1
   

Senator Frist: an enemy of our written Constitution?

 
 
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 08:32 pm
NEWS FLASH !


TN Senator Bill Frist Supports Embryo Stem Cell Research:

July 18, 2001—Nashville, TN: Tennessee Senator Bill Frist today announced his support for embryo stem cell research, including tax payer funding of the destructive practice.

Senator Frist supports using the force of government to finance stem cell research?

And by what constitutional authority does Senator Frist rely upon to use the force of government in such a manner?


Quote:

In general, the founding fathers agreed free enterprise to be the best depository in the advancement of science, and intentionally sought to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by granting a limited power to Congress to protect the work of authors and inventors by issuing patents and copyrights only!

Madison's Notes on the convention of 1787 reveals that Charles Pinckney, on August 18th during the federal convention, proposed a power to be vested in Congress "To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences", but this proposal, as many other proposals, was rejected by the Convention, and the only power agreed upon by the Framers and Ratifiers relating to the advancement of science, was the limited power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How? "... by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

And why not give power to Congress to award taxpayer money to private individuals in the promotion of science and useful Arts? The answer to this question was eloquently stated on the floor of the House on February 7th, 1792 by Representative John Page:

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers."
see Annals of Congress Feb 1792 Rep Page

So, here we have a record of the Founders of our great country, which addresses the question of whether Congress shall have power to subsidize and grant preferences in the advancement of science, and the record shows, in crystal clear language, the advancement of science was intentionally left to the free enterprise system without Congress being authorized to determine the winners and losers of taxpayer revenue grants.

In conclusion, the practice of today's Congress subsidizing and granting financial preferences to selected individuals and groups of individuals [including faith based institutions], is not only un-constitutional and a misappropriation of federal revenue, which happens to be a criminal offense, but such a power, when exercised by folks in government, is a total violation of personal property rights which our Constitution was designed to protect. The importance of personal property rights was pointed out on February 3, 1792, by Rep. Giles, speaking before the House of Representatives:

"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny."
[Annals of Congress, Feb 3 1792 Rep Giles


For the complete article see:
Stem Cell Research Funding and Free Enterprise





The Frist plan appears to be nothing more than a plan to create a new government office and dole out money from the public treasury to the friends of big government and Frist‘s friends involved in the medical industrial complex!

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence


Regards,

JWK
ACRS




"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."[/i]Federalist Paper No. 45
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,130 • Replies: 54
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:23 pm
I would say Frist is the first Republican to show a bit of good sense in quite a while.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:37 pm
Watching as the Republicans start to self-destruct is awfully fun...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:47 pm
The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.

I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:00 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.


Nice point, well stated. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:04 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.


Nice point, well stated. Very Happy

Gosh...
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:28 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.


Brandon, do you know the process by which these cells are harvested?

They are by products of in vitro fertilization, which enables parents who formerly could not have children to have them. At NO time did either the egg or the sperm combo ever see the inside of the mother's womb..

In the process of in vitro fertilization, several egg-sperm combos are united in petri dishes,and the best looking embryo gets implanted into the mother. The other successful looking embryos are frozen for a while in case the parents want another child, and then finally thrown out in the trash-or donated for stem cell research.

So that's the deal-these stem cells are taken from leftovers from the in vitro process which are slated to get thrown out in the garbage. Exactly how you think using these scheduled-for-the-scrap-heap cells to cure diseases and extend lives can be immoral is difficult to understand.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:39 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.


Brandon, do you know the process by which these cells are harvested?

They are by products of in vitro fertilization, which enables parents who formerly could not have children to have them. At NO time did either the egg or the sperm combo ever see the inside of the mother's womb..

In the process of in vitro fertilization, several egg-sperm combos are united in petri dishes,and the best looking embryo gets implanted into the mother. The other successful looking embryos are frozen for a while in case the parents want another child, and then finally thrown out in the trash-or donated for stem cell research.

So that's the deal-these stem cells are taken from leftovers from the in vitro process which are slated to get thrown out in the garbage. Exactly how you think using these scheduled-for-the-scrap-heap cells to cure diseases and extend lives can be immoral is difficult to understand.

