Answer the question Gordon!! If you've forgotten the question, I will pose it to you again:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote: So, under your logic, the City of Los Angeles can violate Article One, Section 10 of the Constitution, and ban, boycott or restrict trade from another State, because it is merely a City, and not a State? ======== As Mark pointed out to you, you obviously have me confused with another member. I have never been known to "bash the Constitution"; as I wrote to Studio the other evening, I believe that it is the Constitution was divinely inspired, and I also explained how I believe that how one interprets the Constitution can demonstrate whether one is either the proverbial "conservative", or the proverbial "liberal". "Ethics and facts"? You will have to be a bit more specific for me to defend against such allegations. Once again, I question whether you have confused me with someone else..... KeithInTampa On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Gordon Urquhart <gordon_urquh...@yahoo.com > wrote: When the Constitution agrees with the opposite of your frail side of the issue you bash the Constitution ,when it benefits it you embrace it.You set the parameters by citing the Constitution chapter and verse now you seek to compromise it.You can't have it both ways son.Grow up and get some ethics and facts for your arguments.Show the thread where it sites cities in your so called chapter and verse argument.The thread awaits your answer. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
