Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia: What a massive disruption of the social order this ruling entails.
US Supreme Court ^ | June 26, 2003 | nwrep

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:37:38 PM PDT by nwrep

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-213 next last
To: Skywalk
In essence, the Constitution was to limit the power of not only the federal governments but ALL governments.

That it was, but to use it to implement restrictions upon lower level governments through the adoption of policy at the national level achieves limitation only by the exercise of power elsewhere. Clarence Thomas said it best - the Texas law itself was inane and "silly," but it was not the right of the federal government to exercise a greater power of its own to determine policy for the state of Texas.

If a state oversteps its bounds, it is in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to rule that such a law is unconstitutional.

Actually, as originally intended by the founders, Supreme Court jurisdiction to infringe upon the states was extremely limited and belonged only to matters where their jurisdictions crossed or came into dispute. Even the pro-national government federalist John Marshall upheld that belief in some of his rulings.

You know, lots of blacks have a great fear of "state's rights" because it became a euphemism for unlawful forced segregation even of state institutions(and unlawful forced segregation upon PRIVATE institutions, as well.)

Aside from that statement's complete irrelevance to the constitutional issue of the sodomy law, history tells us that absolutely no necessary connection ties the concept of states rights to segregation. Where they two crossed was experientially so only for a now-concluded period of history.

As for the relationship between states rights and race among the founding fathers, several of the doctrine's leading advocates were also anti-slavery. Luther Martin, the recognized leader of the states righters at the Constitutional Convention, refused to support the document largely because it made no plan to abolish slavery. Richard Henry Lee of Declaration of Independence fame, a leading states righter and anti-federalist, had previously championed anti-slave trade legislation in the Virginia legislature. St. George Tucker, a states righter from the Annapolis Convention and well regarded legal commentator on the Constitution, also penned a proposal to abolish slavery.

51 posted on 06/26/2003 9:01:45 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
That's why I made my point. I'm FOR state's rights. I am NOT for the unlimited right of a state to make laws contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. PERIOD.

The segregation argument was merely an example of unconstitutional behavior by a state under the cover of "state's rights." When we support such ideas, we lose credibility on REAL state's rights, anti-centralization issues.
52 posted on 06/26/2003 9:04:23 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
That's why I made my point. I'm FOR state's rights. I am NOT for the unlimited right of a state to make laws contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. PERIOD.

The segregation argument was merely an example of unconstitutional behavior by a state under the cover of "state's rights." When we support such ideas, we lose credibility on REAL state's rights, anti-centralization issues.
53 posted on 06/26/2003 9:04:23 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
You are a legalist and not a defender of freedom. By your standards, anything that gets passed(except of course any law against owning guns..or maybe u're for those too) is law and moral.
Perhaps you are a moral relativist & think that no crime is wrong?
Freedom doesn't grant the freedom to harm others with no reproach.
54 posted on 06/26/2003 9:04:35 PM PDT by jrushing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
And perhaps beating your slave or your child isn't a crime?
Oh, also, I didn't have any slaves & I didn't beat my children, sicko.
55 posted on 06/26/2003 9:07:09 PM PDT by jrushing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"Did you know that prostitution was even legal in Singapore, that authoritarian paradise?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "was," but it was definitely absolutely illegal when I was there in 2000.

56 posted on 06/26/2003 9:07:13 PM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: jrushing
How are you harmed in a transaction of sex for money?

and are you similarly harmed(please quantify or qualify harm to YOU) by the act of an old rich man marrying a nubile young gold-digger?
57 posted on 06/26/2003 9:08:06 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Revel
True, but the USSC today has told us that no state has the right to pass laws that are based on morals.
58 posted on 06/26/2003 9:08:52 PM PDT by fifteendogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jrushing
I didn't mean YOU, specifically.

I thought that was a given.
59 posted on 06/26/2003 9:09:31 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: disenfranchised
Welcome. And join the club. I share your anger.
60 posted on 06/26/2003 9:12:15 PM PDT by Humidston (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GregoryFul
"Two men having sex (and hetrosexual anal sex) spreads disease."

Handshakes spread disease, too. Should the government outlaw handshaking, in the interest of public health?

Oh, and prostitution? Let's see. You can have sex with all the women you want, so long as you don't pay for it. Giving them one penny in return for their services would suddenly introduce a public health threat, right?
61 posted on 06/26/2003 9:12:30 PM PDT by Beemnseven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
I am NOT for the unlimited right of a state to make laws contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. PERIOD.

Nor am I, but acts that achieve an exercise of personal license by way of assuming federal power and policy are similarly egregious. Thomas hit the nail on the head with this one. The Texas law was silly and, by existing, generally was not enforced nor was it hurting anybody (note: it is a little known fact that the two homos involved in this case's prosecution set themselves up to be caught and prosecuted so they could challenge the law in court). But overturning it by way of a federal infringement upon the rights of a state achieves that end by an illegitimate means, thus rendering both acts problematic.

The segregation argument was merely an example of unconstitutional behavior by a state under the cover of "state's rights." When we support such ideas, we lose credibility on REAL state's rights, anti-centralization issues.

I don't recall anybody supporting the idea of segregation in any matter as it relates to this case. You brought that issue up yourself in the last post and still have not demonstrated its relevance.

62 posted on 06/26/2003 9:14:24 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Homosexuality is not liberty it is bondage.

Further, the widespread practice of sodomy deprives an entire nation of rights by the leavening effect of such perversion on all of society and by ensuring the righteous judgment of God falling upon that nation.

You don't need to explain due process to Scalia. You need to shut up and listen to a man with more schloarship and common sense in his smallest digit than you have in your entire skull.
63 posted on 06/26/2003 9:15:51 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Also, in localities with legal prostitution(provided there are basic health checks) the disease rate is almost nil.

They have monthly health checks on prostitutes in Mexico --often done by new doctors working their year for the government, some of them have told me the prostitutes are full of diseases ---every month they shoot them up with penicillin and whatever, but as soon as it wears off, they've got all the STDs back.

64 posted on 06/26/2003 9:16:38 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
I'm willing to bet that monogamous heterosexual sex spreads no disease.

Married monogamous, heterosexual sex has been the favored relationship in law - and for a good reason - it is heathful for individuals and for society. Adulterous, and/or deviate sex is not, that is why society has constructed social and legal sanctions against it. Just as society has constructed sanctions against theft, deception, and aggression between individuals.

Sadly, the wisdom of previous generations is lost on the "whatever makes you feel good" generation.

65 posted on 06/26/2003 9:17:42 PM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
How are you harmed in a transaction of sex for money? and are you similarly harmed(please quantify or qualify harm to YOU) by the act of an old rich man marrying a nubile young gold-digger?
I think that we are arguing about the same thing. Although I dislike prostitution, I have a real problem with the "STATE" arresting men or women for the "crime". But, do you allow streetwalkers in the schoolyard playground? Also, how can you keep them out. They might hand out condoms to elementary students.
66 posted on 06/26/2003 9:18:25 PM PDT by jrushing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GregoryFul
Married monogamous, heterosexual sex has been the favored relationship in law - and for a good reason - it is heathful for individuals and for society.

I think we'll see nature begin to take it's course (or God) ---with the number of STD's and also AIDS being spread, with us moving into the post-antibiotic age, lifespans and reproductivity will soon start dropping. They're saying chlamydia infections are an epidemic in this area ---in the high schools and the girls are losing their fertility at a very young age.

67 posted on 06/26/2003 9:22:04 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Rodsomnia
You read my mind.

And Barmy Barney was on the news attacking Justice Scalia also.
68 posted on 06/26/2003 9:22:13 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Yeah, or move to a pro sodomy state such as Hell!
69 posted on 06/26/2003 9:24:00 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jrushing
Hmm, I think that the practice of having streetwalkers ply their trade in schoolyards would violate property laws against trespass(I assume) but also children are not rational actors that can be entrusted with the responsibility to resist or ignore prostitutes right in their face.

Even though I'm for an end to the WoD, I'd be for confining usage to private property.
70 posted on 06/26/2003 9:24:37 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: jrushing
He believes in the punishment of all crime but his.
71 posted on 06/26/2003 9:28:15 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Same brave men would have lynched a practicing homo!
72 posted on 06/26/2003 9:29:32 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Isn't Mexico the Third World exception to everything? lol
73 posted on 06/26/2003 9:31:13 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
Here's where I'm going to be arrogant.

Scalia may or may not be a more intelligent man than I, he definitely knows more about the law than I do.

However, Justice Scalia has demonstrated in the past with his "order above liberty" decisions that his grasp of the spirit of the Constitution is quite limited compared to even little ole me.

74 posted on 06/26/2003 9:33:49 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
Sorry, legislation is NOT due process.

Only a simpleton would argue such.

And the appeal to authority is a common and invalid debating tactic.

Try another one please. I've heard slippery slope today a lot so maybe you could go for false dichotomy or non sequitur.
75 posted on 06/26/2003 9:35:14 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Beemnseven
You libertines have no sense of proportionality.

You cannot understand that immorality spreads STD's. People do not contract veneral disease by handshakes, hugs, or even patting on the back.

They are contracted by sexual intimacy.

Soddom and Gomorrah burned themselves up in their reprobation before God ever judged them with fire.

