Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Truth about Waco -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James F. Hopkins who wrote (901)	9/14/1999 10:16:00 AM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

OT I agree, Jim. The distinction between levels of government is so blurry as to be non-existant. In the early 1800's, some of the major cases before the Supreme Court dealt with the "soverignty of states," (ha!) and whether the (then) Federal Government had any authority to perform police or law enforcement actions at the state level. The Supremes resoundingly opted to keep the Feds to issues dealing with relations amoung the states. Sigh. Those were the days when the words of the Constitution were interpreted to mean what they said, not what someone wished they meant. jim

To: James F. Hopkins who wrote (901)	9/15/1999 7:07:00 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1449

<< I wonder how long before the UN starts sending troops in to police us ? >> Where did you pull this idea out from? <g> The UN is not a separate government. It consists of representatives of all countries. In order for the powerless UN to send troops into the US, China and Russia and England and India and France and Germany and ...... would all have to all agree to invade the US. This would never happen. It's not possible. It's an idea that was hatched by some fairly ignorant and half baked groups that have no idea what the UN is, and how really weak the UN is as an organized unit.