On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:37:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > The Constitution provides no support whatsoever for what the Secretary > has done.
Actually it does. > Had he thought that the proposal was not Constitutional, he should > have rejected it, NOT tried to add things to the Constitution himself. I think you've been basing your actions on the idea that your way of interpreting the constitution is the only way. There's more than one way to do it. > Had he rejected it, I would have submitted a reworded version that > would accomplish the exact same thing and have the exact same effect > but would comply with this particular unsupportable and overly > legalistic point of view. The end result would have been a proposal > fully Constitutional and votable under current rules. If you thought this was a good idea, you should have already done it. > However, the Secretary did not choose a logical path, and we a left > with a huge mess. You can vote for "further discussion". That's what I'm going to do. -- Raul
