Page history
September 26, 2018
July 12, 2016
January 6, 2015
January 3, 2012
June 10, 2011
June 5, 2010
May 28, 2010
September 19, 2008
June 14, 2008
April 23, 2008
November 19, 2007
September 21, 2007
August 30, 2007
August 20, 2007
August 10, 2007
July 10, 2007
July 1, 2007
June 20, 2007
May 21, 2007
Gonzales statement is not controversial - no one says that it is false
-112
Removing duplicate the
m-4
Quoting constitution
+151
→= Controversial Interpretation: indent problem
m-3
Reorg, expanding explaination of HC in the U.S.
+56
Details
+599
Gonzales's interpretation is just an interpretation, and a controversial one at that (as indicated in the source)
+115
latin meaning update - I'm fairly sure that my latin is good enough to confirm it is this
-18
I thought it was "produce the body"
+22
Adding category law
+16
May 16, 2007
May 15, 2007
March 27, 2007
Reverted edits by AmesG (Talk); changed back to last version by RSchlafly
m-42
Read Hamdi, Schalfly. Gonzalez says there's no express grant, and Scalia in the dissent says there is an express grant. That's disagreement. Did I mention that SCALIA said that?
+42
Gonzales did not disagree with the Supreme Court
-42
no edit summary
+31
March 13, 2007
Corrected per RSchlafly
m+261
Gonzalez didn't say that there was no implied grant; he said that there was no expressed grant
-259