| Thousands of constitutional scholars and lawyers writing in a hundred law reviews and journals each month, and not one has proffered legal theory resembling the idiocy that BP2 just spouted, and yet you morons think it's "well researched". It's ridiculous.
I laid out, very clearly and with citations, the flaws with people like yourself who hang their hat on US v. Ark, and Justice Gray's "research" therein — at the outset of the Progressive movement here in the US. It's very clear and straight-forward to anyone who can get their head out of the Obama punch-bowl and into the books. Instead of refuting those facts — instead of going beyond what Loren or Tes may have spoon-fed you via half-baked research — you're left with the ol' standby ad hominem of "idiocy", "delusional" and "nuts". It speaks VOLUMES, as you've obviously reached the limit of your knowledge on this subject, and must retort with ad hominems.
Note: The Colonists had access to an English version of Law of Nations — used by Patriot lawyer James Otis in 1765 — that pre-dates the 1797 English translation ... a fact lost on the Obots who wander through FR, who are too busy tripping over each other trying to defend Obama. |
