This is all just abstract garbage.
1. Most obvious real world contradiction is that every "constitutional" nation throws out their constitutions during times of crisis.
So what?
Right now we're essentially under Marshall Law with COVID. Don't like the lockdown? Too bad. Where in the US Const. does it give the govt the power to do this?
But if you support totalitarianism, you'd have no problem with the Covid lockdown, so why are you complaining?
Also, do you even know the difference between federal and state laws? States are totally within their constitutional rights to implement COVID restrictions - unless you can give examples of
2. This leads to the 2nd big picture. What is and is not constitutional is 100% arbitrary. It has to be determined by the courts or Congress.
No crap, that's true about any system of government, fact is the system was designed with checks and balances, to prevent extremes such as totalitarian control or mob rule.
3. Constitutions can be used to CREATE tyranny, to create a totalitarian state. Don't like your state becoming an Illegal magnet? Vote to stop free handouts to illegals? Too bad, courts overrule you (CA: Prop 187).
Don't like gay marriage? Vote to stop homosexuals from culturally appropriating marriage? Too bad courts rule you (CA: Prop
.
What's your point?
Don't like guns? Vote to implement gun control? Too bad courts over rule you (VA
https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/...irginia-gun-control-measure-unconstitutional/
Terms like "gay", "homosexual" or whatever silly little "identity" one wishes to arbitrarily label oneself as on the basis of something or another were never acknowledged by the courts - the courts only acknowledge the legal right of 2 people of the same sex to legally enter a marriage - they never acknowledged "gay", "homosexual" or anything else. (Not that you should care, since it seems you're arguing for extreme sexual libertinism/hedonism anyway rather than notions of "self-restraint", such as in marriage).
No go culturally appropriate some more Japanese Sailor Moon porn or something.
You're living under a neo-liberal totalitarian state right now and it's being created though the courts interpreting constitutionalism. Your shield is being used as a sword against you.
Nonsense, the courts were always designed to interpret the Constitution.
I don't think you know what "neo-liberal" means; it essentially means free market economics and has nothing to do with Constitutional interpretation.
If it wasn't for "free market" economics, you wouldn't be able to masturbate to Sailor Moon or other foreign imports.
It's clear you're a midwit who thinks he is soo smart because he is repeating the propaganda he learned in High School. Here is the truth,
You're just repeating stuff you read on 4chan instead of actual reading books such as on law, Constitutionalism - most people who stop reading after they graduate HS wouldn't be able to understand much of this stuff.
constitution or no constitution, there will always be a vision. That vision will be enforced by the state. If you like that vision, then you don't see any totalitarian control.
No, it's a system of checks and balances - that's not what "tolitarianism" means (totalitarianism is consolidation of power by a single individual or group unrestrained by Constitution or law).
In day-to-day parlance, people just use terms like "totalitarian, fascist, Communist" to refer to anything "they don't like", but who cares? The framers of the government obviously didn't so why should anyone else?
This is why the neo-liberals and the social liberals don't view their actions as creating a totalitarian nation. In fact they view their actions as creating a more free society.
No, you're just using "totalitarian" to refer to anything you don't like.
Totalitarian is a system of government in which power is consolidated in the hands of a single ruler or group unrestrained by law - it has nothing to with the "laws" which are passed or the "vision" of anyone.
In fact, what you're basically asking for is mob/rule anarchy anyway which is hilariously contradictory.
1. US Age of Consent was 12 in most states before 1st wave feminism. It was also 12 in Great Britain and the Roman Empire.
Good for 1st wave feminism. (Not that I believe this just because you posted it).
Though I guess you're more of a fan of 2nd/3rd wave feminism given your affinity for Sailor Moon or childish anime shows depicting "strong female protagonists" in traditionally "male" roles, aren't you?
2. Age of Marriage is not necessary the same as age of consent.
Regardless of what the "bare legal minimum" supposedly is or was on the books, that doesn't mean that people such as families, involved parties, etc and so on wouldn't have had a vested interest in it, and that there wouldn't have been many potential objections raised (especially if someone was perceived to be a freak who specifically fetishizes and targets young girls), just as there would today.
3. Does "generally" mean on avg? if so that means women could have gotten married younger. And 16 would still be wrongly considered "pedophilia" by the 18 yrs or older crowd.
Yawn, in day to day speak people may use "pedophile" to refer to anyone convicted of a sexual offense involving a legal minor (e.x. statutory rape) - technically this isn't "the same" as molesting a prepubescent child (which is likely why states punish much harder in the event of a prepubescent child being molested, or when there is a more significant age difference).
Most states don't have "18" as the age of consent anyway - it usually ranges from 16-17 (in some states it's even potentially lower with parental consent). It's clear you just repeat stuff you read on /pol/ or some anime porn forum and don't actually read any law, books, or anything else.
Why you're so hung up on this seems pretty pointless, since you're never going to get any girl who isn't an animated, 3rd-wave feminist-inspired character like Sailor Moon anyway.
