Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
States Passing Laws To Ignore Federal Law  
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1881 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1763 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If passed and signed into law, Senate Bill 1433 would give members of the state Legislature the power to override federal laws and executive orders...
It would allow a committee of 12 people — six from the House and six from the Senate — to recommend to the full Legislature which laws they think are unconstitutional.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...low-arizona-to-ignore-federal-laws

If I am not correct, don't we already have a body that determines federal law constitutionality. Doesn't Article 6 of the constitution address this?
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


The only valid opinions are those based in facts
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1761 times:

Bizarre, I don't see this passing or even making it past the Supreme Court. I don't think it's a road we want to go down either... I can see a ton of unintended consequences...


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1725 times:

The issue is whether or not the states feel that The Congress is making law that is constitutional. I really don't think that legislation is required since the text of The Supremacy Clause does say that the law in question "shall be made in pursuance" of The Constitution. If the state feels the law in un-Constitutional, then they pursue nullification, which basically means they have to challenge the law(s) in question in federal court.

I guess its a piece of feel-good legislation. And, I don't think Arizona is the only state; I think Georgia may be pursuing something similar.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6101 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1709 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2):
I guess its a piece of feel-good legislation. And, I don't think Arizona is the only state; I think Georgia may be pursuing something similar.

States disregarding federal law goes on all the time. Every state that has some sort of legal marijuana is proof of that. Nothing new here.... This is just another case of when conservatives want to ignore federal law it is a big deal, when liberals ignore federal law it is justice, or freedom, or whatever you want to call it.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

Shouldn't there be a simpler way to check the constitutionality of laws than the current one in the US that implies several courts and months if not years of proceedings ?

Here a group of parliamentarians (usually in the opposition) can petition the constitutional court and often it only takes a couple of weeks, months at most, to have a result. Interestingly enough we didn't have a similar system to the US one until a couple years ago, so if the question wasn't tackled right away then a law was constitutional.

Now this has changed and since then several laws have been struck down years after their introduction, for example one about sexual harassment, many men walked away free as a consequence and a new law had to be passed in urgency.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Okay,

We can reinstitute the poll tax in Alabama,

We can impose segregation in the schools in the south.

How about this?

12 people in Arizona file suit against the state legislators individually to have their salaries cancelled for not doing their friggin jobs instead of wasting time and money on BS like this.


User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4599 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5):
12 people in Arizona file suit against the state legislators individually to have their salaries cancelled for not doing their friggin jobs instead of wasting time and money on BS like this.

I would like to see if a law or legislative action is challenged and ruled unconstitutional, the original author(s) of the legislation or legislative action are personally responsible to pay all legal costs normally charged to the tax payer.

That would do wonders here in Oklahoma. State Rep paid for and passed to get the Ten Commandments right on the lawn of the state capital building, after being told what would happen. Did it anyway, state got sued and lost. Ran up several tens of thousands in legal fees charged to tax payers. Then you have legislation banning Sharia Law, using Human Embryos for Human consumption, and tighter abortion restrictions...all of which got ruled unconstitutional.

I would put in another example. A new state rep submitted legislation to eliminate all funding for the Oklahoma Arts Council citing a need to cut back on spending...it was like $6 million a year. It was the only spending reduction proposed by this particular state rep. The legislation died as it had no additional support. The state rep comes out the next day stating that he KNEW it wasn't going to go anywhere, but just did it to get publicity. It is this whole huge waste of time and money that keeps bogging down legislatures across the country.

As far as state's passing laws. Nearly what...a third of states have laws ignoring provisions of the ACA? It is a slippery slope. While I fully support state's rights, there is also a limit to what they can do. In all honesty, if they want to opt-out of specific federal laws, then they should be opted out of all and therefore removed from the union. OR...they remain in the union but lose all federal funding until they are in full compliance.

