|
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:55:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, you are just wrong on this one in terms of what the "Bill of Enough already, and no more. The term "Bill of Rights" means precisely whatever Humpty Dumpty says it means. After all, he took for himself the power to give words convenient meanings.
I simply made the point that there was a document called the Bill of Rights. It really existed. It really was propounded by Congress to the States. It really had twelve, not ten, articles of amendment in it. And it can be see and viewed today by people who in ignorance today think that the first order of business of the US Congress back then was to send the "First Amendment" out to the States, when in Congress' view, the first order of business was to come up with an apportionment and counting plan, and to keep money grubbing representatives and senators at bay.
I realize that the meaning of words can change with time. But I do not have to celebrate the loss.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
