I had a Grand Daughter wanting to play checkers and would not let me answer in detail.

What got me interested in this was the argument of Bush vs Lincoln and justifying their actions. I personaly do not believe the end justifys the means. Having had my feet held to the Consitutional Fire for twenty years, I began to understand the importance of keeping the Consitution.

With this in mind I can not see allowing anyone to violate it even when it comes to National Security. THe Government is forever stepping on it's peoples toes with rules and laws and even taxes. Then when it is conveinient for them they violate the most sacred laws we have all for National Security. If we give them an inch they will take it all.

Lincoln and the arresting Officer of Merryman were told that the arrest was illegal by one of the checks and balances of our government. Chief Justice Taney. Now what good is the Supreme Court if all the President has to do is cite National Security and allowed to violate rights at will Or as Lincoln said, necessity. Who's necessity I ask in the case of the War. Was it really National Unity he had in mind or weakenng the States Rights to the point the Federal Government to control?

So Bryan, even when we cite National Security, we must guard those rights with life and law suit as if we give a clause they'll take a paragraph and soon there will not be a Consitution to keep them in check.

How are you doing? I haven't been to the Arkansas board in a while.