The argument against stem cells from sources other than abortions is more complex, but I can tell you that it has two components, (1) what are the benefits of the research, (2) what is the ethical significance of using cells from the embryo? Any argument which looks at only one piece is invalid.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:41 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I would say Frist is the first Republican to show a bit of good sense in quite a while.


Senator Frist's plan appears to be nothing more than a plan to create a new government office and dole out money from the public treasury to the friends of big government and Frist's friends involved in the medical industrial complex!

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence


Regards,

JWK
ACRS

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. "Federalist Paper No. 45
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:46 pm
john w k wrote:
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in...... the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. "Federalist Paper No. 45

There are those who feel that enabling millions to avoid the dementia of Alzheimer's or the debility of Parkinson's contribute mightily to the "improvement and prosperity of the State".

There are even those who feel that alleviate either would "promote the general welfare".
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:53 pm
john w k wrote:
"Federalist Paper No. 45

Were the Federalist Papers ever voted into law? Has anyone ever been sent to jail for violating the Federalist Papers?
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:55 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.

I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.


Sorry, but your opinion is not supported by the mountain of evidence to the contrary!

To put this matter into perspective, it is essential to first understand a fundamental principle of constitutional law: "Perhaps the most basic of all the rules of constitutional construction (since it is the rule which all other rules may be said to be designed to implement) is the principle that a constitution is to be given the effect and meaning contemplated by its framers and by the people who adopted it..." [ see Vol 16 American Jurisprudence (constitutional law) Sec. 91].

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, also known as the "general welfare" clause, states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

So, in conformity with the most basic rule of constitutional construction, what did the framers and ratifiers intend by the words “general welfare”?

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."

Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution:

"the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95] [also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]

Even Hamilton, your bud, who changed his tune after the constitution was ratified, says in Federalist 83, in reference to the general welfare clause, that "...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

Hamilton’s words in Federalist No. 83 are also in harmony with that of Jefferson:

"Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark that divides the Federalists from the Republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provided for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently that the specification of power is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." (letter from Jefferson to Gallatin, June 16th, 1817)

Likewise, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention
"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified, to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording “promote the general welfare“.

As Justice Story correctly declares [see1084 of his com.] "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"

The idea that Congress may Constitutional tax and spend for whatever purpose it chooses simply does not correspond to the mountain of evidence concerning the legislative intent of Article 1, Section, 8, cl. 1. I have searched the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers, Madison’s’ Notes, Elliots Debates, and a number of other historical sources, and the preponderance of evidence shows the general welfare phrase is not, and was not, intended to be an open ended grant of power which allows Congress to summarily decide what is necessary for the general welfare, and then tax and spend for such purposes, the simple truth is, Congress is limited by the seventeen specifications beneath the phrase just as our Founding Fathers intended it to be, and the 10th Amendment’s intent confirms this!

If you have something to offer, rather than you opinion, such as evidence from the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, please fell free to post that evidence.

JWK
ACRS

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."[/i]Federalist Paper No. 45
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:57 pm
john w k wrote:
Regards,

JWK
ACRS


Are we supposed to know what ACRS stands for?
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:58 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
john w k wrote:
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in...... the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. "Federalist Paper No. 45

There are those who feel that enabling millions to avoid the dementia of Alzheimer's or the debility of Parkinson's contribute mightily to the "improvement and prosperity of the State".

There are even those who feel that alleviate either would "promote the general welfare".


Well then, let them support and have a constitutional amendment ratified granting such power to Congress.


JWK
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 11:20 pm
The Supreme Court has ruled many things legal under the "promote the general welfare" clause that are not dealt with specifically in The Federalist Papers.

By the way, you never did get around to answering my question: Were the Federalist papers ever made the law of the land? Has anybody gone to jail on the grounds of violating the Federalist Papers?

And why you are at it, why do you feel the general population should know what ACRS stands for?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 11:51 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
john w k wrote:
Regards,

JWK
ACRS


Are we supposed to know what ACRS stands for?


On another thread, I guessed the following ...

Quote:
Accelerated Cost Recovery System?

Australian Coral Reef Society?

Asian Counseling and Referral Service?

Australian Cabler Registration Service?


Link

... but I don't think I was right.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 02:04 am
john w k wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.

I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.


Sorry, but your opinion is not supported by the mountain of evidence to the contrary!

So, according to you, NASA must be abolished?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 02:41 am
Re: Senator Frist: an enemy of our written Constitution?
john w k wrote:
NEWS FLASH !


TN Senator Bill Frist Supports Embryo Stem Cell Research:

July 18, 2001—Nashville, TN: Tennessee Senator Bill Frist today announced his support for embryo stem cell research, including tax payer funding of the destructive practice.

Senator Frist supports using the force of government to finance stem cell research?

And by what constitutional authority does Senator Frist rely upon to use the force of government in such a manner?


Quote:

In general, the founding fathers agreed free enterprise to be the best depository in the advancement of science, and intentionally sought to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by granting a limited power to Congress to protect the work of authors and inventors by issuing patents and copyrights only!

Madison's Notes on the convention of 1787 reveals that Charles Pinckney, on August 18th during the federal convention, proposed a power to be vested in Congress "To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences", but this proposal, as many other proposals, was rejected by the Convention, and the only power agreed upon by the Framers and Ratifiers relating to the advancement of science, was the limited power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How? "... by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

And why not give power to Congress to award taxpayer money to private individuals in the promotion of science and useful Arts? The answer to this question was eloquently stated on the floor of the House on February 7th, 1792 by Representative John Page:

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers."
see Annals of Congress Feb 1792 Rep Page

So, here we have a record of the Founders of our great country, which addresses the question of whether Congress shall have power to subsidize and grant preferences in the advancement of science, and the record shows, in crystal clear language, the advancement of science was intentionally left to the free enterprise system without Congress being authorized to determine the winners and losers of taxpayer revenue grants.

In conclusion, the practice of today's Congress subsidizing and granting financial preferences to selected individuals and groups of individuals [including faith based institutions], is not only un-constitutional and a misappropriation of federal revenue, which happens to be a criminal offense, but such a power, when exercised by folks in government, is a total violation of personal property rights which our Constitution was designed to protect. The importance of personal property rights was pointed out on February 3, 1792, by Rep. Giles, speaking before the House of Representatives:

"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny."
[Annals of Congress, Feb 3 1792 Rep Giles


For the complete article see:
Stem Cell Research Funding and Free Enterprise



Why did you quote the article as ostensible supporting authority for your position? Aren't you the author of the article? Why would you quote yourself as supporting authority for your own position? Seems a little weird.



JWK wrote:
The Frist plan appears to be nothing more than a plan to create a new government office and dole out money from the public treasury to the friends of big government and Frist‘s friends involved in the medical industrial complex!

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence


The federal government appropriates funding for a multitude of things such as state highway construction, school lunches, medicaid, aid to families with dependent children, nuclear research, etc. The funding ship sailed a long time ago--you can't blame Frist. He's not solely responsible for doling out money from the public treasury. All of our representatives have their fingers in the till. Have you not heard of pork barrel? It's been around for a LONG, LONG time.

Additionally, funding stem cell research is NOT Frist's plan. See H.R.810. The bill sponsor is Rep. Castle and he was joined by 200 co-sponsors. The bill passed the House by a vote of 238-194. Accordingly, singling Frist out for condemnation is unwarranted.


Quote:
Regards,

JWK
ACRS



What is the ACRS? Is it a legal entity? Is it incorporated? Is it for profit or non-profit? What is its mission or purpose? How are you affiliated with the ACRS? Are there any persons other than you affiliated with the ACRS?

Why do you add ACRS to your signature? Are you trying to bolster your statements by representing yourself as an authority on the subject?

Your post and quoted article concern the Constitution. Are you an expert on the Constitution?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 08:03 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
So, according to you, NASA must be abolished?

And while we are at it, apparently we must abolish public funding for cancer research, heart disease research, and diabetes research along with it.

I would say that john w k has his work cut out for him getting public support for these ideas.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 08:09 am
Debra_Law wrote:
The federal government appropriates funding for a multitude of things such as state highway construction, school lunches, medicaid, aid to families with dependent children, nuclear research, etc. The funding ship sailed a long time ago...


Indeed it has. Funny how this "we can't fund" gambit apears just when we are dealing with stem cell research-when nobody said anything for decades about the Federal Government funding all these things.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Senator Frist: an enemy of our written Constitution?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 11:08:14