tvc184

Halftime BH 18-14

Ozen full court press slows down BH. 1:29 in half, BH-17 O-12

5:39 in half BH L-13 O-4

End of 1, BH-8 O-2

2:20 in 1, BH 6 O-0

The left and the media (same thing?) and spazzing out over Trump. I could probably send a tweet that on Monday a new executive order will require all Atheists have to turn themselves in to internment camps and they will eventually be sent to unnamed Pacific islands and it would be reported as fact. This is entertainment better than most other reality shows.

And generally speaking, local and state police do not enforce federal laws and federal agents do not enforce state or local laws. In some (or many) instances the local police have way more policing powers and authority than federal agents and in other instances, federal agents have way more policing powers and authority than local police. I have worked on federal task forces as do officers all around the country. The benefit of such arrangements is that it kind of gives dual jurisdiction to the officers. On one such task force about 30 years ago, I was a US Customs agent for the purpose and time of that task force. I was authorized to make border searches just as if I was a Customs agent at an airport, port or other entry point into the USA. At other times when the agents wanted to stop someone to check them out but whatever they were looking at did not cross their authority to make traffic stops so we would be in the car with them and we would stop the person/vehicle under our authority. On a side note, we were like kids in a candy store. Being a 3-4 years city police officer and having our issued radios, we could barely use them to talk to another officer across town or our dispatcher when near the city limits. For this project however, we had a federal walkie-talkie and could talk to Houston and sometimes to a C-130 aircraft flying over the Gulf of Mexico. Way before the days of today's cell phones where we can call around the world from anywhere and in the days before home computers and the Internet (at least released to civilians for mainstream use), we could talk over 100 miles away by using the federal toys. It is always fun to bring their resources into play.

Most people (or maybe just "some) know that the Fifth Amendment says that we can not be twice put in jeopardy of life or property also known as no double jeopardy. Well that is true... kinda..... In the USA, by out Constitution, we have what is called dual sovereignty. Basically the USA is 50 separate countries that come together for common defense and other powers. Under that concept (and the Tenth Amendment), the USA can make laws and each state can make independent laws. Sometimes they overlap BUT.... each has the sovereign right to prosecute you as a different country. Each can bring you to trial independently without regard to the other. I guess in a way, you could be brought to trial more than once for example you commit something that is a federal crime and it also takes place in LA and TX. Each can bring you to trial and you can do time in all of them. For an example, look at the Rodney King incident. Some cops are put on trial in state court for abusing Rodney King and are acquitted. They are free to go, right? Nope, the US DOJ came in and filed federal civil rights violations against them for the exact same incident and using the exact same facts. I think three were convicted. They were then sued in state court and I believe federal court. Again, each has different lawsuit procedures. In total I think the officers and the city through them, were brought to four trials for one act after being originally found not guilty in the first trial. Possession of marijuana is a federal crime. In states that have passed either medical or private use of it, the feds simply overlook it on a lower level. They will still likely find illegal suppliers and in larger quantities. The federal government to my knowledge has never gone after low level use or any other low level crime. They do not have the resources to arrest everyone found with a rock of cocaine, a joint of marijuana or small theft amounts. That is what the local police and government attorneys do.

..... state laws.

What Trump did was legal. The US clearly says it is at the discretion of the president. Not liking something does not make it illegal. For it to be illegal, it has to violate some provision of the Constitution. What part of the Constitution did it violate? What rights do non-citizens who are not in this country have? I know the answer is "none" but maybe you can come up with some answer if you google uneducated opinions. Trump will soon issue an almost identical order and will negate the temporary ban in his lawful order. Soon we will have another Supreme Court justice so a full Court can hear the argument and put an end to it once and for all.

Huh? Care to explain that in English?

A stupid decision by the DA. What will she choose not to prosecute next, DWI? Let's just issue citations for leaving a traffic lane? She cannot change state law but is telling the police not to enforce the law. If they legalize it, great but she is playing god of the legal system. She has not such authority. I wonder if the police will simply do away with misdemeanor domestic violence since that takes up at least as much time as marijuana.

Hmmm.... same chance? Hillary Clinton, hardly popular with the Republicans, is confirmed as Secretary of State 98-2. Trump's SOS is confirmed 56-43. Yeah, I can see where the Dems are giving the same "chance". But let's move on. For Attorney General, I thought that Eric Holder was fairly controversial but he passed his vote 75-21 with half the Republicans voting for him. Trumps AG passed, 52-47. Yep, no support from the Dems. So two of the most important positions, even from Obama who the left claimed has hated and not given a chance, won overwhelming support from the GOP in respect for Obama's picks. The Dems toward Trump? Well, no respect or support at all. Yet another..... Health and Human Services, Obama gets a fairly controversial Kathleen Sebelius passed with some GOP support, 65-31. Trump's HHS Secretary, yet again, no support from the Dems and Tom Price, an actual medical doctor as the head of the health agency (surely we can't have that), passed only 52-47. For Obama Secretary of Education? A unanimous confirmation. For Trump, 51-50. Can we go on? CIA director? Obama gets Leon Panetta confirmed with yet another unanimous vote. Trump? Nope, 31 Dems voted against his nominee. Same chance you ask? Yeah, that would be nice. Oh wait, you said from "you people"? Heck, Trump can't even get any chance from Democrat politicians when on the reverse side, the GOP did not like Obama but looking at the vote, gave him a chance simply out of respect. Yes, people in internet forums get out of hand for Obama and Trump. Big deal, they control nothing except their own opinions. What about the actual people in charge, the senators and representatives? I guess that respect only goes one way........

If you read appeals court decisions, they never dismiss anything. They bring up prior constitutional cases to back up their belief. Court rulings do not just simply say I believe XY and Z in that's it. You might not see eye to eye with them, and I can guarantee that I do not in all cases, but they back it up with other constitutional rulings.

Almost no laws are based on the Constitution. That document mainly lists both authorities and limitations by the government. I think mainly goes back to the time around the Magna Carta in the early 1200's in old England. That led to the forming of the British Parliament or limiting the Kings at the time almost unlimited power. After the Revolutionary War, that evolved into our current constitution. What the Constitution does is give the authority to make laws but those laws are limited both in the Constitution and the later constitutional amendments. Basically, if the Constitution does not say that the government cannot do it, then they like we can. You will not find laws in there like traffic laws, marriage laws, disturbing the peace (yelling fire), drug laws, etc. So, probably 99.9% of the laws in this country are not based on the United States Constitution. The authority to make those laws is however. Much of it goes to the 10th amendment which guarantees state's rights. That is, if it is not specifically listed in the Constitution, a state could be what it wants.

No, they should not be impeached on rulings. That is nonsensical crap. A judge removed for playing politics is ....well.... politics. What happens like 8 years ago when Obama had almost a super majority in both houses of Congress? All conservative judges are removed for playing politics? You have a 9-0 Supeme Count siding with Ginsburg and Sotomayor? There is a good reason that federal judges are appointed for life. To think otherwise would have allowed the Dems to completely ban handguns 8 years ago and have a 9-0 ruling from the SC saying it was legal. No thanks. I completely disagree with some rulings but the system otherwise would be a mockery of laws.

Can you explain the problem or are you merely spitting out another person's slanted political argument?

..... and almost every time I see some news article like this, someone always says, "This doesn't add up".

You could speculating why she was approaching him but that is all it would be, speculating. That is not an uncommon means of carjacking or robbery. I talked to a friend (former coworker) whose wife had the exact same thing happen in Houston a couple of weeks ago. A woman pulled up next to her in a parking lot and started asking questions and she looked into her mirror and saw a man approach the passenger's side of her car with a gun in hand. She had one in the console and when he looked into her passenger side window, she was pointing it at him. The woman that pulled up next to her (the diversion) and the guy both fled in her car. They were obviously together and intent on something more than asking questions. Looking at how vague news articles are (and having done many press releases), they usually leave a lot to speculate on. That does not mean that something was not "adding up". It only means that we don't know all the details and since the police do not like to release information, might never know.

Nancy Pelosi is hilarious. She said that if you "eat, drink or take medicine", this guy is bad. Yeah, I heard that in some of his decisions Gorsuch banned water, food of any kind and that any medical procedure was a crime. The Dems are literally coming apart at the seams.......

I just had to flip to MSNBC to see what I knew had to be people freaking out. "This is a constitutional crisis!!!" I particularly loved it when (I think) Lawrence O'Donnell blistered Trump with the fact that was something like, "President Trump found out that he could not stand up to a federal judge with an order!!!". I wonder if he remembers Obama having orders rejected not only by district courts but by Circuit Courts? Nahhhhhh....... short memory.

Maybe someone could send me a message and let me in on the big secret.

I agree 100%. That was for the benefit of those that might tend to question why a name has not been given and is there some kind of cover up. The answer is that the name cannot be made public or the police/DA/court/etc., will be the ones violating the law. In your position, I knew that you would be aware of the law.

I agree 100%. That was for the benefit of those that might tend to question why a name has not been given and is there some kind of cover up. The answer is that the name cannot be made public or the police/DA/court/etc., will be the ones violating the law. In your position, I knew that you would be aware of the law.

For a government release the name of a juvenile that has not been certified as an adult by the juvenile court is a law violation.