tvc184

My list..... The Longest Day A Bridge Too Far Patton The Right Stuff Death Wish My Name Is Nobody (I think I have seen it once on the tube) Ten Commandments Ben Hur Open Range Miracle Signs Twelve O'Clock High Silence of the Lambs The Gallant Hours Air America Tora Tora Tora The Alamo The Alamo American Graffiti Amistad Apollo 13 The Boys in Company C The Caine Mutiny Castaway Destination Tokyo Escape from Sorbibor Fail Safe The Cowboys El Dorado Flying Leathernecks The Sands of Iwo Jima Gettysburg Ghosts of Mississippi The Great Escape The Green Beret Helter Skelter Glory The Spirit of St. Louis The Terminal Them The Right Stuff Outbreak Aliens Omega Man M*A*S*H Midway Jaws Lost Horizon Wings of Eagles To Kill a Mockingbird A Time To Kill Tombstone They Were Expendable 30 Seconds Over Tokyo Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood version) Big Jake (John Wayne version) The Fugitive The Shootist Star Wars (original) Run Silent, Run Deep Hoosiers Flight of the Phoenix (Jimmy Stewart version) Deliverance Crimson Tide The Dirty Dozen The Thing (both versions) Kelly's Heroes Forbidden Planet ...... and a few others.

Let's see, Trayvon Martin. I said there was no case and there wasn't. The DA knew it but the state sent in a hitman (woman) to indict Zimmerman without going to a grand jury.. something that would not be legal in Texas. After the verdict, the juror that spoke to the media said something like, "We all really wanted to convict him but there was no evidence". She basically said that she wanted him to be guilty when it all started (kind of makes you go hmmm, on an "impartial" juror) but could find no legal grounds once the "evidence" was produced.... which was none. The governor of Missouri came out almost immediately can called for the indictment of Darren Wilson with absolutely no facts after Michael Brown was killed. The DA (yet again) said not only was there was no evidence to support an indictment but in fact said that Wilson was justified. Then the entire weight of the federal government through the US Justice Department and the FBI came in and spent who knows how much money... to find the same thing that the little DA found, no evidence. Eric Garner fights the police and dies not of the injuries caused by officers but of his own weight and health problems. Of course that is not good enough and people want officers to be indicted and convicted based solely on their profession. Here we go with Baltimore. Out of all these cases, this one is the most strange. I can "maybe" see the driver being guilty of something but even that is a stretch. The other five are nothing but illegal sacrificial lambs. This is a guilty by association case. Officers spotted Gray in a crime and he ran. He was chased and taken into custody. I have seen absolutely nothing to do with the chase that is even claimed to be close to causing Gray's death. After he is taken into custody and after he is put in a transport vehicle, something happened. Except for the driver there were no other officers responsible for him at that point. It would be like me making an arrest and bring a guy to the county jail. After he gets there and long after I leave the premises, he dies of something that happened in the jail but I am held responsible for it as I did nothing wrong even if you don't agree with the arrest. I was not there when it happened and did nothing that is linked to a death.... then they wanting to hold me responsible for bringing him in. Huh? It would be like anyone reading this forum selling gasoline to someone at a service station and the guy goes down the road, runs a stop sign and kills someone.... then charge you for selling him the gas. After all, if he had run out of gas, he couldn't have run the stop sign. That is the same rationale used in the Freddie Gray case. This officer was very wise to refuse a jury trial where emotion might drive the verdict instead of facts. Those facts being, this officer had nothing to do with the death at all and was nowhere around whatever happened. This was not justice. Justice would have been no indictment to begin with.

We must be flipping through different channels.

Too many to list.

I never noticed where jobs, medicine, drinking water, chemicals, driving, modes of transportation, etc, we're mentioned in the Constitution as specific rights. Maybe you can point out my oversight. Freedom of speech, assembly, religion, right to an attorney, public trial, bearing arms, free from unreasonable searches and seizures, along with a few others are specifically stated as rights. i know that concept escapes you.

Well, that took a few seconds on google to at least find the chapters. It is in the Texas Local Government Code chapters 272 and 253... I think. Some of this stuff is interesting according to what I am reading. In 253 it says about park land... "Land owned, held, or claimed as a public square or park may not be sold unless the issue of the sale is submitted to the qualified voters of the municipality at an election and is approved by a majority of the votes received at the election; provided, however, this provision shall not apply to the sale of land or right-of-way for drainage purposes to a district, county, or corporation acting on behalf of a county or district.". I am fairly certain where the cross is located was part of the park. This section alone says that land owned as a park may not be sold without an election by the voters of that city. Hmmm.... maybe it is not the council that can approve of the sale but the citizens and I do not think such a vote was ever held. And what I mentioned above, it if it to another government entity such in this case, a drainage purpose, that negates the need for the vote. In 272 it says.... "......before land owned by a political subdivision of the state may be sold or exchanged for other land, notice to the general public of the offer of the land for sale or exchange must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in either the county in which the land is located or, if there is no such newspaper, in an adjoining county. The notice must include a description of the land, including its location, and the procedure by which sealed bids to purchase the land or offers to exchange the land may be submitted.". It then goes on to list exemptions to that requirement and one of which seems to be that the land has to be appraised and not sold for less than market value. I am wondering who appraised that land at $100. The chapter lists things like education, old roadways, low income housing, selling to other political subdivisions (that would make no sense in this case as that entity would also be public just like the city which is threatened with a lawsuit in the first place) and so on. Anyway, I am tired of reading but I would like to see where the sale can be made to a church without requiring bids. Simply saying that it was voted on at a council meeting does not necessarily make it legal. The Government Code and Local Government Code lists all kinds of requirements and limitations on the political subdivisions. A city council can not simply vote on anything it wishes. So maybe it was completely legal but I can see where someone might have a claim from what I have read. Therein lies the problem with some laws. When you think that you found something, there might be another law that says the other law that you just read does not apply. I have personally been involved in issues where a city attorney was wrong on something, resulting in the issue being overturned.

..... and for all I know, maybe the did put it up for bids and no one noticed.

Not so fast. I am sure that they voted on it in an open meeting. That is the law, however..... the law also states how property can be sold all the way down to auctions like for found property like bicycles. For most sales of government property in TX, there has to be a public notification of the sale and an auction with the sale going to the highest bidder. It is not that it can't be sold but how it can be sold. I know that the law says that there does not need to be bids for very limited circumstances like one government selling to another. An example might be like the city selling property to the school district. If PN had a lot of land and PNGISD needed it for something, the city could sell it to them without opening it up to a land developer who could afford to bid more than a school district is willing to offer. I am not certain that a private church is in the list of entities that can purchase property of any kind from a city government without the required bidding process. I am not familiar with the law other than I have read it a time or two in the past and that where I work we have to comply with city sales to the public. I might look it up and see if I can find it. I am not saying that the sale was unlawful but it might have been. I just don't think in many situations a city can makes sales like that to the general public.

Which is what I meant in my first post. Looking at it, I guess it can be taken two ways. One is, "how could they do that" and the other (which I believe) is, "why not put a little humor in an otherwise sad affair".

I think that is exactly what it is. Might as well go out with a laugh.

I guess if a family can see humor in death...............

In TX a property representative can ask you to leave and if you do not, you are trespassing. In Chapter 9 in the Penal Code under defenses to prosecution, you can use any force necessary short of deadly force to remove someone from trespassing. I believe in TX the shopper would be arrested and charged with trespassing (assuming the guard told him to leave) and there would be no charges on the security person. Therein lies the difference between property rights in TX and liberal land in DC, et al.

I am curious as to what legal standing the city has to sell public lands or any property without an auction.... unless they had an auction and no one paid attention to it.

Great. Go to jail then. I am not and will not question a person's faith. I will comment on the law and what I believe to get its constitutional standing. And the governor just vetoed the bill saying that it would not stand up to constitutional challenge. Hmmmm..... maybe she read my post about the law..

Great. Try that as a defense in court.

I do not disagree with that religious aspect of it however we were discussing law.

It isn't. What does fault have to do with it?

I am wondering if the governor will sign it or allow it to become law. Then I wonder if a federal judge will issue a restraining order to keep it from being enforced until it has a chance to go through the federal system, Although Roe v. Wade is not absolute in allowing abortions, it seems to make it a requirement that the state allow abortions up to a viable fetus or one that can survive outside of the womb. If this does become law I think it will be almost immediately stopped and will eventually come to some kind of federal court ruling.

I suspect that most are not but for the ones that feel obligated to protest, they are offended that someone disagrees with them.

People that aren't Christians perhaps?

Illegal on both counts and the state will take action.

I kind of hear what you're saying however for the most part you're wrong. Fishing without a license is a state law and whether you could be arrested varies from state to state. In some states you cannot be arrested for an offense that allows for a citation. Immigration is under federal law per the Constitution and has absolutely nothing to do with state law as does fishing licenses. Illegal entry into the United States is seen much like trespassing. In Texas for example you're never trespassing unless you have been given proper warning as described by law. It is the same with entry into the United States. If a person comes over the border without proper documentation and is caught, he should be sent back by law and given a warning. If that person reenters the United States he has committed a felony. We have people they get caught time and time again. The problem is not the law but the person in charge not enforcing the law. Like many of these political arguments, the person writing them has no clue of the law. They make these memes/photos and post them on Facebook and get 10,000 likes… But the law they talk about is not factual. Go figure. So here is the answer. Texas (and other states) has autonomy to make it's own laws. . Texas have a law where you can go to jail for most things that can be issued a citation including things like no fishing license, having a burned out license plate light or not using your blinker when turning in the vehicle. The United States has a law that says you can be charged with a felony if entering United States illegally as long as you have been given that first warning. Texas law and United States law are independent and do not depend on each other. Any comparison between the two is a folly to begin with and one has nothing to do with the other. So I understand the complaint that the current occupant of the White House does not wish to enforce the laws that he does not like. That has nothing to do with Texas having the authority to arrest minor criminals or the United States having a law that allows the arrest of the illegal aliens but the guy at the top just doesn't like it.

I don't think so. I thought the education money came out of the general fund or in other words, from federal taxes paid. The state doesn't send them money per se just so they can send it back. The Constitution (I think Article I) says that taxes must be apportioned among the states. I believe that roughly means under the way it was written, equal. So if California sends in 5% of all taxes, they should get about 5% of anything given to states. Along came the 16th Amendment (I think because of some Supreme Court rulings making income taxes illegal) and part of that amendment was to officially allow income taxes and to end apportionment. Assuming that I am correct, that means that the US Congress can collect what they want in taxes and can give it out as they please without regard to who paid it in...... assuming they pass a bill that is signed into law by the president. I believe that by the Constitution, including amendments, allows the federal government to levy taxes and spend them where they wish. The key being there has to be a law. That is what I was talking about above where the federal government did pass a law allowing highway funds to be slightly restricted if the states do not go with the suggested drinking age but there is no federal law that requires restroom accommodations for transgender or gender identification.

I have killed many deer and eaten plenty of others where I helped clean it. I have never had a gamey tasting one. Almost every one that I have cleaned or been on scene were done within about an hour of killing and we don't usually gut the deer.... even while cleaning. Hang 'em by the back legs, strip the hide and but off the shoulders, back straps and hams. Dump the carcass and the meat goes straight on ice. Someone might not like the taste of deer but how it is handled might be everything. I know that my mother has served it at church and no one has ever mentioned it anything other than it tasting great. With roast, chicken fried and hamburgers......... she has never told them it was deer.

The only leverage the government has is to withhold funding. I cannot remember the case but at least once in the Obama administration they tried to withhold funding from a state for some reason. The federal court decided that they had no authority to withhold statutory funding because they didn't like something. They can withhold funding if it is a federal law allowing it within their taxing authority such as the national drinking age of 21 such as in the case of SD v. Dole. They cannot force the age law on the states but can withhold funding as the federal law states where a whopping 5% of funding can be withheld. In that case the federal law was upheld as passing the taxing authority of Congress and because it was no coercive and because it complied with a written law. There is no such law on the federal books and there is no mention in Title 9 of transgender or sexual orientation. Those are made up by this administration or amounts to legislating from the administrative branch which is unconstitutional. Nederland might not fight it but I'll bet that the state of Texas does as will other states and I can almost assure you that a federal court will toss it out. Then it will depend on the circuit courts and possibly eventually the SCOTUS.