Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 8:17:29 PM   
FirstQuaker


Posts: 787
Joined: 3/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

america is and always has been governed by legislative fiat.

statutes pay well



Well, we are discussing the way it is supposed to function, not the way it actually does.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 10:38:36 PM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Now if the Constitution is interpreted due to the times in which it was written, let's examine those times a bit. Like the Earth created in seven days when Man had not yet defined days, just what was congress ?

i can see why the phrase "the right to bear arms" is subject to interpretation. It's meaning has changed over time. The term "arms" has evolved to include weapons that the Founding Fathers never dreamt of. Since the word means something very different today than it did way back when, the courts rule based on what they think the writers of the Constitution meant, the spirit of the law, its intent. Courts have to interpret a law when it isn't clear to begin with.

But the same is NOT true of the phrase "shall make no law" or the word "abridging" (with respect to the freedom of speech), both of which mean exactly the same today as when the Constitution was written. There is no ambiguity. There is nothing to interpret. The fact is the 1st Amendment was written in unrealistically absolute language, and instead of addressing this problem directly, the courts seem to have preferred getting around it by saying, well, okay, the Constitution SAYS this, but since THAT'S too unrealistic, we're just going to do THIS instead. They are not "interpreting" what is ambiguous, they are conveniently changing the meaning of a law that they don't like the meaning of. That's not what they're supposed to do.

So says the goose, therefore now comes the gander. "Congress" shall pass no law.... OK. If this is considered an inalienable right then that means that they meant all legislatures in the country, city, state, whatever. And this may well be a test for the supreme court because someone has to rule. Or has it been ruled ? Have any of these requirements for permits ever been challenged all the way to the top ?

Yes, in 1925 the Supreme Court ruled just that... that the law refers to all legislatures, at all levels of government. That much is settled.

...But then the court could rule that the people have the right to demonstrate and a city or whatever cannot abrdge that.

If they follow the letter of the law, then they MUST rule so.


pam


< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 9/28/2011 10:44:35 PM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 10:42:58 PM   
HeatherMcLeather


Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline 		That's how I see it too Pam. The language is very clear.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 10:54:32 PM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline 		Incidently, the words "speech" and "assembly" have changed since the time of the Constitution, but that doesn't seem to be the point of contention. The courts aren't saying, okay, THIS type of speech (or assembly) is protected, but THIS one isn't, because that's not what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they said speech (or assembly). They're not re-interpreting the law because of the ways the internet has changed communication, for example. They just seem to have decided that what the Constitution actually says is too hard to live by, so they're not going to take it literally. And they're right, it is too hard to live by, but i'm not sure they have the authority to interpret the Constitution THAT broadly.

pam

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 10:56:45 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

america is and always has been governed by legislative fiat.

statutes pay well



Well, we are discussing the way it is supposed to function, not the way it actually does.




The way people understand it is pretty much bullshit top to bottom.  the courts give us one once in a while, far to much money to be made in all the in between cases that they can literally go to sleep during the hearing because they already know how they will rule the second the paper hits the bench short of some legal wiz kid and attorneys are there for the money.

In fact attorneys cannot act as constitutional counsel its against the bar rules LOL   They work for the court not you.

anyway here you go:


We the People? or We the States?


Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788


Henry's statesmanship did not end with the Revolution and the achievement of independence. While recognizing the need to augment the financial resources of the confederation congress, he was critical of the extensive of powers given to the central government by the Constitution of 1787. Patrick Henry's speech on June 4, 1788, was Henry's opening speech to the Virginia Convention that was debating whether to ratify the proposed new Constitution of the United States.

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government.

snip


. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government--a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states--a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations.  (annihilation where have we heard that word before LOLOL)

Make the best of this new government--say it is composed by any thing but inspiration--you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. (BINGO and it DID!) I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people?  Huh? "people" not "People" in correct context no less? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. (corporations) If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.
The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear.  (there it is again correct grammar "people" in context, how very interesting) It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.


the government of zero authority.

Oh wait thats right they have big assed guns and will shoot you and take away all your stuff if you dont listen to them and follow their by-laws.




_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to FirstQuaker)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 11:05:02 PM   
FirstQuaker


Posts: 787
Joined: 3/19/2011
Status: offline 		The 14th amendment pretty well made all the constitutional rights and privileges of citizens applicable to state and local governments - 

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If you note, that is the clause which they used under Emerson to declare that the establishment clause applies to the states, on the grounds it interferes with a state residents freedom of religion.

Similarly, in Torcaso v. Watkins, they were prohibited from requiring a religious affiliation ofr test to hold public office under these freedom of religion grounds.

As things roll down hill this means lesser governmental entities within the states must also tow the line.

The problem is that the US supreme court only hears the cases they want to, save under very limited circumstances, and the states can get away with quite a bit before they are called to account for their conduct if there is no established constitutional law regarding/prohbiting what they are doing. Poll taxes, literacy requirements for voting, JIm Crow laws, all had their day before this fun was brought to an end.

< Message edited by FirstQuaker -- 9/28/2011 11:07:26 PM >

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 11:10:29 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

Incidently, the words "speech" and "assembly" have changed since the time of the Constitution,

So has the word holocaust so does that mean that the ancient olah offerings correctly termed "holocaust" were really nazi genocide?

but that doesn't seem to be the point of contention. The courts aren't saying, okay, THIS type of speech (or assembly) is protected, but THIS one isn't,

In fact they went one step furhter and said this type of speech will fined.  (yelling fire in a crowded theater, rather than keep it as a tort)

because that's not what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they said speech (or assembly). They're not re-interpreting the law because of the ways the internet has changed communication, for example.

They just seem to have decided that what the Constitution actually says is too hard to live by,

Yes it makes MOBocracy so damn difficult to enforce doesnt it?

so they're not going to take it literally.

Yeh makes perfect sense to me, the organic law of the land just a fucking piece of paper... ~dubya

But them what contract has the united states ever lived up to except those to britain and israel??

And they're right, it is too hard to live by, but i'm not sure they have the authority to interpret the Constitution THAT broadly.

pam


I do hope you are not from america.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 11:19:00 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		"But the same is NOT true of the phrase "shall make no law" or the word "abridging" (with respect to the freedom of speech), both of which mean exactly the same today as when the Constitution was written."
 
And the fifth ? The fourth ? Yelling fire in a crowded theater made the difference, and it is stuck, and that's the way the courts like to see it.

It's not the supreme court of today that will solve this, it is the one of yesterday. In Marbury v Madison it held that any law made repungnant to the Contitution was null and void, period, and went on to say "as if it was never passed", but I am not sure if that was part of the official opinion. A lawyer won't cite that in court though because it was before the AMJ. But a private individual can.

If it would work, who knows, but I would certainly try it if it applied. Of course if I got busted for really doing something that would be diffeent. if you are guilty just make the best deal you can.

T^T

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 11:27:11 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

The 14th amendment pretty well made all the constitutional rights and privileges of citizens applicable to state and local governments - 

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Nope I didnt hear the word "people" in there anywhere did you?

Corporations are citizens with privileges and immunities too!

If you note, that is the clause which they used under Emerson to declare that the establishment clause applies to the states, on the grounds it interferes with a state residents freedom of religion.

Nice they way they dehumanize you eh?  Do you know the root meaning of res-ident?  its means "thing"-"identified"  LOL

Similarly, in Torcaso v. Watkins, they were prohibited from requiring a religious affiliation ofr test to hold public office under these freedom of religion grounds.

Being a public trustee has nothing to do with religion except acknowledging and respecting that we have and live by it, and of course they abolished any "recognition" (which has nothing to do with "establishing") as well.

As things roll down hill this means lesser governmental entities within the states must also tow the line.

It means that we have one gigantic gubafia precisely like patrick henry said.  Do all states have to abide by the decisions of the supreme court yes or no, thank you.

The problem is that the US supreme court only hears the cases they want to,

Nothing too difficult, nothing that would bust their asses.

save under very limited circumstances, and the states can get away with quite a bit before they are called to account for their conduct if there is no established constitutional law regarding/prohbiting what they are doing. Poll taxes, literacy requirements for voting, JIm Crow laws, all had their day before this fun was brought to an end.


which only works because they have circumvented the constitution and usurped our rights and tyrannically expanded their scope by the term "necessity".

They can now fuck your lover out of state necessity but then thats the nice thing about a demobcracy.

sneaky wabbits.

The courts stole the rights of the "people" and gave them to the "People" to rule over the "people" as subject-citizens.

I know this hurts but....right out of the most popular american law dictionary!  Gotta love the shit out of this!



houa!

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 9/28/2011 11:33:31 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to FirstQuaker)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 11:31:01 PM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline 		It would be like, when Prohibition passed, if the courts had said, well, that law is really just too strict, so lets not it literally. On the contrary, they DID take it literally, which pissed a bunch of people off. And then the law got repealed. That's the way it's supposed to happen.

pam

< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 9/28/2011 11:33:25 PM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 11:35:57 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		its not supposed to be made in the first place!

that is the way it is supposed to happen.

forcing everything into the courts is throwing shit at the wall to see what they can get to stick and an attack on the "people" and the laws of this land.

