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

To: DB

I didn’t find it particularly deficient. I understood you.

Your points about the gas pipeline were informative and reasoned.

Your point about the Cruz/Bush relationship to 187 was off. I did not state or infer they acted to block it. They were five years after it’s demise in 1999.

The thing I objected to was the crafting of a statement saying 187 was wrongheaded and something they disagreed with.

That belief would be 180 degrees off point as it related to a conservative view, was a betrayal of the people who bucked the system to pass it, and contrary to a states right to enact laws to protect it’s populace from a lack of federal action to protect the states themselves from invasion.

That would be a direct conflict with Article Four Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the president’s duty to protect states from invasion.


185 posted on 01/24/2016 2:27:35 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Free Republic Caucus: vote daily / watch for the thread / Starts 01/20 midnight to midnight EDST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne

Got it. The time line slipped by me...


188 posted on 01/24/2016 2:39:07 AM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne

Looking, a pipeline (or wire) that is deemed as being part of a public utility can use eminent domain to get the right of way (before Kelo) as a last resort.


189 posted on 01/24/2016 3:06:52 AM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | 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