Per SCOTUS, initiative created redistricting commissions may be l'histoire
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:50:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Per SCOTUS, initiative created redistricting commissions may be l'histoire
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Per SCOTUS, initiative created redistricting commissions may be l'histoire  (Read 15493 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 03, 2015, 07:24:55 PM »
« edited: March 04, 2015, 08:35:12 AM by Torie »

Read all about it here.

If so, the Pubs get to gerrymander AZ, and bye bye two Dem seats. However, if so inclined, the Dems in CA can retaliate. Sure, they can shore up all the marginal Dem seats, but how many more can they get that seem realistic, without discommoding incumbents, or violating the VRA? I can see Denholm going, and maybe one NorCal seat, and maybe the Antelope Valley seat (tougher that one), but I am not sure how much more is practically possible (that marginal seat around Bakersfield, is already surrounded by very Pub areas, and subject to the VRA), and I suspect Jerry Brown may say just say chill. The current map is already something of a Dem gerrymander, and the Dems have held most of the marginal seats already. The Pubs just struck out in the last election.

I am not sure any other states have independent commissions, in which the legislature had no hand, so those will all survive. Well other than Florida, come to think of it. Probably not too much potential for Pub gains there either.

So this Board may become more active!  Tongue
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2015, 07:34:29 PM »
« Edited: March 03, 2015, 07:40:51 PM by Miles »

Roguemapper at RRH is finalizing a 48D 5R map of CA.

The pressure from national Democrats would be too much for the CA Dems not to go for as many seats at they can.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,052
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2015, 07:37:08 PM »

Yeah, I'm not even sure why the AZGOP did this in the first place. Are they that pissed off at Colleen Mathis that they'd be willing to throw the entire party under the bus?

Isn't it the case though, that IA-style commissions may still be constitutional, considering that they've still got some legislative input?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2015, 07:39:06 PM »

Roguemapper at RRH is finalizing a 48D 5R map of CA.

The pressure from national Democrats would be too much for the CA Dems not to go for as many seats at they can.

Read some more at RRH. It isn't realistic, and isn't going to happen. But hey, draw a map yourself!
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2015, 07:40:06 PM »

Yeah, I'm not even sure why the AZGOP did this in the first place. Are they that pissed off at Colleen Mathis that they'd be willing to throw the entire party under the bus?

Isn't it the case though, that IA-style commissions may still be constitutional, considering that they've still got some legislative input?

Iowa is a legislature created commission (as opposed to initiative created by the voters without legislative input), as to which the Legislature has some input in any case. It's Constitutionally safe. Ditto for all Court drawn maps, ala NY and MN.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2015, 07:40:23 PM »

Here's an overview of the states/laws that would be impacted.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2015, 07:42:17 PM »


SD can't be in play with but one seat, and this only obtains to Congressional seats, not state legislative ones, as I understand it. SCOTUS isn't going to get into who gets to vote laws, with what kind of identification.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2015, 07:49:44 PM »

^ Geez, okay... Sorry I linked to that Tongue
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2015, 08:17:14 PM »

So the supreme court is going to destroy CA republicans? I remember one of them was particularly an ass hole (his comments about the raking member of something). I can"t remember.
Good riddance.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2015, 08:44:41 PM »
« Edited: March 03, 2015, 08:46:25 PM by ag »

Roguemapper at RRH is finalizing a 48D 5R map of CA.

The pressure from national Democrats would be too much for the CA Dems not to go for as many seats at they can.

Read some more at RRH. It isn't realistic, and isn't going to happen. But hey, draw a map yourself!

Experience shows that there is very little that you cannot do if you have reliable 60% of the vote in a state and are willing to go ugly. Yes, this would require doing some ingenious unpacking of Dem concentrations and packing of Rep voters.  The maps would look horribly gerrymandered. But, in the political environment created by such a ruling, the most obvious gerrymander will, suddenly, be viewed as highly desirable - the more manifest, the better. And, given the Supreme Court precedent, political motives in gerrymandering will be perfectly protected: all Dems in CA would have to show is that they drew maps to harm the Republican party, and not for any other reason. Under the circumstances, Dems would be most happy to oblige.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2015, 07:27:03 AM »

There is a simple fix available to states with independent commissions. Follow IA's lead and send plans to the legislature for an up or down vote. In IA the bureau that drafts the bills is given the task of drawing the legislative and congressional maps following statutory criteria. The bureau sends the plans to the legislature for an up or down vote without amendment. If the plan fails it goes back to bureau for another try, perhaps guided by comments the legislature is permitted to send with their rejection. The process is repeated up to three times. If the third plan is rejected, then the matter goes to the courts.

