Home | Community | Message Board


SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america
    #2431400 - 03/14/04 03:25 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, this can't be real.

here is the act: http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.html

Quote:

to reconstruct our constitution and ?restore? it to subservience to a theocratic religion under God and under biblical law.




http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm


Quote:

The following proposed law will be added to Sec. 1260 of Title 28, Chapter 81 of the U.S. Code:



?Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element?s or officer?s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.?





http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/03/12/120.html

Quote:

The "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" is no joke; it was introduced last month by some of the Bush Regime's most powerful Congressional sycophants. If enacted, it will effectively transform the American republic into a theocracy, where the arbitrary dictates of a "higher power" -- as interpreted by a judge, policeman, bureaucrat or president -- can override the rule of law.






Quote:

Well, wipe that smile off your face. For even now, the ignorant barbarians in Washington are pushing a law through Congress that would "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government" in the United States. What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to government officials who use the power of the state to enforce their own view of "God's sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a challenge could be removed from office.






--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Edited by mabus (03/14/04 03:36 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: mabus]
    #2431403 - 03/14/04 03:26 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

There's no way this is going to pass.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: silversoul7]
    #2431423 - 03/14/04 03:36 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Or as Attorney General John Ashcroft -- the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- has often proclaimed: "America has no king but Jesus!"






well, when ashcroft says crap like the above quote it just might pass.


--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: mabus]
    #2431443 - 03/14/04 03:42 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mabus said:
Quote:

Or as Attorney General John Ashcroft -- the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- has often proclaimed: "America has no king but Jesus!"






well, when ashcroft says crap like the above quote it just might pass.



Ashcroft is pretty widely hated, even among Bush supporters. His endorsement doesn't mean shit.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: mabus]
    #2431455 - 03/14/04 03:45 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Insane rantings. I'm referring to the Moscow Times. You might as well worry about a meteorite landing on your head


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: silversoul7]
    #2431473 - 03/14/04 03:49 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)


Quote:

As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe ?? that government ?derives its moral authority from God. Government is the ?minister of God? with powers to ?revenge,? to ?execute wrath,? including even wrath by the sword??







--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,844
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: mabus]
    #2431595 - 03/14/04 04:35 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Maybe they'll start allowing the "Judge not lest ye be judged" defense.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: mabus]
    #2431992 - 03/14/04 07:12 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

I wish to reiterate for the record once again that I am an atheist and firmly believe that religion has no place in law whatsoever. Moving on...

I understand that many here are unfamiliar with parsing legal terms. However, there is nothing insidious about this proposed legislation at all. Read it carefully and think about what it says.

Quote:

?Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element?s or officer?s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.?




In other words, if someone challenges in court a government official's ruling, the reason for the challenge must be more substantive than simply that the official in question believes in God. There must be a flaw in the legislation itself, not just a perceived "flaw" in whoever enforces it.

It is not enough to claim for example that a law raising the age of consent to eighteen years old from its previous level of sixteen is automatically invalid solely because those who enacted it believe in God -- there must be some other point on which to base the objection rather than the religious beliefs of those who enacted the law or regulation or whatever.

This is no different in principle than saying that the official's skin color or sexual preference may not be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to grant review to a law involving that person.

No reason to panic, folks.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: Phred]
    #2432127 - 03/14/04 08:01 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

In other words, if someone challenges in court a government official's ruling, the reason for the challenge must be more substantive than simply that the official in question believes in God. There must be a flaw in the legislation itself, not just a perceived "flaw" in whoever enforces it.

It is not enough to claim for example that a law raising the age of consent to eighteen years old from its previous level of sixteen is automatically invalid solely because those who enacted it believe in God -- there must be some other point on which to base the objection rather than the religious beliefs of those who enacted the law or regulation or whatever.

This is no different in principle than saying that the official's skin color or sexual preference may not be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to grant review to a law involving that person.

No reason to panic, folks.

pinky







The bill limits the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts to hear cases involving ?expressions of religious faith by elected or appointed officials.?

Here is my example pinky: If a judge says everyone who appears before him in his courtroom has to say the lord's prayer, then before your court appearence on a trafic ticket or whatever, you have no choice but to say the prayer. You won't leagally be able to fight the saying of the lords prayer before your court appearence as unconstitutional in a court of law.







From the mouth of the ones who wrote the bill.

Quote:

Q. How does the Constitution Restoration Act affect each and every individual?

A. In 1952, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Zorach v. Clauson that, ?We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a belief in a Supreme Being.? During the last fifty years, federal courts have excluded prayers in public schools, Ten Commandments in public buildings, manger scenes at Christmas, and even the Pledge of Allegiance in school classrooms. Even as late as 1984, the United States Supreme Court struck down a state statute in Alabama which allowed a moment of silence ?or voluntary prayer.? These examples have one thing in common: ?the acknowledgment of God.? The CRA would restore our right to acknowledge God and stop the ACLU and other liberal groups from bringing frivolous suits simply because they are ?offended? because there is a God and a higher law. Our children would be free to pray before eating lunch in their schools, public officials would be free to acknowledge the God upon Whom they take their oath, and the moral basis of our law







--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: mabus]
    #2432292 - 03/14/04 08:53 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

mabus writes:

The bill limits the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts to hear cases involving ?expressions of religious faith by elected or appointed officials.?

If you meant to say it seeks to prevent SCOTUS from hearing such cases, I fail to see that in the section you quoted. Read it carefully. Think about what you are reading. It says nothing more than what I described above.

If a judge says everyone who appears before him in his courtroom has to say the lord's prayer, then before your court appearence on a trafic ticket or whatever, you have no choice but to say the prayer. You won't leagally be able to fight the saying of the lords prayer before your court appearence as unconstitutional in a court of law.

Nonsense. It says no such thing. I say again, read what is there and THINK about what you are reading.

If you wish to challenge the judge's insistence that you say the Lord's prayer, you may still do so, because your legal reason for the challenge is not that the judge in question believes in God (note that a judge who is an avowed atheist could make the same insistence out of sheer orneriness), but that he is forcing you to do something which by law he has no right to. It makes no difference whether the judge is black or white, or whether the judge himself recites the Lord's Prayer or a paean to Satan -- it is the act of withholding justice from you inappropriately that is at issue here.

From the mouth of the ones who wrote the bill.

What they say about their motivation for introducing the bill is completely irrelevant. What counts is its content.

But just for shits and giggles, let's actually read (while thinking about what we are reading) what they have to say:

Quote:

The CRA would restore our right to acknowledge God and stop the ACLU and other liberal groups from bringing frivolous suits simply because they are ?offended? because there is a God and a higher law. Our children would be free to pray before eating lunch in their schools, public officials would be free to acknowledge the God upon Whom they take their oath, and the moral basis of our law




They are not saying they want to force everyone to pray, or to mention God out loud -- they just want the freedom for people to pray or to mention God out loud without being sued for doing so. If you don't want to pray, it's no skin off their nose.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: Phred]
    #2432365 - 03/14/04 09:21 PM (13 years, 9 months ago)

Well, I disagree with your interpretation. It will be interesting to read what others think.

Quote:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/065553.htm

The Constitution, the document which sets out the legal structure of the American government, actually refutes their position:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The authors made it very clear that the government is founded upon the will of the people - not the will of any gods or kings. Had the authors wanted to state that our government was founded on God, they could have said so right here. Far from being a "Constitution Restoration Act," this is really a "Constitution Abrogation Act" because it abrogates the basis upon which the Constitution was founded.






Quote:

http://www.gaconstitutionparty.org/s.nl/c.ACCT73046/category.4/it.I/id.66/.f

Accordingly, under Sec. 102 of this bill, "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

This means, that the federal judiciary would be prohibited from interfering with any expression of religious faith by any elected local, state, or federal official. In other words, federal judges could not prevent the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public buildings or Nativity Scenes from appearing on court house lawns or "under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers being spoken in public schools, etc. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these matters.





Quote:

Roy Moore's Constitution Restoration Act Violates Fundamental Civil Liberties

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release
Contact Information: Edd Doerr (301) 260-2988 or Roy Speckhardt (202) 238-9088

(Washington, D.C., February 13, 2004) "Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's disregard for the First Amendment rears its ugly head once again," according to Americans for Religious Liberty (ARL) president Edd Doerr.

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, drafted in large part by Moore limits the authority of federal judges to make decisions about religious expression. The proposed legislation limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to intervene in state court rulings that allow the "acknowledgment of God."

"Not only is this initiative an affront to Jefferson's wall of church-state separation, it clearly violates the constitutional separation of powers," continues Doerr. "Blanket removal of the necessary restrictions that prevent state sponsored favoritism toward particular religious traditions and slight others is undeniably unconstitutional.

"Houses of worship and citizens retain their inalienable right to display their preferred version of the Commandments or any other religious or philosophical message in their churches, churchyards, and on their private property-federal and public spaces must remain free of governmental favoritism," continued Doerr.

"With this proposed legislation and others such as the Ten Commandments Defense Act (HR-2045) and the Religious Liberties Restoration Act (S-1558), danger to church-state separation and religious liberty is at a high point. A recent plaintiff in the Philadelphia Ten Commandments case, ARL will seek other opportunities to bring the right case all the way to the Supreme Court. Additionally, ARL will work with coalition partners to defeat every piece of legislation that endangers religious freedom." Doerr concluded. http://www.arlinc.org/press/RoyMoore.html






--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Edited by mabus (03/15/04 06:58 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: Phred]
    #2435925 - 03/15/04 07:15 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

for anyone who is interested.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/022404Conover/022404conover.html
Quote:

The Bible-thumping Judge Moore now wants Congress to undermine the federal courts

By Bev Conover

February 24, 2004?Having lost his appeals all the way to the US Supreme Court to keep his 2.5-ton Ten Commandments monument on public display in the Alabama Justice Building, along with being removed as chief justice of the state's highest court, Roy Moore is now embarked on a get even scheme to limit the jurisdiction of the nation's highest court and all federal appellate courts in matters dealing with public religious pronouncements and international law.

So who cares about the constitutionally mandated separation of powers? Not Congress, which, under both Democratic and Republican control, has been chipping away at the checks and balances. Not administrations, including the Bush, which have been doing likewise. And especially now when Bush and his band of religious zealots are bent on turning the US into a theocratic police state.

Moore, who argues that the acknowledgment of God ""as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the 'organic law' of our country by United States Code Annotated," has written a bill, the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, which he has gotten Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) to introduce in the US Senate as S. 2082, and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-4th Dist., Ala.) in the House as H.R. 3799.

Roy Moore, like so many others who get their history lessons from right-wing fundamentalist revisionists, interprets Jefferson's use of the word creator in the Declaration of Independence to mean God?not just any old God, though, but the Christian God. Publicly they will say the "Judeo-Christian God," but Jews beware. And Muslims, Hindus and all those other heathens and apostates, well you know what they think of you. While Jefferson left us nothing definitive about his religious leanings, the one thing we know is that he was not a Christian?a Deist, perhaps, but not a Christian?even though the Christian right conveniently embraces him as such. So how do we know if by "creator" Jefferson, who also was the author of the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, didn't mean parents? After all, he wrote the Declaration of Independence in an age of flowery, poetic phrases.

But Shelby and Aderholt, who took a vow to uphold the Constitution, also buy into the madness that it's okay for public servants to cram their religious views down the throats of everyone and to encourage others who share their religious persuasion to do likewise. Well, what can we expect in the Age of Extreme Rudeness?

In sponsoring Moore's bill, Shelby makes the fallacious argument that his god is enshrined in America. Some enshrining when the motto in God We Trust was placed on some coins in 1863, during the Civil War. It was taken off the five-cent coin in 1883 and did not appear again until production of the Jefferson nickel in 1938. President Theodore Roosevelt thought it sacrilege to put God on currency?Teddy apparently took his Good Book's admonition that money is the root of all evil seriously (actually it is the "love of money). In 1909, Congress enacted a bill mandating that In God We Trust be put back on all coins on which it had originally appeared. In 1956, near the end of the communist witchhunts, President Eisenhower and Congress decided to change the national motto from E Pluribus Unum (one from many) to In God We Trust and to include the new motto on all paper currency.

"My point is that you simply can not divest God from our country. Our country has no foundation without a basic recognition that God invests us at birth with basic individual rights?such as the blessings of liberty?that we all enjoy as Americans," Shelby said.

He further contended that "the Courts have exceeded their power. This legislation recognizes the rights of the states and the people as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (ninth and tenth amendments) to acknowledge God."

Interesting that he would choose to cite the Ninth Amendment, since Robert Bork, who was rejected for a seat on the Supreme Court, said in his confirmation hearing that the Ninth Amendment was "an ink blot" on the Constitution. Anything in a pinch to make a case; expediency reigns. And no one has taken away any person's right to acknowledge whomever or whatever he or she chooses, but the First Amendment forbids the state from establishing religion.

