Free Republic

You’re right, there may be statutes that apply here. But, from a practical perspective, considering that the AZ courts have sided with the Bar in the disciplinary hearings, it would be awfully tough to win a conspiracy against rights (or similar) case against the Bar.

The governor’s office is likely powerless here. Attorney discipline is, in most (all?) states, governed exclusively by the judicial branch.

DOMA currently provides that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, and that portion of DOMA is not being challenged in the case now before SCOTUS.

If SCOTUS "leaves it to the states" (e.g., strikes down the section of DOMA that defines marriage Federally, but upholds Prop 8), the question of inter-state recognition will inevitably come before SCOTUS sooner rather than later, probably under facts like this:

Bob and Jim, who live in New York get "married" in New York. Sometime down the line, Bob gets a job in Georgia, and they move there. Bob dies. Does Jim receive Social Security survivor benefits?

In other words, courts will inevitably wrestle with the question of whether the Federal Government must recognize a "marriage" that is legally valid where it occurred, but not where the "married" couple lives at the time that the issue of Federal recognition arises. Different courts will likely take different approaches, and SCOTUS will have to step in to resolve the mess.

Short version: don't count on Section 2 to stand if Section 3 falls.

The two are mutually exclusive. You show that you have no idea what DOMA does by making such a statement.

All three parts of DOMA are crucial to states' rights.

Three parts? You call someone out for having "no idea what DOMA does" and you think it has three parts? DOMA has only two (functional) sections: one states that, for Federal purposes, marriage is one man, one woman; the other says that states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. What's the third part?

When this story originally broke back in January, it was reported that this was part of some ‘multicultural’ program, where students periodically recited the edge in different languages. French and Spanish were mentioned, and maybe one or two others.

Sickening, isn’t it?

Yes, we should spend time and money investigating and deporting Nazi scum. Cases like this send a message: commit the type of atrocities committed by the Nazi scum, and we will never, ever, ever leave you alone. Not if you’re caught right away, and not if you’re caught 70 years later. Never.

We should, of course, be consistent about that (Commie scum and terrorist scum come to mind). But, the fact that we’ve failed in that regard doesn’t mean we should fail here too.

This is a nice feel good measure for our side, but it's actually meaningless in terms of Islamist belief - as far as I'm aware, Islam prohibits only intentional contact with pork. A quick google search turns up a couple of relevant quotes:

“And there is no sin on you concerning that in which you made a mistake, except in regard to what your hearts deliberately intend. And Allaah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

“Allaah has forgiven my ummah for mistakes, forgetfulness and that which they are forced to do.”

So, it's doubtful that stuff like this will terrify the enemy. But, again, if it boosts morale for our guys, then I'm all for it.

Despite their despicable behavior, from a political standpoint this is a positive outcome.

I don't think this is a "positive outcome," in any way. It's Obama's fault, of course, for sticking his nose where it didn't belong, but it's not a "positive outcome." Even if this is something that can be used against Obama politically, that is a small benefit (with everything else swirling around Obama these days, this one is meaningless) and is far outweighed by the fact that this only benefits personnel who are conficted of despicable crimes.

“What about those really small umbrellas that fold out and you put on your head like a cap. They can be carried anywhere and get past most umbrella detectors.”

Ahh, you mean “rainy night specials.” Yes, yes, we must ban those immediately.

Come to NYC and see if this is till has ever been true...

People have been speaking different languages in NYC since....well, since it was New Amsterdam.

And? Are not things in law substantiated on two [or more] witnesses?

I can't think of anything in law that is substantiated on two [or more] witnesses with no possibility for any further review.

Here's a hypothetical on top of your hypothetical - suppose that two governors declare it as an invasion, but then two other governors explicitly declare it NOT to be an invasion? Hell, suppose the other 48 governors all declared that it is NOT an invasion. Would the other 48 governors thus be traitors, simply because they disagreed with the two who declared an invasion?

Here's another question - suppose, after the two governors declare an invasion, that a majority of citizens in each of the states disagree and seek to recall the governors. If these citizens mentioned the invasion issue in their recall campaign ("Vote to Recall Governor X because he incorrectly declared an invasion"), would that be Treason?

My point is that your suggestion would give unchecked power to a very, very small number of people (potentially two). That is not what the Founders envisioned or intended the Constitution to allow.

Agreed, the Supreme Court should be held accountable for its rulings.

My question is this - in your hypothetical, how could the two state governors be held accountable for their actions? Your logic seems to dictate that as soon as the governors declared an invasion, it would become treason to take any action against their declaration.

I’m not suggesting that the States cannot defend themselves. I’m suggesting that the mere act of two governors declaring a certain group of people to be “Invaders” does not have the Constitutional effect of rendering those people “enemies” such that any action taken by anyone (including the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, or the governors of any of the other 48 states) to be treason. Your logic essentially gives unchecked power (since, by your logic, even a Supreme Court ruling against the governors’ action would be treason) to any two+ governors who declare something to be an invasion. That’s absurd.

I think you’re being too technical in your reading of the treason clause. When the Constitution refers to the “United States” and “their enemies,” that does not mean that two states agreeing that a group of people are invaders means that those people are “their enemies,” and that any support for those people is treason. The “United States” does not mean two or more states that disagree, it means the Union.

Think about the logical extension of your argument. Your argument essentially gives two people (the governors of two states) the power to declare war. That is contrary to Article I’s provision granting Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, repel invasions, etc.

Her comment about “someone will live, someone will die” was talking about the scarcity of organs - in other words, someone will get a lung and live, and someone else will not get that same lung and may die as a result. I don’t think she was proving that she believes herself to be the sole arbiter of life and death; to the contrary, I understood her comment as saying that it was a difficult situation, and she did NOT want to intervene and be the person who decides who lives and who dies.

There are some in the biz who use the slang term "crane" when referring to an excavator, along with the terms hoe, back hoe and track hoe.

That, and I'm sure there are plenty of lazy reporters out there who are perfectly happy to call any piece of heavy equipment a "crane." Kind of like how any gun is an AR-15 (or, in older stories, an AK-47).

I’m 100% with you. I think that th judge’s decision sets just as bad a precedent as if Sebellius made it (I didn’t mention that simply because I was commenting on the criticism of Sebellius here).

Of course, I am cognizent of the fact that this girl getting a transplant means that someone else (whose name and story we will likely never know) did not. When I said this is wonderful news, I meant that even if this was the “wrong” process or outcome, it’s good to hear that the surgery seems to have gone well.

Wonderful news! And, hope all goes well for this family going forward.

That said, I’m a bit surprised at the level of vitriol directed at Sebellius over this, from so-called conservatives. I don’t think that her intervening in the situation would have been a good thing - it would have risked setting a precedent that people/families who make more noise and are more politically connected get better outcomes. Not a good precedent to set.

Just a point of clarification - FEMA denied aid to the state & local governments, but they are providing assistance to individuals/etc. who were affected by the blast.

This may actually be for the best, anyway. Texas is in pretty good fiscal shape (compared to other states), and is more than capable of paying for its own repairs (whether through insurance payouts, the rainy day fund, or elsewhere). Let ‘em pay their own way, and not have to deal with the inevitable strings that come attached to Federal money.

Again, a “stand your ground” hearing is different from a “stand your ground” defense. A “stand your ground” hearing can take place in ANY case where the defense is asserting an affirmative defense of self defense (as Zimmerman is here).

Because if he had the hearing and they denied it then he couldn’t use it during the trial.

I don't believe that's the case. All the hearing does is determine whether the person is immune from prosecution. Even if he lost the hearing, he could have still raised self defense as a defense during the trial.

Its not really a stand your ground case if the facts are accurate. Stand your ground only says you don’t have a duty to retreat first.

That's actually a common misconception. Florida's stand your ground law contains (in essence) two parts. First is the part your'e referring to, clarifying that there is no duty to retreat before defending oneself.

The other part grants immunity from prosecution to people who act in self defense, and allows for pre-trial hearings to determine whether a defendant is immune from prosecution. While these hearings are commonly referred to as "stand your ground" hearings, they can happen in any self-defense case, regardless of whether the classic duty-to-retreat "stand your ground" issue is present. Zimmerman waived his right to such a hearing (or, more precisely, deferred such a hearing until the trial itself).

What a joke, this should never be going to trial

Blame Zimmerman's lawyers for that one. They had the opportunity for a pre-trial "stand your ground" hearing that could have prevented this from ever getting to trial, and they waived it.

What do you expect from McCarthy? He's a former prosecutor. Prosecutors hate the Fourth Amendment.

A couple of the quotes in this story seem......fishy to me:

When they left Tom's house, one Secret Service Agent 'advised'-"Keep in mind, if you step over the line, we'll come back for your guns."

and

They said they were going to "turn it over to Eric Holder- he has the last word on what to do, if anything."

Call me cynical, but I just can't see those words (either quote) coming out of the mouth of a Secret Service agent (not least because the Secret Service is part of the Department of the Treasury, so it doesn't even report up to Holder). Those quotes strike me as implausible at the least, and quite possibly made up.

There’s a lot of that going around the past couple of days. John Bolton comes to mind immediately, and I know there were a half dozen mentioned yesterday. Even most of the bunch on “The Five” seem to have shown their statist side on this issue.

One problem is that, when the NSA wiretapping story broke during the Bush administration, many so-called "conservatives" said that it was no big deal, and called for the prosecution of the leakers (and the NY Times/Washington Post, who broke the story). Once you stake out that position, it's hard to then turn aroud and say that the guy who leaked this NSA program is a hero.

Agreed, he’s certainly a despot, and (contrary to some of the support he’s getting from some Freepers here) this story is an example of his despotism. A free nation responds to propaganda with truth, not speech codes.

hope he has a clause in his contract that he plays and not be used to disappear in that socialist hell hole

An NFL contract that guarantees playing time? hahahahaha

“There are reported examples of the NSA, analysts at the NSA, using mechanisms they have access to. ABC reported several years ago through whistle blowers that they have used it to eavesdrop on people on whom they have personal grudges. There are isolated examples of the Patriot Act being abused. The problem is that the entire system operates behind a wall of extreme secrecy.”

Yet again, libs like Greenwald are trying to tie this story back to Bush.

He wasn’t there in 2010, 2011, or 2012.

And? How is that newsworthy? It's never been the case that Presidents visit Normandy each year for D-day, generally only "major" anniversaries (40, 50, 60, etc.), and Obama defaced that hallowed ground went in 2009, for the 65th anniversary. Once is enough (more than enough) for this numbnuts to go over there.

Stupid thing to say. The truth or falsity of her statement is irrelevant - even if it's true, judges have an ethical obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias. That means that, yes, judges should sometimes avoid making even truthful public statements, if those statements will lead to the appearance of bias. The fact that she said this gives any lawyer with a black or hispanic client the opportunity to argue that she is biased against blacks and hispanics and should recuse herself from the case.

Does the Costitution apply to foreign nationals?

If they are charged with crimes, then yes, the Constitutional provisions related to due process in criminal proceedings apply.

The Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights, it restricts the government's ability to deny the inalienable rights that all people are endowed with.

That’s as I understand it as well. Forgive me for possibly mischaracterizing the debate, but what I’m getting here is the aroma of “it’s too bad that the girl will die, but the important thing is that The Rules remain inviolate.” That’s the sort of attitude I’d expect out of a death panel but not on a conservative forum. Possibly I’ve misinterpreted.

I don't think that's what people are saying (and it's certainly not what I'm saying). My point is simply that available transplant organs are very scarce, and unfortunately (but unaviodably) the fact that one person receives an organ necessarily means that someone else on the list does not receive that organ. In light of those circumstances, I think that it is better for these decisions to be made using a set of consistent set of rules/criteria than for some Washington bureaucrat (here, Sebelius) to start changing the rules for certain patients because those patients have managed to get widespread media attention.

if she dies without them giving it a shot and finding out if it worked, they will have to live with that regret for the rest of their lives

The problem is, if she gets an adult transplant and it doesn't work (because it's riskier), that would not just affect her and her family. It would also affect the other patient who would have otherwise gotten the transplant.

Transplanted organs are a scarce resource, and these decisions are often a zero sum game (one patient getting a transplant means that another does not). There is obviously room to debate whether the particular regulations in place should be improved, but that doesn't mean that we should support government bureaucrats overriding the rules that are in place, in order to move a patient up in line because of media and/or political pressure.

This is a decision that should be made by the parents (or patient if they are of sound mind or age) and their doctors only and if there is a chance to save her life, it should be tried if possible.

Transplanted organs are a (very) scarce resource, which makes the decision a lot more complicated than "let the patient/family/doctors decide."

Goldwater was not a conservative.

Well, OK then. What's next? Are you going to tell us that Reagan was not a conservative?

(and even though he took a bit of a libertarian turn later in life, Goldwater was certainly conservative when he "wrote" Conscience of a Conservative.)

