Instructors: is no combat better?

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Seagram" wrote in message
...
Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off
the
island

Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.

Excellent signal, to all that participated.


I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders
stand a chance,
especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
wannabees are
bottom feeders.


Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?

Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.

Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
wishing
for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
lawyers
are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
examining.
No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making
noises that
may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You
hit a
nerve.

It is rediculess to think that the 14th Amendment would be overturned by
the
SCotUS. The 14th Amendment might be interpreted in light of the fact
that
it was passed to enable the enforcement of the 13th Amendment, to mean
less
than it has in the past, but that is a good thing. After all, the 10th
Amendment is a good thing too.

We have a Supreme Court and an administraiton that wants to limit the size
of
the federal government and return power to the states. The14th amendment
blocks
that.

The 14th Amendment does no such thing and should never have been interpreted
to cancel the 10th Amendment. A constructionist view of the Constitution is
best for freedom.

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

The 14th Amendment does no such thing and should never have been interpreted
to cancel the 10th Amendment. A constructionist view of the Constitution is
best for freedom.



FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT

"...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of the United States nor shall any state deprive any citizen of
life liberty or property without due process of law...."

This is the constitution limiting state power. Take this away and state power
is dramatically increased..


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

The 14th Amendment does no such thing and should never have been
interpreted
to cancel the 10th Amendment. A constructionist view of the Constitution
is
best for freedom.



FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT

"...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges
or immunities of the United States nor shall any state deprive any citizen
of
life liberty or property without due process of law...."

This is the constitution limiting state power. Take this away and state
power
is dramatically increased..

The 14th Amendment was an attmept to enforce the 13th amendment. It was
four years from the ratification of the 13th Amendment until the Andrew
Johnson was stopped from blocking enforcement of the 13th Amendment. all
for the sake of a rew wealthy men.

Note that the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, but Congress did not pass
enabling law until 1965.