Aderholt, while more or less parroting Shelby and Moore, chose the First and Tenth Amendments in making his specious argument that to prohibit "public officials from recognizing God violates" those amendments.

In a further overreach, and in violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution, Aderholt maintained that "it is the duty of the Congress, under Article III, to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts. This is a check on the Judicial Branch to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction. The Constitution Restoration Act would preserve and restore the acknowledgment of God to our law and government."

He added, ""Therefore, whether it is a public display of the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom, or a nativity scene at Christmas, all would be protected since it is in essence the acknowledgment of God."

While Moore's bill would prohibit the federal courts from enforcing the separation clause in the First Amendment, it would also forbid them from "recognizing the laws of foreign jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our land." So all international laws governing the rules of war or anything else would be tossed out the window, giving the US a green light to do anything it wishes, anywhere it pleases.
To regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts is one thing, but to prohibit them from ruling on constitutional matters or matters involving international law, as set forth in Article III of the Constitution, is another. While constitutional scholars debate these points, Chief Justice John Marshall, in 1803, noted, "The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable."

Moore, who subscribes to a "higher authority," defied the law of the land ("Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's . . ." Matthew, 22:21) by refusing to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building, which led to him being ousted as chief justice and his monument carted away. Now he is looking to do an end around the US Constitution, with the help of Shelby and Aderholt, by taking away the federal courts' jurisdiction in such matters. He also has cast his eyes on the governorship of Alabama.





--------------------

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: mabus]
    #2436407 - 03/15/04 09:13 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Apparently some others haven't taken the time to read the precise wording of the proposed legislation, and to think about what they read:
Quote:

This means, that the federal judiciary would be prohibited from interfering with any expression of religious faith by any elected local, state, or federal official. In other words, federal judges could not prevent the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public buildings or Nativity Scenes from appearing on court house lawns or "under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers being spoken in public schools, etc. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these matters.


This is arrant nonsense. That is not even close to what the wording of the proposed legislation states. Nowhere does it say SCOTUS may not hear cases disputing the hanging of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, for example, just that they may not review actions brought against a public official by reason of his "acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source etc. etc."

One can acknowledge God without displaying Ten Commandments or nativity scenes or whatever.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america [Re: mabus]
    #2436453 - 03/15/04 09:25 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Is this guy for real?

Quote:

While Moore's bill would prohibit the federal courts from enforcing the separation clause in the First Amendment, it would also forbid them from "recognizing the laws of foreign jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our land."


Well, duh! Why it should even be necessary to pass redundant legislation such as this is a sign of just how far activist judges have overstepped their oaths. France's laws (or the laws of the Sudan) lose all jurisdiction at France's (or the Sudan's) borders. They have no force whatsoever beyond those borders, much less are they the "supreme law" of the United States of America.
Quote:

So all international laws governing the rules of war or anything else would be tossed out the window, giving the US a green light to do anything it wishes, anywhere it pleases.



And where, pray tell, are these "laws" encoded? To the best of my knowledge, the only "laws" "governing" warfare are described in the Geneva Convention, to which not every country is a signatory.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "Constitution" Restoration Act.... A new low in Act naming.. FrankieJustTrypt 780 5 11/08/04 09:09 AM
by Phred
* Court Backs Oregon's Law Allowing Assisted Suicide luvdemshrooms 639 5 06/01/04 02:27 PM
by Seuss
* A Material Breach of the Constitution Ellis Dee 792 7 02/19/03 07:44 PM
by BowlKiller
* Patriot Act 2, more plans for a police state Ellis Dee 1,327 16 02/26/03 07:19 PM
by ClosetCase
* Bush Paves the Way for Martial Law zorbman 1,258 11 03/25/07 09:21 PM
by AlteredAgain
* Arrested for reading the U.S. Constitution outloud, in a public park, at a pro war rally.
( 1 2 3 all )
gettinjiggywithit 3,899 46 09/24/07 07:02 AM
by Seuss
* federal RAVE Act 40oz 711 9 12/26/02 04:00 AM
by SnuffelzFurever
* supreme court strikes down anti-sodomy laws Anonymous 574 11 06/27/03 06:12 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,097 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.041 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 19 queries.