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

To: Rambler7
QUOTE:

Well, it does seem unconstitutional. I mean, isn't that why some think there would have to be a constitutional amendment against it for it to remain illegal?

The amendment is to make it clear to activist judges who tend to interpret the law according to their present mood that it is indeed unconstitutional.

ENDQUOTE

OK, I'LL BITE. EXPLAIN TO ME (AND TO A WHOLE LOTTA JUDGES IN A WHOLE LOTTA PLACES, SEEMS) HOW IT IS PRESENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Oops. Looks like a posted a little too quickly and got a little sloppy. The first two sentences is a quote from you, post 81. This is what I was replying to. In the third sentence, I meant to say 'constitutional', not 'unconstitutional'.

264 posted on 03/14/2005 4:58:49 PM PST by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies ]


To: nosofar

???

Well, now I can't figure out what you are trying to say you meant to say instead. Could you just say the whole sentence of what you meant to say originally? (I know what my two lines were. Just give me the first response you meant to make.)


296 posted on 03/14/2005 5:49:58 PM PST by Rambler7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies ]

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