To: shielagolden
I do not think that would be constitutional.
11 posted on
02/16/2009 10:56:03 AM PST by
The Great RJ
("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
To: The Great RJ
The constitution can be amended amigo
13 posted on
02/16/2009 10:58:24 AM PST by
shadeaud
(Time to smell the roses and not the stench coming from D .C.)
To: The Great RJ
constitutional means only what the current members of the supreme court want it to mean. I have no confidence that 5 of the current court members are even literate. They will sign off on this just as soon as it gets to them.
To: The Great RJ
I do not think that would be constitutional.Yeah, well, I didn't think McCain-Feingold was constitutional either.
45 posted on
02/16/2009 11:17:01 AM PST by
Maceman
To: The Great RJ; shielagolden
I do not think that would be constitutional.Yes it would if the Senate ratified the treaty.
51 posted on
02/16/2009 11:22:19 AM PST by
Wolfstar
(Elections have thousands of consequences. Some minor, some major...and some that can kill you.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson