"J. Clarke" writes:
Just Wondering wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
http://www.splcenter.org/search/s-qu...a&si=0&x=0&y=0

Boy, now *there's* an authoritative source. I prefer the
Constitution itself, thanks...


Ah, so now you don't read anything written in the last two
centuries, even for, say, information on things that have happened
in the last two centuries?

Interesting approach to life.


-- Andy Barss


I read plenty that's been written in the past 2+ centuries. But
there are some things that were not supposed to be negotiable w/o an
amendment process to the Constitution itself.
If you or the SPLC or the ACLU or whomever don't like the
Constitution there is a way
to change it - convince enough states to ratify an amendment. But
*ignoring* our given laws because, say, it make the SPLC nervous, is
neither ethical nor legal...

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution says no
one
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. But what does "due process" mean? It says no search warrant
shall
be issued except for probable cause. But wwhat does "probable cause"
mean? It forbids cruel and unusual punishment; what is that? I could
go
on, but you get the picture. The drafters of the Constitution
purposely
used a considerable number of such ambiguous phrases, knowing the
courts
would have to decide what they mean on a case by case basis. True,
the
courts have abused that power from time to time, but so have the other
two branches of government.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is an air pollutant the
regulation of which is within the EPA's charter. I wonder how long it's
going to be before they outlaw soda and beer. Of course the
grandstanding elected lawyer who brought the suit is going to get a big
fat surprise when he finds that he has to wear a CO2 scrubber at all
times.

I take it the words "carbon neutral" mean nothing to you?

scott