From: Mxsmanic on 8 Aug 2006 02:26 Hatunen writes: > What, to you, determines whether something is constitutional? Whether or not it conflicts with what the Constitution says. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Tchiowa on 8 Aug 2006 03:26 Mxsmanic wrote: > Hatunen writes: > > > What, to you, determines whether something is constitutional? > > Whether or not it conflicts with what the Constitution says. Then you missed yet again. Because the Constitution doesn't ban any of the things you talked about.
From: Mxsmanic on 8 Aug 2006 03:37 Tchiowa writes: > Then you missed yet again. Because the Constitution doesn't ban any of > the things you talked about. Yes, it does, in the amendments I cited. For example, conscription is unconstitutional because it is involuntary servitude, and civil forfeiture is unconstitutional because it deprives people of property without due process. The reason there is still a Constitution is that the government simply ignores it when convenient to do so. Thus, it's possible for Americans to crow that the Constitution has survived for over two centuries even as they routinely fail to heed it. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Tchiowa on 8 Aug 2006 04:02 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > > > Then you missed yet again. Because the Constitution doesn't ban any of > > the things you talked about. > > Yes, it does, in the amendments I cited. For example, conscription is > unconstitutional because it is involuntary servitude, and civil > forfeiture is unconstitutional because it deprives people of property > without due process. Conscription is *not* involuntary servitude and the courts have already rules that it doesn't violate the Consitution. Civil forfeiture must involve certain laws and courts and thus does, in fact, follow "due process". Again, the courts have ruled on that. So keep trying. > The reason there is still a Constitution is that the government simply > ignores it when convenient to do so. Thus, it's possible for > Americans to crow that the Constitution has survived for over two > centuries even as they routinely fail to heed it. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not followed.
From: The Reid on 8 Aug 2006 04:38
Following up to Mxsmanic >> which clearly does not include fakes, numbnuts. > >What defines a "fake" credential? work it out for yourself. -- Mike Reid Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap |