[Southack]

"Yet you insist its repugnancy is urban myth."

What I've insisted upon is that you show actual legal text evidence to support your claims.

So far, you haven't. You probably won't, either.

In contrast, I've shown some of the actual legal text.

Hmmm... No evidence from one side; plenty of evidence from the other...I wonder who's more likely to be right?!

[tpaine]

You are in denial.
Legislators in two states, and in dozens of local governments, plus arguably hundreds of thousands of your peers, perhaps millions, express serious constitutional reservations about the entire thrust of the 'Act'.
Yet you insist its repugnancy is urban myth.
Dream on.
538 tpaine



What I've insisted upon is that you show actual legal text evidence to support your claims.
So far, you haven't. You probably won't, either.
In contrast, I've shown some of the actual legal text.
Hmmm... No evidence from one side; plenty of evidence from the other...I wonder who's more likely to be right?!
559 -Southhack-


Denial of the obvious is a strange maladay. Millions of americans see the evidence that the 'act' infringes ~in its totality~ upon our basic principles of liberty.
The list I posted before enumerated numerous 'acts' of congress that are, in essence, unconstitutional.
The 'patriot act' adds insult to these previous injuries.

Posting "actual legal text evidence" of the Acts violations would run thousands of words, already done by the states which have told the feds to take this act & stuff it.
You want 'legal' text? Read their deliberations.