Workers In Tennessee Forced To Take Muslim Holiday Instead Of Labor Day

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The public often gets "worked up" but do they stay "worked up" when it comes time to vote?

Who did the republicans put up to run for president? Someone who took a hard line stand against immigration?

LOL!

What percentage of the vote did Ron Paul get anyway?

5%?

(Here is where the Paulites will chime in blaming the CFR and the mainstream media for the crushing defeat of the Ron Paul "revolution.")

The people have the power, they never lost it, and it really isn't the politician's problem if the voters abdicated their power and responsibility to hold politicians feed to the fire a long time ago in a trade for the feel good lies and the empty promises of the politicians who seek only power...not genuine conscience driven public service.

The voters could take the power back...if they would be willing to pay the price to once again take responsibility for their own government.

I actually think it is funny that you blame government for illegal immigration and illegal aliens working in America...

I didn't know that the government is forcing anyone to hire illegals.

It is simple...just get everyone to stop hiring illegals, get everyone to be a "real American" and put their country before personal profit or convenience, or cheap labor.

Easy, eh?

And you expect government to solve this problem?

Now that is funny...

Quote from jem:

semantics my friend

what do you call a politician who get major contributions for "access"?

You call him what?

I call him corrupted. Legally - perhaps but corrupted nonetheless.

Did you see the public will get fired up last year when they were going to try and pass the "amnesty bill"

Just the fact that they tried shows you that the gov't is not following the will of the people.

But - that is a side issue. I like libertads idea about using the internet to empower the people. it is time.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

nice evasion --

If you were worth the time perhaps I would spend the time spell checking or sentence checking.

I have a typing problem - you have a logic problem which has festered into into a lack of balls.

How come you won't state your thesis about the the Supreme Courts decision. You were acting like a big time legal eagle and that somehow your argument trumped AAA. Y

Yet now you won't even explain your inarticulate argument.

You are intellectually bankrupt.

.....that's a very interesting -self projection onto others- thing you have going there.

It's not that you have a typing problem , I would say you display all the properties of having an integrity and character problem. It's inconceivable the excuses you gave, would possibly be cause for such an awful repeated basic mistake, for a supposedly trained lawyer to make.

All you need do is show how it is possible for something not to be unconstitutional when it is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Right Perry Mason, try your 'thesis' nonsense on that. Let's see if you can be any more absurd than you've already managed.
It may help if you stop trying to blame me for the mess you are making of this.

 

[jem]

you are such a little child stuie.

You're the one who was making a constitutional law argument. I asked you to prove it.

What is your argument.... because the court found a state constitution to be unconstitutional in 1950 it was always unconstitutional.

Is that your argument? Try proving it.

Oh you can't because you don't have the competence?

Quote from stu:

.....that's a very interesting -self projection onto others- thing you have going there.

It's not that you have a typing problem , I would say you display all the properties of having an integrity and character problem. It's inconceivable the excuses you gave, would possibly be cause for such an awful repeated basic mistake, for a supposedly trained lawyer to make.

All you need do is show how it is possible for something not to be unconstitutional when it is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Right Perry Mason, try your 'thesis' nonsense on that. Let's see if you can be any more absurd than you've already managed.
It may help if you stop trying to blame me for the mess you are making of this.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you are such a little child stuie.

You're the one who was making a constitutional law argument. I asked you to prove it.

What is your argument.... because the court found a state constitution to be unconstitutional in 1950 it was always unconstitutional.

Is that your argument? Try proving it.

Oh you can't because you don't have the competence?

Good grief, you really are that slow.

Perhaps try looking at it this way.
Through your need to be led by the nose, finding support in being told what to do , adhering to instructions routed through superstition, irrational beliefs, ignorance and fear , that might be the only context in which you can grasp anything.

So let's see, if you start doing something that is in contravention of a rule and is later found officially to be wrong, then that -doing something- was always wrong.
When your Catholic church practiced sinful deeds, like shagging alter boys, say from 1785 through until caught in 1950, the Church nor the perverts acting on its behalf, didn't start sinning in 1950. Is that any easier for you to understand?

Now you just straightforwardly show me where exactly any of that is incorrect. Because you are only going to get tied up in knots again attempting to 'talk legal'.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Good grief, you really are that slow.

Perhaps try looking at it this way.
Through your need to be led by the nose, finding support in being told what to do , adhering to instructions routed through superstition, irrational beliefs, ignorance and fear , that might be the only context in which you can grasp anything.

So let's see, if you start doing something that is in contravention of a rule and is later found officially to be wrong, then that -doing something- was always wrong.
When your Catholic church practiced sinful deeds, like shagging alter boys, say from 1785 through until caught in 1950, the Church nor the perverts acting on its behalf, didn't start sinning in 1950. Is that any easier for you to understand?

Now you just straightforwardly show me where exactly any of that is incorrect. Because you are only going to get tied up in knots again attempting to 'talk legal'.

Its quite simply STU

For instance had you and 4 or your buds been on the Supreme Court in the 1800s you might have said that since you like to smoke filet of pole and that therefore the ban on smoking filet of pole is unconstitutional.

So during the 1800s it might have been legal for you and you friends to smoke pole.

At the turn of the century a new court may have said smoking filet of pole is bad for your lungs and therefore laws banning the smoking of pole are constitutional.

Does that new case law make your previous acts of pole smoking retroactively illegal?

No of course not. You were a perfectly legal pole smoker.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Its quite simply STU

For instance had you and 4 or your buds been on the Supreme Court in the 1800s you might have said that since you like to smoke filet of pole and that therefore the ban on smoking filet of pole is unconstitutional.

So during the 1800s it might have been legal for you and you friends to smoke pole.

