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.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (28894)	7/8/2008 2:25:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"The house came out with a formulation. The Senate came up with a formulation. The senate won. That doesn't indicate a rejection of the principle of an individual right." Never claimed that. If you didn't claim that, and didn't support or even just quote without supporting, such a claim, than you haven't presented any relevant argument to indicate anything other than an individual right. Since it doesn't indicate the rejection of an individual right, and since apparently you are not even claiming that it does, it because a fact that isn't very relevant to the debate. Simply said that the Senate's LANGUAGE is what won out... what made it into the Constitution. And the Senate's language indicates an individual right. "What's interesting is that you never even post the house's version when you try to make arguments based on it." (You are certainly free to look it up if you are interested. I might do that as a matter of idle curiosity. But its not a high priority for me, since I don't think that there is anything that it could say that would amount to support for the arguments against the current language supporting an individual right, and since apparently you are not claiming that it does so.