Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Constitutional Originalism or Living Constitution: Gorsuch’s nomination and a tale of two law
Bookwormroom.com ^ | 4-4-2017 | WOLF HOWLING

Posted on 04/05/2017 4:33:03 AM PDT by servo1969

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 04/05/2017 4:33:03 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
06:50:28 AM

Good Morning Mr. President,

Well here approaching the close of your third month in office and a great three months it has been, but, now it is time for you to reward those who worked so hard for you, The Patriot Community.

And how you ask can you do that?

That sir is simple. One piece of legislation from you, or perhaps and Executive Order, either would be fine, the one that gets the most publicity from the infamous fake news would be best.

And what you ask would that legislation be? Legislation that simply acknowledges our form of government and gets it back into the class rooms.

Legislation authorizing one copy of the US Constitution with no commentary, but indexed, for every six grade student in the Republic. For sir you owe you position not to any form of democracy, but the only form of government in the world that has the electoral college, for without it you would be in jail, clinton would be in office, Maine would be a free nation, and the other 49 states would be in civil war.

Mr. President, I would never be so bold as to put words in your mouth, but, if I were I would ask you to include, in either the proposed legislation or the Executive Order, something along the lines of this:

241 years ago men did not fight, kill, and if needs be die to give us a democracy, no, the fought, they killed and many died giving us this Constitutional republic. For we are not a democracy, we are not a democratic democracy, no, we are a Republic a Republic whose supreme law is the Constitution of these Untied states of America that I am so proud and honored to lead.

But it seems that simple fact has been lost on many, in many if not most, of our public schools the fact that we are a Republic has been replaced with the falsehood teaching that our nation is just one more democracy.

So as to correct this, I have instructed the Department of Education to immediately make plans to have in the hands of every student entering the sixth grade next year three things:

The Declaration of Independence, an unabridged copy of the Constitution of The United States and a copy of the Constitution of their state.

I am further ordering the Secretary of Defense to include in all boot camps a class on both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, for how can we ask our fine you men and women who make up our Military to put their lives on the line fighting, for a nation they do not understand?

Respectfully,

2 posted on 04/05/2017 4:42:15 AM PDT by The_Republic_Of_Maine (politicians beware)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

The penalty for legislative judgements should be exile


3 posted on 04/05/2017 4:46:39 AM PDT by bert (K.E.; N.P.; GOPc;WASP .... Hillary is Ameritrash, pass it on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republic_Of_Maine
The U.S. Constitution was always intended to be capable of modification. That's why we are able to enact amendments to it. That capability, however, does not, and never was intended to be, extensible to the dictates of the President. Theses days, anyone making noises about a "living document" or "the Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact" has only one thing on their mind - the dissolution of the bedrock pact the governing has made with the governed. Period.

The single greatest step forward in the governing of a people was when the Romans overthrew their king and posted their constitution for everyone to see the agreed-upon limitations of their new government.

4 posted on 04/05/2017 4:53:01 AM PDT by Pecos (What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

So who created the concept of judicial review whence the modern judiciary draws its power? John Marshall, as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Was Marshall a participant in the Convention? No, though he did work hard for ratification. Was judicial review a power even discussed at the Constitutional Convention? No. Was judicial review one of those demands arising from the ratification process that ended up in the Bill of Rights? No. One man created this power.


5 posted on 04/05/2017 6:17:09 AM PDT by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Actually, it is not a question of an “Original” or a “Living” Constitution.
It is whether or not we have a Constitution at all.
If we have a “Living” Constitution then we have no Constitution, no charter, at all. A ‘Living’ Constitution has no meaning and can be changed on the whims of black-robed tyrants.


6 posted on 04/05/2017 7:29:24 AM PDT by Little Ray (Freedom Before Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD; AllAmericanGirl44; Amagi; aragorn; Art in Idaho; Arthur McGowan; Arthur Wildfire! March; ...
Still, the Founders were cognizant of the possibility that what they created might need to be altered, so they included two means of doing so democratically and without the aid of unelected judges in Article 5 of the Constitution.

This article isn't specifically about Article V, but it is the best article I've read about the difference between Originalism and the Living Constitution. It clearly defines where we are now.

