On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:
> Whatever Jim. Have it your way, a century of precedent means nothing.
You may want to acquire (and possibly even *read*), "Government By
Judiciary".
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human be
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:
> You've yet to show how the airport departure lounge and check-in counter
> is the proper venue to address this. It isn't.
??? Why 'where' even relevant? If it doesn't apply all day, every day,
every place then it applies no place at no time.
As to a century
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:
> Whatever Jim. Have it your way, a century of precedent means nothing.
I wish
The point that the government is so far outside the Constitution and any
concept of reasonable 'American democracy' should be obvious, it is
usually the reason folks come here t
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:
> States are not prohibited from having a militia, the National Guard is an
> organized militia, until such time they are federalized, at which point
> they fall under the Army's Chain of Command.
No, the can't except in cases of invasion.
> Why do you think al
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:
> Working for the governor of their respective states, unless you're saying
> they've been called up by the Army and federalized. There is a long list
States are prohibited from having troops. Any(!) troops in the US (be they
military, guard, or militia) ARE r
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:45:05AM -1000, Reese wrote:
> of Nat.Guard troops for civil things. So long as they do not bring in
> regular active duty military, in violation of the posse comitatus act.
This shows a common but not entirely correct view of the PCA. You may wish to
read it for yourse
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:
> At the moment, it's National Guard, there is a long precedent for use
> of Nat.Guard troops for civil things. So long as they do not bring in
> regular active duty military, in violation of the posse comitatus act.
And it is pure judicial fiat. Guardsmen on
At 09:36 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>Actually, a person or business can "refuse to serve" on nearly any basis
>except race or gender or a few other politically-correct things. "Tim's
>Surf Shop" can choose not to wax the board of Reese, for whatever reason
>it chooses.
That's right, whe
On Sunday, November 4, 2001, at 03:10 AM, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2001, at 0:49, Reese wrote:
>
>> What is precedent and case history of the "We reserve the right..."
>> signs in public establishments, restaurants for example? How about
>> the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" sign
