Date: 29 Mar 2006 20:06:56 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: Well, the convertible is on Ebay now.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:01:05 PST, Everett M. Greene <mojavegnospamveg.iwvisp.com> wrote: > Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> writes: >> Everett M. Greene <mojavegnospamveg.iwvisp.com> wrote: >> >> Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> writes: >> >> >> The feds don't have the authority to decide things like that for the >> >> states, Everett. Do you want them trampling states' rights? >> >> You can't break down that barrier just for the times you want to. >> >> > This wasn't a states' rights discussion. >> >> Sure it is. The claim was made that the SCOTUS said it was fine. > > Someone else might have said that, but it wasn't me. That's why I said "the claim was made", not "you said". It was in this thread, which I don't think I have to specify but I am anyway. >> They said no such thing, because they can't, because it's >> not their call. > It can be if they want it to be and can find Constitutional > "cover" for it. That's great. Let's set precident that the SCOTUS can just ignore distinctions if they feel like it. Sorry, no. Even though I disagree with the non-ruling, I wholeheartedly agree that it was the right way to (not) rule. > And since the Supremes determine what the > Contitution says... How do you think the interstate > commerce clause got stretched way beyond recognition to > cover discrimination? Discrimination? You mean the "Illegal aliens are criminals" bill that they're working on? News flash: they are here illegally. That's why they're called illegal aliens. No, you don't get a driver's license. Hell no, you don't get welfare money. Far as I'm concerned, they should get exactly two things: a taxpayer-funded photo session, and a taxpayer-funded bus ticket. And that's not a racist thing, that's a "dammit, there are rules and if you don't like them, get them changed" thing. >> > They do if it violates the "taking" clause (or any other >> > part) of the U.S. Constitution. >> >> (sigh). Nevermind. Just think how much more effective >> your anger would be if it was directed at the right people. > What anger is that? Disdain then. Disagreement. Call it whatever you want. You're pointing fingers at SCOTUS for not doing something, and losing the big picture of who _did_ do the thing you disagree with, is what I'm saying.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