7 posted on 04/05/2017 10:05:09 AM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 14themunny; 21stCenturion; 300magnum; A Strict Constructionist; abigail2; AdvisorB; Aggie Mama; ...
I rarely invoke this Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping list.

This article is about the difference between Originalism and the Living Constitution, and where we are today. It impinges on Federalism issues because the Living Constitution has reduced the states to administrative subdivisions of the federal government. This is a well written article and deserves a look.

8 posted on 04/05/2017 10:09:31 AM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Thanks Pub.


9 posted on 04/05/2017 10:11:50 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo (The Left doesn't want to win the debate, they want to CANCEL the debate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: servo1969; All
The reality is that Founding States made the Constitution to be amendable by the states, as opposed to the political correct “living” Constitution where state sovereignty-ignoring federal justices and judges wrongly “amend” the Constitution from the bench.
"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.

10 posted on 04/05/2017 11:19:45 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chewbarkah

<>Was judicial review a power even discussed at the Constitutional Convention?<>

Yes. I can provide the dates and speaker on the subject if you wish.


11 posted on 04/05/2017 11:21:41 AM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

We can thank the 17th Amendment for runaway courts.


12 posted on 04/05/2017 11:22:58 AM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: servo1969; Publius
Thanks to Publius for forwarding.

Recently, Sen. Feinstein, during the Gorsuch hearings, declared her devotion to the idea that we "have a living constitution," as part of her opposition to this nominee.

Fortunately for us, Professor Walter Berns, in the 1980's, laid out ample proof that the "living constitution" idea was a fraudulent concept being promoted in order to subvert the principles of the original document. Progressives seem to be especially adept at using semantics and slicing and dicing of the language in order to mislead citizens.

Many of those who have led and participated in the decades-long so-called "progressive" movement away from the Constitution's principles and strict limitations on power of the federal government have subscribed to that bit of chicanery and fiction which became known as the "living constitution" school of thought. Berns' 1984 Phi Kappa Phi essay was reprinted in the Bicentennial 1987 Volume, "Our Ageless Constitution."

 

Do We Have
A Living
Constitution?

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton

In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:

"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."

The Congress, unlike the British Parliament, was not given final authority over the Constitution, which partly explains why the judicial authority was lodged in a separate and in­dependent branch of government. In Britain the supreme judicial authority is exercised by a committee of the House of Lords, which is appropriate in a system of parliamentary supremacy, but, although it was suggested they do so, the Framers refused to follow the British example.

The American system is one of constitutional supremacy, which means that sovereignty resides in the people, not in the King-in-Parliament; and the idea that the Constitution may be changed by an act of the legislature--even an act subsequently authorized by the judiciary--is simply incompatible with the natural right of the people to determine how (and even whether) they shall be governed.

Unlike in Britain where, formally at least, the queen rules by the grace of God (Dei gratia regina), American government rests on the consent of the people; and, according to natural right, the consent must be given formally. In fact, it must be given in a written compact entered into by the people. Here is Madison on the compacts underlying American government:

Neither civil society (or as Madison puts it, "the people in their social state') nor government exists by nature. By nature everyone is sovereign with respect to himself, free to do whatever in his judgment is necessary to preserve his own life - or, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, everyone is endowed by nature with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of a happiness that he defines for himself. Civil society is an artificial person (constituted by the first of the compacts), and it is civil society that institutes and empowers government. So it was that they became "the People of the United States" in 1776 and, in 1787-88, WE, THE PEOPLE ordained and established "this Constitution for the United States of America."

In this formal compact THE PEOPLE specified the terms and conditions under which "ourselves and posterity," would be governed: granting some powers and withholding others, and organizing the powers granted with a view to preventing their misuse by the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches alike. WE THE PEOPLE were authorized by natural right to do this, and were authorized to act on behalf of posterity only insofar as the rights of posterity to change those terms and conditions were respected. This was accomplished in Article V of the Constitution, the amending article, which prescribed the forms to be followed when exercising that power in the future.

