Let it go man. Move on. I've already proven it applies only to slaves. Better luck next time.

You've got nothing, eh?

OK, I gotta ask. What does that mean?

I think there was a long debate about the interpretation of the word "of" in one of the clauses of the constitution of the United States of America.

Whether by being "in" the US you became one of the the people "of" the US.

It was about this time I glazed over and remembered why I left academic philosophy.

Then they started arguing abut a comma, and I went into a coma.

I proposition that their prepositions presuppose the precedent that they have a freaking clue what they're arguing about, presumably...period. ;)

:biggrinje:

Nothing other than proving that the clause can ONLY refer to slaves many times, showing that you are wrong many times, showing not only the Constitution itself which proves me right, but also providing other information which I don't need, but which shows the Supreme Court, Every law school, every Constitutional scholar, and the writings of the founders themselves declaring that it refers ONLY to slaves.

But wait, you claimed you are a Constitutional scholar!

And I am. But it turns out there are more than one.

It appears by number of post, there's a hell of a lot more than one.

Oh no, most of the time Radar has just been talking to himself. ;)

Hey. We need to get Drax in on this shit!!!!

I don't think Drax cares what Radar has to say. ;)

It's ok as long as I don't answer myself. :blah:

And the proof is???