 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | (...) That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) And sometimes, when we've been talking about something for sooo long, we get to a pause in the conversation, we look around, and we ask-- "What were we discussing again?" (psst--LEGO and how much fun it is!!!! :) ) Who here loves LEGO? Me! (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Bzzt. LEGO(r) is off topic for this group. :-) (...) Me too but that's irrelevant. (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) For the first time today, I laughed out loud. Thanks ++Lar FUT to which LEGO on-topic group?? Dave K. (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Let me try... I don't know about Chris, but I personally misunderstood this: (...) I'm taking it to mean that you think we have to use the constitution's exact words only and not any contemporaneous writings by the same authors which expand (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) No - it would seem close and I understand you thinking that, but not really. I merely wish to establish one thing before moving on to the next. If Joe Blow walking down the street suddenly spotted the 2nd Amendment, what would be his (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Much snippage (...) It's in the federalist papers (which I would argue, since they are by the authors of the constitution and which are contemporaneous, ARE valid as a way to gauge meaning and intent) but I forget exactly. I don't think it's any of (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
