Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: #3Fan; nolu chan
Gianni asked for an example where a state petitioned the legislatue.

No. Gianni asked for an example where a state followed your interpretation of Article IV and petitioned the Congress for prescription of a method of proof prior to engaging in a state act.

It's exactly what Gianni asked for.

Can I post lies about you also?

Go and look at what he asked, word for word.

[Gianni, post #820] I asked for an example of any act of a state which followed your interpretation of Article IV. If I understand you correctly, a state needed to:

1. petition the federal legislature for enact laws reagarding proof of an act
2. dawdle while such acts were being debated and passed
3. await the presidents approval of such acts
4. move forward with their planned act

Illinois could ignore Article IV and Article I like the southern states did but apparently we try to stay true to our word more. Indiana, Missouri and Kentucky would be pretty mad if we acted without their sayso. That's what Article IV is about.

nolu chan posted the article in which Illinois was bitch-slapped for openly violating federal law by engaging in illegal international importation of medicines. What's all this about Indiana, Mo, and KY?

905 posted on 03/18/2004 2:09:31 PM PST by Gianni (Sarcasm, the other white meat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 896 | View Replies ]


To: Gianni
No. Gianni asked for an example where a state followed your interpretation of Article IV and petitioned the Congress for prescription of a method of proof prior to engaging in a state act.

That's what I said and that's what I gave you. Illinois petitioned Congress to run a pilot program. That's exactly what you asked for.

Can I post lies about you also?

You clearly asked for a case where a state petitioned the Congress to prove an act and that's what I gave you.

[Gianni, post #820] I asked for an example of any act of a state which followed your interpretation of Article IV. If I understand you correctly, a state needed to: 1. petition the federal legislature for enact laws reagarding proof of an act 2. dawdle while such acts were being debated and passed 3. await the presidents approval of such acts 4. move forward with their planned act

Yep, that's what I gave you. Illinois is wanting approval from Congress before they move forward. I'm sure that proof will consist of arrangements with neighboring states. It's exactly what the southern states should have done when they wanted to secede.

nolu chan posted the article in which Illinois was bitch-slapped for openly violating federal law by engaging in illegal international importation of medicines.

The southern states got the bitch-slapping of all time. lol

What's all this about Indiana, Mo, and KY

They have concerns about business. Their people will get their medications from Illinois. There's going to have to be an arrangement. It's what Article IV is all about...prescribing laws to prove acts.

913 posted on 03/18/2004 4:11:24 PM PST by #3Fan (Kerry to POW-MIA activists: "You'll wish you'd never been born.". Link on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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