Andrew Swallow wrote:
Vincent wrote:
Andrew Swallow wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
Assume the following situation:
McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular
vote. Late
in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not
able to take office. Who would become president? The
constitution is
not clear on this, would it be Palin? Would the Dems insist on
a new
election? If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who
would b
president in the interim? Would it be House majority leader?
Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new
pres
and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any
way to
bcome pres even for a few days. The Dems go crazy. A blue
state or
two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. Republicans in
these two blue states are attacked. Palin sends in the Nat
Guard..............new American Civil War. Could it really happen
this easily?
You really need to read the Constitution.
Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not
read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old.
Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty
straightforward.
Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions
regarding what the Constitution says?
Simple. The writers of the first amendment were *not* talking about
pornographic DVDs. The defence lawyers were having to deliberately
misrepresent it to get their clients off. Obvious misrepresentation
leads to arguments from the prosecution.
Andrew Swallow
ahem
Where is the Pornography exception found?
exactly how do you "know" "The writers of the first amendment were
*not* talking about pornographic DVDs."
Vince
"... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..."
a) Because the Constitution writers had never heard of DVDs.
b) It says press ( = newspapers) not acting.
c) Photographs are pictures not speech.
d) Nudity is covered by the indecent exposure laws.
Andrew Swallow
under your bizarre theory all dvds could be suppressed
and all photos
the press is not newspapers since it clearly covered books
Pictures were printed with a press
speech is separately protected
nudity and nude pictures are not the same
Sheesh
Where did you study Constitutional law
my widely cited article might be of some use to you:
Vincent Brannigan & Bruce Ensor, Did Bose Speak Too Softly?:Product
Critiques and the First Amendment,14HofstraL. Rev. 571, 573 (1986).
Vince