The moral effects of perversion and other immorality on society are manyfold worse thatn the plagues they gender.
76 posted on 06/26/2003 9:36:21 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Segregation applies in as much as it applies to all precedent and the limits of state's rights. I never said anyone here was proposing segregation. But previous decisions and societal conflicts are VERY relevant to anything involving federal-state disputes today.
77 posted on 06/26/2003 9:36:35 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
SO you're FOR jailing promiscuous women?
78 posted on 06/26/2003 9:36:58 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jrushing
Claim "consenting adults" and maybe you can get away with any crime!! Imagine 2 guys masturbating each other outside the school!

Interesting that you bring this up given that the primary basis for overturning the law was "privacy" concerns. Two guys masturbating in a car in front of a school would hardly be an act committed in "privacy", and certainly wouldn't be analagous to the USSC decision.
79 posted on 06/26/2003 9:41:24 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Beemnseven
Handshakes spread disease, too. Should the government outlaw handshaking, in the interest of public health?

If handshaking was known to be a serious threat to public health, it would be in the interest of society to prohibit the practice, don't you agree? Yes, it would probably be illegal to shake hands.

You can have sex with all the women you want, so long as you don't pay for it.

I think that fornication is generally illegal - not that it is generally enforced.

80 posted on 06/26/2003 9:41:44 PM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
So...two homosexuals in a completely monogamous relationship is okay?
81 posted on 06/26/2003 9:42:02 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"How are you harmed in a transaction of sex for money?"

So you want to know how am I (a minor) harmed by my mother being involved in a transaction for sex? Or,

How am I (a spouse) harmed by my spouse being involved in a transaction of sex for money? Or,..

How am I (a taxpayer ) harmed by a practice which spreads disease (the definition of "filthy") that I am required under penalty of imprisonment, to pay for? -----( More tax money is spent on promiscuously spread STD's than any other disease including cancer)

82 posted on 06/26/2003 9:42:04 PM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
How am I (a spouse) harmed by my spouse being involved in a transaction of sex for money? Or,..

Wouldn't this violate the marriage agreement? Seems to me like it's a breach of (the marriage) contract.
83 posted on 06/26/2003 9:43:44 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You will have me defend hoosexuality and will not be satisfied until I do.

No Homosexual relationship is moral, ethical, or safe.

Monogamous male homosexuals?

I don't believe such critturs exist!
84 posted on 06/26/2003 9:46:03 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Prostitution or rank immorality without profit?

85 posted on 06/26/2003 9:48:06 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire

You cannot understand that immorality spreads STD's. People do not contract veneral disease by handshakes, hugs, or even patting on the back.

So you want to legislate stupidity?

Soddom and Gomorrah burned themselves up in their reprobation before God ever judged them with fire.

Sounds like an issue between a person and God to me. Leave the government out of it.

The moral effects of perversion and other immorality on society are manyfold worse thatn the plagues they gender.

Did you know that sodomy was legal in 37 states before today? We'll survive this. We've survived worse as a nation.

86 posted on 06/26/2003 9:50:11 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Segregation applies in as much as it applies to all precedent and the limits of state's rights.

Segregation isn't even an issue in this case. Why you keep bringing it up is a question onto itself.

I never said anyone here was proposing segregation. But previous decisions and societal conflicts are VERY relevant to anything involving federal-state disputes today.

Relevant in historical value but irrelevant as a basis for determining issues of constitutional discretion that do not involve them in any way, shape, or form. To suggest that the federal government should intervene against the states on sodomy just because some states did wrong with segregation is absurd. It presumes irrationally that state exercises of jurisdiction are inherently prone to an abuse when in fact the federal government suffers the same problem in what is often a greater degree.

Put another way, achieving the right thing by the wrong means tends to hurt in the long run more than it helps. You know as well as I do that this law as not challenged out of any great love of liberty or desire for justice. It was challenged for impure motives to advance an agenda and political affiliation that is habitually infringing upon liberty in general. To use an anecdotal conversation with Ron Paul, a comparison may be made to the WTO protesters. On its face value, advocates of liberty oppose the WTO and all those other globalist globalist-type organizations and generally desire to abolish them. This immediate position is shared by the protesters as well. But they do not share it for the reasons we do, which entail the organization's infringement upon liberty and sovereignty. They hold their views because they believe those organizations get in the way of their end goals of marxism. For that reason it is unwise to join them in their protest or to support the WTO in opposition to their marxism. In short, aiding a side would entail choosing between national socialism and communism - neither of which is desirable to liberty. Therefore we must seek our own means of opposing globalist organizations and ensure that means includes a motive that is consistent with liberty.

The exact same thing applies with the sodomy law, and in this case those libertarians who joined in to support its plaintiffs achieved only a minor if not negligable success at an immeasurably greater cost.

