To: Scanian
I like the way it reads just fine and that it needs no interpretation as it is already in English.
I’m no Constitutional law professor/expert, but then again, neither is he.
2 posted on
03/25/2010 3:51:15 AM PDT by
ROCKLOBSTER
(Deathcare, a solution desperately looking for a problem.)
To: ROCKLOBSTER
He understands the Constitution perfectly well. He hates what it says and it destroying it along with the country. The guy passed “menace” a long time ago. He’s evil.
3 posted on
03/25/2010 3:56:50 AM PDT by
BigSkyFreeper
("Ked Tennedy would have been plowed... I mean, proud today..." - Senator Max Baucus (Drunk-MT))
To: ROCKLOBSTER
The Founding Fathers, he implied, produced a defective document, much too passive in its understanding of government's possibilities
On the contrary, the founders understood the "possibilities" of government quite well. Thus the reason for placing restrictions upon it.
7 posted on
03/25/2010 4:45:24 AM PDT by
D1X1E
To: ROCKLOBSTER
The Founding Fathers, he implied, produced a defective document, much too passive in its understanding of government's possibilities
On the contrary, the founders understood the "possibilities" of government quite well. Thus the reason for placing restrictions upon it.
8 posted on
03/25/2010 4:45:49 AM PDT by
D1X1E
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson