Free Republic

"Call me stupid, but I don't understand the significance of this."

I son't call you "stupid," I call you brilliant because I was thinking the exact same thing when I was reading the artilce.

"ACORN argued that abiding by the state minimum wage would limit their ability to promote their agenda and would therefore be a violation of their First Amendment rights."

Minimum wage laws are unconstitutional because they violate the Fifth Amendment, not the First Amendment.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Supreme Court

Nixon v. Shrink (2000)

Justice Stevens,

"I make one simple point. Money is property."

"My parents, recent Mexican immigrants,..."

Legal or illegal? Show me their papers.

We are still winning.

What amazes me with parents that wish to insulate themselves and their children from real world application "David v Goliath" principle is that they would not be living the life they are now in the USA had not a bunch of men in the mid to late 1700's decided to take on the Goliath British Empire.

What ungrateful, selfish, fearful fellow citizens we have in this country.

"Lemieux said. "It was a great experience to play in the Olympics, a totally different game and a different pace, and I really enjoyed it."

Lemieux inadvertently disparaged the NHL game which we fans already know is not that enjoyable to watch.

My suggestion to the NHL to increase interest and attendance at games: repeal the mandatory helmet rule.

"Explain why the railroad industry shouldn't have a similar safety device,"

Afer re-reading my post, I can understand your response to my post.

What I did not make clear is that government mandated "regulations" cost money to implement.

The 5th amendment states,

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

In the Supreme Court decision of 2000, Nixon v. Shrink, Justice Stevens stated,

"I make one simple. Money is property."

Without some kind of "compensation" mechanism being included with the laws authorizing such regulations for the public use of "safety," then such regulations take money from private property owners for the public use without compensation and thus are unconstitutional.

If the citizens want "safety," the citizens are going to have to pay for it directly with their taxes.

"By taking away from us the responsibility of our actions, and prolonging the dependency stage of life, the democratic interventionist state limits our ability to be happy."

"democratic interventionist state" has brought us to point where private property in this country is declared "public places" then you cannot even smoke a cigerette in the now declared "public place."

"...at the same time they ask for their own wishes to be satisfied by others and for their own mistakes to be paid by others."

Sounds alot like Social Security, Medicaid, American with Disabilities Act, FDIC, FDA, FHA, SBA, Pension Guaranty Fund, WIC, Food Stamps, and the list goes on.

And to think we spent billions and billions of dollars during the "cold war" years, for decades, to fight communism and it now exists, without objection by virtually anyone in this country, enacted and approved by both democrats and republicans.

"The cops will not be disciplined for violating everyones rights."

Those who's rights have been violated have the following recourse:

U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)

monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."

We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

I would sue the shit out of the cops, prosecutors, and any other city official involved.

Democrat Alderman Matt Villa says "we can't allow one property to derail the whole project."

Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article I,

Section 28. That private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes, in the manner prescribed by law; and that when an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be public shall be judicially determined without regard to any legislative declaration that the use is public.

Here is how I would counter the New Mexico child restraint law.

U.S. Supreme Court

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

"The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) 502 U.S. 21

, monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."

We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

Sue the shit out of the legislators and the officers who have enacted and enforce this unconstitutional law.

The groups that I mentioned in my previous post, Catholics, Jews, and Blacks, are "religious" people.

Most religions support the sanctity of life.

These groups voted for Marxist, socialist, Democrats during the decades I stated, 1950's and 1960's. The evidence is that the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate for 40 years.

As most people know, Marx and Engels were athiests, relative moralist.

The Marxist, socialist, Democrats, beginning in the late 1930's, began their quest to ingrain an anti-moral culture in the U.S. with the unconstitutional enactment of laws supporting Marxist unionism, confiscation of private property, and Social Security.

So, why did supposedly "religious" people, who profess to believe in God, vote continiously for people who admired, professed, and advocated the ideas of admitted non-relgious, athiests and then act surprised when the result is a culture of death?

That is my point.

"Do we hold a gun to a Doctors head and make him/her perform an abortion."

The author states,

"And perhaps most crucial, to what extent do professionals have a collective duty to ensure that their profession provides nondiscriminatory access to all professional services? "

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Amendment XIII pretty well sums it up on this question of whether a "professional" has the right to withhold "services" for whatever reason.

tobacco law specialists said the decision is one of the "nation's first to declare smoking a nuisance serious enough to become grounds for eviction.

''It is very important, because it is a sign that people are more aware of how dangerous second-hand smoke is," said Professor Richard Daynard, chairman of Northeastern University's Tobacco Products Liability Project, which tracks second-hand smoke litigation nationally."

how dangerous second-hand smoke is?"

Bullsh_t. This not about "dangerous second-hand smoke."

This is a "property rights" issue and victory.

I am a landlord and I decide what can and cannot be done on my property.

If, as a renter you do not like my decision, see you later.

"The mission of the Church in the midst of this cultural crisis is to proclaim the truth and reach out to the casualties."

I am not exactly sure what the author means by the highlighted phrase above, but I think the author means "insulating" those who deny or ignore "the truth" from the disaster of the consequences those decisions will include which may even be death.

The bottomline is Christian's over the years have voted for politicians that have created a government safety net system that insulates fellow citizens who do not follow the truth from experiencing the hardship of their actions and subsequently, others adopt that same behavior because there is no negative consequence.

If you want the "cultural crisis" to go away, quit subsidizing it.

How many union member, Catholics voted for Democrats to be U.S. Senators during the 1950's and 1960's who then confirmed the judges that gave us Roe v. Wade?

A lot.

How many U.S. Jews did the same thing as the Catholics for the reason of getting U.S. dollars to Isreal?

A lot.

How many black citizens voted for Democrats as U.S. Senators who then confirmed the judges that gave us Roe v. Wade in order to get a expand the welfare state?

A lot.

And you are surprised by the sudden change in the U.S. culture to the culture of death?

"The appellate court ruled, however, that the mother's decision to retire was reasonable, given the circumstances: She had been unable to find appropriate part-time work, the father could easily afford child support, and the children would benefit from her greater involvement in their lives and activities. It thus upheld the trial court's order for the father to pay $4000/month in child support."

Judicial activism, socialist, elitist, egalitarian thinking at it's worst.

the insurers and bankers complained of the burden of having to comply with regulators in 50 states, saying it was a very costly system that "provides no advantage to the consumer."

I would safely say the "very costly" means the insurers and bankers expend money to comply with the regulations.

With that being the case, consider the following:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—963 JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[January 24, 2000]

Justice Stevens, concurring.

"...therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property;"

Amendment V

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

If I was the CEO of an "insurers and bankers" I would quit complying with the regulations until my institution was compensated for the taking for the public use because otherwise the regulations are unconstitutional.

"data show that the top 1 percent of the population received 11.4 percent of national after-tax income in 2002, points out Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in a new study. That's up from a 7.5 percent share in 1979. By contrast, the middle fifth of the population saw its share of national after-tax income fall over that same period of time, from 16.5 to 15.8."

Received??? Share???

Whatever happened to EARNED.

Such Marxist, communist, socialist bias by the author.