[AF] Ha!

[Ronald J. Dot'o Sr.]

I've always said we already have too many laws and they should remove 
some of them instead of making more and more.  Right now I probably 
unknowingly break one or two laws still on the books every day.  This 
goes for both federal and state.  There's a law in Oregon that dishes 
must drip dry and can't be dried with a dish towel, and then there's 
the one about you can't eat ice cream on Sunday.

The "assault weapons" ban sponsored by the Clinton administration was 
unlawful as the Militia Act states that members of the Unorganized 
Militia must have a military grade firearm, but that act was ignored 
rather than enforced.

Ron D


From: "Alan Kline" <akline at netins.net>

>I would suggest that it's rather difficult to determine if laws are 
>in
> compliance with the Constitution if one doesn't understand the 
> meaning
> of the latter; hence, the need for interpretation.


It shouldn't be THAT hard to interpret, after all it's not written in 
Chinese!  I think SCOTUS and other higher courts usually try to read 
in things that aren't there.  Along with the Constitution they should 
read the Federalist Papers to see what the founders intended.  And 
another thing, it was mostly written by common folk with few lawyers 
involved.

Ron D

>
> Gary Glaenzer wrote:
>> From: "Sid Schweiger" <sid at wrko.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ...which is, I suppose, why the courts have spent the past 220 
>>> years
>> interpreting it.  Would it need so much interpretation if it were 
>> so simple?
>>
>>
>> actually, I was under the impression that the USSC's job was to 
>> determine if
>> LAWS were in compliance with the Constitution
>>
>> you know, as in 'constitutional'
>
>