(04-26-2017 01:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 01:00 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:55 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's was a violation. That is why they took it down. Whether or not they broke the law would have to be determined by a court.

a violation of what?

That would be subject to review by either an ethics committee or whomever regulates that stuff. Clearly that already happened because they took it down.

So they were either going to be subject to an ethics inquiry or they simply decided it wasn't worth fighting and took it down.

then why did you quote the constitution?

I predict crickets.....

I already answered this question. I quoted the constitution to show that there is in fact something in writing that says you aren't supposed to do this kind of stuff.