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

To: fortheDeclaration; wagglebee
FTD: As to abortion, homosexuality, and response to attacks upon the United States and its allies by the Islamofascist enemies and the role of the central government in these issues, paleoPaulie is, in fact, an anarchist and a da**ed fool. If the "rule of law" is subject to such an interpretation, then it needs substantial revision more than it needs obedience.

BTW, the Declaration of Independence was a remarkable document and a very desirable one which directly defied the Brit "rule of law" which also needed substantial revision more than it needed obedience. The Founding Fathers did what they had to do to establish liberty and a new rule of law.

The Constitutional Convention produced the Constitution in defiance of the rule of law of the Articles of Confederation by ignoring the requirements of the Articles for revision and regarding less than unanimity of the states to adopt the new constitution. So much for your "rule of law."

852 posted on 12/19/2007 1:36:05 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemaen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies ]


To: BlackElk

Whatever you’re drinking, you need to call it quits. There is no victory to be had in looking like a fool.


863 posted on 12/19/2007 8:45:43 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies ]

To: BlackElk
FTD: As to abortion, homosexuality, and response to attacks upon the United States and its allies by the Islamofascist enemies and the role of the central government in these issues, paleoPaulie is, in fact, an anarchist and a da**ed fool. If the "rule of law" is subject to such an interpretation, then it needs substantial revision more than it needs obedience. BTW, the Declaration of Independence was a remarkable document and a very desirable one which directly defied the Brit "rule of law" which also needed substantial revision more than it needed obedience. The Founding Fathers did what they had to do to establish liberty and a new rule of law. The Constitutional Convention produced the Constitution in defiance of the rule of law of the Articles of Confederation by ignoring the requirements of the Articles for revision and regarding less than unanimity of the states to adopt the new constitution. So much for your "rule of law."

When Bush gets serious about fighting the Islamic facists let me know.

He is more concerned with nation building.

As for the Constitution,the States agreed to it, (they could have opted out) so we are under the rule of law, if we adhere to its provisions.

868 posted on 12/19/2007 10:41:12 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Neocons-the intellectual blood brothers of the Left-Yaron Brook)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | 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