To: sinkspur
I know, but he'd look more like a leader than a follower to come up with his own language. Musgrave shouldn't come off as more of a leader than the President of the United States.
33 posted on
02/24/2004 7:27:56 AM PST by
GraniteStateConservative
(...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
To: GraniteStateConservative
Presidents, according to the Constitution, have nothing to say about the Amendment Process.
Yours is a technical objection; since Bush will be the first presidential candidate to back such an amendment, the vast majority of people will see it as leadership.
35 posted on
02/24/2004 7:30:26 AM PST by
sinkspur
(Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
To: GraniteStateConservative
The President IS a leader. Most of us are already very much aware of that fact. Open your eyes.
To: GraniteStateConservative; Wait4Truth; sinkspur
The President IS a leader, and I am in tears with thanksgiving to GOD for his courage and leadership.
Did you hear his words, Granite? Do you hear him??
105 posted on
02/24/2004 7:53:44 AM PST by
ohioWfan
("ANGER IS NOT AN AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA")
To: GraniteStateConservative; sinkspur
It's counterproductive to re-do the work that's already been done.
This amendment protects us all from high handed judges who would overturn our expressed will, and allows legal protections that each State deems, by it's democratic repuplic legislative procedure (implying the majority of voters), right and necessary.
I sure do wish we had a human life amendment, though. Since I'm a big believer in efficiency, why not push both at the same time?
134 posted on
02/24/2004 8:01:52 AM PST by
hocndoc
(Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson