On 12 Sep 2002 at 9:58, Blunderov wrote:
> joedees@bellsouth.net
> Sent: 12 September 2002 09:11 AM
>
> > [Blunderov]
> > Are there any plans that you know of to remedy the wording of the
> > (now anachronistic) constitution in order to allow for the
> > "forfence" of the nation? The Dept of Forfence?
> >
> > I'm very much in favour of the creative use of language, me!
> >
> > Just curious.
> >
> [joedees]
> Main Entry: for.fend
> Pronunciation: for-'fend, fOr-
> Function: transitive verb
> Date: 14th century
> 1 a archaic : FORBID b : to ward off : PREVENT
> 2 : PROTECT, PRESERVE
>
> [Blunderov]
> A most serviceable definition. Interesting is the fact that it does
> not include the word "defense" in its description. "Defense", in the
> context OTD, is "the capability of <em>resisting</em> attack", not
> let, it be noted, a capability for <em>preventing</em> an attack.
>
> The thought strikes me that such action may in fact be
> unconstitutional!
>
If so, then the constitution contains the seeds of the destruction of the
republic which it established.
>
> Warm regards
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:22 MDT