Title: Question of the Day. If Congress..... Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Nov 24, 2011 Author:A K A Stone Post Date:2011-11-24 21:31:24 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:7908 Comments:36
If congress is forbidden to make a law. Can they go ahead and make that law anyways?
Very simple question. My 11 year old could get the answer right. Can liberals?
speech (spch) n. 1. a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. 2. Something spoken; an utterance. 3. Vocal communication; conversation.
You're welcome. But next time to to the local elementary school and ask one of the fourth graders.
Stone would have been a Tory during the Revolution, since it was the only position that supported the Monarchy/East India Co, corporatism is free speech, alliance that existed then.
The founders got rid of that concept and now the dummy TeaBaggers want it back.
The founders got rid of that concept and now the dummy
Liar Liar your pants are on fire!
I've already proved that wrong with the first amendment. If you think they ignored their own first amendment you are going to have to show me some law passed that did as you say. If you do that I will say sorry for calling you a liar. But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said.
I've already proved that wrong with the first amendment. If you think they ignored their own first amendment you are going to have to show me some law passed that did as you say. If you do that I will say sorry for calling you a liar. But lying does have a definition. You know it was wars position that corporations didn't exist back then so there was no prohibition. War can correct me if I am not exactly right on what he said.
Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.
Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.
The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed. So under color of law people were restricted from freely speaking.
I'm not sure when congress passed the acts that were struck down. Mid 20th century?
Show me where it was commonly practiced before the SCOTUS decision.
The Supreme court simply undid an unconstitutional act that congress previously passed. So under color of law people were restricted from freely speaking.
I'm not sure when congress passed the acts that were struck down. Mid 20th century?
Certainly you would have that info handy as a basis for your argument since you so virulently support their decision and classify it as a returning to a historically conservative, constitutional concept, created and practiced by our founders.