87 posted on 06/26/2003 9:51:02 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
You will have me defend hoosexuality and will not be satisfied until I do.

No, I was curious as to how far you were trying to carry your justifications. Your argument seemed to be solely based upon "health risks", however two homosexuals in a purely monogamous relationship are not going to spread STDs. Even if they are infected, they can't affect anyone else through their actions.

No Homosexual relationship is moral, ethical, or safe.

The judgement of "ethical" or "moral" is subjective, but how is a monogamous relationship between two homosexuals "not safe"?

Monogamous male homosexuals?

I don't believe such critturs exist!


I was not speaking specifically of male homosexuals, though even in that respect your delusional denial does not affect reality. I can understand, however, the need to cling to such denials in the face of contradictory reality, as it does help you justify your position.
88 posted on 06/26/2003 9:52:34 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
LOL

Who told you that tax to pay for others' misdeeds for unfortunate contraction of STDs was constitutional?

And a spouse is hurt by infidelity too, and can get an STD from that. So, you propose jailing people for adultery? Good luck.
89 posted on 06/26/2003 9:52:40 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"Maybe watching people get arrested for consensual crimes arouses your fascist impulses, but some of us believe such laws to be ridiculous and against the very spirit of liberty."

Amazing how sodomy laws, on the books for some 250 years, are suddenly so restrictive.

May we extrapolate from your belief, and in the "spirit of liberty," that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong?? Or JUST the parts where consenual buggery, "under-age" sex, and bestiality are unfairly deemed taboo for some vague reason(s)?

90 posted on 06/26/2003 9:52:48 PM PDT by F16Fighter (What color pants-suit did Hitlery wear today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Government is much too big and intrusive

That's from your profile page, genius.

91 posted on 06/26/2003 9:56:14 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
You know, I confess to simplicity!

I believe Most truth is simple.

On the other hand, one can be educated beyond his intelligence. Liberals are usually in this state.

Man can use his reason to approach God or to flee from God.
Your lifestlyle has chosen your theology, your politics, and even your abiliity to reason.

Our forefathers and their forefathers are much more closely aligned in their thinking moral and legal to Scolia than to the p.c. Activist shills that are usurping powers given to the states.

Scolia is not the reegade here. He is standing for 200+ years of historical Constitutional interpretation.

I promise you. You need have no fear of being a more knowledgable Constitutionalist than Scolia, Rhenquist, and Thomas are. They Stand with historical interpretation.

And quit pulling the Comparison with black civil rights.

And where in the Constitution do you find a defense of sodomy?

92 posted on 06/26/2003 9:56:57 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
The Republicans control every branch of the government, yet we are seeing support of affirmative action, campaign finance reform, prescription drug benefits, nation building abroad, and now, the sanction of sexual deviancy. Think how much worse it would be if the Dems were in power.
93 posted on 06/26/2003 9:57:03 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

So, you propose jailing people for adultery?

Don't give some on this thread ideas, please.

94 posted on 06/26/2003 9:57:56 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
The "Supreme Court" is putting us back in the "Animal House" by these decisions.

Of course, they only reflect the result of a long slide into this state by the populace - the SCOTUS just make it "official".

95 posted on 06/26/2003 10:00:36 PM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I agree with your last post, EXCEPT that I think you misstated it a bit.

If anything, people who call themselves pro-liberty and believe in the freedom and sovereignty of the individual in nearly all other aspects of life will join with those who ban behavior simply because it offends them.

You say segregation is not relevant and question my motivation in doing so, and you are wrong to do that. You state that I operate under an assumption that state power will always result in abuse. This too, is wrong. Instead, I say that the supreme law of the land supercedes the state's rights when the state is overstepping its bounds. PERIOD. That means whether its segregation or a future California oppressing non-Hispanic citizens, the federal government can and should resolve the dissonance between the state's laws and the Constitution.

Do you or do you not support lifting all gun laws banning possession or limiting it(by number, cool-off periods, etc) because they are a violation of the 2nd?

How are we in disagreement here, then?
96 posted on 06/26/2003 10:01:12 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire

And where in the Constitution do you find a defense of sodomy?

This case should've been taken by SCOTUS. This is a Tenth Amendment issue. The place to change these laws is on the State level.

97 posted on 06/26/2003 10:01:35 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
should've not been
98 posted on 06/26/2003 10:02:47 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
Damn, where is that constitutional right to ANYTHING not explicitly listed in the constitution?

Dude, because you hate homos doesn't mean we should start making laws based on that.

99 posted on 06/26/2003 10:03:03 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
I'm duly impressed by your noble and attentive need to repeal 250 year old laws which have been enforced about as often as spitting laws.
100 posted on 06/26/2003 10:03:40 PM PDT by F16Fighter (What color pants-suit did Hitlery wear today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-213 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson