Same-sex marriage is being considered inevitable (and anyone who even questions it will be punished). Now on to the next frontier — let’s watch serious lawyers seriously arguing that there is a constitutional right to polygamy
The Emory Law Journal has a symposium on the constitution and polygamous marriage. Some articles are on whether the government may criminalize adults entering into polygamous religious marriages, even when the parties aren’t claiming any legal rights stemming from such a marriage. I think such a criminal prohibition violates the Free Speech Clause. But other articles discuss whether there should be a constitutional right to government recognition of polygamous marriage, much as the court is now considering whether there should be a constitutional right to government recognition of same-sex marriage. The article that most squarely endorses this view is Ronald C. Den Otter’s Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage (paragraph breaks added):
This Article takes seriously the substantive due process and equal protection arguments that support plural marriage (being able to marry more than one person at the same time). While numerous scholars have written about same-sex marriage, few of them have had much to say about marriages among three or more individuals.
As progressive, successful, and important as the Marriage Equality Movement has been, it focuses on same-sex marriage at the expense of other possible kinds of marriages that may be equally worthwhile. The vast majority of Americans still do not discuss plural marriage openly and fairly, as if the topic were taboo.
One of the goals of this Article is to convince readers that marriage in the future could be a much more diverse institution that does a better job of meeting individual needs. After all, one size may not fit all. Unfortunately, too often, scholars reduce plural marriage to the exploitation of women and the abuse of children. This approach makes it too easy to dismiss the possibility that a plural marriage might work better than the alternatives for at least some individuals in some circumstances.
Because the expansion of marriage to include same-sex couples is bound to cover a broader range of marital relationships, lawmakers, judges, and the rest of us eventually will have to decide which kinds of intimate relationships will be accorded legal status and which kinds will be left out. Today, a growing number of Americans reject the double standard when a state does not treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples when it comes to eligibility for marriage licenses. The strong dignity language of the recent Windsor decision indicates that future courts will be more skeptical of the rationale for limiting marriage to a man and a woman if it is predicated upon demeaning sexual minorities.
Another double standard, which is the focal point of this Article, concerns why the state allows almost all couples to marry for just about any personal reason that they happen to have. At the same time, all states continue to refuse to recognize any plural union. Those who care about gays and lesbians being discriminated against cannot ignore whether those who would marry multiple partners, if they were allowed to do so, are also being treated unfairly. The former kind of discrimination may be more widespread and worse than the latter, but that does not mean the latter is constitutionally permissible….
Told.You.So.
The arguments made against same sex marriage are useless in an argument against polygamy – which has been historically accepted in many societies and is so now in most Moslem dominated ones.
So, absent any cogent argument against same sex, there is nothing on the table to defend against polygamy.
I have one….or are you just going to wring your hands and lament?
Today on Beck, David Barton said that his peeps got some info from their peeps at DoJ regarding their plans for when SCOTUS strikes down all SSM bans.
(Barton begins at 44:00; the DoJ stuff ~54:00)
Yes, they’re locked and loaded (surprise) and they’re poised to implement the following features (not bugs):
— Revoke the tax-exempt status of all churches & organizations that decline to perform/support SSM. On account of the power to tax being the power to destroy.
— Strip the terms “mother” and “father” and “family” and “child” from all federal code.
— Change the term “sex” to mean “gender identity.” Yes. All 82 of them. In the federal code it’s already been done.
— Faith-based child welfare services will be chased off (like Catholic Charities). Something like 76% of all child welfare services are currently faith-based, so that void will be filled by the gubmint.
— All faith-based protections for federal contractors go away. They can’t say no to anyone for any reason or the EEOC smashes you.
— Title IX goes out the door; all locker rooms are consolidated into one, because you can’t uphold binary gender.
Remember that SSM was only about teh gheys getting pretty weddings and soft-focus photos. You God-botherers won’t be bothered. Promise.
Beck has also decided to go the full MLK Jr. On Aug 28, he’s going to a black church in Alabama to preach a sermon on the Black-Robe Regiment (pastors who ignited American Independence), civil disobedience, passive resistance, and generally saying Hell No to going over the cliff with the rest of the country. Barton has gathered the support of 70,000+ pastors to get on board with this.
And hoping against hope that he has better luck than Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
I have one….or are you just going to wring your hands and lament?
It doesn’t matter anymore, Tracy. There’s an agenda afoot that is barrelling forward like a runaway locomotive: regardless of how good your arguments are, regardless of conscience protections in the 1A, regardless of any damned thing you or I might say.
Fundamental transformation is fundamental transformation. Here it comes, good and hard.
oh my goodness marriage is doomed
Dicentra: and will people that believe in traditional marriage abandon it? Or will 98% of heterosexuals still embrace ‘marriage’?
I wonder if there had been any other way to beat them at their own game….
It doesn’t matter how many of which group will “embrace” if the State no longer permits traditional marriages to occur, by the simple expedient of shutting down any venue that “discriminates” against SSM by refusing to perform them – to wit, almost every church and faith out there (Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, and several non-denominational). Because most churches always welcome the general public to its services, they will be declared “public accommodations” with all of the litigious burdens implied therein.
“I now pronounce you Participant One and Participant Two (and Participant Three/Four/Five, as needed)” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
I wonder if there had been any other way to beat them at their own game…. – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=56994#comment-1247868
Leave the definition of marriage in the hands of the States, to determine through legislative action and/or plebiscite-driven Constitutional Amendments?
Nah, that’s just KWAZYTAWK
i worry about all this polygamy
Like DOMA was? What political party do you support? Any? In name only, or with a few bucks to the correct (yes, I avoided saying ‘right’) candidate? (because not everyone that says they are right, are….ie Rubio).
We gave up letting the States decide in 1862. We gave up letting courts be impartial judges when FDR blackmailed the SCOTUS and except for a few shouts, when Obama WARNED the SCOTUS…. Congress is owned. Really, you think places like Illinois are bastions of liberty? Oh, right, until the 1930s, the Bill of Rights did not prevent states from infringing upon rights, or states from forming their own churches. Ah, the good ole days….
Maybe I am no different than the majority of the Republicans that supported Civil Rights despite what it cost us. Every freedom can, and probably will be, abused. People with free will, will make bad decisions. You don’t take away freedom or free will.
SSM will probably produce 20-30k marriages a year (and I think it will be on the low side)
Polygamy will probably produce 3-4k marriages a year (and I think it MIGHT be on the high side depending on the Mormon Church)
Heterosexuals will have a million marriages a year. Like the millions of straight marriages, the most likely victims of ‘bad marriage’ of any kind will be the kids. We have 50,000 kids awaiting homes today. Somehow, it being about the kids rings hollow with me.
and I think it MIGHT be on the high side depending on the Mormon Church
Muslims.
Muslims Muslims Muslims Muslims Muslims.
Even if we decline to participate, Muslims.
Heterosexuals will have a million marriages a year.
You missed the point of my post. It’s not about marriage being destroyed because OMG those other people are doing it wrong.
It’s about the government making sure that Christians and Jews who OPT OUT for reasons of conscience are punished until they’re made to submit. Punished to the point of having our civil rights denied and being chased into Mexico and Canada. It happened to my ancestors in the 1800s and it will most definitely happen again.
Stop making this about Your Difficult Situation. It was a difficult situation. Was.
But they’re using the plight of people in that same situation to upend the whole damned apple cart. The Unintended Consequences are the features, not the oopsies.
I am willing to lose my job, my civil rights, my liberty, and my life before I’ll betray the principles that I’ve covenanted to uphold.
So the question is which role all y’all will be playing: trying to Stand Athwart, shaking your head at my foolish stubbornness, or administering the persecution.
Like DOMA was?
The Federal Government was handing out benefits and incentives based on marital status, and has the right to define, just as the States do. DOMA also did nothing to preclude the definitions of any State, merely set the standards and procedures to be used by Federal Agencies. Let us not forget that it was passed into law and signed by the First Black President, Bill Clinton. It was challenged to SCotUS and approved by the court then, long before John Roberts came along. So much for “settled law” and “Constitutionally-passed laws” Obama seems to be railing against, eh?
Really, you think Democratically-dominated places like Illinois are bastions of liberty?
FTFY. Utah and Oklahoma don’t seem to have all those “bastion of liberty” problems you seem to imply. And only the big cities in places like Texas. But you are right, you take your life in your hands walking around in Democrat-voting districts. What does that have to do with letting the States decide what restrictions existed on the issuance of a marriage license? Some State had age of consent as low as 13 (especially where parental approval is required). Others have a mandated minimum term of residency before you qualify (preventing out of state folks from getting married there), or mandate a blood test. States were doing what States do, and when a majority of States had passed laws defining “man + woman”, it took quite a bit of forum shopping to get a judge willing to overturn the expressed will of several million people. People like you started filing lawsuits to insist that all those “Constitutionally-passed laws” were suddenly unConstitutional, or where a document written more than 200 years ago (by John Adams… yes, THAT John Adams) had somehow implied the right to gay marriage.
This lesson is an important one for you to grasp, so PAY ATTENTION.
How. We. Get. There. Matters. Having the expressed will of tens of millions of voters overturned by unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats with a political axe to grind is NOT anything to go over well. And that is what the next step is. Not “will be”, but IS. Bureaucrats and SJWs are already punishing people for exercising their First Amendment rights, using the snapping dogs of the Permanently Offended and Social Media tools (in both senses of the word).
It’s because – just as in the cases about abortion – the process was not merely just side-stepped, but beaten up and pushed into the ditch, and anyone who DARES bring up any criticism is labelled with lots of adjectives ending in “-ist” and “-phobe”, no matter how rationally presented, or whether a majority of people agreed with them. Political decisions were not being made in a political fashion, they were being forced down by Court cases, and that is not what our Founders intended. How we get there matters.
dicentra: and the majority is on what side? RFRA’s are a tool, but of limited value. Memories Pizza closed for 8 days because of public pressure, not government. Yes, there may be whole army’s of DOJ attorneys just chomping at the bit. Obama has had a run of the table on that – not for lack of trying,
Ok, every item on your list – what is the response? Take the first one:
— Revoke the tax-exempt status of all churches & organizations that decline to perform/support SSM
People said as long as churches didn’t get involved in politics, they should be exempt. Then lots of Priests and Pastors got political. I FIRMLY support tax exempt status for churches. Their schools. Their hospitals. Their organizations to support community.
Chapels open to anyone with the coin to use them…I’m looking at it as a business service. Las Vegas, maybe not everything done there should stay there….
On what basis will that revocation happen? Lots of Black Churches in the cross hairs on that. What were the arguments in the first place? Do they still apply, dig them out, brush them off. Besides, States do most of that taxing…..
Gee, the mauraders are massing at the border, what shall we do?
dicentra: tell me where and when.
> because of public pressure,<
death threats = "public pressure" good allan you're dopey
plus disney turned thor into a tranny
i thought thor liked russian grrls
People said as long as churches didn’t get involved in politics, they should be exempt.
That’s not how it happened.
When LBJ ran for the Senate a non-profit participated heavily in the campaign against him and gave him a run for his money. He won the election but was so pissed off by his opponents that he passed the “Johnson Amendment,” a change in the TAX CODE to forbid 501(c) organizations from participating in politics.
It wasn’t THE PEOPLE deciding to separate non-profits from politics: it was a sociopath acting out of SPITE.
And yet everyone acts as if it were a matter of principle.
Also, I don’t know why any of you are still arguing as if we had any damned say in the matter. Those DoJ things are going to happen by fiat, after SCOTUS rules in the way you know it inevitably will. They are poised to put those things in place regardless of what the majority thinks or says or wants.
So spare me your protests of what you’re for or against: your opinion carries no weight at all.
Cripes, people. How we get there isn’t even the debate anymore.
The Titanic has tipped up on its nose and is ready to break in half.
How are you going to survive in the freezing North Atlantic? is the only question left.
>How are you going to survive in the freezing North Atlantic? is the only question left.<
a climate "denier" too
Dicentra, don’t panic. I’m not saying the great American experiment isn’t lost, but it’s early to surrender. Steady on old girl…
Oh Geez, It just hit me…America is just so much Eurotrash now! And we’re making France look strong!
Gghh
>but it’s early to surrender<
until – biden 2016-
drumwaster: “It was challenged to SCotUS”
Excuse me? Let me go check….
There were no challenges to DOMA prior to 2010. All the challenges were based on Section 3, which is the section struct by SCOTUS.
Section 2 “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”
Remains fully applicable and no cases that I am aware of are challenging it. Section 3 deals with the Federal Government defining for itself what had been traditionally the states. So, if a couple is legally married in Masschuesetts, their social security will continue to flow if they move to Georgia. But Georgia doesn’t have to let them file a joint state tax return.
The Federal government could not define marriages as between one man and one woman – that is for the state to decide. It COULD decide that for federal laws, legal marriages would be recognized, not-legal ones would not. It overreached and got it’s hand slapped. That ‘challenge’ was made back when it was signed (people thought it was unconstitutional) it just took forever to get a case to the SCOTUS.
I was actually thinking about guns….so….let’s see where you are off to…it IS democrat controlled, and voted for by the people there, democratically controlled. I don’t know of anywhere in the US that isn’t. Majority rule is not a panacea for what ills us. I guess we can fight Prop 8 when SCOTUS rules, until then…
You know, if a State Constitution is instituted and remains in place for a long time, a majority of voters seeking to ignore it should be slapped down. Don’t you agree that popular mandates are not by themselves a reason to change something well established? WHY SURE YOU DO!
So, we have judges that are supposed to protect constitutions (state and federal) from attempts to infringe upon it without due process. Again, a good thing.
All those restrictions remain with the implementation of SSM, because in most cases there was good, is good, reason for them. Separate and apart from ‘history’.
They were not ‘Constitutionally’ passed. They were voted for by a majority of voters. Something California found out is NOT the same thing. When addressed Constitutionally, the arguments made failed. They failed because of what I stated in the other thread. If the SCOTUS rules ‘for ssm’, then it will do so under the FF&C or the DUE PROCESS clauses. And it will be right to do it because, just because you have a majority doesn’t make it a rule, or a law. That was how things were set up to be, that is how they are. Except in all the cases like KELO when they are not…..or obamacare….
I didn’t file lawsuits, and I doubt you will find any self professed classical liberal that did. Though a few Constitutional lawyers did get on board, because they saw that the Constitution was being addressed and not well.
Yea, HOW we get there matters, WHO gets there does also. If for me, but not for thee, is not a WAY that works.
We have a government, if you don’t like how that government works, change it. But if the wheels of justice don’t turn in your direction don’t bitch about how unfair it is. Judges make mistakes, but less often than they are accused of it. We don’t like how Obamacare was passed ‘constitutionally’, so we hope 5 judges in robes saves us. But those same 5 judges ruling on someone elses ox….well, HELL.
I don’t care about the SJW’s bullshit. We can offer the same, but if we don’t, that is not their fault. Boycott businesses that don’t support traditional marriage, or free expression of religion – or support those that do. You think Chick-Fil-A was cowered? Memories raised $800k, for being closed 8 days. Rabid Puppies is wrecking good havoc. CRY HAVOC AND RELEASE THE PUPPIES…
Don’t act like the SJW have a majority. They can be shouted down just as easily as they do it. But people don’t want to ‘stoop’ to that level. Yea, well, when the world is at that level, deal.
Yea. I’ve been cowered by you guys…..
Ok, it is clear I offered something as a comment that was not my belief, but there is almost no way for it not to be construed as such, so, I’ll own it.
People said as long as churches didn’t get political, they could be exempt.
Actually, the idea of separation of church and state back, way back, suggested that if churches paid taxes, they had the RIGHT to get involved in the process that levied them – no taxation without representation. So, lots of places exempted churches. I think that was fine. But…churches, like corporations are full of people and in groups, people don’t give up rights – freedom of association doesn’t bump everything else out. So, I think churches should be free to speak on political matters that affect their participants. And taxes need to stay out of it, otherwise we get states taxing disparately and that becomes ‘state funded churches’. So, all that was in my head when I said what I said but didn’t get out all that said, so, I own it.
dicentra: I don’t expect to sit idly by. If it happens by fiat, it can be unhappened the same way. We of course have to deal with a ruling class that doesn’t care. So. I’m done with marriage – been in two, no more. My daughter is raised, she is mostly conservative – ruthlessly so fiscally. When the SJW gets into people, I will, if I am close enough, get into them. The idea that something like Memories Pizza happened, not in liberal strongholds, suggests that people are either ignorant or casually indifferent.
I was, I’m not any more. And me and mine will survive because that is what we do.
Good grief that woman can talk!
Must be getting paid by the word…
I don’t have a man in my life to bother….you are my substitutes…. :)
You know, with this pool party riot the cop had to resign over on top of the others, I can’t help but think there is a serious effort to instigate a race war and let it grow into evermore causes and chaos until marshal law can be declared with all the attendant suspensions of liberty and maybe that pesky 22nd amendment.
We do not have rational leadership in positions of power.
Oh yeah, I forgot, O/T…
Now if she were getting paid by words that made sense, she would starve.
She keeps claiming contradictory examples (case in point: “But if the wheels of justice don’t turn in your direction don’t bitch about how unfair it is.” vs “just because you have a majority doesn’t make it a rule, or a law”). I wonder whether she would be just as happy if the judges had upheld the Law rather than redefining marriage . No, just kidding, she would be whining like a beaten puppy…
tracy how much from soros/putin? by word/paragraph?
>1. Like ideology, the legal code functions as an excuse. It wraps the base exercise of power in the noble apparel of the letter of the law; it creates the pleasing illusion that justice is done, society protected, and the exercise of power objectively regulated. All this is done to conceal the real essence of post-totalitarian legal practice: the total manipulation of society. If an outside observer who knew nothing at all about life in Czechoslovakia were to study only its laws, he would be utterly incapable of understanding what we were complaining about. The hidden political manipulation of the courts and of public prosecutors, the limitations placed on lawyers’ ability to defend their clients, the closed nature, de facto, of trials, the arbitrary actions of the security forces, their position of authority over the judiciary, the absurdly broad application of several deliberately vague sections of that code, and of course the state’s utter disregard for the positive sections of that code (the rights of citizens): all of this would remain hidden from our outside observer. The only thing he would take away would be the impression that our legal code is not much worse than the legal code of other civilized countries, and not much different either, except perhaps for certain curiosities, such as the entrenchment in the constitution of a single political party’s eternal rule and the state’s love for a neighboring superpower.
But that is not all: if our observer had the opportunity to study the formal side of the policing and judicial procedures and practices, how they look “on paper,” he would discover that for the most part the common rules of criminal procedure are observed: charges are laid within the prescribed period following arrest, and it is the same with detention orders. Indictments are properly delivered, the accused has a lawyer, and so on. In other words, everyone has an excuse: they have all observed the law. In reality, however, they have cruelly and pointlessly ruined a young person’s life, perhaps for no other reason than because he made samizdat copies of a novel written by a banned writer, or because the police deliberately falsified their testimony (as everyone knows, from the judge on down to the defendant). Yet all of this somehow remains in the background. The falsified testimony is not necessarily obvious from the trial documents and the section of the Criminal Code dealing with incitement does not formally exclude the application of that charge to the copying of a banned novel. In other words, the legal code—at least in several areas—is no more than a facade, an aspect of the world of appearances. Then why is it there at all? For exactly the same reason as ideology is there: it provides a bridge of excuses between the system and individuals, making it easier for them to enter the power structure and serve the arbitrary demands of power. The excuse lets individuals fool themselves into thinking they are merely upholding the law and protecting society from criminals. (Without this excuse, how much more difficult it would be to recruit new generations of judges, prosecutors, and interrogators!) As an aspect of the world of appearances, however, the legal code deceives not only the conscience of prosecutors, it deceives the public, it deceives foreign observers, and it even deceives history itself.
2. Like ideology, the legal code is an essential instrument of ritual communication outside the power structure. It is the legal code that gives the exercise of power a form, a framework, a set of rules. It is the legal code that enables all components of the system to communicate, to put themselves in a good light, to establish their own legitimacy. It provides their whole game with its rules and engineers with their technology. Can the exercise of post-totalitarian power be imagined at all without this universal ritual making it all possible, serving as a common language to bind the relevant sectors of the power structure together? <
havel '77
This is Constitution 101: If a majority votes for something, it can be the law, unless it violates the Constitution (state or federal), at which some point, someone brings it before a bunch of judges. Said judges rule on whether the Constitution (state or federal) has been impugned. If so, scrap the law. That is the system, worked for 200 years.
Get rid of the anti-discrimination and then you can discriminate, I can discriminate, everyone can discriminate. And let the boycott battles begin!
some music
Talking Heads – Talking Heads: 77 [Full Album]
>Get rid of the anti-discrimination and then you can discriminate<
coke or pepsi dope?
newrouter: once, only once…that I can remember, have I made an entire post not my words.
Would that I got paid, I’d get booted by Jeff in a NY minute – I’ve been known to hit word limits in WordPress….
“the police deliberately falsified their testimony (as everyone knows, from the judge on down to the defendant)”
Casual indifference or tacit approval. As long as they can for thee and not for me….
>Get rid of the anti-discrimination and then you can discriminate<
i be wanting to discriminate against assholes like: mike brown, freddie grey, trayvon, mumia and the pool grrl.
drumwaster: “No, just kidding, she would be whining like a beaten puppy”
The advantage of being on the correct side has usually kept me on the winning side. I don’t lose often.
>newrouter: once, only once…that I can remember, have I made an entire post not my words.<
thanks russia today
> Said judges rule on whether the Constitution (state or federal) has been impugned. If so, scrap the law. That is the system, worked for 200 years. <
– It is the legal code that gives the exercise of power a form, a framework, a set of rules. It is the legal code that enables all components of the system to communicate, to put themselves in a good light, to establish their own legitimacy. It provides their whole game with its rules and engineers with their technology. Can the exercise of post-totalitarian power be imagined at all without this universal ritual making it all possible, serving as a common language to bind the relevant sectors of the power structure together? –
>That is the system, worked for 200 years.<
you effed about 1935. it is dead NOW. #NEVER AGAIN IS NOW!
Newrouter: the President, FDR blackmailed the SCOTUS, they bought it, and the ‘voters’, whether out of ignorance, casual indifference or tacit approval, let him. Each part of government has a check, and government has a check: the voters. I’ll leave it up to you to rupture your brain and scream at the screen over that….
The Supreme Court jumped the shark when they upheld the obamacare mandate that citizens must purchase insurance. That is clearly against all natural rights theory that is the backbone of the constitution.
I knew clear back then America was finished as a constitutional republic, and there was nothing left but to keep fighting with honor and hope for a miracle.
Not that there’s s whole lot little old me can do, but I do keep the powder dry and the gas tanks full…
> and government has a check: the voters<
see boehner and mcconnel. sorry " russia today" these peeps are "the exercise of post-totalitarian power"
havel '77
yea : talking heads ’77, john paul 2, havel, reagan, thatcher, walesa. god stuff
we be coming back.
LBascom: I attend every meeting I can of my pointed head little councilman, a dem. Couple things he does I like, most I don’t. I usually pick something for him to defend if I get a chance to ask a question. When Duncan Hunter, my congresscritter, has a townhall, in person or via phone, I go. I attend the infrequent tea party meetings. I tried to restart the very local tea party that disappeared. I am a founding member of the American Conservative Party – I was very involved for 5 years, now, I am a resident parsing pain in the ass of the current Chair – I run off the Fair Tax yokels. I engage. Not because YOU will change your mind, or my Councilman will, but because the lurkers are listening and I MIGHT change one of them.
A facebook friend is always posting Occupy crap, I am the only one that says something in opposition, only if to get a least something out there.
I vote. I get out to events. I have my “Tracy Coyle Not 4 President” site. I spent 4 hours standing in San Diego plazas with my sign and talked to anyone that stopped…a couple. (I spent 1.5 hrs @ City Hall, 1 hr in front of NBC courtyard, and 1.5 in front of the Courthouse)>
I wrote and published and delivered to Congress a Federal Budget.
You know, keeping your powder dry and tanks full is responsible. Putting yourself out there….well, to you and dicentra, I am not floating safely amongst the debris.
>I vote. I get out to events. I have my “Tracy Coyle Not 4 President” site. I spent 4 hours standing in San Diego plazas with my sign and talked to anyone that stopped…a couple. (I spent 1.5 hrs @ City Hall, 1 hr in front of NBC courtyard, and 1.5 in front of the Courthouse)>
I wrote and published and delivered to Congress a Federal Budget.<
thanks. i always wanted to know who purchased whom!!11!!
>I wrote and published and delivered to Congress a Federal Budget<
hahaha you are truly a dope or a troll. russia today!
>I wrote and published and delivered to Congress a Federal Budget<
did you include defunding 80% of the fed gov't loser?
newrouter: 28%. But I challenge you to come up with 40%, forget the 80%. Hint: I offered a budget for 2014. That was done in Feb 2013. I used Obama’s 2012 Budget as a benchmark – so, 40% from Obamas 2012 budget. Feel free to offer SPECIFICS. I detailed all 1241 line items. I also offered budget reform, tax reform and entitlement reform SPECIFICS. Including an alternative to Medicare/Obamacare.
BTW, I’ll let you cheat, MINE is available online. Including the spreadsheets.
government has a check: the voters
We can only vote our reps, we have lost control of government which is now the bureaucracy …
The IRS shut down conservative grassroots opposition in the 2012 cycle, the FEC is poised to take up the mantel this cycle.
As corrupt as Dennis Hastert is (he’s from Illinois where there isn’t D or R just C[riminal]), look at what he is charged with and the timing.
Now look at the NYTimes publishing Democrat opposition research on Rubio as “investigative reporting”.
The alphabet agencies will coordinate to dig up or invent stuff on anyone that Obama & ilk designate as ‘the enemy’. True the Vote easily demonstrated the process-as-punishment.
Threaten people’s lives & livelihoods and they will shut up.
I’m no big fan of Pam Geller (personal reasons) but our Government has told her she is on her own for security so she now has a $30K/mo security bill. She’s a thorn in Obama’s side so he’s not going to cry a lot of tears if she’s offed, though he’s probably waiting for her to change her name and disappear like Molly Norris. (“Who?” you say… exactly my point).
What happens to voters who rebel against the entrenched powers? Many times they are promised they WILL BE PUNISHED … with cuts to schools, fire & police, never the crony perks. Even when they succeed in electing a conservative, the Left will do everything in their power to undercut or destroy that person (Scott Walker & John Doe targeting).
Yes, get involved and vote (I’ve never missed a one) but it isn’t a panacea; not now, not with Government by unanswerable bureaucrat.
Darleen: Can’t disagree. I was in Madison. There was a level that I could act upon, but V’s practice was subject to ‘review’. She was accused three times of malpractice, all dismissed, but all had to be dealt with. Now, I don’t have to worry so much. CJ is relatively safe from retribution from my exploits. I won’t be completely free until she is done with school.
I was raised in Chicago. If you weren’t democrat and voting as such, lots of things could happen. Bad things. That wasn’t just during old man Daley, his son learned too. My father was in union. I get my attitude from him and it kept him in trouble for 20 years.
Politics has been dirty forever. I do agree that the bureaucracy has become out of control – it really doesn’t matter who is President or what party is in charge. Not sure where I want to lay the blame for it, but it ultimately comes down to us.
My liberal friends….are much worse than we are accused of being, ie out of touch and insular. The media is GOD…whatever it says is the absolute truth. Obama has practically lifted the country out of a great depression all by himself.
Last: we have to have it right, any little thing off, and the rest, no matter how well done, is irrelevant. We can’t get anything wrong, they only have to get one thing right. So….that is what I try to do. The voting, that is the end step….it is won or lost long before that.
Even if you can’t ban SSM for all time via propositions like Prop 8, that does not mean you have to pass a law allowing for SSM right now. I think almost everyone rushing out performing SSMs is skipping a step.
Tell ya what, Michelle O sure as hell didn’t sleep through Rev Wrights sermons, I guarantee you that.
Basically what the Obamas have done is make black liberation theology of Wright’s flavor “normal” among black people. Or actually that’s too broad, normal for those who self identify as African American. I’m saying they have so poisoned racial relations I don’t see how we can EVER see national unity again. Especially now that we got a quarter of Mexico’s citizens here busy making America a dual language country, like Canada.
Man what a mess!
> Including an alternative to Medicare/Obamacare. <
full federal removal from the healthcare industry: no fda, no va, no medicare/medicaid, no cdc nothing at all. the market system will sort out the dismantled of the rube goldberg status quo within a few years. also the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines.
> Feel free to offer SPECIFICS. I detailed all 1241 line items. I also offered budget reform, tax reform and entitlement reform <
i don't want to "reform" a loser government. i want to tear it all out except the military and start over. a fundamental transformation.
Newrouter: so, you are ok with letting our troops come home and fend for themselves, legless, armless, blind, damaged because they went where told, did their best and came home to…..Thanks! See ya round!
Brilliant. And we can have whatever drug a pharma company dreams up. And if a MERS outbreak happens, we can rely on CNN and Fox News talking heads to keep us informed.
But, hey! that is your offering on specifics. About 1.2t of a 4t budget. 30%. Nice try.
Tear it out. Air Traffic Control. Port inspections, border inspections. Uranium enrichment. The Pacific Northwest and a big chunk of the Southwest go dark…but only til a company wants to what…step in?
Obama has done more to destroy race relations in 7 years than anyone else in 50 years….and we are getting back to the 60’s as far as actual relations are concerned.
>Newrouter: so, you are ok with letting our troops come home and fend for themselves, legless, armless, blind, damaged because they went where told, did their best and came home to…..Thanks! See ya round! <
the proggtarded really are stupid. no va = i hate troops. listen "genius" health care vouchers for vets. eff the va let the vets seek what THEY need in a free market and not want bureaucrats deem they need in a socialist dystopia.
I don’t know about tearing out, what needs to happen is the states tell the Feds to stick it. EPA agents will have a bounty on them in this state, we’ll do our own schooling, and we will enforce secure borders with foreign countries. And Detroit. We will control our own resources, industry, guns, and taxes, now piss off.
Then, the great American experiment could continue…
>Air Traffic Control. Port inspections, border inspections. Uranium enrichment.<
air traffic control is a city/state responsibility. port/border inspections is a fed gov't respondsibility. uranium enrichment by whom?
>Brilliant. And we can have whatever drug a pharma company dreams up. <
in a "free" country with lots of lawyers why not. how about ma & pa start up co. less regs mean they get to take a shot at solving and health issue x,y,z ..
>The Pacific Northwest and a big chunk of the Southwest go dark…but only til a company wants to what…step in? <
you proggtarded clowns refuse to see states might have some ability to use:
-Tenth 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.
> EPA agents will have a bounty on them in this state <
shutting down epa is a much better solution. avoid conflict. get rid of the problem.
newrouter: Who pays for the vouchers? The Dept of Energy enriches uranium for military use. ATC crosses state boundaries, just like the federal interstate system and the navigable waters (Mississippi, Ohio). port/border inspections are not done by the military.
So, sue the company for Ma’s death. Great, win $250,000 cap, and mom is gone forever.
The PN and SW have multi-state power agreements, owned and administered by the fed. If they could work it out, we wouldn’t have spent the last 35 years trying to figure out who gets how much of the Colorado river…
Interesting point: Bigamy is a crime, if polygamy is made legal, is bigamy moot? I don’t think so….
> Who pays for the vouchers?The Dept of Energy enriches uranium for military use. ATC crosses state boundaries, <
there's a point in chicago where 5 railroads intersect for the last 150 years. somehow the fed gov't wasn't necessary for this operation. and yes those rrs cross state boundaries
The process to get rid of the EPA is out of the states hands, it has to be done in DC.
Now if the 17th was repealed…
>The PN and SW have multi-state power agreements, owned and administered by the fed. If they could work it out, we wouldn’t have spent the last 35 years trying to figure out who gets how much of the Colorado river<
the easy solution is to pump water from where it is(pacific northwest) to where it isn't (california) with power from nuke reactors. but we have proggtarded folks like you always finding something stupid to scream about or dedicated to fdr's "industrial policy/5 year plan"
>The process to get rid of the EPA is out of the states hands, it has to be done in DC. <
you're right. but before going nuke i'd like to see some states sue in federal court that the establishment of the epa was unconstitutional per amendment 10. let john roberts savior his establishment standing.
Screw the lawyers. Just tell the Feds your domestic army alphabet soup mafia has no constitutional authority in our business. Mind your own knitting.
>Just tell the Feds your domestic army alphabet soup mafia has no constitutional authority in our business. <
yea that's me too. but for liv crowd do some lawfare 1st just to eff with them.
Maybe we should just skip the votes and elections and go straight to petitioning judges. And when we get tired of split decisions muddying the waters, maybe wee should make one of those judges our king.
Ernst, I think she would prefer a queen. ;-)
>Obama has done more to destroy race relations in 7 years than anyone else in 50 years <
nah the majority of blacks are low iq. see african history
newrouter: In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created to regulate railroads. 4 of the 5 transcontinential railways were built with federal money/land grants…
I’ve been a proponent of nuclear power and dams since 3 mile island! I’ve had a friend that worked the console at San Onefre! I could care less about a fish needing more water!
Ernst: My friend, the Judge, whom I don’t actually know personally, once said….
“In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the “unalienable Rights” with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims “all Men … are endowed by their Creator.” And in my view that right is also among the “othe[r] [rights] retained by the people” which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution’s enumeration of rights “shall not be construed to deny or disparage.”
“Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents’ authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.” (bolds mine)
So, while I agree with the Judge, I don’t disagree with him. Nor would I bow to a Queen, or King, or a King pretending to be a Queen. I’ve met many Queens in my life, bowing is not the first thing (or the 10th) that comes to mind….
Source: Scalia’s Dissent in TROXEL et vir. v. GRANVILLEi
credential whites are stupid too: see nyt
> 4 of the 5 transcontinential railways were built with federal money/land grants… <
mostly land grants(except union pacific Crédit Mobilie) a solyndra sacndal
>So, while I agree with the Judge, I don’t disagree with him. <
proggtarded: way too stupid
>I’ve been a proponent of nuclear power and dams since 3 mile island! <
who the eff cares what you say. this is made up bs. are you writing your energy policy to gov. brownout silly grrl?
>: In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created to regulate railroads. In 1995, when most of the ICC’s powers had been eliminated, Congress finally abolished the agency with the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act.[15] Final Chair Gail McDonald oversaw transferring its remaining functions to a new agency, the Surface Transportation Board.<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission#Abolition
Newrouter: You mean the gov regulation didn’t stop, just changed departments/names?
As to my energy policy. I like thorium reactors, pebble bed reactors, sodium cooled reactors. Thorium looks to be the best. My ex’s brother worked at Los Alamos, masers back in the early 80’s. We talked Fortran.
I think commercial wind power is non-sensical. I think large scale solar, planetside, is inefficient (same reason as DC was not accepted). Solar-sats, been very pro those a long time. They are becoming economically feasible.
What is YOUR plan….burn all the furniture taken out of government offices?
> 4 of the 5 transcontinential railways were built with federal money/land grants… – <
today who "owns" most the property in the west us?
>Newrouter: You mean the gov regulation didn’t stop, just changed departments/names?
As to my energy policy. I like thorium reactors,<
the proggtarded have add issues. can't really discuss much when you can't explain rr 1800's land grants so move on to thorium reactors. yo go silly grrl
> Thorium looks to be the best. <
silly grrl freedom? if i want to build a thorium reactor in my garage tomorrow can i do it under this fed gov't?
Newrouter: actually, you were falling behind. What about land grants? Federal land became private land. Later, when not putting Indians on it, no one else wanted the land, it ‘stayed’ in government hands – so, the answer is, government controls a lot of land, most? define most? 90%?
State other owned largest other
alaska 95.83% BLM
nevada 87.76% BLM
Utah 75.20% BLM
idaho 70.37% USFS
Oregon 60.35% USFS
arizona 56.80% TRIBAL
Wyoming 55.94% BLM
california 52.18% USFS
From my 2014 Federal Budget Proposal:
“Currently, a significant portion of western States is actually Federal land. The assessment is intended to create an incentive for the Federal government to give control of that land back to the States for them to manage or dispose of as they see fit. If a state, such as North Dakota wants to allow production on land within its borders, then it can benefit from the revenues and jobs it creates. ”
Silly, keep up….
newrouter: wants to build a thorium reactor. First, you’d have to have skill, some serious money, someone that actually knew what they were doing, a permit from your town/city/county and or state. In CA, an environmental impact statement. I haven’t gotten to the Fed yet….but I am sure that OSHA and the EPA would want something to do with it, not to mention the FBI, NSA and the DOE. But…..long before that you’d probably electrocute yourself plugging in the drill….
It seems Tracy likes her some big government to monitor all so she can be safe and happy. Go on Tracy, who’s your daddy? Government’s your daddy!!
In government she trusts, amen…
Yes, because I state an answer to “can you build a thorium reactor under this Fed gov” it implies that I support such, when there is no such implication.
And, as I am NOT a libertarian, I do believe that some limited amount of government is necessary, if only because I personally can’t defend myself from Iran (and apparently Obama is trying to limit our ability as a nation to do so) or a mob….
> First, you’d have to have skill, some serious money, someone that actually knew what they were doing, a permit from your town/city/county and or state <
you really are proggtarded. westinghouse/telsa changed the world without a permit from the gov't.
>.long before that you’d probably electrocute yourself plugging in the drill…. <
that's the problem with the proggtarded: they dismiss those who oppose the the proggtarded view by belittling them. fyi the jig for the 80% lower has shipped so drilling is a real possibility near term.
> In CA, an environmental impact statement. I haven’t gotten to the Fed yet….but I am sure that OSHA and the EPA would want something to do with it, not to mention the FBI, NSA and the DOE. <
why no environmental impact statement on "gay" marriage. it pollutes too?
>And, as I am NOT a libertarian, I do believe that some limited amount of government is necessary, if only because I personally can’t defend myself from Iran (and apparently Obama is trying to limit our ability as a nation to do so) or a mob…. <
you seem to be a "status quo " peep without any principles
Oh Happy Day – The Edwin Hawkins Singers
birmingham al 8/28/15
newrouter: you’ve been belittling me and dismissing me for a long time – that makes you, by your definition, a progtard. And if my little barb was considered belittling, then your shell is made of tissue paper, wet tissue paper.
Yea, Tesla didn’t need a permit. Neither did Edison or Westinghouse. Nor environmental impact studies. Those days when you were free to build a nuke….if you knew what it even was.
Jobs and Waz built a computer in the garage, lots of people build things in their garage, today, even without a permit. I had to get a permit to add walls to the lower level of my house. What IS your point? Or is it to just pick a few words of every sentence I write to assume some great ‘progtard’ intent?
I knew there was a reason I tended to ignore you and drumwaster. If you at least had SOMETHING to offer in response….
And how you could get ‘status quo peep’ from everything I write, I can only assume it is your version of happyfeet, only he does it much better….
> I had to get a permit to add walls to the lower level of my house. What IS your point? <
point!!11!!
a permit from a clown in the bureaucracy to make you “feel” better. good luck madam proggtard. like you need your queer license from the state. be queer stay the eff away from moi
tracycoyle so stupid only a putin or clinton would understand it
>, lots of people build things in their garage, today, even without a permit<
eff u statist loser
newrouter: sorry, didn’t realize I was ‘talking’ to a libertarian, bordering on an anarchist. But hey, if you wan’t to go it alone, more power to you! hope you grow your own food, obtain your own fuel, police your own neighborhood.
See, I agree there is too much government, I just don’t think NO government is the answer. And if that makes me to the left of you, well, Ron Paul probably is too.