This is a good thing for the citizens of California. Now what can we all do to remove the politicians from office who voted for the bailout against the vast majority of their constituents' wishes? We cannot afford to wait for 2 or 4 more years while our national treasury continues to be recklessly plundered by imbeciles and crooks.

__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

Now watch the courts find this unconstitutional (though it actually isn't) just like they declared congressional term limits unconstitutional.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Hasn't this board taught you anything? It's just a matter of time before that "A" political board is corrupted. Just you watch. In six years you can buy your won district...

__________________
I'm Proud I never Voted For Bush!



PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT

As long as this does not in someway violate the Reapportionment Act of 1929, and I do not see how it does. then there is no valid argument for it being unconstitutional.

As long as they can keep the districts legal and represented I am all for it. Go Cali.

__________________

There was no valid argument for the U. S. Supreme Court to define "public use" (fifth amendment) to mean a city can take your home and sell it to a developer because the city would arguably get more in property taxes from the developer either (though, more often than not, cities tend to give developers property tax breaks to entice them to develop in the community), yet the U. S. Supreme Court did so. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 is not the Constitution and it is not an amendment to the Constitution: it doesn't matter what that particular piece of legislation says because the federal courts can easily declare it unconstitutional. In short, there doesn't have to be a valid argument in order for the federal courts to declare something unconstitutional.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

I Know that the act is not part of the constitution. My reference was because it has been the precedent in many cases and has been upheld many times in the past 80 years.

__________________

But since the federal courts can very easily overturn such legislation, I wouldn't put much stock in its permanence.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."