[billbears]

LOL, thanks but no thanks. Taking evidence from papers run by Constitution Party members is not my idea of factual statements. At one time, I actually considered throwing my support behind the party. Now I see they are no different than many of the other parties. If the Constitution gets in the way, ignore it and develop the 'facts' as needed. The article rehashes unproven conspiracies, statements from 'Nobel Prize nominee' Hammesfahr (of which no one can confirm BTW), and 'formal complaints' from a citizen of Texas on an issue that was clearly a Florida state issue. Which means Mr. Bradle has no business interfering with an internal issue in the state of Florida. I'll take my self-education from Supreme Court justices and the Framers thank you.

Perhaps you could also bother to read the Wolfson report to Bush. But heck, I don't want you to get caught up in actual facts as they don't apparently matter. Like the fact the Schindlers stated in court they would keep her alive at all costs, up to amputating limbs, and wouldn't honor her requests even if they knew she wanted to die? But those are just facts. I'm sure your argument is much more valid. Of course tell that to Anton Scalia, William Rehnquist, and the writings of James Madison. I'm sure they'll take your arguments under the consideration they so richly deserve...

WHERE in the Constitution does it say that it is permissible to murder an innocent woman?

It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter)--Anton Scalia

It says nothing either way..but again don't let that get in your way