To: HiTech RedNeck
Which has been judicially interpreted as including the children of those present without permission.How could you interpret it? The language is pretty straightforward.
22 posted on
08/16/2015 11:36:04 AM PDT by
semimojo
To: semimojo
Sounds to me like exclusive jurisdiction is intended. I.e. these are “our” people and not “someone else’s” people.
27 posted on
08/16/2015 12:44:12 PM PDT by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: semimojo
Sounds to me like exclusive jurisdiction is intended. I.e. these are “our” people and not “someone else’s” people.
... again in context, this was about freedmen.
28 posted on
08/16/2015 12:45:29 PM PDT by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson