hk 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




I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any
of the sorts of firearms around these days?

They were talking about anything a State Government may use to shoot an
invasion by British soldiers.

Andrew Swallow

On Sep 9, 2:05*pm, hk wrote:
Andrew Swallow wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
m...
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

I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any
of the sorts of firearms around these days?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

or the 11,000 deaths they cause each year

wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:05:11 -0400, hk wrote:

I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any
of the sorts of firearms around these days?

Since they didn't see fit to differentiate between any of the
available technologies at the time I can't imagine they meant to
preclude any new technology.
At the time "arms" meant anything from a dagger to a cannon full of
grapeshot. The second amendment was not about duck hunting ...
although some of those old deck guns they used on ducks were like a
cannon full of grapeshot.



That's really not the point. I was commenting on a previous poster's
take on the 1st Amendment being "twisted" to protect what someone
considered pornography. I suppose the poster's assumption was that there
were no salacious drawings or artwork in colonial days.

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

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

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:20:56 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:05*pm, hk wrote:
Andrew Swallow wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
m...
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

I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any
of the sorts of firearms around these days?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

or the 11,000 deaths they cause each year

If you would stop crossposting, we at rec.boats would sure appreciate it.

Thanks!

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...


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

they had pornography back then too.

Calif Bill wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
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



I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any of
the sorts of firearms around these days?


They would of allowed those arms also. The 2nd was not about hunting and
fishing, was about the ability to toss a bad government.


Bingo!

Most people do not understand the importance of the 1st and 2nd
amendments and our ability to talk about our crappy government and
second to force them out of office if they wont leave when their term is
up.

Andrew Swallow wrote:
hk 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




I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any
of the sorts of firearms around these days?

They were talking about anything a State Government may use to shoot an
invasion by British soldiers.

Or Federal troops.

John H wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:20:56 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:05 pm, hk 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
I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any
of the sorts of firearms around these days?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
or the 11,000 deaths they cause each year

If you would stop crossposting, we at rec.boats would sure appreciate it.

Thanks!


If you would stop posting here, Herring, rec.boats would be much nicer.