Is Roe v. Wade constitutional, re: Bill of Attainder?
lada...@intergate.com
legislature to enact a Bill of Attainder, then is it not also
unconstitutional for a co-equal branch to do so, namely Roe v. Wade
allowing a 'death penalty' and revocation of 'civil rights' to an
innocent party, namely the fetus. If the decriminalization of abortion
is not a Bill of Attainder, then what is?
PTravel
<lada...@intergate.com> wrote in message
news:1128445667.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My question is simple;
Your question is ludicrous.
> and that is if it is unconstitutional for the
> legislature to enact a Bill of Attainder, then is it not also
> unconstitutional for a co-equal branch to do so,
Judicial opinions aren't "bills," and the ripeness and standing requirements
for appellate review necessarily requires that an opinion address a specific
case.
> namely Roe v. Wade
> allowing a 'death penalty'
It is not a death penalty.
> and revocation of 'civil rights' to an
> innocent party, namely the fetus.
A fetus is not a party, nor has standing to be one, and has no civil rights
as it is not a "person," notwithstanding your personal religious beliefs.
> If the decriminalization of abortion
> is not a Bill of Attainder, then what is?
Arguably, Congress' efforts to contravene Terri Schiavo's wishes.
Did your high school not offer civics, or did you just cut the class?
>
Pete
"PTravel" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3qfuftF...@individual.net...
>
> <lada...@intergate.com> wrote in message
> news:1128445667.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > My question is simple;
>
> Your question is ludicrous.
>
> > and that is if it is unconstitutional for the
> > legislature to enact a Bill of Attainder, then is it not also
> > unconstitutional for a co-equal branch to do so,
>
> Judicial opinions aren't "bills," and the ripeness and standing
requirements
> for appellate review necessarily requires that an opinion address a
specific
> case.
>
> > namely Roe v. Wade
> > allowing a 'death penalty'
>
> It is not a death penalty.
>
> > and revocation of 'civil rights' to an
> > innocent party, namely the fetus.
>
> A fetus is not a party, nor has standing to be one, and has no civil
rights
> as it is not a "person," notwithstanding your personal religious beliefs.
>
Just for argument's sake, what about a "viable" late term fetus capable of
surviving under existing medical capabilities? Would that constitute a
"person"?
Jon Beaver
Yes, it is unconstitutional to legalize the murder of someone who was
conceived prior to Rowe v. Wade.
- Jon Beaver
PTravel
"Pete" <P...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iOz0f.131894$xl6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
To my knowledge, no, but my area of expertise is not in this area.
>
>
Pete
"Jon Beaver" <jbe...@NO.com> wrote in message
news:kdi5k19nmiv4afuc4...@4ax.com...
The justification of abortion boiles down to the definition of a "person" in
the constitution. Under the Burger court in the Roe v. Wade decision, as I
understand it, the right to abortion was based on a right to privacy on the
part of the mother since the fetus was not considered a "person" until
"viable". That is, able to survive separated from the mother using "existing
medical capabilities". In the original decision, abortion became of interest
to the state only when viability was reached and thence the act could be
prohibited, with qualifications. In all cases, the life of the mother always
takes precedence. Just as with Blacks in the early United States, the
definition of a "person" is dependent on the sentiment of the times.
Jon Beaver
Arbitrary lines are inescapable, otherwise fingernail clippings would
have rights. We have wrestled with many lines -- conception, capable
of independent viability, etc. The Supreme Court drew a line at the
second trimester. We can't talk about the rights of the unborn
without balancing the rights of the BORN. Women are not breeding
chattel -- anymore. The question of when we have the right to
regulate abortion is not severable from the question of when we have
the right to interfere with a woman's control over her own body.
Women -- we do recognize THEM as "persons."
It's difficult -- I have a grown healthy brilliant grandson who was
born so premature that, under Roe v. Wade, he would have been a legal
abortion. Nobody's "for abortion." But some of us are against
government control of our reproductive systems. The other problem I
have is that the "right to life" arguments are inextricably
intertwined with religious rhetoric, without which I suspect it would
have few advocates.
- Jon Beaver
PTravel
"Jon Beaver" <jbe...@NO.com> wrote in message
That's the whole point of Roe v. Wade. It weighed the interests of
_the_state_ in protecting the fetus against the interests of the woman
carrying it. It did not, however, accord to a fetus, even a third-trimester
fetus, "personhood" within the meaning of the law, i.e. it accorded the
fetus no rights, the fetus has no legal standing (for example, there can be
no case captioned Fetus v. Pregnant Woman), and viability isn't the test for
affording a fetus the protections of the Constitution. Viability was used
only to demarcate the point at which the interests of the state could,
conceivably (no pun intended) override those of the woman.
It's been many years since I read Roe v. Wade, but I think my recollection
is accurate.
> Women are not breeding
> chattel -- anymore.
At least for the moment. I'm not at all confident that this situation will
continue.
> The question of when we have the right to
> regulate abortion is not severable from the question of when we have
> the right to interfere with a woman's control over her own body.
> Women -- we do recognize THEM as "persons."
And that's the whole point -- women have rights, foeti do not. Roe
addressed the balance between society's interest in protecting foetii and a
woman's right to privacy, i.e. whether there was a sufficiently compelling
state interest to justify impinging on a woman's right to control her own
body. It had nothing to do with balancing the legal rights of a woman
against the legal rights of a fetus. The latter remains an oxymoron -- a
fetus has no rights.
>
> It's difficult -- I have a grown healthy brilliant grandson who was
> born so premature that, under Roe v. Wade, he would have been a legal
> abortion. Nobody's "for abortion." But some of us are against
> government control of our reproductive systems.
I see it as a fundamental privacy issue. The 4th Amendment articulates the
restriction on the federal government's (and, through the 14th amendment,
the governments of the various states) ability to interfere with personal
security, i.e. "privacy." The Bill of Rights is, essentially, an
enumeration of those personal rights that were never ceded to the government
and, as such, outside the power of the government to restrict. The
government lacks the power to interfere with a woman's right to be secure in
her person and, as such, it can not criminalize abortion. Nor, for that
matter, can it legalize it. The powers ceded to the government by the
ratification of the Constitution did not, and do not, include the power to
interfere at such a personal level.
Now, as we all know, the restrictions on government power represented by the
Bill of Rights are not absolute -- the government can regulate abortion by,
for example, ensuring that abortions are performed only by licensed
physicians in a safe manner. That constitutes a compelling state interest
and, as such, has been recognized historically as a legitimate exception to
the restrictions on government power enumerated in the Bill of Rights
(something the gun advocates should remember, as well). It cannot, however,
_limit_ a woman's privacy rights without a legally sufficient state interest
in doing so.
> The other problem I
> have is that the "right to life" arguments are inextricably
> intertwined with religious rhetoric, without which I suspect it would
> have few advocates.
I agree. The most dangerous aspect of the "pro life" movement, I think, is
that it completely ignores a most fundamental constitutional principle: the
government is not the source of rights, but rather a repository of limited
rights ceded to it by the people for the express purposes enumerated in the
Constitution, e.g. "provide for the general welfare," etc. The abortion
issue goes to the core of this concept: Does the government have the right
to interfere in a decision by a woman regarding what she wishes to do with
her own body? There is not what iota of support in the Constitution for
suggesting that it does. This was a right that was never ceded to the
government, and those who advocate for anti-abortion laws are urging no more
nor less than an abandonment of the very principles that resulted in the
formation of the United States in the first place.
The U.S. isn't considered "the Great Experiment" because it is a democracy,
but because it is the first governmental construct that proceeded from the
proposition that all people possess inalienable rights that are inherent,
rather than granted, as a gift (and one that can be taken back), by the
sovereign.
It is, perhaps, not surprising that those who oppose abortion, not as a
personal decision but as a legal right, also support other government
trespasses on the fundamental rights enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth
and Eighth Amendments. The fight for abortion rights (which is not the same
thing as the fight for abortion -- one can be for the former, while
rejecting the latter as a personal option) is the fight against tyranny.
>
> - Jon Beaver
EvilOppressorOfConservatives
!?!?...
!!!???!!!???!!!???...
First, "That's th' STUPIDest Thing I EvahHoid"... _TRULY_...
_TRULY_... I'm In _EARNEST_... the Above HOWLINGLY _PIG-IGNORANT_
*Conjecture* is So FAR Disconnected from The Underpinnings of Our
Constitution, the Constitutional Law flowing from Same, The Precedent,
Common Law, and Custom, Ad Nauseam, of American Jurisprudence, as to be
Worthy Of and Indistinguishable From the Delusional Rantings of The Everyday
Paranoid Schizophrenic...
Second, indeed, it is NOT a "Bill Of Attainder"... it is the "Holding" of
the Highest Court In The Land which recognizes, in this case, that *State
Governments* had ILLEGALLY engaged in the Wholesale Violation of the
*Inalienable* Rights of Citizens AND which Carries the Express Command to
CEASE such Wholesale Violation...
Third, There's GOTTA BE something in The Drinking Water of Red States...
Fourth, JEEZUS _H_ Kay-RIST!!!!
Fifth, Iiaaaahhccchhhh...
Naughtius "GODDAMN Tin-Foil Hat Wearin' NeoCon SHITHEADS..." Maximus
--
"...Workin' `neath the wheels
`Til y'get yer facts learned
Baby
I got my facts
Learned real good right now..."
"The FIRST thing we do, let's KILL all the TVs"
COMING SOON: naughtius.org
Jon Beaver
I agree 100%.
- Jon Beaver
Ken Smith
It's hard to disagree, unless you're James Dobson. :)
lada...@intergate.com
speak for themselves (scribum stultorum . . . my latin is rusty, so cut
me some slack).
1) When I was comparing a Bill of Attainder of the legislature to the
Roe holding, I was holding up what was essentially equal accomplished
by a co-equal branch of government. If unconstutional for one, then it
must be so for the other. To say one is a 'bill' and the other a
'holding' and therefore not comparable ignores basic logic. Both are
laws; one legislated and the other interpreted. The reason for the ban
on bills of attainder is one of basic freedoms and civil rights. The
reason should hold for a fetus, however . . .
2) The legal 'standing' issue is what J. Blackmun danced around with
laboriously but without conclusive argument in Roe. If you haven't read
Roe recently, try it again. Historical references were mentioned, but
not qualified (in other words, Blackmun was parsing all over the map).
Exodus 21:22 was cited, but misrepresented in a Cf. to St. Augustine.
Equally archaic was Blackmun's final conclusion based on the Victorian
concept of the 'quickening.' After all, Blackmun had a mathematics
degree . . . no philosophy, history, or biology.
The question then is 'standing.' In a black & white reading of the
Constitution, one sees the 'contract' applying to 'persons born' in the
U.S. . . . does this necessarily distinguish 'born' from 'unborn?' One
sees nothing to support this. Instead, the Declaration, or prima faciae
case, pronounces that the rights to LIFE, Liberty and puruit of
Happiness are 'inalienable' and 'endowed by our Creator.' Therefore,
LIFE is an inalienable right that cannot, must not, but denied by man
except in justiable cases of murder and treason.
Anyone who argues that a fetus is not Life is ignorant, in denial, and
so foolish as not to be taken seriously. And that Life is not created
by the Mother or Father, but if anything solely in the pervue of our
Creator. Any Mother or Father taking pride in the act of conception is
equally foolish.
Finally, I have faced liberal and feminist rantings. However, their
red-faced bloviating is cut short and goes pale when I ask them, "Do
you believe in Reincarnation?" If you think this is not a proper
subject of considertion, then you haven't read Roe v. Wade.
LAD, Albuquerque, NM
Ken Smith
> Agree? With what? Thanks for the few intelligent responses.
As near as I can tell, PTravel and the Beav covered the waterfront
quite effectively.
Personally, I'd like to see your response to PTravel's argument,
which I have always deemed dispositive of this matter from a legal
standpoint.
What *right* does government have to control the reporoductive rights of
its citizens? I'll reprint the salient portion of his argument here, so
you don't have to go fishing:
The most dangerous aspect of the "pro life" movement, I think, is
that it completely ignores a most fundamental constitutional prin-
ciple: the government is not the source of rights, but rather a
repository of limited rights ceded to it by the people for the
express purposes enumerated in the Constitution, e.g. "provide for
the general welfare," etc. The abortion issue goes to the core of
this concept: Does the government have the right to interfere in a
decision by a woman regarding what she wishes to do with her own
body? There is not what iota of support in the Constitution for
suggesting that it does. This was a right that was never ceded to
the government, and those who advocate for anti-abortion laws are
urging no more nor less than an abandonment of the very principles
that resulted in the formation of the United States in the first
place.
I've always argued that the 'flaw' in Roe is not in Roe itself, but
in the Constitution. We give up certain rights in order that what is
left of our portfolio of rights is preserved, and we only give up the
rights we absolutely have to. The right to do what one will to one's
own body is one of those rights which, logically, would not have to be
given up, and there is every indication that the Framers would have agreed.
What the Framers would have done if abortion was safe, effective, and
practical is anyone's guess. Unfortunately, it is intellectual folly to
even try to speculate on that score, so we can't look to them for a lot
of help.
> The others
> speak for themselves (scribum stultorum . . . my latin is rusty, so cut
> me some slack).
Try res ipsa loquitur. And yes, EOOC's comments do. It is just that
you might not like the conclusion others might draw.
> 1) When I was comparing a Bill of Attainder of the legislature to the
> Roe holding, I was holding up what was essentially equal accomplished
> by a co-equal branch of government. If unconstutional for one, then it
> must be so for the other. To say one is a 'bill' and the other a
> 'holding' and therefore not comparable ignores basic logic. Both are
> laws; one legislated and the other interpreted. The reason for the ban
> on bills of attainder is one of basic freedoms and civil rights. The
> reason should hold for a fetus, however . . .
Why? One forgets that, in the society in which the Constitution was
crafted, all persons weren't created equal. Some men were chattels, and
women were to be seen and not heard. The English common law, which was
the essential foundation for that venerable document, did not recognize
foetal rights, except for those which vested when born (e.g., think the
rules of inheritance).
As for your intuitive attempt to link bills of attainder to judicial
holdings, there is considerable merit to your view. One can certainly
argue (I do) that whenever a judge issues a holding that conflicts with
binding precedent in an unpublished opinion, s/he is writing "designer
law" which violates the aggrieved litigant's right to equal protection,
which in turn, is analogous to a bill of attainder. Either way, it is
technically illegal, and morally reprehensible. Unfortunately, as the
courts do not recognize foetal rights, it is moot with respect to the
unborn.
> 2) The legal 'standing' issue is what J. Blackmun danced around with
> laboriously but without conclusive argument in Roe. If you haven't read
> Roe recently, try it again. Historical references were mentioned, but
> not qualified (in other words, Blackmun was parsing all over the map).
> Exodus 21:22 was cited, but misrepresented in a Cf. to St. Augustine.
Was it? The original Hebrew comports with Blackmun's holding, Jewish
law, and common sense. See, Strong's. In the days before medicine, a
premature baby was a very dead baby; the distinction drawn in the Torah
necessarily demands that a violence-induced miscarriage only be punished
by a fine, and that murder of a fetus is a lesser offense. As such, the
argument that the Bible endows full personhood upon a fertilized egg is
facile at best. The right answer and the biblical answer are not always
one and the same.
> Equally archaic was Blackmun's final conclusion based on the Victorian
> concept of the 'quickening.' After all, Blackmun had a mathematics
> degree . . . no philosophy, history, or biology.
Blackmun was general counsel for the Mayo Clinic before ascending to
the Court, and if you don't think he had a lot of expert help, you are
deluding yourself. The inescapable fact is that various societies have
solved this problem in different ways, and this known fact informed the
decision. That you get your view from the Bible does not mean that we
all have to agree with you, or even should.
> The question then is 'standing.' In a black & white reading of the
> Constitution, one sees the 'contract' applying to 'persons born' in the
> U.S. . . . does this necessarily distinguish 'born' from 'unborn?' One
> sees nothing to support this. Instead, the Declaration, or prima faciae
> case, pronounces that the rights to LIFE, Liberty and puruit of
> Happiness are 'inalienable' and 'endowed by our Creator.' Therefore,
> LIFE is an inalienable right that cannot, must not, but denied by man
> except in justiable cases of murder and treason.
I would submit that "the problem" here is with the Constitution. As
Justice Cardozo observed, courts may not “pause to consider” whether a
better statute might have been written, but are compelled to “take the
statute as we find it.” Anderson v. Wilson, 289 U.S. 20, 27 (1933). And
while any society's moral code is more-or-less encompassed in its laws,
the law *itself* does not pass any moral judgments. By way of example,
while we can agree now that slavery was reprehensible, it was
written into the Constitution -- and could only be written out by
amending it. The same logic applies to abortion.
> Anyone who argues that a fetus is not Life is ignorant, in denial, and
> so foolish as not to be taken seriously.
Translated, "If you do not agree with me, we can't even hope to hold
an intelligent discussion." To be frank, what you or I might think of
abortion personally is not germane to the law. As Paul said, "while all
things may be permissible, not all things are beneficial." An act can
be legal, but not moral.
> And that Life is not created
> by the Mother or Father, but if anything solely in the pervue of our
> Creator. Any Mother or Father taking pride in the act of conception is
> equally foolish.
Again, you're injecting Bible-babble into a discussion which doesn't
concern it. If you want an Iran-style Christian theocracy, you are at
liberty to advocate it, though most sentient beings would revolt at the
thought of your Taliban governing us. But as for the "sin" of "pride,"
I would remind you that the ultimate in arrogance is in thinking that we
are so important to the Universe that it couldn't get along without us,
and that it is logical that we should continue after our physical death.
This "pride" undergirds all the Abrahamic religions, in what is
frankly a dangerous way (think, "72 virgins").
> Finally, I have faced liberal and feminist rantings. However, their
> red-faced bloviating is cut short and goes pale when I ask them, "Do
> you believe in Reincarnation?"
It does? I don't even believe in an afterlife. This is not at all
incompatible with belief in a Creator.
> If you think this is not a proper
> subject of considertion, then you haven't read Roe v. Wade.
Really? Roe is required reading at every law school in the country,
and is often cited as support for a legal principle that has nothing to
do with its central holding. Extra credit for telling me what it is. :)
>
> LAD, Albuquerque, NM
ptr...@travelersvideo.com
lada...@intergate.com wrote:
> Agree? With what? Thanks for the few intelligent responses. The others
> speak for themselves (scribum stultorum . . . my latin is rusty, so cut
> me some slack).
>
> 1) When I was comparing a Bill of Attainder of the legislature to the
> Roe holding, I was holding up what was essentially equal accomplished
> by a co-equal branch of government.
Okay, let's try this again: a bill and a hold are not "essentially
equal." A treaty is "accomplished" by the Executive branch, but it is
not "essentially equal" to a bill -- in fact, Congress must pass
enabling legislation, i.e. a "bill," before it becomes a law.
A "holding" is a judicial application of _law_, it is not a law in and
of itself.
> If unconstutional for one, then it
> must be so for the other. To say one is a 'bill' and the other a
> 'holding' and therefore not comparable ignores basic logic.
To say otherwise ignores the governmental framework established by the
Constitution.
> Both are
> laws; one legislated and the other interpreted.
Only one is a law. You really don't seem to understand what is a
judicial holding.
> The reason for the ban
> on bills of attainder is one of basic freedoms and civil rights. The
> reason should hold for a fetus, however . . .
A fetus has no civil rights or basic freedoms. You can claim to the
contrary all you wish. However, nothing in the Constitution, nor in
Constitutional jurisprudence accords a fetus with either.
>
> 2) The legal 'standing' issue is what J. Blackmun danced around with
> laboriously but without conclusive argument in Roe. If you haven't read
> Roe recently, try it again. Historical references were mentioned, but
> not qualified (in other words, Blackmun was parsing all over the map).
> Exodus 21:22 was cited, but misrepresented in a Cf. to St. Augustine.
Neither Exodus, nor any other religious tract, is law, or a source of
law, in the United States. If you think Roe afforded standing to
foetii, then you need to re-read the decision.
> Equally archaic was Blackmun's final conclusion based on the Victorian
> concept of the 'quickening.' After all, Blackmun had a mathematics
> degree . . . no philosophy, history, or biology.
>
> The question then is 'standing.'
The question isn't standing. Roe didn't decide standing for foetii --
it determined whether the _state_ had sufficient interest to impinge on
a personal right, one confirmed by the Fourth Amendment.
> In a black & white reading of the
> Constitution, one sees the 'contract' applying to 'persons born' in the
> U.S. . . . does this necessarily distinguish 'born' from 'unborn?'
This is sophistry, pure and simple. The Constitution's discussion of
contracts has nothing to do with either standing or personality as
applied to foetii within the meaning of the law.
> One
> sees nothing to support this. Instead, the Declaration,
The Declaration of Independence is not law in the United States.
> or prima faciae
> case, pronounces that the rights to LIFE, Liberty and puruit of
> Happiness are 'inalienable' and 'endowed by our Creator.'
Ask yourself why there is no mention of a "Creator" in the
Constitution. Also ask yourself why there is a First Amendment.
> Therefore,
> LIFE is an inalienable right that cannot, must not, but denied by man
> except in justiable cases of murder and treason.
>
> Anyone who argues that a fetus is not Life is ignorant, in denial, and
> so foolish as not to be taken seriously.
Anyone who argues that fetus is a legal person afforded rights and
standing by the Constitution is ignorant of the Constitution and not to
be taken seriously.
> And that Life is not created
> by the Mother or Father, but if anything solely in the pervue of our
> Creator. Any Mother or Father taking pride in the act of conception is
> equally foolish.
The First Amendment ensures that your personal and peculiar religous
beliefs can not be enacted as law. Believe what you want about
creators, live your life accordingly, but do not attempt to enact those
beliefs as law and force them on others. Doing so is is
unconstitutional and, as such, un-American.
>
> Finally, I have faced liberal and feminist rantings.
> However, their
> red-faced bloviating is cut short and goes pale when I ask them, "Do
> you believe in Reincarnation?"
I haven't ranted, but you've been unable to respond to a single point
that I've raised. Instead, you respond with oblique insults made in
responses to other posters.
Religious belief, whether in reincarnation or in your personal vision
of a "creator," is irrelevant to this discussion, to the legality of
abortion (or, more accurately, the illegality of limiting abortion),
and the holding in Roe v. Wade.
> If you think this is not a proper
> subject of considertion, then you haven't read Roe v. Wade.
As I said, this stuff is basic high school civics. You may have read
Roe v. Wade but, clearly, you do not understand it.
>
> LAD, Albuquerque, NM
EvilOppressorOfConservatives
<ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:1128706934.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> lada...@intergate.com wrote:
>> Agree? With what? Thanks for the few intelligent responses. The others
>> speak for themselves (scribum stultorum . . . my latin is rusty, so cut
>> me some slack).
>>
>> 1) When I was comparing a Bill of Attainder of the legislature to the
>> Roe holding, I was holding up what was essentially equal accomplished
>> by a co-equal branch of government.
>
> Okay, let's try this again: a bill and a hold are not "essentially
> equal." A treaty is "accomplished" by the Executive branch, but it is
> not "essentially equal" to a bill -- in fact, Congress must pass
> enabling legislation, i.e. a "bill," before it becomes a law.
[Snip, Snip, SnipSnipSnip]
>> Finally, I have faced liberal and feminist rantings.
>> However, their
>> red-faced bloviating is cut short and goes pale when I ask them, "Do
>> you believe in Reincarnation?"
>
> I haven't ranted,
Yyyeahhhh...
BUT, yer a *Feminist*...
>but you've been unable to respond to a single point
> that I've raised. Instead, you respond with oblique insults made in
> responses to other posters.
[Snip]
>
>>
>> LAD, Albuquerque, NM
- RED STATE -... Did NOT I So Inform?
Naughtius "Aaannnd LEEEAVE The RANTing To US..." Maximus
PTravel
"EvilOppressorOfConservatives"
<Shakespeare'sF...@ThisMachineKillsFascists.org> wrote in message
news:xuidnWci_ri...@adelphia.com...
>
>
> <ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:1128706934.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> lada...@intergate.com wrote:
>>> Agree? With what? Thanks for the few intelligent responses. The others
>>> speak for themselves (scribum stultorum . . . my latin is rusty, so cut
>>> me some slack).
>>>
>>> 1) When I was comparing a Bill of Attainder of the legislature to the
>>> Roe holding, I was holding up what was essentially equal accomplished
>>> by a co-equal branch of government.
>>
>> Okay, let's try this again: a bill and a hold are not "essentially
>> equal." A treaty is "accomplished" by the Executive branch, but it is
>> not "essentially equal" to a bill -- in fact, Congress must pass
>> enabling legislation, i.e. a "bill," before it becomes a law.
>
> [Snip, Snip, SnipSnipSnip]
>
>
>>> Finally, I have faced liberal and feminist rantings.
>>> However, their
>>> red-faced bloviating is cut short and goes pale when I ask them, "Do
>>> you believe in Reincarnation?"
>>
>> I haven't ranted,
>
> Yyyeahhhh...
>
> BUT, yer a *Feminist*...
Is everyone on the other side of this argument a fool?
It sure seems that way.
EvilOppressorOfConservatives
"This fellow's wise enough to play the fool,
And to do that well craves a kind of wit."
> It sure seems that way.
"If this were played upon a stage now, I would condemn it as an
improbable fiction"
[Ye Olde SNIP]
"Where learned you this, Fool?"
Naughtius "Not i'th The Stocks... FOOL!" Maximus