Yes, Bill, your freedom to run "underground monkey sodomy-slavery ring[s]" expresses your typical political opinion but says little about your implicit lack of an underlying political philosophy.

/sarcasm

(First!)

No, no, no, you have the critique all wrong. My litmus test of "underground monkey sodomy-slavery ring[s]" may be a consistent political philosophy, a logical extension of the "Unified Theory of Shit Bill Likes," but it's unprincipled in that it shows no apparently consistent legal philosophy; namely, a clear choice between the popular dueling philosophies of Federalism vs. Limited Government, and strict constructionism vs. belief in penumbras and the Constitution as a living document. (All of this ignoring, for the moment, the concepts of "liberty" and "license," and "negative" rights inferred by the Constitution)

This hopeless inconsistency was apparent when I supported the Supreme Court's ruling overturning Alabama vs. Vanderschnood's Monkey Sodomy-Slavery, Inc., on the grounds that the lower court's ruling following state law violated Mr. Vanderschnood's Constitutional right to privacy as ostensibly inferred by the 14th, 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

Yet at the same time, I was a harsh critic of the court's support of Federalist interference via its ruling in Ashcroft vs. Monkey Sodomy Farms of Oregon, in which the Supremes upheld the Justice Department's assertion that monkey sodomy was federally illegal due to the practice's common use of ketamine and amyl nitrates, which of course fell under the jurisdiction of federal controlled substance statutes. This assertion was made by the Justice Department of a Conservative administration and supported by social conservatives, despite the fact that nowhere does the IMMUTABLE CONSTITUTION mention any powers granted to the Federal government to regulate the recreational use of veterinary dissociative anesthetics nor inhalable vasodilators that induce the formation methemoglobin. And folks call those founders "prescient." Pshaw!

I read it like five times, and I'm telling you, the Constitution is mum on ketamine and poppers, trust me.

Thus, as you can see - because I vacillate between Federalism and States' Rights - between strict constructionism and amorphous penumbras - ALL IN THE SERVICE OF MY SELFISH HEDONISTIC LIBERTARIAN SUPPORT FOR UNDERGROUND MONKEY SODOMY/SLAVERY RINGS - well that's what makes me "unprincipled." From a standpoint of legal scholarship, that is.

The only lithmus test I'd like to see is this one.

Hello Mr Supreme Court nominee, whoever you may be. Say the Flag Burning Amendment became law. I have here a tiny little flag painted on this here strip of lithmus paper I hold in my hand. Would it be legal to burn this?

Yes, because it is not a real flag? Okay, say I have this a fullsize real flag like this other one, but I have changed the top stripe to be blue instead of red. Would it be legal to burn this too?

Yes? How tiny of a modification would I have to make to this flag for it to not be legal to burn it?

Hmm. My local newspaper printed a full page flag. Would it be legal to burn that? What if I used a blue Sharpie to erase one of the white stars? My Boy Scout training taught me if its not an official design, its not a legitimate flag.

Where do you draw the line?

BUT WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON UNDERGROUND MONKEY SODOMY/SLAVERY RINGS?!!!!

FROM MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS, FASCIST!

/sarcasm

(Fourth!)