[lentulusgracchus]

The concept of an 'all powerful state', one that can ignore our constitutions restrictions, has always been a product of the states rights movement in america.

This is the objectionable, antihistorical statement.

Can you figure out which part is antihistorical?

As well as (hint, hint) flatly incorrect, and 180 degrees off?

One last chance.

[tpaine]

The concept of an 'all powerful state', one that can ignore our constitutions restrictions, has always been a product of the states rights movement in america.

This is the objectionable, antihistorical statement.

Yet you can't point out what is 'antihistorically objectionable' about it. How droll.

Can you figure out which part is antihistorical? As well as (hint, hint) flatly incorrect, and 180 degrees off? One last chance.

So? -- Spit it out wiseguy. -- Two bits you can't make your own case.