"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:05:57 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:50:42 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I didn't
realize they actually amended it. Is there not a requirement for 2/3 of
States to ratify before that happens?

Precisely the point.


So, then they didn't actually amend it. Thanks for the confirmation.

The second Justice Harlan perhaps put it best.

"This Court...does not serve its high purpose when it exceeds its
authority, even to satisfy justified impatience with the slow workings
of the political process. For when, in the name of constitutional
interpretation, the Court adds something to the Constitution that was
deliberately excluded from it, the Court, in reality, substitutes its
view of what should be so for the amending process."

Harlan's dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims


Ah, so it's an opinion. Did that amend the Constitution also? LOL

Keep at it Dave... it's a joy to watch you twist in the wind!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com