Replies

"So, you're against the state's rights when it's one of your issues."

This issue is different, because the pressure will come on all states to conform once a few states begin.

Some things do need to be federalized. I'm in favor of adhering to the constitution. I'm against using federal matching funds to intefere in things that should be explicitly state rights. But there are things that need to be federalized that are not presently in the scope outlined for the federal government. And that does call for Constitutional amendments.

Some things do need to be federalized.

But just your issues. We got it.

Some things do need to be federalized. I'm in favor of adhering to the constitution. I'm against using federal matching funds to intefere in things that should be explicitly state rights. But there are things that need to be federalized that are not presently in the scope outlined for the federal government. And that does call for Constitutional amendments.

So you're for adhering to the Constitution except where you disagree with it in its present state?

And matching funds? Has this even been mentioned during the 2008 campaign?

I utterly disagree on your "need" for things to be federalized. Feel free to call for Constitutional amendments on anything you think you "need."

The fact that me & my buddy Fred think there are more effective means of achieving the same or similar political results doesn't make us bad people or not Christians.