2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + +
no edit summary
This page has to be locked to prevent recurrence of this edit, and vandalism, because this page is now linked on the main page for the 28th.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
This page has to be locked to prevent recurrence of this edit, and vandalism, because this page is now linked on the main page for the 28th.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: Andy you didn't meet my challenge. You're dead right, it did overturn Plessy. Good call. But it did so on the basis of an evolving interpretation of the EPC. It addressed social equality, which 19th Century jurisprudence held was not a legitimate judicial goal. You ''know'' I am right, you just don't like the implication. I can recommend a law review if you want.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:21, 28 March 2007 (EDT)