http://sirroxton.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] sirroxton.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] mik3cap 2006-07-15 11:30 pm (UTC)

That's the problem -- how specific does the law have to be to not be constitutional? For the logic to hold, the only requirement is that the law *not* exclude potential accidental breeders.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org