The Framers had designed a constitutional structure for a government which would be limited by that structure - by the distribution of power into distinct departments, a system of legislative balances and checks, an independent judiciary, a system of representation, and an enlargement of the orbit "within which such systems are to revolve" And to the judges they assigned the duty, as "faithful guardians of the Constitution," to preserve the integrity of the structure, for it is by the structure (more than by "parchment barriers") that the government is limited. It would he only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the judgment of the Founders, the Constitution would "live" as long as that structure was preserved.

The Enduring American Constitution

Now, almost 200 years later, one can read Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 1 and conclude that, under some conditions, some "societies of men" are capable of "establishing good government," but that most are not. This is not for lack of trying; on the contrary, constitutions are being written all the time - of some 164 countries in the world, all but a small handful (seven by the latest count) have written constitutions - but most of them are not long-lived.

In September 1983, the American Enterprise Institute sponsored an international conference on constitution writing at the Supreme Court of the United States; some twenty-odd countries were represented. With the exception of the Americans, the persons present had themselves played a role - in some cases a major role - in the writing of their countries' constitutions, most of them written since 1970. Only the con­stitution of the French Fifth Republic predated 1970; and the Nigerian, so ably discussed and defended at the 1983 conference by one of its own Framers, had subsequently been subverted, much as the four previous French republican constitutions had been subverted. It would seem that many peoples are experienced in the writing of constitutions, but only a few of them - conspicuous among these the people of America - have an experience of stable constitutional govern­ment. In that sense, we surely have "a living Constitution." That is not, however, the sense in which the term is ordinarily used in the literature of constitutional law as shall be explored herein.

Treating The Constitution As
A Thing Without Form or Substance:
New Definitions Of 'Living'

In the language of many today, a "living Constitution" is not first of all one that is long-lived; rather, its longevity is a secondary or derivative quality which is attributed to its "flexibility" or better, its "adaptability." It is this quality--"adaptability"-- that allows it to be "kept in tune with the times," as the members of this school of thought sometimes say. According to them, a living Constitution is first of all a protean constitution - one whose meaning is not fixed, but variable.

In this respect, it is similar to the Constitution as understood by the "judicial power" school. Some judicial power advocates go so far as to say that, until the judges supply it in the process of adjudication, the Constitution has no meaning whatever. Here are the words of judge Lynn D. Compton of California, writing in 1977 in the pages of the Los Angeles Times:

"Let's be honest with the public. Those courts are policy-making bodies. The policies they set have the effect of law because of the power those courts are given by the Constitution. The so-called "landmark decisions" of both of U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court were not compelled by legal precedent. Those decisions are the law and are considered "right" simply because the court had the power to decree the result. The result in any of those cases could have been exactly the opposite and by the same criteria been correct and binding precedent.

"In short, these precedent-setting policy decisions were the products of the social, economic and political philosophy of the majority of the justices who made up the court at a given time in history .."

So extreme a view of judicial power is not likely ever to be expressed in the official reports; there (perhaps in order to be dishonest with the public) even the most inventive judge will claim to be expounding the Constitution, if not its ex­plicit provisions then, at least its emanations, penumbras, or lacunae (Griswold v. Connecticut). What is of interest is that a judge should be willing to express it anywhere - for what it means is that a constitutional provision can be interpreted, but not misinterpreted, construed but not misconstrued. More to the point here is that it means that the Constitution is a living charter of government only because it is repeatedly being reinvented by the judiciary.

The 'Living Constitution' school and the 'Judicial Power' school may be indistinguishable at the margins, but they derive from unrelated and distinct sources. 'Judicial Power' is a product or an extension of legal realism, the school of thought whose advocates, from the beginning of the twentieth century, have argued that the essence of the judicial process consists not in interpreting law, whether statute or constitutional, but in making it. Its advocates today speak with a certain nonchalance of "creating" constitutional rights (Moore v. City of East Cleveland), and, when pressed to cite their authority for doing so are likely to point to the work of contemporary legal theorists like Ronald Dworkin and his book Taking Rights Seriously . It is Dworkin who has purportedly given this sort of "constitutional lawmaking" what it has always lacked ­ a philosophical underpinning. As he sees it, rights cannot be taken seriously until there has been "a fusion of constitutional law and moral theory," and to make it clear that he is not referring to any particular moral theory that may have informed the Constitution as written, he finishes that sentence by saying that that fusion "has yet to take place."

As it turns out, however, the moral theory he propounds, and which he hopes to "fuse" with constitutional law, proves to be nothing more than a fancy way of justifying what the judge Comptons among us have been doing all along. And what they have been doing is, essentially, treating the Constitution as a thing without form or substance, except insofar as it authorizes the judges to give it substance.

The living Constitution school also claims to have a source more venerable than legal realism or Ronald Dworkin - justice John Marshall. A former president of the American Political Science Association argues that the idea of a " 'living Constitution'...can trace its lineage back to John Marshall's celebrated advice in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): 'We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding...intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs' " The words quoted are certainly Marshall's but the opinion attributed to him is at odds with his well-known statements that, for example, the "principles" of the Constitution "are deemed fundamental [and] permanent" and, except by means of formal amendment, "unchangeable" (Marbury v. Madison). It is important to note that the discrepancy is not Marshall's; it is largely the consequence of the manner in which he is quoted - ellipses are used to join two statements separated by some eight pages in the original text. Marshall did not say that the Constitution should be adapted to the various crises of human affairs; he said that the powers of Congress are adaptable to meet those crises. The first statement appears in that part of his opinion where he is arguing that the Constitution cannot specify "all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit;" if it attempted to do so, it would "partake of the prolixity of a legal code" (McCulloch v. Maryland), In the second statement, Marshall's subject is the legislative power, and specifically the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the explicitly granted powers.

Neither Marshall nor any other prominent members of the founding generation can be 'appropriated' by the living Constitution school to support their erroneous views. Marshall's and the Founders' concern was not to keep the Constitution in tune with the times but, rather, to keep the times to the extent possible, in tune with the Constitution. And that is why the Framers assigned to the judiciary the task of protecting the Constitution as written.

They were under no illusions that this would prove to be an easy task. Nevertheless, they had reason to believe that they had written a constitution that deserved to endure and, properly guarded, would endure. Hence, Madison spoke out forcefully against frequent appeals to the people for change. Marshall had this Madisonian passage in mind when, in his opinion for the Court in Marbury, he wrote:

At this point, it is well to remember Hamilton's strong warning about unwarranted presumptions by those in government of a power to depart from the people's established form as quoted in the title of this essay.

Marshall referred to the "principles" which he called "permanent," and the "basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected" Yet Marshall also chose to address the much broader issue of the general scope of the national powers. The Constitution must be construed to "...allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." It is these powers, not the Constitution, which are flexible and adaptable to meet the crises of "human affairs."

Ironically, the very case cited by the "living Constitution" school, when properly read, demonstrates that John Marshall, at least, saw, no need for flexibility in the Constitution.

Summary: Do We Have A Living Constitution?

What has been undertaken here has been providing (within a very brief compass indeed) an accurate statement of the principles underlying the American Constitution: pointing to (but by no means elaborating) the political theory from which they derive and the constitutional conclusions to which they lead. Among the latter is the untenability of the proposition that constitutional limitations can be jettisoned, constitutional power enhanced, or the constitutional divi­sion of powers altered, by means other than formal constitutional amendment.

It will not be argued that it may sometimes be convenient to allow the Senate to originate a bill "for raising revenue," but convenience is not a measure of constitutionality. There is much to be said in favor of the legislative veto - Who would, in principle, deny the need of checks on administrative agencies? - but, as the Supreme Court correctly said, the Framers anticipated that Congress might find reason to employ such devices and, when designing the so-called "presentment clause" in Article 1, Section 7, forbade them ( Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha). And from a particular par­tisan perspective it is understandably frustrating, simply because the required number of states had not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, to be denied the power to pro­mote the cause of sexual equality; but frustration alone cannot justify a judicial attempt to preclude the necessity of for­mal ratification, as Justice Brennan is said to have wished to do. In Frontiero v. Richardson (411 U.S. 677, 1973) the Supreme Court was divided on the issue of whether sex, like race, should be treated as a suspect classification. We are told that Justice Brennan circulated a draft opinion in which he proposed to declare classification by sex virtually impermissi­ble and that he knew this would have the effect of "enacting" the pending ERA. "But Brennan was accustomed to having the Court out in front, leading any civil rights movement," a major publication stated. Hence, we are further told, he saw "no reason to wait several years for the states to ratify the amendment." No reason, that is, other than the fact, which Brennan implicitly acknowledged, that the Constitu­tion as then written, and which had not yet been rewritten by the only people authorized to rewrite it, did not support the role he would have the Court hand down.

Those who would use "convenience" or "frustration" as reason, or who insist that it lies within the powers of the Court (or the Congress or the Executive) to effect constitutional change, can be charged with a lack of respect for the principles on which, as Marshall wisely observed: "the whole American fabric has been erected."

We are told that it is unreasonable - even foolish - to expect that the Framers could have written a Constitution suitable alike for a society of husbandman and a society of multinational corporations, to say nothing of one as well adapted to the age of the musket and sailing ship as to the age of intercontinental nuclear-tipped missiles. As the problems have changed, the argument goes, so must the manner in which they are confronted and solved, and the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand in the way. Indeed, there is no reason to allow it to stand in the way, we are told, because the Framers intended it to be flexible. And we are told that John Marshall would support this position. But it was Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, who stated: "Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported." The United States, in this view was not intended to be a simple society of husbandmen, and Marshall Clearly saw that the Constitution empowered Congress to do what was required to meet the crises of the Republic, and to maintain the Constitutional structure intended by the Framers, changing it only when such change would be in keeping with the structure itself.

That the American Constitution is long-lived, has enduring qualities, and was intended for the ages cannot be doubted. That it was founded on enduring principles, and that it was based on the authority of a people who are sovereign has been attested to by many of its leaders. That it can be changed when, and if, the people ordain such change is a part of its own provisions. For these reasons, it can be said to be a "Living Constitution" - but let that not be claimed by those who would use the language to subvert the structure.

Our Ageless Constitution - Part VII (1987) (Publisher: W. David Stedman Associates; W. D. Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Eds.) ISBN 0-937047-01-5       (Essay adapted by Editors for publication in this Volume in consultation with Dr. Walter Berns from Berns' article by the same title in National Forum, The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1984)


13 posted on 04/05/2017 11:27:09 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chewbarkah
One of my blog posts glances off judicial review here.
14 posted on 04/05/2017 11:33:18 AM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All
"We can thank the 17th Amendment for runaway courts."

Thanks to the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, corrupt, state sovereignty-ignoring senators not only help the House pass unconstitutional bills which steal state powers and state revenues uniquely associated with those powers, but also consider the following.

Senators then confirm state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices to the Supreme Court, such justices then declaring the unconstitutional laws which the Senate helped to pass to be constitutional, unconstitutional Obamacare a great example.

The bottom line is that the 17th Amendment arguably effectively repealed the whole Constitution.

15 posted on 04/05/2017 11:49:28 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Yes. I can provide the dates and speaker on the subject if you wish.

Please do. I’d be interested to see how the subject is addressed.


16 posted on 04/05/2017 11:58:33 AM PDT by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Agree. Also, the Framers would freak at the idea of popularly elected six-year terms. The only reason our representatives don’t stand for annual elections is due to the horrible roads and connecting infrastructure of the 18th century.


17 posted on 04/05/2017 11:59:51 AM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bert

8 yrs in the US Army and every year since Thomas Sowell published his reading list for those interested in understanding the Constitution maybe back to 1985— the more I learn of what was adopted as our US Constitution —the more convincing proofs I see that the Constitutionalist is expressing my opine. In Constitutional Faith To borrow from Sanford Levinson —other than a Protestant.


18 posted on 04/05/2017 12:07:23 PM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Chewbarkah

My notes show what was later termed judicial review was touched on:

28 May George Wythe
4 June Elbridge Gerry
21 July James Wilson
21 July Luther Martin
21 July George Mason
23 July James Madison
15 August Gouverneur Morris
22 August Hugh Williamson
28 August James Madison


19 posted on 04/05/2017 12:13:00 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Publius

That’s why we were given the ability to amend the Constitution, which has happened 27 times.


20 posted on 04/05/2017 12:42:12 PM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson