I'll help you with the constitutional law, jaguar. I'm not an expert, but general readings have shown me that people who deal with constitutional law pretty much fall into 1 of 2 categories: strict constitutionalists and interpretists. Strict constitutionalists can be compared to some Islamic movements of the late 20th century: that the theoretical framework was complete in an earlier form, and the course of time has corrupted it. Interpretists believe that the Constitution is a living document, and that it was set up that way so that it would not become outdated: it could be adapted to fit the evolving nature of society.
This is a bit simplistic, of course; there are extremes at each end. But the people who claim that taxes or social policies are illegal are at the far end of the constitutionalist spectrum. They do not understand how much revenue is required to run the greatest (by size & influence) economic, military, political and ideological power in the world.
Again, I'm not an expert, so I'll be the first to admit that I may be wrong on parts of this typology.
__________________
blippety blah bluh blah blah
|