Now who are the terorists?


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 11:42:50 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		"It would be like, when Prohibition passed, "

Did you ever wonder why prohibition was an amendment, instead of just being passed as a normal federal law ?

Why ? The answer is quite revealing.

T^T

< Message edited by Termyn8or -- 9/28/2011 11:44:15 PM >

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 11:46:05 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		"forcing everything into the courts is throwing shit at the wall to see what they can get to stick and an attack on the "people" and the laws of this land. "

Yup. Pretty much social engineering at it's finest.

T^T

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 11:50:05 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"forcing everything into the courts is throwing shit at the wall to see what they can get to stick and an attack on the "people" and the laws of this land. "

Yup. Pretty much social engineering at it's finest.

T^T


hey people think the BIGGEST changes need to be in congress and thats not true.

they send the delivery boy to the attorneys who sleep with the judges and ask the questions straight up, "can we get this to stick?  I dont want judge jkgyigo standing in my office asking me what the hell we are trying to do here".

that is a quote from a legislative attorney friend of mine.

The judges rule this country and they ARE the gate keepers.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/29/2011 12:14:14 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.



Yup, that's what the law dictionary says.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/29/2011 12:24:58 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Yup, that's what the law dictionary says.


Yup thats what the constitution does not say.

I dont see anything republican in there.




< Message edited by Real0ne -- 9/29/2011 12:36:36 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/29/2011 12:47:36 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

However, reasonable (whatever that means) restrictions can be placed on when, where, etc., under the localities police powers.
I get the impression that Congress and the Supreme Court have, over the years, come to the conclusion that the Constitution as written is an unworkabley idealistic document, and have decided to basically just over ride it when it is inconvenient. I'm sure they have come up with some pretty elaborate and fanciful interpretations to justify it, but "shall make no law" is really pretty unequivocal, so is "shall not be infringed". In fact, the wording throughout is pretty hard to interpret other than as written, the intent is quite clear, at least to me.

I think if I were a U.S. citizen, I would be pretty miffed about that.

And I think I may just have found my essay topic.



The Constitution was written to allow changes, implying the Founding Fathers knew it wasnt perfect....

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


I dont agree that we should expect something written so long go to be inflexible.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/29/2011 12:54:17 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

 They are not "interpreting" what is ambiguous, they are conveniently changing the meaning of a law that they don't like the meaning of. That's not what they're supposed to do.

That was right on target, in fact we are not supposed to be standing before ANY judge!  Everything was set up to be JURY "COURT" ONLY!

No criminal EXCEPT BY GRAND JURY INDICTMENT.

So says the goose, therefore now comes the gander. "Congress" shall pass no law.... OK. If this is considered an inalienable right then that means that they meant all legislatures in the country, city, state, whatever. And this may well be a test for the supreme court because someone has to rule. Or has it been ruled ? Have any of these requirements for permits ever been challenged all the way to the top ?

Yes, in 1925 the Supreme Court ruled just that... that the law refers to all legislatures, at all levels of government. That much is settled.

...But then the court could rule that the people have the right to demonstrate and a city or whatever cannot abrdge that.

If they follow the letter of the law, then they MUST rule so.





the legislatures are acting sovereigns.

abolish that and the shit will hit the fan and we will get our rights back along with kissing the shit like eminent domain of the sovereign king bye bye




< Message edited by Real0ne -- 9/29/2011 12:56:06 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/29/2011 12:56:27 AM   
HeatherMcLeather


Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline 		That's one of my points, that there is a process for altering the Constitution when needed, but that it isn't being done that way. Instead of the elected representatives doing the altering through the procedure set out in the constitution, it's the appointed justices doing through "interpretation".  And some of those interpretations are pretty iffy when you look at the wording.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/29/2011 12:58:52 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

However, reasonable (whatever that means) restrictions can be placed on when, where, etc., under the localities police powers.
I get the impression that Congress and the Supreme Court have, over the years, come to the conclusion that the Constitution as written is an unworkabley idealistic document, and have decided to basically just over ride it when it is inconvenient. I'm sure they have come up with some pretty elaborate and fanciful interpretations to justify it, but "shall make no law" is really pretty unequivocal, so is "shall not be infringed". In fact, the wording throughout is pretty hard to interpret other than as written, the intent is quite clear, at least to me.

I think if I were a U.S. citizen, I would be pretty miffed about that.

And I think I may just have found my essay topic.



The Constitution was written to allow changes, implying the Founding Fathers knew it wasnt perfect....

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


I dont agree that we should expect something written so long go to be inflexible.


damn it!

I dont see "people" in there either!


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109