OT Dan Quayle 8851
That, is a matter of interpretation, and the fact it is interpreted, is sort of the point.
That's the ruling of the supreme court, by definition, "consbreastutional."
Again, I don't like it, but, as precedent, the supreme court rules what's "consbreastutional."
Threatening to kill someone, in the right circumstances, i.e. if you are reasonable to buttume that it is meant as immanent, is buttault.
Proved to be (a) untrue, (b) known to be untrue.
I somewhat agree with you on this point, but you can't buttume that because you disagree, they are invalid. Remedy for such can be:
Civil disobedience, and trial by jury with jury nullification. Address legislature to change the law. Contact executive to refuse end of law.
Not simply ignoring the law.
They are still considered "consbreastutional" and valid. There are avenues to have them changed, but they are the law of the land at the time.
And I agree that it should be.
Like I said, it is an interesting argument.
OT Dan Quayle 8852
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:16:21 -0500, mlw No, it's not interpreted. That's pretty damn literal. The...
OK, how about long range rockets as well?
Sure they can, tactical nukes can be used.
Why not be able to launch a rocket with a tactical nuke at a foreign ship, mexico or cuba?
It does in that there is an accepted notion that the creation of fear is a harm.
"Words of inspiration?" Hmm, so the "spirit" in which the consbreastution is presented.
Balance, the law is about balancing your rights with mine. The consbreastution, as a whole, tries to define how this is done. Laws and precedent address specific scenarios.
Hey, it is not as though I agree or disagree with it, I'm just writing what *is*. My point was about guns.
The spirit of the consbreastution states "general welfare" as an objective. It is in this light, as well as other pbuttages, that one must view the second amendment. It is not interpreted in isolation.