What's really tragic is that you call me an asshole for telling you that Santa Claus isn't real, Jesus isn't watching you masturbate from heaven, and the Constitution is just a moldy old piece of paper instead of being mad at all the liars and charlatans in the world who infect children with dangerous mythology in the first place.

It comes from the will of the majority.

Ok, how do I know this "will of the majority exists?" Can I measure it? Can I talk to the will of the majority to ask what it wants, or do I have to rely on priests^H^H^H^H^H^H^H politicians to interpret it for me and tell me what it is?

I admit that your religion has a pretty creation myth, but it's got as much to do with reality as a tree stump carving depicting that the sun rises because a giant space coyote eats the sun at night and vomits it up in the morning.

If it was truly the case that governments are formed by "the people", instead of being violently and deceptively imposed by a ruling class onto their subjects, don't you think it's a bit odd that George Washington had to raise an army signifigantly larger than the one used to expell the British in order to neutralize popular resistance to that government's actions?

Now we're getting somewhere.

If the Supreme Court gets their power from an agreement, who are the parties involved in that agreement?

Spoiler alert: your answer is invalid if it posits that dead people are the source of the power (dead people can't do anything because they are dead), or if it includes people who, if they were all hit by a bus tomorrow, would not reduce the Supreme Court's capacity to enforce their rulings.

That old piece of paper circumscribes the governing law of the land. The Supreme Court absolutely is bound by it. In fact their authority comes from it and it is their solemn duty to interpret it and use it to throw out improper legislation.

You understand that words mean things, right?

When you say that Supreme Court is "absolutely bound" by something, that's a testible hypothesis, no less so than if I said a brick is absolutely bound by gravity. If a brick could just decide to hover in midair then that would falsify my claim that it was bound by gravity.

Likewise, if you claim that a piece of paper binds people, and those people can be observed to do whatever they want regardless of what is written on said paper, and the paper responds to this violation by doing absolutely nothing at all since it is, in fact, just a piece of paper, then by what possible universe could you say that piece of paper is binding them?

To all those who would cavalierly tear up the Constitution, beware the wrath of patriots.

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

Who derive all their power from the old piece of paper sitting in a museum. You'd be funny if you weren't quite so tragic.

What's tragic is that in the 21st century we still live in a world where people believe in fantasy.

That fact that you can say that some people derive power from a piece of paper in apparent seriousness is the tragedy.

I don't want to live on a planet where people believe in magic paper.

"We" is the people of the United State of America. What makes us special is that we've granted to ourselves the power to govern the country.

You've disingenuopusly defined "people of the United State of America" as being "everyone who agrees with me."

There is no question that we ought to govern the country, the only question is how.

Just saying that doesn't make it true.

Maybe you mean "I don't want anyone to questions whether or not we should govern, because the outcome of that debate may not turn out in my favor."

You'd give unrestricted rights to businesses to do what they want. Id restrict businesses from acting in ways detrimental to their customers or to the economy as a whole.

You've granted unlimited power to self-appointed rulers who presume to know the unknowable while pretending to rule "for the benefit of society as a whole."

Even worse, it's not even original in its deception. Just the same old tired trumped-up justifications for power that tyrants and their apoligists have been using for centuries. You could at least try to come up with something new for a change.

Nope.

The US Constitution is a very old piece of paper sitting in a museum.

The Supreme Court is a group of people.

A piece of paper is an inanimate object - it can't do anything.

I don't understand why we don't just restrict companies to do the thing they're supposed to do.

I don't understand why people can publicly advocate fascism and expect to not be called out on it.

Who is "we" and what makes them so special such that it's legitmate for them to give orders to other people?

Your explaination is reasonable and reveals the headline, and 99% of the comments on this article, as being inaccurate and misguided.

I predict it will be ignored because the audience is more interested reasons to scream at each other and push agendas instead of facts.

$$$

Also, there's far too much child sexual abuse in the world, with a disturbingly high fraction of they population complicit in one way or another, for society to talk honestly about the topic. There is a very vocal minority with an extremely strong incentive to divert any discussions away from that area.

Shakesphere used "their" as a singular. What you learned in school was revisionism.