At the turn of the century a new court may have said smoking filet of pole is bad for your lungs and therefore laws banning the smoking of pole are constitutional.

Does that new case law make your previous acts of pole smoking retroactively illegal?

No of course not. You were a perfectly legal pole smoker.

Lol what a joke. You, ... a lawyer ?... don't make me laugh.

Your absurd argument that Supreme Courts make rulings by personal preference - and there is an interpretation of yes for the word no - is worse than pathetic. At least AAA had the good grace to retire from the constitutional imperative against judicial ruling sham argument.

When it is explicitly written in the U.S Constitution "... .. no religious test shall ever be required ...." you would have to remove the original entry in the Constitution itself to change that fact .

What is it you cannot grasp in… NO religious test shall ever be required… It is, it was and it always will be, unconstitutional to impose a religious test as long as Article VI is there , and whilst the First Amendment is there (with ruling) and Fourteenth is there (with ruling) . If you as an officer of a state, are imposing a religious test, no matter when it is found unconstitutional , it IS de facto always unconstitutional . It's unconstitutional to do yes when the Constitution says to do no !.

Article VI is not one which leaves any ambiguity unless you want to say no means yes. Your religion may well allow you to wangle such things.
Luckily for everyone - the Law does not.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from stu:

Lol what a joke. You, ... a lawyer ?... don't make me laugh.

Your absurd argument that Supreme Courts make rulings by personal preference - and there is an interpretation of yes for the word no - is worse than pathetic. At least AAA had the good grace to retire from the constitutional imperative against judicial ruling sham argument.

When it is explicitly written in the U.S Constitution "... .. no religious test shall ever be required ...." you would have to remove the original entry in the Constitution itself to change that fact .

What is it you cannot grasp in… NO religious test shall ever be required… It is, it was and it always will be, unconstitutional to impose a religious test as long as Article VI is there , and whilst the First Amendment is there (with ruling) and Fourteenth is there (with ruling) . If you as an officer of a state, are imposing a religious test, no matter when it is found unconstitutional , it IS de facto always unconstitutional . It's unconstitutional to do yes when the Constitution says to do no !.

Article VI is not one which leaves any ambiguity unless you want to say no means yes. Your religion may well allow you to wangle such things.
Luckily for everyone - the Law does not.

I didn't retire, I got bored. Let me try to make this as simple as possible. Article VI is limited to US offices by its express terms. The Supreme Court case relied on the First Amendment and explicitly avoided Article VI. The case itself is one of several poorly reasoned Establishment Clause cases that an activist Supreme Court handed down, cases that totally reversed the intent of the Drafters of the Constitution.

 

[stu]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I didn't retire, I got bored. Let me try to make this as simple as possible. Article VI is limited to US offices by its express terms. The Supreme Court case relied on the First Amendment and explicitly avoided Article VI. The case itself is one of several poorly reasoned Establishment Clause cases that an activist Supreme Court handed down, cases that totally reversed the intent of the Drafters of the Constitution.

Bullshit.
By finding religious tests unconstitutional in the First Amendment there is no explicit avoidance of Article VI
Even the most thick headed religious zealots it seems are not unintelligent enough to press the Supreme Court for a state test , as it is the wording of Article VI which is so explicit.

" The question of whether the no religious test clause binds the states remains unresolved. Given the Court's First Amendment holding, that issue is largely academic. "

That was in your post.
You got bored, probably because your argument IS totally boring.

Also asinine. Reacting like a loon calling Courts "activist" because your religious fervor is once again quite obviously being rightly knocked back to its proper place, obliged to respect the Constitution and away from law , is most probably what's boring people like you.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from stu:

Bullshit.
By finding religious tests unconstitutional in the First Amendment there is no explicit avoidance of Article VI
Even the most thick headed religious zealots it seems are not unintelligent enough to press the Supreme Court for a state test , as it is the wording of Article VI which is so explicit.

" The question of whether the no religious test clause binds the states remains unresolved. Given the Court's First Amendment holding, that issue is largely academic. "

That was in your post.
You got bored, probably because your argument IS totally boring.

Also asinine. Reacting like a loon calling Courts "activist" because your religious fervor is once again quite obviously being rightly knocked back to its proper place, obliged to respect the Constitution and away from law , is most probably what's boring people like you.

I call the Court activist because it reversed 175 years of prior practice and understanding. Religious requirements for state offices were a fairly common practice at the time the Consitution was adopted and later when the First Amendment was adopted. There is no record that they intended to outlaw these practices, and the fact that they continued uninterrupted for over 100 years thereafter confirms that conclusion.

The matter is moot now, but that doesn't mean the Court handled it correctly as a matter of constitutional law.

 

[stu]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I call the Court activist because it reversed 175 years of prior practice and understanding. Religious requirements for state offices were a fairly common practice at the time the Consitution was adopted and later when the First Amendment was adopted. There is no record that they intended to outlaw these practices, and the fact that they continued uninterrupted for over 100 years thereafter confirms that conclusion.

The matter is moot now, but that doesn't mean the Court handled it correctly as a matter of constitutional law.

Then the same goes for Slavery , you would have to by the same token, call the Court activist where it reversed 175 years of that prior practice by a ruling under the Thirteenth Amendment.

Your argument is redundant. It either is or it is not unconstitutional to act contrary to the Constitution.

Unlike slavery a ban on religious tests was always in the Constutution.
There could not have been a more common place understanding throughout the social structure that slavery was normal practice. And this in a culture who the religious claim was a Christian one and the gounding for all that was good in America !!

The Court simply ruled 175 years of unconstitutional prior religious test practice is illegal. Hardly activist.