Guess “Screw the Constitution” Hit a Nerve

This is my rebuttal

Fudgin' Politics
2 min readMay 29, 2022


Image by <a href=”;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=5905256">M Harris</a> from <a href=”;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=5905256">Pixabay</a

Recently I got a response to an article I wrote — “Screw the Constitution”.

Note: I rarely if I ever write a response to criticism, I receive from something I post. Yet, I couldn’t help myself.

First, the respondent thought “Your rant must feel good for you.” Yes, it did! Thank You. Anytime I “rant” it feels good to get it out. I don’t normally think about the critique I will get after I post something. Then they went on to let me know that I was “wrong — on so many levels.” They then proceeded to quote the Declaration of Independence. I must admit when I read the quote, I didn’t understand half of it [you know all that legalese]. Sorry, I am just a layperson. Not sure what direction they were headed since I was addressing the Constitution.

The respondent then proceeded to lecture me about the Law of Nature. Again, not sure where they were going. We’re they anti-abortion? “When does a person become a person? Because when this is “True,” that person, regardless of its origin, HAS RIGHTS. That is the Law of Nature.” I am pro-choice and proud of it!

The respondent made a point that the Constitution is nothing but examples so we could understand what they were talking about centuries ago. Are all politicians only using it as an example? Not sure. Does everyone understand what they are talking about without interpretation from someone with a law degree or a political agenda? Sorry, I don’t. If my mistake in writing this is I didn’t spend a lot of time trying to interpret every word in the Constitution. You can crucify me for that. My point was that a lot of politicians, ad nauseam like to stand up the Constitution as the source we must follow. Even though it's old.

Their final condemnation regarded The Supreme Court. That its existence derives from interpreting the Constitution “regardless of politics.” But I argue is the current Supreme Court apolitical?

Rant over — drop the mic.



Fudgin' Politics

Politics is a Fudgin’ cesspool. Will try to be civil and pertinent. NO labels. Equal opportunity basher. Talk hot button issues.