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

To: My2Cents
Your question is nonsensical. The Solicitor General doesn't "re-write" the Constitution when he files an opinion with the Supreme Court on a case. Ted Olson's comments on the scope or intent of the 2nd Amendment expressed the Bush Administration's position on this legal question. If a Demo Administration choose to express differently, it still wouldn't be "re-writing" the Constitution.

If a Democrat Administration did this you would be saying more than they were "re-writing" the Constitution. Words like trashing, destroying, warping, disfiguring would be words you would probably use. Did I mean he was literally "re-writing" the Constitution? You and I both know that I didn't, but far be it from you to miss an opportunity to twist what I said and avoid the point of the question.

So, answer the question and stop your spinning.

425 posted on 06/05/2002 7:01:35 PM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]


To: Spiff
Did I mean he was literally "re-writing" the Constitution? You and I both know that I didn't

No, excuse me! I DID conclude that is what you meant, because that is what you said. I take people's words literally. I take what they say seriously. If that is not what you meant, you should have been more careful how you articulated what you meant. It seemed to me that your whole point was based on the notion that the Solicitor General was "re-writing" the Constitution based on an opinion he expressed to the Court. Minus this, I don't know what your point was.

808 posted on 06/05/2002 11:09:56 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | 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