Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
The funny part is, the last sentance was the biggest point I had there. Because I belive this oversight WAS agreed upon before the fact. Which is our base disagreement.
|
Okay, so you believe it was agreed upon ex-ante, but then you say:
Quote:
|
Now, of course I don't have the paperwork or anything to back me up on that.. but this is why some states turned down the funds, and this is why california had every right to turn it down too.
|
So, do you believe that there was a legally binding contract signed that no one knows about, or was there a promise made that would not be legally binding? Option one seems implausible, and option two seems naive.
One more thing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
The problem is the constitution isn't a perfect document. He is directly following the laws that have been put into it, and you know it. If more rules needed to be added to the constitution or some clarification or changes made to adjust to the issues of this time... then I can agree with that. But don't go tossing out that what he's doing is unconstitutional if it isn't.
|
I find this paragraph very confusing. Are you referring to the constitutional amendment process?