At 9:24 PM -0500 11/6/00, David Honig wrote:
>At 02:13 AM 11/6/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
>> I just can't think of anything
>>the law requires me to have in my house. As it should be.
>
>* running water
Nope, no such law.
>* N toilets per hectare
Nope.
>* electricity
Are you just making this s
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, David Honig wrote:
>At 02:13 AM 11/6/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
>> I just can't think of anything
>>the law requires me to have in my house. As it should be.
>
>* running water
>* N toilets per hectare
>* electricity
>* walls, stairs, floors made to certain state minima (stan
At 20:18 -0500 11/5/00, Steven Furlong wrote:
>The supremes have decided, in their wisdom, that the amendments to the
>federal constitution apply to the states as well. Thus, the 1st
>amendment prohibits states as well as the feds from regulating speech.
Not a question of wisdom- the 14th basicly
At 02:13 AM 11/6/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
> I just can't think of anything
>the law requires me to have in my house. As it should be.
* running water
* N toilets per hectare
* electricity
* walls, stairs, floors made to certain state minima (standards)
* N metres of terra between A and B
- Original Message -
X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: Steven Furlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 17:18 PM
Subject: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
>
> > While I adm
> Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to
>pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state
>statute?
I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional for the federal gov't to pass
such a law, unless you rely on the widely-ignored 10th Amendment. (The
