Re: OT: Two challenges for Steve Carroll

In article <C45869FD.BAD0D%usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Snit <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "Steve Carroll" <trollkiller@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> stated in post
> trollkiller-119D5C.12143620052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 on 5/20/08 11:14 AM:
> 
> 
> >> Irrelevant... hence the reason you focused on that and snipped the
rest of
> >> the post. 
> > 
> > Bull. 
> 
> Ah

.... you ran away... again.

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"

-- 
"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