DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**replicaypu** · 10-24-2005, 09:37 PM

Providing the Constitution allows it, tort reform at the federal level only ... but what if the reform conflicts with state law? ...

Selective liability -- doesn't sound Constitutional ... but I just don't know.

Then why did you bother to comment? (this question is meant to be rhetorical).

...And, as populations grow more dense and technology both continues to make us more united and make geopolitical land and resource management for the country as a whole centrally easy ... the states will soon be rendered county-like ... the electoral college will be abolished ... the US will become a state of the UN ... all which the Constitution will support via the amendment process, if necessary.

Okie-dokie!

Is "partisan acrimony" a violation of the Constitution or supported by it?

Neither, but it is something that seems to be harming the body politic.

If no or yes respectively, then you, as a SCOTUS judge would be technically Constitutionally out of bounds with your note to Congress.

That is why the statement was given as an aside.

10-24-2005, 09:37 PM	#8
replicaypu Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 432 Senior Member	Providing the Constitution allows it, tort reform at the federal level only ... but what if the reform conflicts with state law? ... Selective liability -- doesn't sound Constitutional ... but I just don't know. Then why did you bother to comment? (this question is meant to be rhetorical). ...And, as populations grow more dense and technology both continues to make us more united and make geopolitical land and resource management for the country as a whole centrally easy ... the states will soon be rendered county-like ... the electoral college will be abolished ... the US will become a state of the UN ... all which the Constitution will support via the amendment process, if necessary. Okie-dokie! Is "partisan acrimony" a violation of the Constitution or supported by it? Neither, but it is something that seems to be harming the body politic. If no or yes respectively, then you, as a SCOTUS judge would be technically Constitutionally out of bounds with your note to Congress. That is why the statement was given as an aside.
	Quote