Changes

Actual legal analysis
Line 14: Line 14:     
::::: Um, the statement as phrased isn't obvious to me nor apparently to this editor. I would presume a large amount of the matter would hinge on how you define terms. Furthermore, it isn't clear to me how any other "unsourced" claim you've complained about has been any less "obvious" nor for that matter where the Conservapedia Commandments make a distinction between "obvious" and "unobvious" unsourced claims. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:03, 22 February 2007 (EST)
 
::::: Um, the statement as phrased isn't obvious to me nor apparently to this editor. I would presume a large amount of the matter would hinge on how you define terms. Furthermore, it isn't clear to me how any other "unsourced" claim you've complained about has been any less "obvious" nor for that matter where the Conservapedia Commandments make a distinction between "obvious" and "unobvious" unsourced claims. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:03, 22 February 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
== Actual legal analysis ==
 +
 +
I have changed this article significantly, but all in keeping with accepted Constitutional law.  Please address any problems you have with my legal analysis here, and I will deal with it.  Note that I have dealt with only established legal or historical facts with very precise citations to either firm case law, or legal case books.  I think you all should like it...
2,732

edits