Try to remember for a moment, this guy is a 'Constitutional Scholar.' He is an Academic who has a new 'slant' on the Constitution and our legislative process - his way or the highway. Since the procedure was put in place to protect 'minorities.' (so those in the majority could not ram through things 'at will'). It was designed to equal the playing field for all and slow the process down to allow debate, revision and understanding. It has a place in our history, and our future 'if' we remain a Republic.

Not Politicians, who vote themselves perks which none of the rest of us receive - nor do not listen to their consitutents who voted them in.

Hoffman, perhaps more than any other "is just one of us." Want balance? Perhaps 1/3 of the political group going to the swamp needs to be an (I) .... that should make the political class (all of them) work harder for us.

"Drain the Swamp!"

We have sworn to 'support and defend' the Constitution of the United States - against all enemies foreign or domestic ... When we have either idiots or traitors leading us down a path to fascism it is about time to 'drain the swamp' which is "inside" the Washington beltway.

Term limits, removal of the ruling elite, or political class needs to be a priority ... "Say what you mean, mean what you say, and defend what you believe." Vote them out, no more D or R's, but citizens who go, as our Representatives to Washington, serve us well, and then return to their families, jobs, and communities - having served with honor to us and with us, all in the short term they are there 'in the swamp."

Would it be wise in this situation to go two verses one, when one of them is ultimately your "Commander and Chief?" It is a no-win situation and very, very elitist to go into the den with these two. Propaganda from the race issue, a lose of face for the Policeman.

I would be very interesting if Mr. Gates did bring a suit against the Cambridge Police department on this. It would highlight & publicize the 'facts.'

Racial profiling? Doubtful. Using colour as 3 century old retribution and sensitivity issue - probably. Has there been many mistakes made on this issue 'certainly.' But here, it was about probable cause, finding positive identity, and then a harvard elite getting irate, potty mouthed, and affronting elitist - ALL which would come out in a trial. I view the lack thereof as sulking away from the spotlight of the truth.

When we have today 'any' minority shouting 'racial profiling' for any stop or questioning, no matter how ludicrous or legitimate, it serves to clearly sensitize, in the wrong way persons' of colour. Should a officer in the legal execution of his duties give a person of colour a pass just because of his colour? "Oh, he isn't my race - I do not think I'll press the issue."

That is a good foundation or formula for anarchy or race wars.

Those you listed as ‘rejecting’ Christianity ALL were deeply religious and realizing that our very core/foundation was based upon a freedom of religion from government intervention & it was indeed needed to sustain a free Republic … and when that virtue and moral code was lost, so would the Republic they work so hard to form. Check where there is the most poverty, disillusion, and crime and I’ll show you a severe lack of both rule of law & the taking in of religious values.
You need to check you facts as those who rejected Christianity isn’t correct, nor is the so called committed atheists.

You have the freedom in your beliefs, given to you by Article 1 of the First Amendments to Constitution, which was signed by the Vice President of the United States, and President of the Senate - John Adams – (4 March 1789) and although believing in God doesn’t make you, or guarantee you to be a good person, the framework of that belief does give you such guidance as “Do unto others as you would others to do unto you.” It gives a framework that is neither contained in science or the religious views of atheists. And since over 90% of all Americans believe in a supreme being … those outside that majority have a voice, but it small, squeaky, and in need of oil.