Jump to content

Covercorner

10 Post Members
  • Posts

    1,255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Covercorner

  1. Wonder how many will get this reference. Depends on what your definition of extraneous is.
  2. The Defund ACORN Act, if passed and directed only at ACORN could be argued as Unconstitutional. Article I Section 9 forbids the Congress from passing a Bill of Attainder- laws directed against specific individuals or groups. I am not saying that the Defund ACORN Act is Unconstitutional. The Bill of Attainder provision in the Constitution was probably meant to prevent the legislative branch from passing laws against individuals to bypass court rulings, which this does not do, but it may be something that some Constitutional lawyers look into. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text This Act is written very broadly. There are many other organizations that have recived federal funding, or continue to recive federal funding who may have violated some of the provisions in the Act. For example Boeing, KBR(Haliburton), Lockheed Martin, and Northrup Grumman have either reached settlements or had judgments agianst them in cases that deal specificly with Government Contract Fraud. Will these companies that recive a large amount(Lockheed and Boeing recive billions of dollars a year) be included, or is this just an act directed only at ACORN?
  3. This game is the culmination of LC-LCA Rilvalry Week. The two schools are playing each other in all falls sports this week: Boys/Girls Soccer, Boys/Girls Golf, Volleyball, and Football. There are also in school competitions this week. The schools will compete in a charity food drive and a denim drive(Habitiat for Humanity takes old denim jeans, jackets ect. and shreds them to use for insulation in new homes they build.) There is a joint pep rally for the two schools at LCA's gym tonight. Faculty vs Faculty volleyball game. For each win(including the charity drives), that school will get one point for a running total. At the end of the week, the school with the most points will recive a trophy to remain at one of the two schools for the rest of the year. Both schools look to establish a great school to school rilvalry for years to come.
  4. Hatz, add to the fact that about 10 or 11 Czars are members of the NSC, and have been confirmed by the Senate.
  5. I congratulate you for standing up for what you belive. The fact that we may disagree just means that we can have good debates later. Hopefully I can get around here some more. I do enjoy what you post and your passion for issues.
  6. I've been told by a former Supreme Court clerk that it is a thought that goes around somewhat in the Court.
  7. There is no mention in the Constitution of how the Court should come to a decision. This is to me, the most important aspect of our Constitution. Because the Courts have no formal instruction from the founding document, the Judiciary has a measure of Independence that the other branches don't. Thier independence allows those on the Court to use thier wisdom, thought, and prior precedent to judge acts and laws against the Constitution. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilto writes: "...the complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential.." We have had some Justices of the Supreme Court be considered Liberal, some Conservative. Ideas of Strict Constructionalism or Originalism(Textualism to Scalia) is allowed in a way that Loose Constructionist or ideas about a Living Document are. And that's not even getting into the idea of being an Judicial Activist(Liberal or Conservative). Basically, because the Supreme Court gets to decide the finer points of what is Constitutional or not, they can decide how they decide it as well. I guess my whole point is they can. But if they do, they really didn't. Blame it on John Marshall.
  8. Here, let me help out. We always seem to look at Brown v. Board (1954) as the landmark case that ended segregation in schools, but ignore the multiple cases heard by the Supreme Court connected to Brown, later on. In fact, Brown was a two decision case on two seperate legal points. All the cases decided by the Supreme Court dealt with the 14th Amendments Equal Protection clause. cch, while the purpose of the laws passed after the 14th Amendment may not have violated it, the effects of those laws did violate the 14th.
  9. If Medicare is going to be an around, I think that single payer system should be for everyone. However, if anyone wants to get started with dismantleing and eliminating Medicare, then I will drop my support for single payer. I prefer the health care system to be more consistent accross the board, state to state, ect. I'm not saying that a single payer would be the best, but I haven't done enough educated research to say what would be the best.
  10. The reform bills should at the very least set up a national standard to allow crossing of state lines to seek better options. I'd like to go to a single payer system incrementally, indexed to the debt and GDP growth. I don't know how practical it would be, but I'd prefer to go that way than to an immediate single payer system.
  11. IMO, the reason the bridge was critizied so, is because it recived the negative moniker Bridge to Nowhere. I think that if the lawmakers of Alaska felt it was a good thing for thier economy, then I would support it. I feel that they(I'm not sure to which degree to say the Legislature and/or Palin, Stevens) felt after it recived the negative nickname and attention, it wasn't worth the money. I agree with you that all spending is not good spening, and I've been described as a big Government Liberal. I have read some of the stimulus bill, and like parts of it, and don't like others. I think that scrutiny of the Stimulus Bill as a whole is difficult, as it contains many projects over about a two year time frame. The Bridge to Nowhere was a specific part of the Transportation funds, so the comparison of thier critisim is not apples to apples. I think that there will be some projects that will commence from the Stimulus bill sometime next spring, that may get labled negativley, and recive Bridge to Nowhere type scrutiny.
  12. From what I remeber, the "Bridge to Nowhere" was part of a larger Transportation funds grant, in which projects were not specified by the Federal Government. The state of Alaska had the freedom to spend the money where it chose, and eventually spent the money elsewhere after all of the ciritisim.
  13. IMO, Trey is probably the best overall candidate, and if he becomes the Republican candidate, McConnell will bring the resources in a more enthusiasic way than if it were Bunning. Of course, if Obama still has high performace ratings, and the economy gets a little better, that may help pull the strings for any Dem candidate against Grayson.
  14. My Pastor, who is a biologist, gave a sermon last sunday with part of this discussion. He gave this phrase(paraphrased below), which I and my wife(a Scientist) totally think can help anyone who struggles trying to reconcile. You belive the Theory of Evolution. You belive in God. Evolutionary theory, and Science in general, are not a construct of faith. They are based on empiricism, so you don't belive in science, or biology, ect. Our faith is a different construct, in which we belive beyond empiricism- we belive beyond what we can see, that's why it's called faith. Because faith and science are to totally different constructs, there is no reason to have them contradict each other.
  15. Even though I disagree with any path to allowing secession, LN you have stated what I would consider the most "American" way of secession. Texas v. White(1869) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZS.html The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. I agree with TA and the first sentence posted from the opinon. Our Union is "complete,...perpetual, and ...indissoluble." The Preamble states a "more perfect Union(whatever that can be interpreted to mean:D). However, you post something that I would say is affirmed by the Court in Texas v. White. If an Amendment was ratified that allowed secession, it would certianly have the consent of the states; as 3/4ths would have to approve an amendment to be ratified. I wouldn't agree with it, but I would support and defend it as a part of the Constitution, if were to be so.
  16. Uhhh.... No. The only entities that do not have a right to infinge upon your First Amendment rights are governmental entities(and to get technical, some governmental entities in some instances are allowed: i.e. schools). Governments are not allowed to practice prior restraint(Censorship). As Habib says: ...he's correct. Every private company has the right to protect thier reputation over the rights of a worker or employee to express their rights to free speech. By joining a specific company, there are certian things you must give up. Now there are some specific reasons that companies can't fire you in certian states, but as a general rule, your expression of the first Amendment can cost you your job. Expression of your First Amendment rights(as decided by the Court: Freedom of Speech and Expression is not limitless) will not get you arrested or jailed.
  17. :clap: Good job, young grasshopper!! You're getting it.
  18. No doubt. I refused to call myself a Liberal for a while back in College. I wasn't as educated about my views as I am now, and I am much more comfrotable with the label; even though I belive the Liberal/Conservative labels hurt our societies participation in politicts.
  19. I know a couple of legal permanent residents, on the path to citizenship, that have told me, it would have been eaiser to come here illegally, get a job, pay taxes, and work towards citizenship as an illegal alien.
  20. I guess I'm both a Right wing extremist, and a Left wing extremist. Here's the thing. In our society, we classify ourselves, and each other by many different things; whether it be age, income, skin color, or political belifs. There is nothing wrong with that, as we are a classifying species. Young toddlers will classify, and sort thier toys and such, having no idea about politicts ect. That is usually one of the first things they learn they can control. One thing that I saw from my young son, is that when something happend to a blue toy(I think a piece broke), he would ask about the broken piece with all other blue toys. Associations with classification is a skill we learn early. The problems with it, is that association too many times turns into prejudice. We as people, consiously and unconsiously, make associations and generalizations of classes of people. Every classification of people has some bad people that have done bad things. Some people that share similar triats of others can give the rest a bad name. There are some right wing extremists that have committed violent acts, and those people(Eric Rudolph, Tim McVey) share traits with other people who are law abiding citizens, who contribute to society. THere are some left wing extremists that also share traits with others who are law abiding citizents, who contribute to society.
  21. http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/dhs-ecoterrorism-in-us-2008.pdf Found this. Have only skimmed over it, and havent checked the sources and end notes yet. Didn't see the words "left wing", but the groups I read in it are left wing (some extremist) groups.
  22. Judicial activism is not limited to "liberal". Plus, Judicial activism, or activist Judges cannnot just make up laws out of nowhere. A pertinent case has to come before them with some issue of law to interpret. Plus, if a Judge or Supreme Court Justice wants to interpret a law in a liberal way, they are violating the Constitution no more than a Judge or Justice that violates the Constitution in a conservative way. All fine and good until you look at Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: (Congress has the power), "...to make all Laws which shall be neccessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Neccessary and Proper is a gray area. Article I Section 8 clause 1 says ..."Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,..." but doesn't give the express directive by which they can execute that power. The IRS could be created as a bureacratic agency that Congress felt was "necessary and proper" to carry out the power of collecting taxes. Necessary and proper to one person, would be tyranny and socialism to another, in the nation of 300+ million. Therefore, we have the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter in terms of issues of the Constitution. They get to decide if (when a case involving this issue of law) whatever power or law Congress has undertaken via the "necessary and proper" clause, is Constitutional or not.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.