Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jun 25, 2013.
So none of the 600 from the prior 2 Presidents did conceptually what this one did? Hard to fathom.
There is a difference between not wanting the rule of law and wanting to change bad laws.
by that argument --Obama is entirely within the letter and spirit of the law when issuing Exec orders
Huh? Come back onto the reservation....
Doesn't this all boil down to congress having' can't blame this on us parties'? They don't want to be on record, increasing energy costs.
I don't think you want to defend every word of the constitution. There is a reason that there is a process for amendment.
Remind about all the things that have been stricken from The Constitution?
I know about AMENDMENTS...
I am not sure why you are always so terse. It's ok to just converse. Anyway, since you are acknowledge amendments, you accept that we've decided to change constitution. Here is an example that we aren't as high on anymore:
Sorry about my terseness.
Perhaps you should read up on the 3/5ths clause. It's intent is one of the most misunderstood events in our history as a country.
Yeah, I have pretty much given up on explaining this to people.
It's intent was to get Southern slave-holding states to support & ratify the Constitution. Anything else is window dressing.
In other words, you think it was a good, defensible law?