Jason, yes Lubet did raise a few troubling points. The more troubling part is that he leads off by by discrediting himself. How can the message reach outside his fanbase when he does that?

For example:

Supreme law of the land is not the Constitution but the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States ... and all treaties made ... under the authority of the United States". Utter crap, as is the circular support looping around Article 4 of the Constitution. The Constitution empowers the rest. That's why laws and treaties can be kicked aside for being unconstitutional. Foreshadowing - the article 4 reference has a web link.

Then we get the obligatory religious freedom part with a bit of 1st amendment tossed in. He's actually correct, though needlessly inflamatory. He's sounding shrill. More foreshadowing, he supplies a web link to a supportive supreme court decision.

Next, the editor manages to cut page views with an anti 2d amendendment blurb that lowers the article's credibility amongst the libertarians out here. To support his interpretation of the 2d, Lubet mentions a supreme court decision. Which one? Where's the reference or web link? Perhaps he doesn't dare take such a solid stance because actual constitutional scholars would delight in tripping him.

Conclussion - Lubet loses a mass audience while preaching to the choir. Kinda like republican primary races. That's troubling.

So what are you trying to bait us into here? Does a vote for hillary prove we're not republican lapdogs? Does voting for a woman in "opposition to gender roles" prove we have massive sack? Will it get us laid by feminists?

It looks like democrats are trying to think their way into another loss. Great.

If you supported kerry, you share the blame.

"be sure that your decision is based on her actual political positions and experience" absolutely! and not on your projection of your own attitudes and values onto her. Isn't that what obama is for? hillary already has her own nasty shadow. she's not worthy

"she won't go to a war of choice" but will endorse a war on concepts/techniques. war on drugs, war on terror ...

"she will veto anti-woman and anti-civil rights legislation" like when she voted for the patriot act? Also, don't forget that her hubby bill had a worse civil rights record than reagan. Remember how quickly patriot act 1 was put together after 9/11? It wasn't an effort from scratch. A lot of it was stuff that democrat b. clinton pressed for and a republican congress refused. Yeah, the republican congress turned on us, but that is a digression. If she is anything like her hubby, she'll try to slap cuffs on us while pretending to shake our hands.

At least bush sends the storm troopers to foreign lands. hillary is more likely to let 'em loose at home. The enemies will be sex predators, drug dealers, and child abusers. Remember the murdered children in Waco? Under b. clinton it was ok to kill them to make them safe.

My daughters taught me that I will never understand the female mind. It is so very hard to figure out what is going on in there and no amount of male problem solving helps. I can only try to gleen what they want/need and decide if it is acceptable to me. If they weren't my daughters, there is no way in hell I'd put in that level of effort.

Joan and most other feminists want men to put in the effort to understand them before we act. Why should we? They don't own a piece of our hearts. We don't need their approval. We see few of them as likely sex partners. They're just other people.

Women in power rarely realize that men will treat them as people with power. If they can exert power over us, we are respectful. If they can't exert the power, but try to, we throw gobs of poo like the apes that we are.

So joan, it has nothing to do with gender. We're just flinging poo. Some of it is nasty and we always try to hit home.

I wonder how many students would have been shot/killed if they all had the right to keep guns in their dorm rooms. Or even if the school allowed those students who had proven personal responsibility to possess guns on campus.

On the other hand, maybe we could ban swords, bats, and all the other things folks use to kill each other.

Or maybe all rooms and houses can be kept locked against entry and egress so that people can only interact in an approved manner that is determined on a case by case basis. Ahhh, there's the solution. Lets get rid of that freedom of assembly.

We also only have a collective right to freedom of the press. It only applies to organized and officially recognized media outlets.

Actually, I believe everyone has the right to keep a gallon of gas by an open flame. It is the manner in which people do it that leads to a problem. At some burning man venues and certain fire themed fiestas I've been to, such acts are tolerated but not encouraged. They aren't encouraged because they are not creative, not because they are dangerous. In most situations, however, people should be charged with reckless endangerment, attempted arson, etc. And those are the charges when the gas doesn't light off.

More of an aspect of intent. There is a reasonable man standard that can be used to prove the intent prong of an attempt crime. I don't believe reckless endangerment has an "intent" prong that must be established, but attempted arson certainly does.

I'm constantly amazed when a child a finds a loaded gun and shoots someone that the gun owner isn't charged for a whole series of crimes like reckless endangerment, child endangerment, etc.