Ahem, your name explains what your purpose here is, unless it means something else.

Unless it means something else? The fact that you don't recognize the phrase "Conscience of a Conservative" tells me all I need to know.

But your smarmy nitpicking is meant to undermine conservative principles; I’ve seen your comments for a long time and you are a one note johnny.

What you call "smarmy nitpicking," I call having some integrity, and sticking to the facts. Also, how does pointing out that the Capitol Police is not an Executive agency "undermine conservative principles," exactly? It may shift responsibility away from the Obama administration, but it shifts it to the Senate leadership (e.g., Democrats) and the House leadership (e.g., RINOs).

What I meant (seems to have escaped you) was that COMMIES need a “Conscience” so why don’t you post on DU or other leftist crap websites and be their conscience? They’re the ones that need a conscience.

What seems to have escaped you is that I have no desire to be a "Conscience" for conservatives or anyone else (other than myself).

They’re not supposed to be personal punishment agencies of the dictatorial Executive branch. Or HHS, either.

Of course they're not supposed to be "personal punishment agencies" of Obama or anyone else. I never said they should. All I said was that they are part of the executive branch (and that the Capitol Police is not).

“Conservative” my a**, pardon the language.

HOw about being the Conscience of the Coomies? They need one badly. Conservatives are doing just fine without your “Conscience”.

What the h*ll are you going on about? How is noting which agencies are part of which branch "Commie"?

Well, the DOJ and the IRS aren't under the jurisdiction of the Execution [OOPS TYPO meant "Executive" but I'll leave it since it is quite accurate actually] branch either, Conscience of a "Conservative".

Wrong. The Department of Justice is an Executive-branch department. The IRS is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury, another Executive-branch department.

Actually, they’re under the jurisdiction of both the House and the Senate, so it’s both Dingy Harry and RINO Johnny.

More illegal activity by the Obama administration!

IMPEACH!!!

The Capitol Police is not part of the "Obama administration." It is governed by the "Capitol Police Board," which consists of the Architect of the Capitol, the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“I MUST wear an eagle feather to prove that I am distant and separate from the citizenry of the United States of America that provided me the free education we are celebrating."

It's a private school.

That is a vile thing to say.

“It is Colleen Kelly, the head of the Treasury Employee Union (NTEU), who met with Obama on March 31, 2010. That is on the record. IRS Commissioner, Doug Shulman, went to the White House 157 times, but there is no record of him meeting with the president.”

There is no record of Kelly meeting with the President either. Kelly visited the White House on March 31, and “POTUS” was listed as her host in the visitor log, but the log also indicates that she was there for a Workplace Forum of some sort, along with 100+ other attendees. “POTUS” was listed as the host for all attendees, because the forum was “hosted” by Obama.

Murder or not, you are simply wrong that the violent use of guns is higher in New York than in other cities. Again, while there may be more incidents in New York than elsewhere, that comparison is meaningless, as New York has more than twice the population of any other US city. The more relevant comparison is the per capita RATE of violent use of guns, which is actually quite low in NYC, as compared with other cities.

Nope. The Constitution grants Congress legislative power, not executive. Even if the entire executive branch was wiped out, the executive power would not flow to Congress. The Constitution even addresses such a situation. Article 2, Section 1, clause 6 states that when both the President and Vice President die, are removed from office, or otherwise unable to serve, Congress has the power to “declar[e] what Officer shall then act as President.”

In other words, even if the entire Executive branch was wiped out, Congress’s role would be limited to determining who takes over as President (which Congress has already done in advance, by defining a 15-person deep line of succession).

Because when the Constitution grants Congress the power to “Collect” taxes, what that means is that Congress, as the legislative branch, has the power to pass laws that provide for the collection of taxes. Article 1, Section 8 must be read as part of the entire Article 1, which begins with the statement that “All LEGISLATIVE Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .” (Emphasis mine)

This is not an issue/question that is exclusive to taxation. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations - so, Congress passes laws that do that, and they are enforced by (for example) CBP, and executive-branch agency. Likewise, Congress has the power to “punish” piracies on the high seas - so, Congress passes laws providing for punishment of piracy, which are enforced by executive-branch agencies and officials.

Congress’s power is legislative. Article 2 states that the executive power shall be vested in the President, meaning that the President has the power to execute laws duly passed by Congress (including the Internal Revenue Code).