Originally Posted by MJ1970
Of course it's not. Adhering to the written and foundational document of a nation is not anywhere near the category of "illogical" not is it a "batshit notion" or "retarded." In fact just the opposite is true. When you live in a land of laws and constitutions and legal processes, the sane thing to do is to follow those and adhere to them. The illogical and insane thing is to ignore them for convenience.
Anyway, thanks for continuing to show your default argumentative approach which appears to include nothing but vulgarity, profanity and name calling towards or about things with which you disagree.
You do not understand what I am trying to argue. Maybe it’s my fault.
I will resort to very simple sentences, for both of our sakes. And I will not use the rude words you find distracting.
The specific content of the American Constitution is irrelevant to my argument.
To begin, I will remind you that the word “unconstitutional” is a specific legal term with a specific meaning. Its meaning is “something that contravenes constitutional law.”
That is the definition of the word “unconstitutional.”
It is possible for a nation to enact law on a national scale, even when that law is not specifically mentioned in a constitution, and for the law in question to respect that nation’s constitution.
A national government providing an institution on a national scale that is not mentioned in that nation’s constitution is not contravening that constitution unless there is a clause in that constitution that says that “such-and-such an institution is illegal.”
It might be illegal for all sorts of reasons. The reason in question is irrelevant to my argument.
When you use the word “unconstitutional”, in other words, MJ1970, you are using it incorrectly.
“Unconstitutional” is a specific legal term with a specific meaning. It means “something that contravenes constitutional law.”
THAT IS WHAT THE WORD MEANS. That is not open to debate.
Why not? Because is it is the definition of that word.
The Department of Education is not “unconstitutional”.
Why not? Because it is not prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is, in the correct and long-standing meaning of the word, CONSTITUTIONAL.
To consider abolishing it because it is not mentioned in the Constitution is illogical. It makes no sense legally or logically.
Why not? Because you can have a federal Department of Education, and you can still follow the Constitution.