I'd just be repeating what I have already asked so I'll allow you to attempt answer that question.
::michael Bill Anderson wrote: > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Michael Oke, II <oke...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It's very much up in the air as to it's constitutionality and there may >> be very little standing to contest it on those grounds actually. It in >> no way, shape or form attempts to supplant Federal law and thus, on >> constitutional grounds, may very well be allowed to stand. >> >> It asserts a state's right to which it doesn't have. Game, set, match. > > Bill Anderson > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4be2f9bc.8050...@gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
