Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Bill of Rights

Expand Messages
  • Sarah Lovett
    John, I am sure Bill meant no offense. I guess I could see where this information leads to an arguement for originalism or justice and governance as meant by
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 19, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      John, 

      I am sure Bill meant no offense. I guess I could see where this information leads to an arguement for "originalism" or justice and governance as meant by those that had escaped tyranny. I know we have very few judges that rule based on this philosophy. I think many get confused and think the constitution written by men would be imperfect and are complicated, complex lives need more governance. But usually it is not.  Let's not get hasty, we need ideas and input from everyone, and for convience we have set up different forums. So what can the RLC poosibly do to help 
      Not only preserve the constitution but ensure originalism Is restored the standard not the exception!   If u are going to quit, might as well come to Jax at the Convention, at 
      Sarah 
      Sent from my iPhone

      On Mar 19, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Chris Edes <chrisedes@...> wrote:

      I think what Bill is saying is not that pro-freedom discussions aren't good things, but that discussions belong on the RLC-Discuss list, hence the name, not on the RLC-Action list, which is for action items.  "End the deception" is not an action item, it's a long term goal.

      Chris

      It just hit me that I don't want any part of any group that would have this, whatever he is, as a member.  Good luck to you all, but I am done with the RLCFL and the RLC.

      John Conway.
      ----- Forwarded Message ----
      From: "westmiller@ aol.com" <westmiller@aol. com>
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
      Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:09:36 PM
      Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Bill of Rights

      Posted by: "John Conway"
      > The Preamble to the Bill of Rights
      > Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution! !!
       
          I don't get the point (every proposed amendment has a preamble, which is not the text to be added or amended), but this kind of commentary doesn't belong on RLC-Action in any case.
       
      Bill

    • DGHarrison
      The simplest explanation for Bill s post was that RLC-Action is not for discussing political philosophy but -- TA DAAAA! -- for discussing action items. There
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 20, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The simplest explanation for Bill's post was that RLC-Action is not for
        discussing political philosophy but -- TA DAAAA! -- for discussing
        action items. There is a forum (which I left some time ago because of
        the "angels and pinheads" discussions) called RLC-Discuss (or some
        such). That's where the Bill of Rights discussion should be taken.
        RLC-Action is not for discussing pinheads.

        Doug Harrison
        Minnesota


        --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
      • Dave Nalle
        Did I read this right? He s quitting because Bill told him he d posted his endless screed to the wrong list? I thought Conway was made of sterner stuff than
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 20, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Did I read this right? He's quitting because Bill told him he'd
          posted his endless screed to the wrong list? I thought Conway was
          made of sterner stuff than that.

          Dave
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.