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

To: L.N. Smithee
I don't think so. That has to do with war, not political nonsense like this.

Many parts of the Constitution have run-on sentences that combine separate issues. The First Amendment is a combination of what was several proposed amendments. Just because parts of Article I Section 10 Clause 3 refer to war, I don't take the entire clause to be about war. What does it mean "enter into agreements or compacts...?" Let's create a "penumbra" of the Constitution of our very own.

Also, it says "with another state," not "any body or agency of another state."

What is "another state" if not its executive or legislature, since those are the elected representatives of the people of the state?

-PJ

39 posted on 07/30/2003 2:37:44 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: Political Junkie Too
What is "another state" if not its executive or legislature, since those are the elected representatives of the people of the state?

My thought is that if Richardson had entered into an agreement with Perry in some way, that would be a proscribed action. What Richardson is doing is not in accord with Texas, it is against the majority of the Texas legislature.

Something just occurred to me, and I apologize if someone else thought of it before -- is it possible Bill the Shill got his post as chairman of the 2004 DNC Convention because he agreed to help with this stunt?

46 posted on 07/30/2003 3:11:43 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I don't think for myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | 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