I always find it amusing being in the reddest state of the Union, but it is also one of the most dependent states of government. Government provides around 350,000 jobs out of around 1.5 million in the state. If you look at just Central Oklahoma and the OKC metro, the top far largest employers are - in order - State Gov't, Tinker AFB, Univ of Okla (Norman), FAA, and Integris Health. The state is also in the Top 15 when it comes to being a welfare state (getting more in federal dollars than is paid in taxes).

If you want to opt out of federal laws, by all means. You should then either lose all your federal funding or simply not be able to draw more than what your state pays in. Which might be a bit more fare than cutting everything. Though that would be a way to start balancing the budget though.  


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

It's just a symbolic gesture for those states to try and hold up their against a federal government running rip shod over their rights.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

One other reason for such laws is that the Federal government may Constitutinally mandate certain spending or costly regulations, like for education of non-citizens here illegally, lawyers for poor criminals, health care for the poor and so on but that the states get stuck with the bill for.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1502 times:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 6):
I would like to see if a law or legislative action is challenged and ruled unconstitutional, the original author(s) of the legislation or legislative action are personally responsible to pay all legal costs normally charged to the tax payer.

Sometimes, the legal and court challenges are quite legitimate. There is a real dispute or debate over whether a law is constitutional. Furthermore, although Mr. Obama was the author of the Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare"), he was not the bill's sponsor since the President cannot introduce bills to Congress. In fact, I'm not sure who introduced the bill in each house. Majority leaders, maybe? But given that he won, should the GOP personally have to shoulder the costs?

Although I do agree that there should be a penalty were a law OR policy is enacted where the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant behaved in a way that was in wanton and blatant disregard for the Constitution to a degree that any reasonable US citizen with a basic understanding of the Constitution would know that the law or policy was unconstitutional. For example, the Police Chief who said that he was going to stop random citizens on the street and demand their ID (and cart them off to jail if they refused) even if they were out just walking their dogs.

I think it would be nice to see a legal standard of that sort introduced. Of course, all things in politics are subjective, but if you can say that any competent policymaker should have known that the law was unconstitutional, then I agree. Mind you, this won't make a scratch in the Federal Budget, but it's good principle.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4022 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1494 times:

Of course, Obama doesn't need to have any law passed to ignore Federal Law, all he needs to do is refuse to enforce existing ones. Vide, DREAM Act, etc. How is this any different?


Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 7):
It's just a symbolic gesture for those states to try and hold up their against a federal government running rip shod over their rights.

We had a government in this nation where the states were supreme - only required to enforce the laws and provisions they agreed with.

It was an abisymal failure and almost end any chance of the United States surviving.

So a second attempt to create a national government was founded - given the federal government power over the states, and the power with the federal courts to decide how the constitution applied to specific situations. That is how and why our current Constitution was written and ratified by the states.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 3):
Every state that has some sort of legal marijuana is proof of that. Nothing new here.... This is just another case of when conservatives want to ignore federal law it is a big deal, when liberals ignore federal law it is justice, or freedom, or whatever you want to call it.

Isn't it in the US constitution that federal law trumps state law??

In terms of states where pot is legal you won't get charged by the state of Colorado as an example but you can get charged in federal court.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39884 posts, RR: 74
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1426 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5):
Okay,

We can reinstitute the poll tax in Alabama,

We can impose segregation in the schools in the south.

How about this?



Your schools are still segregated for the most part.
San Francisco defied federal law on marijuana and immigration. Personally I supported defying federal law on marijuana because it should be legal and the Constitution was written on hemp paper. There is nothing un-Constitutional about smoking marijuana.
The sanctuary city status was feel good legislation but even liberal San Francisco got fed up with all of the criminal activity surrounding illegal immigrants so they gutted the program.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with a state or local government enforcing a federal law that the feds are too timid or not have resources to deal with.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

What I don't understand is the same people who cry about "states rights" are the same people who champion expantion of federal powers into people's private and state's lives. Like with DOMA and marijuana laws and gun laws. They hate big gub'mint except when big gub'mint does what they want.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4599 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1402 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Sometimes, the legal and court challenges are quite legitimate. There is a real dispute or debate over whether a law is constitutional. Furthermore, although Mr. Obama was the author of the Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare"), he was not the bill's sponsor since the President cannot introduce bills to Congress. In fact, I'm not sure who introduced the bill in each house. Majority leaders, maybe? But given that he won, should the GOP personally have to shoulder the costs?

Nope. My comment is more about those that just introduce junk legislation that will likely be unconstitutional, but they go through anyway.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1358 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 12):
Isn't it in the US constitution that federal law trumps state law??

Yes, it is. But, the presumption is that the law is constitutional to begin with. A state (or any other injured, or is the legal term: harmed, party) can bring suit if they feel The Congress overstepped its constitutionally granted powers.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4623 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1322 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):

Yes, it is. But, the presumption is that the law is constitutional to begin with. A state (or any other injured, or is the legal term: harmed, party) can bring suit if they feel The Congress overstepped its constitutionally granted powers.

Then the law goes to the Federal appeals courts and ultimately to the Supreme Court. Checks and balances are still in play.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1313 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17):
Then the law goes to the Federal appeals courts and ultimately to the Supreme Court. Checks and balances are still in play.

Agreed. You'll note that I said this is just a piece of feel-good legislation, I didn't say I supported it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6101 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1306 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 13):
There is nothing un-Constitutional about smoking marijuana.

No there isn't, but states that make it legal are ignoring the federal law, which makes it no different than ignoring any other federal law.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
They hate big gub'mint except when big gub'mint does what they want.

That goes for the left and the right.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 13):
San Francisco got fed up with all of the criminal activity surrounding illegal immigrants so they gutted the program.

Typical feel good thing. It makes people feel good, but ends up making life worse. It is like all the homeless advocates in SF. They love the homeless, when they are in someone elses neighborhood. Then when they take a dump on the bus steal from you their attitude changes.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Thread starter):
It would allow a committee of 12 people — six from the House and six from the Senate — to recommend to the full Legislature which laws they think are unconstitutional.

I just wonder how many of those 12 will be right-wingers allied with the tea people? My guess: 10. They will put two people they believe are "liberal" just to look like they are bi-partisan.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5650 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1217 times:

I love how the law claims that, "No authority has ever been given to the legislative branch, the executive branch or the judicial branch of the federal government to preempt state legislation."

Then again, Arizona does rank near the bottom in education. Funny how the very same people are so adamant about the 2nd Amendment can ignore Article 6.

Oh well.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1203 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 19):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 13):There is nothing un-Constitutional about smoking marijuana.
No there isn't, but states that make it legal are ignoring the federal law, which makes it no different than ignoring any other federal law

And they can ignore any Federal law that is not being made to support the enumerated powers given to the Feds. Any law that they pass that is not based on a power that had been given to them does not have to be followed by the states. Same goes for any exucutive order that does not support a constitutional law.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1198 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Thread starter):
It would allow a committee of 12 people — six from the House and six from the Senate — to recommend to the full Legislature which laws they think are unconstitutional.

If I understand how the government works in the US you don't have the lawmakers deciding whether or not something is constitutional or not. Yes they along with everyone else can make their opinion known but that responsibility lies with the judicial branch.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 3):
States disregarding federal law goes on all the time. Every state that has some sort of legal marijuana is proof of that.

California has legal medical marijuana laws but the feds raid clinics all the time and I don't think the state can do much except send people to congress to try and change the law.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1183 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 23):
California has legal medical marijuana laws but the feds raid clinics all the time and I don't think the state can do much except send people to congress to try and change the law.

Yes they can. they can arrest the Federal officers if they had the nad's to do it. There is no power in the Constitution that gives them the right to regulate Marijuana or any other substance. The states should ignore all of them.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 23):
If I understand how the government works in the US you don't have the lawmakers deciding whether or not something is constitutional or not.

