] You brought in everything including the kitchen sink to refute Sherry's article, but failed to address any of her points.

I did not "fail" anything. I chose to address her reasoning and her definitions, because I suspect her motives. Sorry if that's too abstract for you.

] She was primarily addressing first amendment rights, but the 8th amendment rights of equal
] protection under the law are being violated too as police selectively enforce laws against
] homeless people, activists, and teenagers.

See, this makes me suspicious. 1st amendment - freedom of speech. 8th amendment - equal protection. No doubt Sherry, like most here, supports the criminalization of so-called "hate speech". That qualifies as selective enforcement of the 1st amendment, which is thus a violation of the 1st and 8th.

Just as one example.

Which leads me to believe that Sherry is not motivated by any love or respect for the 1st and 8th, nor (thusly) the Constitution as a whole.

Therefore, what is her real motivation?

] She didn't talk about the right to bear arms or even social services for homeless people.

When one invokes any one amendment of the Constitution as a source of righteousness and authority, they invoke the Constitution as a whole. That includes the oft-maligned 2nd amendment RKBA.

Sherry cannot have it both ways. She cannot point to the USC as something special one day, while supporting the blatant disregard of it on other days.

That kind of legal opportunism only reveals the lack of intellectual integrity of her stance.

] You DO know that the preamble to the constitution calls for the US to "promote the
] general welfare" so it is not anywhere out of the ordinary for governments to provide services
] for sick, disabled, displaced, or unemployed individuals. Indeed, its a matter of public
] health to do so.

Key words:
PREAMBLE, not body.
PROMOTE, not provide.
GENERAL, not individual.

As explained by Madison himself (you know, one of the authors of the Constitution?) in his subsequent comments published in the Federalist issue #41, the Preamble summarizes the goals of the means and powers later enumerated in that document. It is not itself an enumeration of means and powers.

The Preamble itself is not law - it is commentary upon the law.

Furthermore, "promotion of the general welfare" means such things as building roads, and issuing public health warnings. To directly PROVIDE (not merely promote) for the welfare of INDIVIDUALS (not the general populace), is what you describe.

The bottomless pit of Communism is what you describe.

] since you seem only concerned with the money in your pocket,

You are wrong. I am concerned with the money in not only my pocket, but yours, hers, his, and everyone else's.

I am also concerned with the ulterior motives of activists who invoke the Constitution as holy writ when it suits them, and trample it without a thought when it doesnt support their agenda-du-jour.

I am, simply put, tired of such people and their empty fair-weather patriotism.

] The National Coalition on Homelessness reports that it costs a city about $1000 each to
] prosecute a simple ticket.

Silly woman; you're preaching to the choir. I agree with most of Sherry's gripes - I never said otherwise, you just seem to assume that anyone who fails to fall into lock-step adoration of one of your crusaders, must be the enemy.

Be careful, trying to stifle dissent isn't very liberal.