"Steve Krulick" <s@krulick.com> wrote in message
news:3F29F40A.17605642@krulick.com...
> Herb Martin wrote:
> >
> > > for the distinction between "the People" and "the People of the
> > > several states")! YOU just can't accept that the CONSISTENT
> > > meaning of the term in the Const is ONLY the collective one!
> >
> > Then you should quite posting on the Internet until you have
> > formed a State and been granted speech and publishing
> > rights.
> >
> > Your sillyness is showing -- name one other collective right....
>
> ARE you so dumb that you don't even know that the rights of free
> speech and freedom of the press are NOT linked to the term THE
> PEOPLE? GADZOOKS!
>
> Look at the amen:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
> people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
> a redress of grievances."
>
> SEE, those rights precede any mention of THE PEOPLE! And to
> claim the strawman that only a STATE would have those rights
> shows you to be an utter troll barely worth replying to!

There's a bundle of desperation showing in that claim.

>
> Individuals have a right to vote; collectively, the PEOPLE, the
> enfranchised body politic in its collective and political
> capacity has the COLLECTIVE RIGHT to hold elections! NO ONE
> person chooses the winner, but only gets ONE VOTE. COLLECTIVELY,

"One vote collectively?" ROTFL! Sorry, dude, but that is hilariously
ridiculous. "One vote among the group." How do they determine that vote? Now
explain to everyone how an individual can petition for redress collectively.
That's after the word "people," you know. Explain this "assemble" thing.
That comes after the word "people" so according to you it is a "collective"
right. By your own standard, individuals can't assemble, only groups. That
being the case, per your own words, how does a group assemble in the first
place?