- Oct 12, 2006
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
I don't need to determine what consists of "ridiclous sums of money" - because any money given violates the law. Where is the outcry when this law is violated?I studied Political Science for 5 years and have professionally debated and negotiated for 15 years, but I'm unable to compete on this forum. Why?
Here's a new posting - for me, it poses roadblocks of an impossible nature for proceeding with debating:
"Take this entire issue. We give ridiculous sums of money to Israel and Palestine - the courts have remained silent on the issue. Everything under the sun is recognized as interstate commerce - the courts have remained silent. The 1st and 14th amendment have somehow been tied together while the 9th is completely ignored. The courts have remained silent."
How has it been determined that 'ridiculous sums of money' were given - who says so - what constitutes 'ridicuous' in this context?
It's clear the issue regarding the Logan Act is completely partisan in nature - and that is why it is an issue for Mr. Shock.
I'm establishing precedent that partisan posters only care about partisan issues. If Mr Shock truly cared about seperation of powers and constitutionality, these issues would matter as well. Yet they all take a backseat to one Ms. Pelosi.What does "Everything under the sun is recognized as interstate commerce" mean? What does 'interstate commerce' have to do with Pelosi?