To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
"
The Constitution has not been amended to allow this kind of spending, so why is it that a federal district judge didn’t bother to mention that “grants” from the US government aren’t provided for in the document he claims to uphold? Instead, he based his ruling on statute, rather than upholding his oath."
In the practice of "Law," when a issue (lawsuit) can be solved via a statute, their is no need to address the constitutional merits. legalize 101. :-(
It's been that way for a very LONG TIME!
17 posted on
09/19/2017 11:55:13 PM PDT by
Stanwood_Dave
("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
To: Stanwood_Dave
I could not find the statutes...It is late, but perhaps you could link to the ones judge used in his ruling.
18 posted on
09/20/2017 12:12:20 AM PDT by
Freedom56v2
((Freeper formerly known as bushwon ;))
To: Stanwood_Dave
The Constitutional merits should be discussed each and every time. If that had been done, maybe we could have avoided a lot of this Big Government unpleasantness.
30 posted on
09/20/2017 11:16:50 AM PDT by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(April 2006 Message from Dan http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson