[TheRealThing]

Either you cherish Framer's intent ("Advise and consent") or you do when it favors your tribe and don't when it doesn't, the very tableau of partisanship we now see and have seen, both parties, all the time.

"Original intent," hopefully, in ideal, meant justice for all. If it did not (as a casual observer would think at a glance circa the 1780's), then thank goodness for those who saw in the principles their highest calling. I do not worship our Framers, TRT, nor do I villify them. They were men, and as such, subject to frailty and foible. Now, speaking frankly, you may hanker for a time whiter and more male-dominated and more at least "mouth professingly" Christian, but in my view that brand of "original intent" needs to be gone. Now, before you squall, I am not calling you a racist or a misogynist, but simply pointing out that if "original intent" is judged by the conditions of that time under the Constitution, and folk long for "original intent," well, Houston, we've got a problem.

You're wrong. Both parties are not the same. Republican efforts to forestall the Obama agenda paled in comparison to the Harry Reid led insurrection after the voter gave control of the House to Republicans in 2010. Democrats from that moment tabled legislation from the house, and in an effort to drive what Dems wrongly assumed would be the last nail in the Republican coffin, citing funding shortfalls which they laid at the feet of Republicans, proceeded to shut down the government, national monuments, white house tours, Easter egg rolls, and stonewalled investigative process to the point even of blaming Benghazi on Republican led funding shortages. And yet there seemingly was no such shortage of funds where generous foreign aid was extended to Arab entities like Hamas, or the government-of-sorts of Iran. Nor was the well being of ObamaCare in any way ever in peril, funding wise. We've got only more of same to look forward to as standing presently in Reid's footprints is Chuck Schumer, who seems ready to enforce gridlock for the next eight years if necessary for the sake of ideology and Party.

Like I said, that's what is scary about you. Not that you have more than one vote or have any particular power of persuasion. Rather you are a reflection of the times in that like so many others who have the right to vote, you imagine your own insight surpasses that of great men gone on, incredibly to include even the great Antonin Scalia. This argument that man has evolved, or that because technological strides have been made that the character or men has made strides as well, is asinine. Putting a cell phone in the hands of George Washington would no more intensify his greatness than it makes you better or smarter.

But again you point out so eloquently the need for Mitch McConnell to wake up and smell the coffee and take the nuclear option. What we're seeing is open opposition to this Administration's effort to govern it would seem. And that opposition still finds it's origins in the same places as that of the campaign, when the establishment first openly demonstrated it's willingness to run over the will of the people should they not agree. We the people voted, but they the establishment stand in opposition. Said opposition includes Republican 'Lite' Rand Paul BTW, along with Gardner, Capito, Portman and Murkykowski.