First, let's correct the spelling and grammar on your question. This is Free Republic, not a chat room for illiterates.
why Why did i I know u you would be the one to suck up to the un UN?
Second, I noticed that you didn't address the substance of my post--namely, that the anti-UN ordinance is grossly unconstitutional. I am not alone in saying this; the John Birch Society agrees with me. Defending the Constitution is NOT "sucking up to the UN," it's defending the Constitution.
In your correction of Plowhand's spelling and grammar, you left out the periods after U and N. You also loused up the word privilege in your post #33. It is not spelled privelege.
Your theory that the Grant County ordinance may be unconstitutional may have merit. But, IMHO, you should stick to debating topics and not try to correct someone else's use of common, acceptable shorthand. You'll come across better.
Not to mention that it'll be about as effective as all those universities that declared themselves "Nuclear Free Zones" back in the '80s.
Sorry, folks, but this is the kind of stuff that will put Grant County, Oregon on a lot of peoples' "Whackjob Places to Avoid and Make Fun Of" list. It certainly won't do them any good.
To: plowhand
"...I noticed that you didn't address the substance of my post--
namely, that the anti-UN ordinance is grossly unconstitutional..."
# 14 by Poohbah
If the United States makes a treaty with the United Nations, or any other foreign power, detailing a new way to elect members of Congress, that would be un-Constitutional.
If the United States signed a United Nations treaty saying how American merchants are allowed to sale their products within the United States, that would be un-Constitutional.
International interference with our internal affairs is un-Constitutional.