Marbury v. Madison for Johnson (off topic) and probably very boring for non Americans
Rick Gaudreau Rick Gaudreau" <grgaud@bigfoot.com
Mon, 18 May 1998 08:03:20 -0400 (00895514600, 002e01bd8254$f71a4680$dd1d67d1@rickgaud)
RICK G
Excuse me, but what does all this have to do with errancy? Unless you
Merkins think your constitution is also inspired of God and inerrant. No
offense, but I couldn't care less about your constitution where the
errancy/inerrancy debate is concerned... *it's irrelevant*. Maybe you could
start your own constitutional debate list.
>> > BRIDEAN
>> > According to your logic, since there is no amendment in the
>> > constitution which makes abortion illegal, then making it illegal
>> > would be unconstitutional. If not, why not?
>
>> MJ:
>
>> {a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p}
>
>> Please point to X in the set above.
>> Would you interpret k to be X since they are 'close' in appearance?
>
>> I offer no 'system of logic' ... I am merely pointing to reality.
>
>> At the Federal level, there is no mandate for the government to make
>> abortion legal or illegal.
>
>> BRIDEAN
>> In that case, why is kidnaping against Federal law? You won't find
>> anything in the Constitution about kidnaping.
>
>MJ:
>As previously pointed to ...
>
> The Constitution does not empower the Government's
> participation in many of its current activities.
>
> The Government participates in many activities which
> it is not so empowered.
>
>This is the reality of usurpation.
>
>
>Regard$,
>--MJ
>
>By oft repeating an untruth, men come to believe it themselves.
> -- Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, 1813.
>