tvc184

More than likely it will be 50 families that can now be supported by private money at union wages and that isn't counting the spin off jobs which will be many.    Besides that, the Keystone pipeline is not a jobs project like the shovel ready jobs paid for by taxpayer's money. It is private money that has the single intent of bringing oil to the Gulf coast to refine. This is about being closer to independence on Middle East oil and a huge political benefit to the USA in world affairs as people will have a less or no trump card of oil.    That fact that some families will get a living wage is a side benefit of capitalism. I can't imagine the argument of being against it because only 50 families will reap a large benefit.  

  Read my response above and then look at yours. 

Here is the stuff on the bill as written. As always, things are subject to amendments in committee or on the floor during a debate but I am not sure what much can or will change in this one.   This bill is about a "capias" only or more specifically, a capias pro fine. A capias is really just a warrant but can be used for several reasons. In TX we most commonly call it just a capias but meaning capias pro fine. In Latin capias means "to take" or "that you take" or in this case, taking a person into custody (same as warrant). Pro in Latin means "for" so capias pro fine means to take into custody for a fine.    That is very important in this case. Every person has a chance at their day in court from a simply jaywalking charge to Capital Murder. In the case of  a capias pro fine, the person has already had his day in court. That means a person has usually been given a citation (or any Class C misdemeanor like theft, public intoxication, etc.), gone to court, pleaded guilty in front of a judge and not having the money on hand, was given an extension to pay or maybe even a payment plan.     So you get a ticket for speeding and with court costs, it comes to $175 fine. You tell the judge that you don't have the money but can get it by your next paycheck. He then gives you 30 days to pay. Remember at this point that you have had your day in court, you pleaded guilty (or maybe found guilty by a jury), were given a fine and were then given an extension to pay. All constitutional requirements have been fulfilled.    Guess what, you did not pay the fine as agreed. Now the judge issues not a warrant for your arrest by a CPF. There is no need for a standard warrant to have you brought to trial as that has been done. You stood in court and said you were guilty and accepted the punishment (remembering that you can appeal a traffic citation to the DA and did not use your appeal). There is no need for a trial, there is no need for a warrant, there is only the need to pay off your agreement. With the CPF you can either pay your fine at that time or sit it out in jail at $100 a day.    All that is required knowledge in my opinion to understand the bill and its proposed law.   Here is the scenario of the bill. You got that citation, you told the judge that you were guilty, he fined you and gave you time to pay.You did not pay and he issued a CPF.    The cop stops you today and you have basically one choice. You are taken into custody and if there is not another licensed driver in your car (assuming the cop stops you while driving which is the typical contact) then your car will be towed at an additional expense (usually around $200) which comes out of your pocket in addition to the fine that you have already agreed to pay. You will be brought to the jail in handcuffs and there you will sit until you come up with the money or sit out your time. When you get out you had better have a ride because your car has been towed. If you have the money in your pocket, the officer cannot take it as he is not allowed to by law.    Under the proposed law, at the discretion of the person about to be arrested and for a CPF only, he can swipe a credit or debit card on the side of the road and pay his fine that he has already agreed to pay. The person is not required to pay and can essentially demand to be taken to jail the current way even if he has a credit card.    The officer cannot take bond money or a credit card on a regular warrant where you have not been to court and he cannot take money or a credit card on the reason he stopped you such as running a stop sign. To that extent it would be no benefit to the officer to stop you simply to take money because he is not allowed to.    So there it is. IF you had a previous violation, IF you went in front of the judge, IF you pleaded or were found guilty and given a fine, IF the judge or jury gave that fine, IF you got an extension, IF you fail to pay and IF the judge issues a CPF, that is the only reason an officer can take a card only (no cash payments).    To do so could save you a lot of time, maybe save money from a car not being towed, maybe save you some other grief like being late for work and perhaps fired and save you from being booked into the county jail with fingerprints and mug shot. That option is not available today.   That is what some are calling highway robbery, corruption, unconstitutional, etc. What most people probably do not know is that some states already have this option including (not in the TX bill) paying a citation that is issued at that time. Louisiana is famous for stopping out of state cars and taking the driver straight to jail to pay a fine at that moment or be booked and remain in the parish or city jail. Even if not guilty, how many people paid a fine simply to keep from being locked up in some dungeon in LA?   I see it as a no brainer but I also know that it will never pass in TX due to the previously mentioned and in my opinion, bogus complaints. 

I have no clue but I have never heard of an officer in TX being able to take money at the side if the road. If they allow that there may be some kind of arrangement like a court clerk is on hand to accept any money.

This seems to be an interesting topic on facebook and other locations. A legislator has again submitted a bill to allow cops to take fines on the side of the roadway. This has evoked a huge response with calls of it being unconstitutional, highway robbery, taking the legal judiciary out of the law, police corruption, etc.  Like usual, it seems like most of the protesters have no clue what the law is about or what it says (why read the bill, right?).    I have read the actual proposal but would like to see some responses. Do you think this is a good idea or not. Why?   This is the article from Houston that has apparently caused the uproar.    [Hidden Content]   This is the actual text of the proposed law. You will have to click on "Texts" and then "Introduced" under Bill Drafts to see the wording.   [Hidden Content]

    That is what I'm talking about.    Keep up the good work.... from a super majority to a complete loss of control and all within the term of a single anointed president. 

No big deal. As the wheels continue to come off from the Democrats wagon, they keep their heads in the sand and claim that everything is okay, there are no scandals and the Republicans are sinking.    Of course the polls show that (the same polls that some of these same liberals spit out with glee when Bush was in his waning days) the Dems are falling just like the Republicans did 6 years ago but the only one that really counts is on election day. I wonder how that worked out for them and how many times even up until election eve, the national and local Dems denied there was any problems. As more bad news keeps coming, they will continue to run around and deny everything.    I love their stance of defiance. That is the ol' American spirit, show us that you will go down with the ship. 

One doe with a bow so far.....

Other than being the daily pot stirrer, is there a good or valid reason to veto the Keystone pipeline?

As the last three elections have proven. The next one will seal the deal.

He is only partially correct. A majority of the country did not fall for it and Obamacare had a substantial negative opinion of the people. The party in power passed in the face of all the opposition from the people they were supposed to be representing.    That has caused the pounding they have received in the three subsequent elections from a super majority in both houses to the loss of both houses.    Basically the public didn't fall for it but the Dems passed it anyway. They are now paying the price.    At least he admitted that they knew it was bogus. 

  You are kidding, right? Less than one half of one percent goes to assistance programs?   Not counting Social Security more than 40% of our budget goes to assistance programs. Maybe you misread 47% and thought it was .47%.   I can see that you need to use your healthcare to purchase some reading glasses.

  No, I want to quit paying for people that won't pay for their own. 

..... at least that is what MSNBC told me to say.

  I think he mentions the problems with an anaconda proof suit. 

Why go over Niagara Falls in a barrel?

  Hmmm.... that "could be" a felony if true. 

Right. Just like the president's own press secretary said a few days before the election. His comment when ask about the upcoming wave was that the president and Democrats did not believe that the wave was coming. You appear infatuated with the word denial. That comes to mind in this situation.

The Republicans have been negotiating. Maybe some people missed representative Elijah Cummings went on camera he told the Republicans after the Democrats had taken over both houses, you lost and that's the way things work. We control the legislature now. There was no negotiations. Their negotiations was either go along with us or get out of the way.

Sure he will veto. He will be stuck with bills actually making it to his desk. Obama lost his final surrogate and will have to stand on his own record.. which is no record. By the next two years, that record will finally exist and it won't be pretty, just like last night's results.    Fortunately and just like these elections, he will bring the rest of the Democratic party with him. 

I hope he vetoes everything. That will be the fait accompli for the 2016 presidential election. Might as well make it a clear sweep and get back to business.    The Dems are about to deal with what the Republicans had to deal with after the Democrats controlled both houses during Bush's last two years. He was stuck with a non-cooperative legislature and that led to Obama's election. What caused his election is what will cause a Republican sweep in 2016.    Of course the Dems will be in denial just like in this election. It won't happen.... it won't happen.... it won't.......... okay, it happened. 

    This from the same person that scoffed at a Republican win taking back the Senate.    Realizing that it will not be repealed at first in its entirety, it will have provisions slowly removed. Then the Dems will be on their knees praying that the Obama disaster will not translate to a Republican win in the next presidential election. If so, Obamascare will go bye-bye. 

    I am sure in your disgust at the turnout (understandable) you missed the previous posts so I will quote one of mine.        A president who has not had to use veto power in 6 years because he has had his shills doing his bidding for him, will now be stuck with actually leading, maybe by veto. But the country and world will see. For 6 years the Democrats will not even allow most bills to come up for a vote. They will not allow a budget to pass. Now such things will go forward and if he feels that he can go in front of the people and tell them that it is him now stopping legislation, go for it.    As an example, let the president veto a bill to allow the Keystone pipeline to go through. Let him and the Dems go into the next election knowing that they are blocking a popular energy bill. He won't be on the ballot but many Democrats will be and when they continue to back him, their fate will likewise be sealed.    On the other hand, with a simple veto pen he will have a lot more time to improve his swing on the golf course. 

One of our frequent flyers on the Democrat's side of this forum said a few months ago said that the Republicans were a sinking ship. It looks like that sinking ship just torpedoed the USS Obama.    On the comic side, I had to turn on MSNBC and watch their late coverage and I am glad that I did not watch them during the actual counting of votes because watching them, I thought the Democrats had won. Then they had about a 20 minute discussion about raising the minimum wage and showed New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen after her "huge" 52% win as an incumbent in a liberal state and she was talking about pushing (yet again) for the higher minimum wage with her stunning 2% victory.    HUH? It kinds of reminds me of the Cpl Hudson (Bill Paxton) in the movie Aliens after they had just fought their way out of the compound against hordes of aliens and he told a guy (and I have to clean it up for this forum), "Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events pal but we just got our butts kicked!!".    Here's a tip Jeanne, your party had a super majority in both houses that the Republicans could not stop as they did not have enough votes to even filibuster in the Senate. You also had the presidency and that two branch sweep that was unstoppable... yet you and they did nothing. Well...... they did pass Obamacare which coincidentally is likely the reason that you just got smashed on what Obama a few weeks ago called, a referendum on his policies.    The most important part of this Senate victory is not legislation per se because Obama will simply veto almost any bill sent. The huge victory is that Obama can get no treaties passed, no cabinet appointments and no federal judges including the Supreme Court without Republican consent. He has refused to compromise or even get involved legislatively. Now he is completely neutered unless he makes some kinds of concessions. It is also interesting that Harry Reid changed the long time rules and threw away the 60 votes required by Senate to bring something to a floor vote and used the so called "nuclear option" requiring only a majority vote to end any filibuster on nominations. We now he is faced with the fact that the Republicans will use the rules change to shove it right back in their face.    Oh yeah, thank you Obama for giving the Republicans the most representatives in the US House in history. Not even during the heyday of the Republicans and their contract with America did they hold as many seat as they will come January when the new Congress is sworn in.    And one last time, Jimmy Carter is so glad that Obama has proven to be the worst president at least in modern history as even Carter never lost the Senate until Ronald Reagan beat him in 1980 (he never lost the House even in losing to Reagan).    So much for that sinking ship................ 

  I believe it is by both houses, not just the Senate since both houses passed the law and both have to override a veto.