tvc184

Which is the intent of the United States Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights. A majority (pure democracy) should not be able to take away your right to an Attorney, your right to remain silent, your right to free speech, etc. Like the saying goes… Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

I took it as a routine investigation. I mean that when someone is killed, there is always investigation to see what happened, it might be on video with 20 witnesses but you can’t just walk away and say it was justified. Also in a case like this they want to find if anyone else is involved. He does not even have to be a terror attack but just a local crime. It can be a felony for three people to discuss a felony and then at least one person do some overt act to further the crime that is how a conspiracy is made. My best friend at work shot and killed a guy one day while on duty. It was on two different cameras from two different angles they were very clear with audio. Basically a private citizen could have walked up, watched the videos and in three minutes proclaimed the officer not guilty. It was that obvious but… there had to be a thorough independent investigation and a grand jury review to see what would take a couple of minutes to determine. I have no problem with that because to do otherwise would be claimed to be a cover-up. That is how I look at this case. They obviously want to know if there’s someone else out there with help this man first because he would be helping a terrorist and part of the crime and secondly they might be plotting something else. They also want to review the police actions to make sure of what happened. EDIT: So I guess I agree with you, they are looking at it to see if it is justified but that is always. It’s not because this is a special case or that they doubt the officer(s).

Accomplices?

Trump rally in Conroe on January 29…….

The funniest jokes are based on the truth. This is absolutely based on the truth. When they add “just”….. Bend over and get ready….

WAIT, this is not open for a public vote by people who don’t live in the district? There is always something new to learn……

This ruling just overturned the stay issued by the Sixth Circuit. It stops the mandate immediately however, I believe this sends it back to the circuit court for a full hearing and ruling and not just a stay. Remember that the circuit court did not hear a full case in court, they just issued a temporary order overturning the Fifth Circuit rule to the contrary. If the circuit court in Ohio upholds the OSHA mandate, the Supreme Court will likely then grant review (certiorari) and issue a final ruling. In that case there will be a final decision that the OSHA mandate was unlawful. If the Sixth Circuit overturns The mandate at that level, it will probably end as unlawful because the Supreme Court within deny review and let the lower court order stand. There are two ways in effect that the Supreme Court can make a ruling. One is to hear a case and then come to a decision. The other is to simply refuse to hear the case. In that situation whatever happened previously, stands. If the Supreme Court does not grant review of the lower court case ruling, it basically agrees that there is no point in hearing the case.

The United States Supreme Court just struck down the OSHA vaccine mandate.

It is not that the other side “would” have done the same. The other side “did” do the same. The Republicans did nothing until the Democrats removed the filibuster to get federal judges approved. They were warned by McConnell, if they change the rules, it would come back to haunt them. The Democrats changed the rules but later did not like the result. They assumed that Hillary would win and then it would be no problem.

I am sure the Facebook fact checkers came in and declared her as putting out false information.….

Yep. Freedom of information act does not mean you can walk into a government agency and walk out with the information. Any person can ask for required paperwork, recording, etc., (everything is not open to discovery) but the government entity has 10 days to respond.

School at any level doesn’t make a person intelligent. School gives a person knowledge. It is like the difference between ignorance and stupidity.

I think that was B13’s intent on this page. Not necessarily specifically Crime but anything local. I know crime could keep it busy…..

To maybe explain it further; states do not enforce federal law, the federal government does. That is why you have federal special agents such as FBI, DEA, ATFetc., and the United States Attorney offices. The federals prosecute what they want under their law and the state prosecutes what it wants under state law. One does not generally cross into the other. If Colorado does not want to prosecute people under Colorado state law for possession of marijuana, great. The federal government still retains the right under their law to prosecute. In most cases, as a state police officer I cannot enforce federal laws and federal agents cannot enforce state laws. An FBI agent has no authority in Texas to pull you over for speeding yet I can pull you over for a license plate light out at night and put you in jail and tow your car. It is not because a state police officer has more authority than a federal agent but he simply enforcing the laws of his state whereas the federal agent is enforcing the laws of the United States. That is the dual sovereignty. So….. The federal law says that we have an income tax and you will pay it. The state police do not enforce that as it is not a state law. The federal government has the authority to enforce that laws. The state of Texas has no authority to tell its citizens, don’t pay attention to federal law. Clear as mud?

No. It is not even in the same ballpark. Both the state and federal governments independently have the right to make criminal and civil laws. The supremacy clause of the Constitution only comes into play if a federal law says basically “you will comply with this”. Both governments have the right independently to prosecute or sue. It is called dual sovereignty.

Yep, it is good to be the king.

I don’t think legally there is a difference. Politically there is. I have not taken the vaccine and do not plan on it. I think that it certainly is effective to some extent and it also poses a danger to many people. I am more worried about the danger it poses to people regardless of how effective it may be. But I don’t see where that negates federal authority. I do think what OSHA did is unconstitutional and or doesn’t follow federal law. I just don’t think under the constitution you can separate statutory authority whether under OSHA or income tax under Article VI.

I think the whole concept is pretty scary.

I would actually venture to guess that the majority of democratic voters are what we would call moderate or not extreme left. The problem is that they are so eaten up with party affiliation, just like pulling for your favorite football team, but they are blinded to what is happening. There was a time going back to the Great Depression that the Democrats claimed to be the party of the “working man”. They were for unionization and the Republicans were for a big business and not having forced unions. My best friend growing up and his family were absolutely Democrats and I heard his father say how could a working man ever vote for a Republican. I think that much of that thought continues through this day even with evidence to the contrary. I think the problem is not what the average working democrat believes but what he is told is the truth. Like in the Wizard of Oz, ignore the man behind the curtain….

And I am not against what he said, I just don’t think it’s legal.

If I understood it correctly, I believe Prather said that Abbott’s executive orders or mandates were not effective. He was not complaining about the Texas governor right to issue such mandates. I believe he is referring to the fact that the governor issued an executive order saying that people would not lose their job due to not being vaccinated. That was not complaining about the governor, it was saying that it was ineffective because the Biden administration, through himself, CDC, OSHA, etc., has issued mandates to the contrary of the Texas governor. Prather wants a special legislative session for the Texas Congress to pass a law that says federal mandates are not allowed in Texas. Basically the governor mandate is not good enough, it needs a full weight of the Texas legislature. That however contradicts Article VI of the United States Constitution.

People have long since said that 1984 is upon us. That was because of technology such as facial recognition, heat imaging that can track movement, license plate readers etc. That is not 1984, that is really progress. What is going on now is the beginning of 1984. It is becoming Newspeak that will replaced oldspeak and blackwhite will (currently) be used frequently. I am fairly certain that we are currently seeing miniplenty and recdep.

Jim Jordan should probably be the next Speaker of the House but he will not be and I don’t think he wants it.

That sounds good but if you read the title it seems like he is talking about mandates issued by the Texas governor. , Watching the video we see that he was talking about mandates on the United States law. The problem is that it would be a conflict with Article VI of the United States Constitution. He had just as well call a special session and say people living in Texas no longer have to pay federal income tax.

One strike called for not being in the box (one foot outside of the line) and out if he his it? Not an umpire but coached Little League for a few years… about 40 years ago. Just taking a wild guess for fun.