In article <C4583689.BABE4%usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Snit <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <trollkiller@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> stated in post
> trollkiller-1E2616.08513720052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 5/20/08 7:51 AM:
>
> > In article <C457ABD6.BAABF%usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Snit <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <trollkiller@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> stated in post
> >> trollkiller-73E447.08160019052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 5/19/08 7:16 AM:
> >>
> >> Holy cow! Steve Carroll has, finally, after four years of utter and
> >> complete failure, done enough research to actually keep himself on
topic
> >> and
> >> not run to his straw men, yanking of years-old comments out of
context,
> >> openly lying, pu****ng an Argument from Ignorance... etc. Wow.
> >>
> >> Seriously, Steve, I am impressed. I *never* thought I would see the
day
> >> you
> >> would actually do this. Maybe my pointing you to counter- arguments
> >> helped... maybe it was others coming in and calling you on your BS.
> >> Whatever the reason I want to truly congratulate you.
> >
> > Google shows that, among other things, Reid vs Covert was pointed out
> > you to over 4 years ago... by me and several others:
> >
> > Here's a reference of it by me to you... on Jan. 22, 2004...
> >
> > You:
> > "I am not sure I would say that are subordinate to the Constitution,
but
> > they do not supercede the rest of the Constitution".
> >
> > Me:
> > "My point is that no one needs you or I to say it, the SC court has
> > already made it sufficiently clear. Reid v. Covert provides the
> > necessary clarification".
> >
> > Your parroted "argument" has been refuted... many times, by many
people.
> > If you'd lay off mixing medications your memory might come back.
>
> Irrelevant... hence the reason you focused on that and snipped the rest
of
> the post.
Bull. With one exception, the rest of your post was based on the same
thing. The international ****tion of your parroted argument is a
non-starter due to SC rulings in cases like Reid vs. Covert. I'm not
going to continually re-hash just to entertain your delusion that the
U.N. Charter ****tion of your argument doesn't have a conflict with the
U.S. Constitution.
The remainder of your argument claims Bush broke a ****tion of Public Law
107-243 (which you referred to as HJR114). Notably, the only ****tion of
107-243 your argument bothers to address is that which you recognize as
unconstitutional (though, you won't come out and say it) due to the fact
that ****tion is based on the War Powers Resolution, a resolution that
clearly conflicts with your stated knowledge of the following:
"nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest one branch can hand over
its authority to another"
I fully expect you to now do two things (again):
1 - Ignore what I've just written
2- Expand your "argument" to include new issues
--
"Apple is pu****ng how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
|
