[steve802]

"Maybe the next time robertpaulsen touts your site, and I correct him about its anti-constitutional agenda, we'll get a bit more action on the issue."

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree - you are convinced I am anti-constitution (because of my views on one issue, I note), and I contend that I am not. Since the debate seems to be on my opinion of the Constitution, and you can only infer certain things from one page on my site, I decree that I am more of an expert on the subject! But of course, you can disagree with me!

[P_A_I]

, steve802 wrote:

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree - you are convinced I am anti-constitution (because of my views on one issue, I note), and I contend that I am not.

Since the debate seems to be on my opinion of the Constitution, and you can only infer certain things from one page on my site, I decree that I am more of an expert on the subject!
But of course, you can disagree with me

______________________________________


At #205, you in effect conceded my point.. You wrote:

" --- Frankly, I would have no problem with a future Supreme Court announcing that the piecemeal incorporation process is over - and the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as to the federal government. But that, too, may just be wishing.
205 --- "


I trust that the next time I visit your site you will have altered your views about 'incorporation', and on how; "-- the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as to the federal government."

Thanks.