Sorry for the typos, its after hours and the secretaries are home tending their families, like they should be. Loyola is the right spelling, and a few others. The more I think about it, my prediction changes that the Sup.Ct. may find a way to make this stick and still not overrule the earlier decision about congress exceeding its power. Why?........... Some years ago, back in the Madeline Murray O'Hare days, there was a push to rewrite the Constitution. The issue was whether or not a 200 year old document should still govern this nation or if it should be revised to reflect a gov't of, by, and for the people (sound familiar? Think of top hats and a place called Gettysberg). At Loyola, Justice Scalia mentioned that he believed the Constitution should reflect the will of the people, the current will of the people. That if the Constitution was not working, it should be changed. Obviously, folks are not willing to gut and rewrite our founding document. So........ The Sup.Ct. that interprets that document merely finds new "interpretations" and in some cases, bypasses all fundamentals of hermeneutics to arrive at a decision which pleases the "people". So, who are the "people"? A Gallup pole? A lobby group that uses a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" tactic? ... The $200,000.00 question is whether or not the Sup. Ct. will stand by their decision or cave in. I pick that price because its the average cost to a person who wants to appeal a lower court ruling all the way to the sup. ct. Any of you got that kind of money? If not, expect the local police and courts to follow the codes and statutes and ignore the theory behind Ashcroft v. Free Speech. Local judges have the discretion to decide on statute as interpreted by case law and when the two conflict, often the statute wins. Also, expect local judges who are elected officials to go for the votes. If ignorant public opinion is against this type of art, the judge will stand by the codes and statutes if the same make them favorable in the electing public. A local trial court judge will run the judicial branch (judgment against you) based on the legislative branch (law enacted by congress) unless overturned by a higher court. So, set Ashcroft aside, Congress will rule until slapped down again by the Sup. Ct. and you need to go there to do that. Is this making sense? I hope so, its the way it is. Can your congressman or representative articulate this to you? I hope so because its why you elected them. Who knows, maybe some day I'll get a shot at a seat. That, again, is your call. (Now to find an after hours secretary who can spell.) At least I'm not a Dan Quale who was a brilliant theoretician with some economic common sense but couldnt tell the difference between the Latin language and his Latino friends. Spelling mistrakes are fixable, intellectual mistakes are not.