In commission states, just replace the bill drafting bureau with the commission, but otherwise follow that procedure. The legislature stays in the process with the final say on the map.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2015, 08:09:01 AM »
« Edited: March 04, 2015, 08:25:31 AM by Torie »

The problem for the Dems is that the Pub redoubts are a long way away from the Dem concentrations, and San Diego does not have enough Dems to go after the remaining Pubs CD's in that area (plus one seat is an Hispanic seat, so those voters are "trapped"). LA cannot go after the Pub districts in Orange County really, again because the adjacent districts are Hispanic, plus Long Beach, which isn't that Dem. There are Pubs in the NE corner of the state that will be hard to get at, because Sacto isn't that Dem. The Central Valley is already gerrymandered in favor of the Dems due to the Hispanic districts, and the central coast is not that Dem. The exception to this is the Denholm seat, that with some erosity can move some Alameda County Dems into it, plus include Stockton. It will be hard to get at the Victorville CD, because the CD's in the San Garbriel Valley are Hispanic districts (plus one Asian one, also not that Dem). I can see getting rid of the Pub district in the Antelope Valley by moving some San Fernando Valley Dems into it from the non Hispanic San Fernando Valley CD (Brad Sherman's), and probably doing in the Shasta County based Pub district, by attacking it from Santa Rosa County (the other Dem areas up there are already used to keep the the CD that has Vallejo and Napa in it Dem, and it is has no Dems to spare to give away).  

What the Dems can do is make all the marginal Dem seats safe, plus I think take three Pub seats, but more likely two since I don't think they will be too keen to append Santa Rosa County to Shasta. So in addition to doing in the Denholm CD as described above, just weaken the Antelope Valley CD to make it lean Dem by sending some Brad Sherman Dems into it, and removing some more Pubs from Lancaster into the Pub Kern County sink CD, and make CA-07 (the Bera CD), and CA-52 (the Peters seat), safe, and jiggle the lines some to make the Costa seat around Fresno safer, and move Malibu and Topanga to CA-26 to move that seat more out of the marginal Dem category.

So the Pubs get two seats in AZ, and the Dems two in CA. It's a wash. Maybe the Pubs can squeeze one more seat out of Florida, maybe two (make more Pub the Graham and Murphy seats), but it won't be easy, and I tend to doubt they will go there.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2015, 08:15:04 AM »
« Edited: March 04, 2015, 08:21:14 AM by Torie »

There is a simple fix available to states with independent commissions. Follow IA's lead and send plans to the legislature for an up or down vote. In IA the bureau that drafts the bills is given the task of drawing the legislative and congressional maps following statutory criteria. The bureau sends the plans to the legislature for an up or down vote without amendment. If the plan fails it goes back to bureau for another try, perhaps guided by comments the legislature is permitted to send with their rejection. The process is repeated up to three times. If the third plan is rejected, then the matter goes to the courts.

In commission states, just replace the bill drafting bureau with the commission, but otherwise follow that procedure. The legislature stays in the process with the final say on the map.

But in Iowa, didn't the legislature create the structure in the first instance? I am not sure an initiative based law not passed by the legislature, that just has the legislature involved at the end with a mere veto power to send it to the courts, will pass muster, assuming SCOTUS strikes down the AZ structure.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2015, 09:20:52 AM »

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2015, 09:32:42 AM »

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2015, 10:05:43 AM »

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2015, 10:24:15 AM »

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

It's a rather tough road to travel to successfully assert that the term "the Legislature," refers not to an elected body, but rather is more inclusive to also the people of the state as a whole  who in some sense hold legislative power via enacting referenda. There would be no need to refer to "the Legislature," if what was intended was that the States can draw the lines via any lawful means, they could have just said "shall be prescribed by each state ... ." The fact that the term "Legislature" is capitalized does not help either.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2015, 10:30:49 AM »
« Edited: March 04, 2015, 11:06:31 AM by Antonio V »

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

It's a rather tough road to travel to successfully assert that the term "the Legislature," refers not to an elected body, but rather is more inclusive to also the people of the state as a whole  who in some sense hold legislative power via enacting referenda. There would be no need to refer to "the Legislature," if what was intended was that the States can draw the lines via any lawful means, they could have just said "shall be prescribed by each state ... ." The fact that the term "Legislature" is capitalized does not help either.

The Framers probably could not conceive the idea of direct popular government at the State level (something which only began during the Progressive Era), so I doubt they would have bothered to make that distinction explicit.

Nonetheless, Merriam-Webster defines "legislature" as "a group of people with the power to make or change laws". Nowhere is it specified that this group has to be elected.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2015, 10:49:08 AM »

There is a simple fix available to states with independent commissions. Follow IA's lead and send plans to the legislature for an up or down vote. In IA the bureau that drafts the bills is given the task of drawing the legislative and congressional maps following statutory criteria. The bureau sends the plans to the legislature for an up or down vote without amendment. If the plan fails it goes back to bureau for another try, perhaps guided by comments the legislature is permitted to send with their rejection. The process is repeated up to three times. If the third plan is rejected, then the matter goes to the courts.

In commission states, just replace the bill drafting bureau with the commission, but otherwise follow that procedure. The legislature stays in the process with the final say on the map.

But in Iowa, didn't the legislature create the structure in the first instance? I am not sure an initiative based law not passed by the legislature, that just has the legislature involved at the end with a mere veto power to send it to the courts, will pass muster, assuming SCOTUS strikes down the AZ structure.

I think that will be a question many will be looking at the opinion to determine. There are lots of initiative-based election laws in states that could be impacted based on the questions from the liberal justices. If the ruling stays narrow to the act of redistricting and overturns AZ, will it be because it was by initiative or because it was a plan without legislative approval. The legislature need not be the sole approver of the plan since most states require the Gov's signature on the redistricting bill. It seems to me that initiatives may still be able to dictate the manner in which the legislature performs its redistricting function, even if they can't strip that function entirely.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2015, 11:07:09 AM »
« Edited: March 04, 2015, 11:10:37 AM by Torie »

There is a simple fix available to states with independent commissions. Follow IA's lead and send plans to the legislature for an up or down vote. In IA the bureau that drafts the bills is given the task of drawing the legislative and congressional maps following statutory criteria. The bureau sends the plans to the legislature for an up or down vote without amendment. If the plan fails it goes back to bureau for another try, perhaps guided by comments the legislature is permitted to send with their rejection. The process is repeated up to three times. If the third plan is rejected, then the matter goes to the courts.

In commission states, just replace the bill drafting bureau with the commission, but otherwise follow that procedure. The legislature stays in the process with the final say on the map.

But in Iowa, didn't the legislature create the structure in the first instance? I am not sure an initiative based law not passed by the legislature, that just has the legislature involved at the end with a mere veto power to send it to the courts, will pass muster, assuming SCOTUS strikes down the AZ structure.

I think that will be a question many will be looking at the opinion to determine. There are lots of initiative-based election laws in states that could be impacted based on the questions from the liberal justices. If the ruling stays narrow to the act of redistricting and overturns AZ, will it be because it was by initiative or because it was a plan without legislative approval. The legislature need not be the sole approver of the plan since most states require the Gov's signature on the redistricting bill. It seems to me that initiatives may still be able to dictate the manner in which the legislature performs its redistricting function, even if they can't strip that function entirely.

Yes, except the Legislature can override the Governor's veto, and indeed that is the way any law gets enacted by a State. So that argument I don't think adds much. So, a total preclusion of the Legislature passing what it wants, albeit perhaps with a supra majority, remains questionable. I suppose  referenda could perhaps require that if the Legislature does not hew to certain parameters, then there needs be a supra majority to pass the redistricting law - even before it gets to the Governor's desk. That might be the best analogy to the tracking of the current regime. And that in practice in most cases would get where one wants to go, except in states where one party typically holds the requisite supra majority in the Legislature.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2015, 11:09:24 AM »

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

It's a rather tough road to travel to successfully assert that the term "the Legislature," refers not to an elected body, but rather is more inclusive to also the people of the state as a whole  who in some sense hold legislative power via enacting referenda. There would be no need to refer to "the Legislature," if what was intended was that the States can draw the lines via any lawful means, they could have just said "shall be prescribed by each state ... ." The fact that the term "Legislature" is capitalized does not help either.

The Framers probably could not conceive the idea of direct popular government at the State level (something which only began during the Progressive Era), so I doubt they would have bothered to make that distinction explicit.

Nonetheless, Merriam-Webster defines "legislature" as "a group of people with the power to make or change laws". Nowhere is it specified that this group has to be elected.

Nobody thinks legislature means the people as a whole, as opposed to a selected elected group, and you still have the capitalization issue.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2015, 11:38:12 AM »

Beyond parody.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2015, 12:06:07 PM »


If you characterize all of this that way, I wonder then how you would characterize this? What words are left to describe it?  Smiley
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2015, 12:18:24 PM »

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

It's a rather tough road to travel to successfully assert that the term "the Legislature," refers not to an elected body, but rather is more inclusive to also the people of the state as a whole  who in some sense hold legislative power via enacting referenda. There would be no need to refer to "the Legislature," if what was intended was that the States can draw the lines via any lawful means, they could have just said "shall be prescribed by each state ... ." The fact that the term "Legislature" is capitalized does not help either.

The Framers probably could not conceive the idea of direct popular government at the State level (something which only began during the Progressive Era), so I doubt they would have bothered to make that distinction explicit.

Nonetheless, Merriam-Webster defines "legislature" as "a group of people with the power to make or change laws". Nowhere is it specified that this group has to be elected.

Nobody thinks legislature means the people as a whole, as opposed to a selected elected group, and you still have the capitalization issue.

Words have the same meaning whether or not they are capitalized.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2015, 01:37:15 PM »

Words have the same meaning whether or not they are capitalized.
Not really.  The Passion of Christ and the passion of Christ have two separate meanings, tho the latter might encompass the former, it also includes possibilities not included in the former.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.