Susan, the answer to your question is: I think the *criminally accused* have the right to force others to appear in court for questioning if the accused can show that the witnesses are sufficiently material to the case.
My political principles aren't dictated by the Constitution, but feel free to pretend they are if it helps you rationalize not offering arguments against them. Amusingly, this reminds me of an message of mine that you censored a year ago from reaching the virgin ears on your LPradicals list. Michael Wilson had proposed:
MW) How about a giant friggin banner across the top that says "SUPPORT the BILL of RIGHTS". (MW
I replied:
BH) No, there is at least one provision in the Bill of Rights that radicals find morally objectionable. I leave as an exercise in lpradical internal education to figure out which provision it is. So how about a giant banner that says: 'The Bill of Rights -- void where prohibited by LP radicals' (BH
To this day, your readers probably still think they are staunch defenders of the Bill of Rights...
Less, I quoted Ruwart campaigning on the theme that her competitor candidates "haven’t quite gotten the whole picture yet". The three issues you list aren't "the whole picture". Wake me when you begin to grapple with the Ruwart quotes above -- and when you realize that her unique claims about ideological correctness make her entire oeuvre fair game. This pretense that delegates can only evaluate a candidate on her three favorite issues is simply beneath you.
I remember you advocating the Fairy Godfather theory that markets could protect kids from their parents better than the state could. I don't remember you explicitly saying that you don't think parents should have no right to constrain a child's decisions other than by denial of parenting services.