The House and Senate shold be well versed in what is Constitutional or not and shold not pass something that is not in the first place. The Supremes are a firewall but that does not release the Congress from doing there duty to defend the Constitution of the United States



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1195 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2):
I guess its a piece of feel-good legislation

Only states like Arizona with their butt ugly governor would consider bringing in such a law.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2):
I think Georgia may be pursuing something similar.

OK, butt ugly or a state where a lot of family trees don't fork.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 6):
That would do wonders here in Oklahoma.

Speaking of family trees not forking!

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 8):

One other reason for such laws is that the Federal government may Constitutinally mandate certain spending or costly regulations,

That's the problem with being in a nation. You can have national laws, standards, regulations, etc.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):

Of course, Obama doesn't need to have any law passed to ignore Federal Law, all he needs to do is refuse to enforce existing ones.

It's pretty obvious that anyone in government will not be able to enforce ALL the laws on the books. Some easily go back to the 1800's. Goes down to the local cop on the beat - they aren't going to enforce all the laws on the books for the past 150 years.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 24):
they can arrest the Federal officers if they had the nad's to do it.

OK. That gets you in a federal prison, not a state prison. That is after a trial in federal court, which can be far more expensive than a state court.


User currently onlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5650 posts, RR: 6
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1182 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 22):
And they can ignore any Federal law that is not being made to support the enumerated powers given to the Feds. Any law that they pass that is not based on a power that had been given to them does not have to be followed by the states. Same goes for any exucutive order that does not support a constitutional law.

I suggest you read Articles 3 and 6 of the US Constitution, followed by Marbury v. Madison.

In short, a state cannot just "ignore" anything.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 24):
Yes they can. they can arrest the Federal officers if they had the nad's to do it.

No, they cannot. If anyone tried to arrest a Federal agent in the performance of their duties, they would quickly find themselves stripped of their badge and likely in jail themselves.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 24):
There is no power in the Constitution that gives them the right to regulate Marijuana or any other substance.

I also suggest a reading of Article 1, Section 8.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 24):
The states should ignore all of them.

There is no power in the Constitution that gives them that right.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 24):

The House and Senate shold be well versed in what is Constitutional or not

Doesn't mean they're not gonna try to circumvent it...



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1133 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
OK, butt ugly or a state where a lot of family trees don't fork.

Wow what an ignorant thing to say. Actually, I heard stuff similar to this about Oklahoma (where you live IIRC)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1116 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
Arizona with their butt ugly governor
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
butt ugly or a state where a lot of family trees don't fork.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
Speaking of family trees not forking

Usually I agree with what you say but... wow... just... wow...

I don't care much for legislation in Georgia or Arizona or Oklahoma, but it is their state. I could move there and get laws passed. But, I don't.

We all have our doubts about where Linday Graham hangs his hat at night, so to speak. I don't care. His political ideology is what bothers me. I don't find him attractive at all. But, not my place to say anything other than: I don't agree with his political ideology.

And, yes, there are parts of, well, every state where family trees don't fork. Nevada, Montana, and Idaho are pretty bad.

What really gets me is: I live in California. My brother and his in-laws are mad at me for re-electing for Pelosi. I am not even in her district!! That irritates me when people who think they know all about the Constitution show their hand by not knowing much about the Constitution.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1108 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting falstaff (Reply 3):
States disregarding federal law goes on all the time. Every state that has some sort of legal marijuana is proof of that. Nothing new here.... This is just another case of when conservatives want to ignore federal law it is a big deal, when liberals ignore federal law it is justice, or freedom, or whatever you want to call it.

All of the passed marijuana laws were passed with voter action as far as I know. That is a huge difference from what is being attempted by the different state legislators, they are attempting to create their own Supreme Court panel to decide the constitutionality of laws. That is clearly exceeding their scope.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1083 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
Only states like Arizona with their butt ugly governor would consider bringing in such a law.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
OK, butt ugly or a state where a lot of family trees don't fork.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
Speaking of family trees not forking!

You really don't realize how insulting people just weakens anything you may say, do you? I'm sure that in your mind you sound witty, but to most of us, you appear ignorant. Stop appearing ignorant.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 26):
Doesn't mean they're not gonna try to circumvent it...

