That was kind of my point.
I don’t know what that is.
Ah so your’re a social contract guy. That might explain some things.
Right. And as I said, the document either specifies something or it doesn’t. What’s your point?
No one else has the standing, obviously. He’s emperor. Judge, jury, executionor. His word is law. He is the ultimate arbitrator.
There’s that fuzzy phrase again.
Who said any of that?
Are you suggesting that if the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution explicitly states that the Surpreme Court justices are entitled to 9 slaves each, that makes it so?
Oh I get it. So basically what you’re saying is there is no possible way for a contract to be valid. Because, of course, for that to happen it would have to have agreed-upon terms. But according to you, words can’t have any concrete, understood meaning. Defintions are relative. If that’s the case, it begs the question, why did you spend all this time talking about contracts as if they mean anything?