ARealConservative
10-10-2007, 12:07 PM
How does he get away with claiming this?
For example - he likes the concept of a line item veto but claims it would require a constitutional amendment. I agree, it would require such an amendment.
So would our current federal war on drugs - so can we assume that Guliani supports state rights as it pertains to medical marjiuana?
Well - we know he doesn't support it. So how can he be a strict constructionist?
For example - he likes the concept of a line item veto but claims it would require a constitutional amendment. I agree, it would require such an amendment.
So would our current federal war on drugs - so can we assume that Guliani supports state rights as it pertains to medical marjiuana?
Well - we know he doesn't support it. So how can he be a strict constructionist?