Nope, series member of the DC Chapter in good standing.
The law is the law on this one. I'd vote with you on an amendment to the Constitution. But especially the inscriptions -- it just doesn't pass constitutional muster. That's why Bush-appointed judges voted as they did.
The law is, as they say, the law. It's what it is, not what you want it to be. If you want to change it, you have to amend the Constitution. Accusing me of being a Rat is highly ineffectual toward that goal.
See you at the next DC Freep. Oh, that's right -- you're not one of those people who actually Freeps. You're just an armchair warrior. Well, whatever. Have fun in your cyberworld.
If you want to change it, you have to amend the Constitution
You mean amend it back to its original intent?
Very easy! We don't have to change a word. We simply ratify a new Establishment Clause modeled word-for-word after the existing version.
And if that's the case, why are we amending it at all?
I cannot believe the depth and breadth of stupidity and ignorance on the history of this particular issue. It is absolutely mind-boggling.
But especially the inscriptions -- it just doesn't pass constitutional muster.
Hi, FTH...Could you elaborate, please.
posted on 07/01/2003 7:31:08 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson