On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 00:08:49 -0800, Lowell C. Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Was he going to enforce all gun control laws? If not, then he would be > unconstitutional because the Supreme court has (explicitly or implicitly > said they are consititutional) so he would be NOT executing the laws of the > US. Part of the constitution IS the separation of powers, would you not > agree? Or, was he going to enforce them? Then he's in the same boat you > put Bush.
It is not unconsitutional for him not to enforce laws. > Was he going to enforce ITAR and other export regulations that restrict the > export of sensitive military information, weapons, and tools? If so, he's > in violation of the constitutional provision that says no duty or tax on any > export from any state. Unfamiliar with ITAR. > > Was he going to declare that the 16th Amendment was not validly passed and > that all later Amendments should be renumbered by reducing the number by > one? No. I beleive he was planning on making clear that he was going to pardon of any income tax crimes. > The point is that whatever a President does, someone is going to call him a > liar for "not enforcing the constitution" if they use your criteria. > In other words, the charge is bogus in the extreme. Just because other people would claim that he is a liar no matter what he did, does not mean that all people claiming he is a liar are wrong. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
