Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
School project: rewrite the Constitution
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeff The Card: [QB] [i]think that's the law already, isn't it? Though you can have a debate on whether it's a good idea or not...[/i] Diverging from topic a bit ... the primary evidence in Bill Clinton's impeachment was a recording Linda Tripp made of a conversation between her and Monica Lewinsky. Tripp, a Maryland resident (she lived about a mile from my parent's home, and I went to middle school with both her kids, BTW), never informed Lewinsky she was being tape recorded. Recording a conversation without the other person's knowledge is against Maryland law (a fact Tripp was informed of when she bought the recording device from Radio Shack). So, essentially, the Republican Party doesn't mind too much using illegally gained evidence to try someone. [i]Because according to my sources[/i] Which are ... ? Mine are: Shapiro, [i]The Nation[/i] 4/7/97 Elliot and Ballard, [i]Texas Lawyer[/i] 2/26/96 O'Brien, op-ed, [i]The Washington Post[/i], 5/28/97 [i]Good Morning America[/i], ABC, 5/4/97 Aron, [i]USA Today[/i], 12/7/98 CNN, 6/25/95 & 3/31/96 Bendavid, [i]Texas Lawyer[/i], 8/14/95 Ballard, [i]Texas Lawyer[/i], 4/17/95 [i]US News & World Report[/i], 8/10/99 [i]This is what happens when you take an activist's WORD for something, while forgetting that they can distort the truth just as much, or more, as their enemies.[/i] Fo2: regarding sleeping lawyers. While some of them might be a result of an excuse for an appeal, the fact that you've got jurors and court officers [i]testifying[/i] to sleeping lawyers in some of the cases says to me that, while some might be lies, some are in fact, fact. [i]I like that whole "some of the Constitution is literal, and some is meant to be interpreted" tack... makes you sound like a Fundie with the Bible. Excuse me while I snicker.[/i] I don't remember saying that. Did I? Where? Why did you attribute this statement to me? Explain. Yes, the Constitution is flexible with time. It changes to suit the times, that was the Fouding Fathers' intentions. I doubt this country will ever get fucked up enough to revoke the basic precept, "innocent until proven guilty", however, although you seem like you'd like to do away with it. That, however, is you. Not me. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3