Karen Winter, proud mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq and
ardent defender of powerful, intrusive government, lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> Karen Winter, chronic liar, lied again:
>
> >>What I asked was why national parks would be unconstitutional.
>
> > You asked where in the Constitution does it
> > forbid that kind of thing to the federal government
>
> How does that differ from asking why national parks would
> be unconstitutional

It doesn't differ at all, you ****ing ****. And it's *still* the wrong
question. As I have patiently tried to explain to you: the
Constitution does not explicitly forbid powers to Congress. Activities
and powers are *understood* to be forbidden to Congress *unless* they
are granted in the Constitution. You keep getting it backward, but
because you're a stubborn, arrogant asshole who wrongly thinks you're
the smartest person in the newsgroup, you're incapable of learning.
You are wrong on all of it, not least your unwarranted opinion of
yourself.


> The Constitution was an 18th-century document.

Irrelevant.


> There are a vast array

There IS a vast array of things, you idiot. The verb must agree in
number with the subject. Array is singular. You ****.


> thing things which did not exist in
> the 18th century which the federal government had had
> to deal with in the last 200-plus years, and national parks
> are one of them.

No, absolutely not, and an astonishingly weak defense of your position.
Parks already existed at the time of the drafting of the Constitution,
and other nations had national parks and preserves. This is something
the Founders - good white men, all of them - could easily have provided
for, unlike (say) electronic communications regulation or space
exploration.

Also, there is an amendment process to the Constitution that can be
employed to deal with the kind of development of events and
technologies that were unforeseeable to the Founders. No ratified
amendment can possibly interpreted as authorizing the parks, and
clearly none of the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution can be interpreted that way either.


> > > > BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet?

> > > I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not.

> > Yes, Karen, you most certainly have. You told us a couple of years ago
> > that your son is in the Army in Iraq. Cut the shit, Karen. Just
> > answer the question: has he been killed carrying out the Bush
> > administration's invasion, an invasion you claim to oppose? Are you
> > still proud of your son, Karen?

No comment, Karen? Come on, Karen - are you proud of your son?