Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

Yes, but I don't think that reason was in the Const.

Posted on: May 4, 2017 at 16:47:29 CT
GA Tiger MU
Posts:
252581
Member For:
26.45 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
which would leave it open to interpretation, even if many Founders explicitly wrote it. Though I don't mind courts referring to such writings if intent of Const. not clear.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Here is the full text of the Constitution - pickle MU - 5/4 14:37:07
     Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1(nm) - Danny Whizzbang USA - 5/4 14:40:04
          No, sorry, that's incorrect. (nm) - pickle MU - 5/4 14:52:09
               It is 100% correct. You and I may not like that ruling, - Spanky KU - 5/4 15:02:10
                    I'm not sure of that, as I explained to Alfred. - GA Tiger MU - 5/4 15:29:58
                         The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the - Spanky KU - 5/4 15:41:29
                              Yes, but I don't think that reason was in the Const. - GA Tiger MU - 5/4 16:47:29
                                   That's what a 'well regulated militia' meant - Spanky KU - 5/4 17:26:21
                    Ruling? (nm) - pickle MU - 5/4 15:07:19
                         Yes.. what part of that word confuses you? - Spanky KU - 5/4 15:08:22
                              Who's talking about a ruling? - pickle MU - 5/4 15:16:14
                                   I am. How can that possibly confuse you? - Spanky KU - 5/4 15:19:16
                                        How is it you don't know how to read? - pickle MU - 5/4 15:22:34
                                             I can read just fine and know that you saying 'nuh-uh' is - Spanky KU - 5/4 15:27:55
                                                  Inhabit reality - pickle MU - 5/4 15:37:04
                                                       You responded 'No, sorry, that's incorrect. (nm) ' - Spanky KU - 5/4 15:42:53
               No it's not(nm) - Danny Whizzbang USA - 5/4 14:54:18
                    It is incorrect. You might want to read the clause again - pickle MU - 5/4 15:06:28
                         Thanks for proving my point(nm) - Danny Whizzbang USA - 5/4 15:22:40
     Has it ever occured to you - MrBlueSky MU - 5/4 14:38:30
          That is incorrect. - Alferd Packer MU - 5/4 14:56:47
               Yes and no. Clearly many, especially left judiciary, ignore - GA Tiger MU - 5/4 15:19:05
                    And that's why I wrote: - Alferd Packer MU - 5/4 15:55:49
                    common defense does not refer to nation - pickle MU - 5/4 15:25:03
                         When were the conf. states called countries?(nm) - GA Tiger MU - 5/4 15:35:31
                              I don't think he was referring to the CSA. - Alferd Packer MU - 5/4 16:02:19
                              Omg (nm) - pickle MU - 5/4 15:46:57
          Except it wasn't. It's a dead document (nm) - pickle MU - 5/4 14:51:38
               Just because you say it does not make it so - MrBlueSky MU - 5/4 14:53:24
                    I agree; it isn't so because i say it is - pickle MU - 5/4 15:03:33
                         Wrong(nm) - Danny Whizzbang USA - 5/4 15:24:06
                    So what is Article V for? - Alferd Packer MU - 5/4 14:59:42
          That is the most rational - mizzouSECedes STL - 5/4 14:39:17
               Except he's wrong (nm) - pickle MU - 5/4 14:52:31
                    No, you are(nm) - Danny Whizzbang USA - 5/4 14:57:46
                         Sorry, but I'm not (nm) - pickle MU - 5/4 15:03:50
                              Oh, but you are(nm) - Danny Whizzbang USA - 5/4 15:05:02




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard