Previous 11 - 20 Next
The Senate passed bill made the legislation illegal according to the constitution. It says that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House. That was mistake #1. The next mistake was in saying that if people did not purchase this government mandated commodity they would have to pay a penalty. #2. The Supreme Court agreed that you could not use "penalty" to punish people who did not want to buy this mess. #3 The Supreme Court has not authority to alter the wording of a law that has been passed and signed. They did so by changing the word "penalty" to the word "tax" under the section that says Congress has the right to lay and collect taxes. In every way possible this is an illegal and unconstitutional "law". It should have been nullified the moment the first mistake was made. Why are our representatives not clamoring to repeal this law? Why is it still considered to be valid? You can't trust what the Supreme Court says. They have proven they are not to be trusted. The lies and the alterations made to this "law" have been so numerous that it barely resembles the original bill. All that should have been done by the House, but so far it hasn't been sent back. When will someone - just one politician - step up and demand that his piece of garbage be dumped where it belongs?
In response to:

Rick Perry's Bold Border Move

Sorceress Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 6:02 PM
There is no reason for allowing illegal aliens to enter the country at all. Because they are able to sneak in by secret routes established in part by drug smugglers, they make it at least part way into the country. Once caught, these invaders should be immediately turned back and sent to their point of origin. Doesn't matter what the age of these illegals might be. Back they go. There is no need for lawyers, court dates or anything else. Re-hydrate them if necessary, give them a mean perhaps and then put them on buses for a return to sender ride home. They have broken our laws. We must not continue to reward these people with cash, welfare, housing, healthcare, education, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam. No jobs, no nothing. Go home.
His religious beliefs were in fact the reason he was fired. He voiced his opinions based on his faith. Even though it was in a personal blog and not as an official part of the publication, he was fired because of his faith. His private opinions are protected under the First Amendment and his condition of employment said nothing about his faith and the expression of it in those private blogs being an impediment. By the way, in case you haven't noticed, no one has the right to hire and fire "at will" any more. All privately owned businesses should have that right, but they no longer do so.
Shaw Media would have been well advised to simply distance itself from Bob by printing a statement saying that Bob's opinions were his own and not those of the publisher. They might have said that while he was free to express his personal opinions in his personal blog, the opinions were not welcomed in the Shaw Media publications. At that point, having put their feet in their collective mouths, they could let the chips fall where they may. I'm sure there are enough LGBT members and fans in the population to support the publications of Shaw Media.
No dat is stored on a single "computer". All data is backed up and stored at a service that is located some distance away for safety. The data is probably stored at a server farm or on tape reels. If both the original data on the "local" computer and the distant back up data have been destroyed, there are people who are in need of long jail terms. It's called tampering and/or destroying evidence in a potential criminal investigation.
In response to:

A Newfound Respect For The Law

Sorceress Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 5:22 PM
PS According the my copy of the Constitution, forcing citizens to purchase commodities they do not want or need is not among the enumerated powers.
In response to:

A Newfound Respect For The Law

Sorceress Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 5:19 PM
On the contrary. The House has the power of the purse. If the House had the courage, it could simply refuse to fund any of the 65 or so new bureaucracies or any of the other provisions of the so-called law. Unfortunately, the House is completely lacking in the courage to do the right thing. PS That goes for any of the many useless and expensive things put before the Congress. The power of the purse seems wasted here.
In response to:

A Newfound Respect For The Law

Sorceress Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 5:16 PM
But, but, but...doesn't the big zero have a pen and a phone? Can't he just change any law he wants by presidential fiat? Well, can't he? Can't he? Obamacare is an illegally passed law. Its first problems come from having a great deal changed in the Senate and not returning to the House for re-tooling. No bill involving revenue can be originated in the Senate, only in the House. Once it was passed and signed by the president, it went to the Supreme Court where it was deemed not in conformance with the Constitution. Oddly enough, that word, "penalty" made the whole thing null and void. The Supreme Court conveniently changed the wording to "tax" and Bob's your uncle! Legal. Except that the Court has no authority to change the wording on the duly passed law. It had to go back to the House, which it did not do. Then, of course, there are the many (too many to name here) times that the big zero saw something he did not like and used his magic pen to change the law all by himself. By the way...did you now that there is no provision in the Constitution for "executive orders"? Doesn't exist. The president cannot make law. Only congress may make law. So this entire piece of garbage should have been tossed into the trash the moment it was found to be unlawful according to the Constitution. It goes to show how far the overreach of the federal government has gotten.
He gets briefed every morning on what's "important" and happening in the world and the nation. He should NEVER get his information from the media that he feeds his lies to.
If, in fact, the back up tapes have been destroyed, there should be many people going to jail for destroying evidence in a criminal investigation. Going to jail for a very long time. It is bad enough that they lied at first about the destruction of the computers. Any person with more than two functioning brain cells knows that individual computers could all be destroyed and the data would still exist in a server farm somewhere. That much data would be protected in redundant tapes or hard drives. Therefore, it would take very specific destruction by some individual or individuals to deliberately erase data that was evidence required in the investigation. Everyone from the top down to the guys who destroyed the data need to hang from gibbets in front of the White House as a sign that the citizens of the United States of America will not tolerate the sort of lawlessness and corruption that is being practiced by the zero regime and, especially, the IRS.
Using drugs to "mask the brutality" of the execution? How about the brutality of the murders? Obviously there was no question of the guilt of this piece of filth. I can't get over the concern that lawyers have over the method of disposing of the murderer. Lethal injection is too kind a solution.
Previous 11 - 20 Next