From: rfischer{at}sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Anlatt the Builder  wrote:
>On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, "John D.Wentzky"

>wrote:
>>
>> >>> Not if the law is changed, and, in some places, it has changed.
>>
>> >> By the constitutionally required process?
>>
>> > In Massachusetts, it was the constitutionally required process.
>>
>> Opinion is what you are siding with, not with Constitutional law.
>>
>> > You see, all laws have to be in compliance with the State Constitution.
>>
>> And, the existing marriage laws before the mssc corrupted them were so.
>> The marriage laws before the mssc courrupted them were enacted by the
>> Constitutional process.
>> The mssc is out of order.
>
>You obviously don't understand the U.S. legal system. A law that is
>"enacted by the Constitutional process" (by which I can only assume
>you mean voted on by the legislature) can still be found
>unconstitutional when challenged in court.

But there is little that Wentzky does understand.  He rants and raves that
laws do not conform to his interpretation of a constitution that he
probably has not read and certainly does not understand.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer{at}sonic.net

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag