tvc184

The reason I do not believe you are entirely correct is because that government could not operate. Even a city has a city manager that is hired by the city Council to basically do the day-to-day operations of the city. Can you imagine having to convene a city Council meeting for every decision have to be made? Look at a city the size of Beaumont. There are a couple of openings in the public works department. The manager of public works hires two people and the city manager approves. But wait, the city Council has to be called Into session to debate and have a vote whether those two people could be hired. In the same week however there are five new employees in the water department, four new police officers, two new firefighters, five roads that needs to be repaired, etc.Even in a small city, government operations would have to completely shut down if every single issue had to be debated. People or commissioners have to be given the authority to act without calling for an act of Congress. Another example is the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. They have been given the authority by the Texas legislature, signed into law by the governor, to regulate hunting and fishing licenses, bag and size limits, etc. Can you imagine calling the legislature back into a special session every time there is a devastating freeze that damages the fish population of South Texas or something similar? Then you are going to have a bunch of locally elected politicians the say what fish limits and size should be? There is some information that just came in about possible violent protests tomorrow in a city. The police chief who has the authority decides to put extra officers on the street just in case. No, let’s contact the city Council and have them convene at 2 AM the day before the protests, that we just found out about, and see if they wish to pay the overtime. No. They give that authority to an appointed government body or person.

There is a constitutional (and I think sometimes controversial) principle call substantive due process. That is where the Court rules that you have a right when that right is not exactly spelled out in some part of the Constitution. It is not a literal translation of the Constitution but a subjective, kind of, we think this may be what they meant or would say.

Even you must realize that to passed legislation, you have to have the votes. It takes at least 60 votes in the Senate to override the filibuster. It is the same reason now that even though the Democrats have a one vote majority in the Senate, they cannot get any legislation passed without at least some Republican support. Every single Republican could vote for overturning Obamacare and it still cannot get to the president’s desk.

Yes and no. The legislature can pass a law, just like any other law, and it could override a presidential executive order. The president still retains the right to veto that law. The legislature can then override the veto but it takes a 2/3 majority of both houses. It will take at least 67 votes in the Senate and 292 votes in the House. Since only one third of senators are up for election each two years, I believe only 14 Democrats seats are up for reelection. That means if the Republicans won all 14 races, including California, they were still not have enough to override a veto Unless they were joined by at least a few Democrats. I think the odds of that ever happening would be like winning the lottery. Twice On the same night…

I have just read blurbs about this case and not in depth. I’m not so sure how this will go. The Supreme Court has, correctly in my opinion, ruled that unelected officials have the right to make rules with the effect of law. That includes onthe state local and national levels. The issue is whether an elected legislative body gave that committee or agency that authority or if the authority was given, did they overstep the bounds of the legislation? During Covid we often saw claims that the governor’s executive orders were not law. That is completely false. During a declared emergency, the governor of the state of Texas can issue an order that has the full effect of criminal law including jail and a fine. That is because during the regular legislative session, the Texas legislature enacted such a law and it was signed by the then governor. Unless it is changed by a new law, the governor has the authority under emergency powers. If I remember it correctly, Biden ordered OSHA to mandate that all companies with at least 100 employees, have them all vaccinated. The Supreme Court stepped in and said that OSHA definitely has the authority by passed legislation to make rules to make a workplace safe however that does not include medical decisions that affects a person once he leaves the place of business. The issue was not whether OSHA had that authority to issue mandates, they do. The issue was if OSHA had a right to make medical decisions that affects a person’s life after he leaves the job. The Supreme Court ruled that they do not have that authority. From the brief summaries that I have read, this case appears to be similar. Did OSHA overstep their authority or did they do so after an executive order by the Trump administration to cease? I haven’t read anything in depth about the argument from both sides so I just kind of know the basic claim. I think…..

From the way I have read this case, this is what it comes down to it. We all know Supreme Court decisions have said that teachers in class or at school functions cannot lead prayer. The Supreme Court has said however that everyone has a right to pray at any time as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. So if you’re in the middle of English class, you can’t walk up in front of class it’s start chanting verses because that disrupts a class and interferes with rights of another person. You can sit in your seat and pray anytime you wish. If I am reading yes case correctly, a football coach has a duty to the school and the law. His team played a football game and it is over. He could have just as well walked up to the district superintendent in the stands and asked, “Am I now off duty and free to go where I wish?” I cannot imagine any other answer other than, yes. You can go to the locker room and talk to your kids, you could drive to a fast food place and get your burger or you can go home. So the coach walked to the football field, kneele and says a brief prayer. Did he violate the constitution? Did he interfere with anyone else’s right to go about their business or have their rights violated? The game is over and some players have headed to the locker room. So are hanging around and mingling with a crowd, talking to parents etc. Some have gone to where the coach is saying a prayer and decided to pray with him. did they violate anyone’s right? Since they are now free to go, can they pray as they wish? Just just not seem like a difficult decision. A coach on his own time and within his own constitutional right, he decided to pray. He interfered with no one else and he’s not compelling anyone to do anything. Fo that he was terminated. It seems it was the coach who had his First Amendment rights violated, not any students or anyone else. Not a constitutional right but written federal law in the EEOC, it appears that he has a job discrimination claim against the district. Federal law bans discrimination at work based on sex, race, national origin, religion, pregnancy and age (which is over 40). So was he off duty and they completely blew his rights out of the water by saying that he cannot pray on his own time or he was on duty and not allowed to pray when it does not interfere with his job? Either way this coach should get a hefty settlement of the school district. The strangest part of this decision was the fact that three liberal judges felt that he had no right to pray and he violated someone else’s constitutional rights when he did.

It went that far because the school board denied his right to pray on his own time And fired him for up holding his constitutional rights.

I noticed even on Facebook that a D&C would now be against the law. At least one, if not several people, that does not like this ruling likely came up with that scenario. Like, “Oh yeah!! No abortions!? Well a doctor can no longer treat a medical condition!”. Nonsense Then it goes viral as if it is fact. A D&C can obviously be used as an early stage abortion but there are other medical reasons for the procedure

Hahaha…. It gets better. Lyft is giving them a lift for abortion travel. I wonder if Lyft will use Lyft to give them a lift.

If they really believe that, it just adds to their ignorance. Abortions are still legal.

Other than emotions, this is my belief on the original Roe v. Wade decision. 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Criminal law is almost always within the authority of the states. Just like marijuana is illegal in Texas but legal in Colorado, that is a 10th Amendment issue. The Constitution does not define what drug laws are in the context of state criminal laws So Texas can do as it wishes and Colorado can do with it wishes.. By the same token the Constitution does not define a human life. That is left to the states. Under Texas criminal law in the Penal Code, an individual (person) is considered from the moment of fertilization. This is that definition: (26) "Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth. So under the authority of the 10th Amendment, Texas has defined a person/individual as anybody from the moment of conception. Some states define it as having a heartbeat and some states define a person as having been born. That is each state’s authority under the 10th amendment. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade came along and said Texas, you are not allowed to define what a person is. The decision was kind of, well you kind of can because you can charge a father with murder for hitting the mother in the stomach with his fist but you cannot define a child as a person if the mother wants to get rid of it. What constitutional right or section did Texas violate? The Supreme Court back then essentially said a state could not define a child as a human in reference to the mother. Obviously the justices claimed a legal justification but what was the actual rationale for it? What is there really a legal basis in the 14th amendment to say a woman can have an abortion or simply emotional on the beliefs of the justices in the decision? So the Constitution does not define a person and the 10th Amendment gives the state that authority. The Supreme Court stepped in and said we are going to take away that authority under…… what?

What does a miscarriage, D/C and abortion have to do with each other? Unless you’re suggesting that it mother be charged with murder because she had a miscarriage, it is a moot point. When the mother has a miscarriage, the baby is deceased. The medical follow up is not an abortion or the taking of a live human baby.

I hate to ask but does she have a clue that you cannot vote to overturn it? Does this supposedly educated person understand it was not a vote of the people or Congress but a constitutional ruling?

Predictive text again. I hate it when I’m using voice but I turned it off for a while yesterday and it makes it tougher when typing. On the other hand, yelling quite a bit might be the answer. NOT WITHOUT A CONDOM!!!

I see nothing in the comment that I quoted about you being against abortion.

You said for an unwanted child. So these women are going to take care of an unwanted child for 18 years, for which they could be criminally prosecuted if they do not, instead of using a few cents for birth control and they can probably get free or donated anyway? I doubt it.

So you were saying that murder is okay as long as we save a little money? Since when have the Democrats ever worried about printing money that we don’t have?

Or maybe people will decide that since they are now responsible, they will start using voice control.

Supreme Court rulings generally start with a syllabus which gives a relatively brief description of the decision. The syllabus might be 1 to 3 pages. Then it goes on into as many as 15 pages describing how they came to the official conclusion. In addition to the official ruling, some justices may issue a concurring opinion meaning that they agree with a ruling but for different reasons. Then the justices on the losing side may issue a dissent describing why they disagree. The syllabus in this case concludes with this paragraph: The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self- defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public. It clearly says that other constitutional rights do not require you to justify why you need them. Why should the second amendment?

SCOTUS ruled that people have the right to carry handguns in self-defense and a state cannot set a restriction that the person has to prove a need. [Hidden Content] Reading the actual case was just released, it appears that states like New Jersey, New York and California will now have to an act of law that requires them to issue a license to people who wish to carry handguns in self-defense. They overturned a New York law that says they don’t have to issue a license unless you can prove a need. The ruling was that the Second Amendment does not require you to prove why you need self defense.

At this moment in time the EV is a scam in my opinion …..

In his mental state, Biden forgot that it was a secret.

When the Easter Bunny has to distract you and take you away…. [Hidden Content]

We have had police shootings at my agency (I was involved in one when an officer shot and killed a person about 10 feet from me). One is so clear cut and I have asked it to be released. It obviously shows that the officer was unquestionably correct but it still tends to flame some people. It is still not released years later. I could see nothing gained by releasing this video. If they do then we will see it but even with seeing something on video will offer not change in peoples’ opinions.

Yes, if the door was not locked, that was stupid.