Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
7-day work week? Wow, I'll ask my BIL who works 5 days a weekPerry and I think Palin are part of the "Republiscums Tenthers" movement. They want to do away with a few things. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Aid to Education, Overtime, Minimum Wage, Federal Highway System, 7 day work week, and anything else the Federal Government touches. Google Tenther's Constitution. Interesting.
Perry and I think Palin are part of the "Republiscums Tenthers" movement. They want to do away with a few things. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Aid to Education, Overtime, Minimum Wage, Federal Highway System, 7 day work week, and anything else the Federal Government touches. Google Tenther's Constitution. Interesting.
More loonies - While I'd be more than happy to let Texas go their own way - I can't go along with this misinterpretation of the constitution.
I subscribe to my own - but I'm not so ego-centric as to think it is the "only defensible intepretation"
Problem with "intent of the framers" is that it depends on which framer's quotes you want to use to justify your interpretation - and WHEN they said the quote. The framers were all over the place in their quotes.
Not necessarily when read in contrast/comparison. But that is a whole different discussion, for now let's agree to disagree, ok?
The interpretation of the supreme court is what's gonna stick - as it should. But the supreme court isn't going to be able to circumvent the will of the people (if the majority is big enough) for very long.
Federlist Paper #10 addresses this issue specifically in terms of limiting the tyrrany of the majority.
The "intent of the framers" imho - was to create a document that is flexible enough to reflect changing attitudes - but not so flimsy that it was subject to fickle whims. That's the second problem with the "intent of the framers" argument - they never expected their "intent" to be the final word for all eternity.
The reason I call the secessionists' intepretation an incorrect interpretation is that it is in conflict with prevailing precedent. They tried to make this case before and they got their butts whipped - and that (imho) is a good thing.
The reason I call the secessionists' intepretation an incorrect interpretation is that it is in conflict with prevailing precedent. They tried to make this case before and they got their butts whipped - and that (imho) is a good thing.
The reason I call the secessionists' intepretation an incorrect interpretation is that it is in conflict with prevailing precedent. They tried to make this case before and they got their butts whipped - and that (imho) is a good thing.
The primary focus of the feeble thread is the X Amendment. Are you against the X Amendent, and in favor of more federal government intervention and butt wiping?