Don't forget to toss the Executive Branch into that mix. And no, it's not a slam on this administration. It's my opinion that those in power will always try to expand that power by pushing the limits and hoping that the Court sees it their way.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
It's pretty obvious that anyone in government will not be able to enforce ALL the laws on the books.

Then, those laws should be repealed or replaced. What's the use of having a law you will not, should not or can not enforce?

I read a study about why some laws remain on the books well passed their expiration date. On the more benign side of things it allows prosecutors a wide latitude on what to charge. On the more egregious side of things, it allows people to be "targeted" by a prosecutor. "Go find out what law(s) this guy is breaking."



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1052 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 27):
Actually, I heard stuff similar to this about Oklahoma

I included Oklahoma

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
We all have our doubts about where Linday Graham hangs his hat at night

I think he has walked a fine line on that for years. I believe his privacy has been

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 30):
but to most of us, you appear ignorant.

I'll always look ignorant to those on the hard right. Why should I worry about using a well established term for describing states that have a huge bubba factor? It's actually less offensive (IMO) than the comments of hate towards the President and the hard right is full of those. At least I zing both Republicans and Democrats at the same time.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 30):
Then, those laws should be repealed or replaced.

Get real. We have the most ineffective Congress in living history, with the Senate crippled by hundreds of Filibusters and you actually believe that they are going to clear up historic (100+ year old) laws that are no longer relevant?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 14
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1038 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
I'll always look ignorant to those on the hard right.

Actually, no. I've always thought your opinions, while wrong   , provided interesting and insightful dialogue, after we strip away the insulting name calling and insults. But, I've always felt you weakened your argument when you stoop to name calling.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
Get real. We have the most ineffective Congress in living history, with the Senate crippled by hundreds of Filibusters and you actually believe that they are going to clear up historic (100+ year old) laws that are no longer relevant?

So, we shouldn't try to clear up the law because it's too hard? JFK would be proud of us.

A law that can not or will not be enforced, or is arbitrarily enforced, is a law that undermines the "rule of law".



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1000 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
I'll always look ignorant to those on the hard right.

Seb146 is hard right!? LOL

It was ignorant, no excuse. I disagree with you quite often but usually you have enough class to not make such ignorant statements. Whatever...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 956 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 31):
We have the most ineffective Congress in living history, with the Senate crippled by hundreds of Filibusters

Just to clear something up: with filibuster rules, the RIGHT has all the power. They can simply say "filibuster" and that is the end of the bill. No matter what the population feels about it or the House feels about it. If McConnell simply votes for "filibuster" that is the end of it.

I would love for Obama to pull a W and "send the budget to me clean or else." I wonder what would happen then? Obama would be the worst president ever, per FOX, since no president would ever think of doing something so un-American.



Life in the wall is a drag.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"The United States Is Ready To Lead.." posted Tue Mar 24 2009 15:20:26 by OzGlobal
USN / Federal Law / Women On Ships Question posted Sun Aug 17 2008 22:29:41 by Blackbird
Dean Suggest Democrats May Have To Ignore Voters posted Thu Feb 7 2008 12:50:10 by Pope
Ontario Canada To Get Sharia Law...wtf! posted Sat Sep 10 2005 11:16:13 by Solnabo
10 Stories That 'Liberal Media' Chose To Ignore posted Thu Sep 8 2005 20:26:15 by Superfly
Quebec's Anti-English Education Laws To Be Eased. posted Fri Apr 1 2005 03:26:13 by Noise
Israel To Ignore U.n. Resolution Regarding Wall posted Wed Oct 22 2003 11:54:26 by Zak
United States Has A Lot To Be Proud Of! posted Thu Oct 17 2002 15:25:42 by Superfly
HIV/Aids US Federal Law... Like Income Tax! posted Wed Dec 5 2001 02:45:55 by Boeing757fan
Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States. posted Mon Dec 13 2010 13:37:00 by dxing