RE: ID and Creationism

From: Susan Cogan (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 27 2000 - 15:57:05 EST

  • Next message: DNAunion@aol.com: "Re: Vague appeals to OST (retraction - kind of)"

    an addendum to my last post to Stephen.

    He said:
    >That is not what the Constitution says. It says that "Congress shall make no
    >law ...". I repeat that "in none of those cases AFAIK had *Congress* made
    >any law." It seems to me that what has happened is that Susan's crowd
    >have *usurped* the Constitution. This seems to this outsider as straight-out
    judicial oppression worthy of a banana republic.

    The states cannot make laws that violate Federal laws. In other words
    an individual state cannot disenfranchise women, even if *every
    single person in that state* wanted to do so, because it would
    violate the Constitution.

    Susan 

    -- 
----------

      I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be 
denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is 
bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man 
as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the 
laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of 
the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.

    ---Charles Darwin

    http://www.telepath.com/susanb/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 15:57:01 EST