, how it applies to States, State to Citizen, etc.

You are, of course, assuming you are correct in your interpretation, as demonstrated by your comment that I am "naive" in my beliefs. One could turn that around to you.

Back to my example of 'the right to bear arms'. Since the Constitution states emphatically for the 'right to bear arms' and given that the 'Constitution is the law of the Land" any judgment against that is Un-Constitutional and anyone rallying against that are traitors to our nation.

Your comments against my United States Constitution are, as well, baffling to me.

[Internut]

60. If you insist in misunderstanding the

fairly simple concepts that were explained here, I can't stop you.

[SnoopDog]

63. I have a problem with ANYBODY stating, as you stated

"The Constitution is basically a fairly useless piece of paper"...

My America cherishes the Constitution as it is the original Document that solidifies our very existence.



This is my final post tonight...

[suigeneris]

59. Close enough to true for all practical purposes.

[beaconess]

52. The Constitution indeed gives the Courts jurisdiction to interpret it

Article II, Section 2 provides: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"

Moreover, Marbury v. Madison (1803)established the clear right and responsibility of the Court not only to interpret the laws passed by the legislature, but the power to invalidate them if it deemed them in violation of the Constitution. That has been the unquestionable law of the land ever since.

[Yupster]

64. But don't you see that

someone has to interpret what the Constitution means? Don't you see what a great power that is?

The question is how much latitude should the interpreters have in interpreting what the Constitution means?

Today it seems they have tremendous latitude. They can pretty much interpret any Constitutional clause to mean anything they want it to mean, and who would stop them.

Just as a forinstance... The Fourteenth Amendment was passed right after the Civil War to ensure that former slaves would be citizens of the states within which they resided. That was necessary because the Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves, but many states were passing laws to make it clear that the "freedmen" would not enjoy rights of citizens. A Fifteenth Amendment was also necessary to give the right to vote to "freedmen" because even as citizens, states were restricting them from voting.

It was also added to the Fourteenth Amendment that former Confederate officers couldn't serve in some government positions, and the Confederate War debt would not be paid.

So 100 years later a Supreme Court came around and interpreted that the Fourteenth Amendment also required women to have the right to a legal abortion in the first trimester, but not necessarily in the third trimester.

Well that was quite an interpretive leap, and I'm sure the senators and state legislators who voted for the Amendment 100 years ago would say "abortion? Can't you people read? This doesn't have anything to do with abortion," but that is the incredible power of the Supreme Court.

In interpreting the Constitution, they can pretty much get to any ruling they want and there's always a clause or amendment section that can be used to justify the leap, whether it has anything to do with the issue or not.

So you're right, the Constitution is the law of the land, but it's the Supremems who get to say what the Constitution says.

[beaconess]

66. They don't have as much leeway as you think

The Courts are strictly bound by precedent - rulings in previous cases. Lower courts must apply precedent of both their own courts and higher courts. If they get it wrong, they are subject to reversal by courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must follow their own precedent or distinctly overrule past cases and state the reason. An example is the 1954 Brown decision, which expressly overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that was binding precedent for nearly 60 years.

Of course, if the court of last resort chooses not to follow precedent, there is little recourse against them. But, while this is sometimes a problem, it doesn't happen as often as you might think. And, frankly, I can't come up with a better alternative. Who is better to say what the Constitution says and means? The president? Tom DeLay? State legislatures?

The Republicans have their own alternatives, which are completely unacceptable - they want to be able to impeach judges, or cut their funding or shorten their terms (and worse) in order to get them to toe the line and rule the way THEY want them to rule. But the beauty of an independent judiciary is that they are just that - independent from outside political influence. At least, they still are for the time being.

[SnoopDog]

36. Any chance someone can recommend this?

Not for my sake - My only cause is for our Country...

{on edit}
Ok, I never had a Greatest thread - really don't give a hoot if I do. This is for MY United States of America.... To show that our Constitution is the 'supreme law of the land'. And if ANY US government violates the law of the Constitution, they are GUILTY of treasonous activities as they are obviously aiding and abetting a foreign country to act against us...

[zann725]

65. I just remembered that Shrub made a special trip right before Inauguration

to physically go look at the Bill of Rights and Constitution on display. Knowing how much he detests both, it gave me the creeps.
I can only guess what thoughts ran through his head as he visited these two monuments to Democracy right before Inauguration.

Yeah, what they're doing is illegal...like everything else they do. Yet they never get caught or punished.

[Rainscents]

71. OMG... You people are very funny! Arguing over our CT.

[last1standing]

72. Locking

This thread has become inflammatory.