The Iraq War Resolution...

[Larry Gude]

...every time I bring it up, it gets NO PLAY. The other side DOES NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT.

It is the reason, the argument, the be all end all in terms of why we've spent lives and treasure in Iraq.

So, anyone who wonders why we're there (including Dick Cheney's most memorable pal, Sen. John Edwards and HIS best buddy J eFffin K):

Crap. It's simply to long to post.

PLEASE READ IT.

PLEASE!!!

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0210/11/nation-609425.htm

Thanks

 

[2ndAmendment]

...every time I bring it up, it gets NO PLAY. The other side DOES NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT.

It is the reason, the argument, the be all end all in terms of why we've spent lives and treasure in Iraq.

So, anyone who wonders why we're there (including Dick Cheney's most memorable pal, Sen. John Edwards and HIS best buddy J eFffin K):

Crap. It's simply to long to post.

PLEASE READ IT.

PLEASE!!!

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0210/11/nation-609425.htm

Thanks

Larry,
Facts are hard to argue with. Of course that won't stop some. Facts? What facts? Water is not wet!

 

[Larry Gude]

Hey! I got it!

...the IWR is a 'living document' right? Subject to interpretation of convenience?

Thought you'd get a chuckle from that.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...the IWR is a 'living document' right? Subject to interpretation of convenience?

Thought you'd get a chuckle from that.

And I love the way the Dems parade out the Constitution when it suits them, misinterpret it, and then use the misinterpretation to take away the very rights the founders were trying to protect.

Of course there is always the "separation of church and state" which does not exist.

Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Only limits Congress from making a law, and the "equal protection clause" which also does not exist.

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This only states states cannot make or enforce a law that abridges a right given under the Constitution or apply laws unequally between people. It does not say that the laws of one state have to apply to people in another state, but that is what activist judges try to do all the time.

 

[UrbanPancake]

And I love the way the Dems parade out the Constitution when it suits them, misinterpret it, and then use the misinterpretation to take away the very rights the founders were trying to protect.

Of course there is always the "separation of church and state" which does not exist.

Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Only limits Congress from making a law, and the "equal protection clause" which also does not exist.

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This only states states cannot make or enforce a law that abridges a right given under the Constitution or apply laws unequally between people. It does not say that the laws of one state have to apply to people in another state, but that is what activist judges try to do all the time.

Wait a minute, so you think if someone gets married in South Dakota, and then they move to Maryland, they have to get a whole new marriage license in Maryland because South Dakota can't force them to recognize it?????
Most of our laws should be across the board so there is no confusion from state to state......

 

[SamSpade]

Wait a minute, so you think if someone gets married in South Dakota, and then they move to Maryland, they have to get a whole new marriage license in Maryland because South Dakota can't force them to recognize it?????
Most of our laws should be across the board so there is no confusion from state to state......

EXACTLY! You need to give lessons in law to Senator Edwards.

 

[Bruzilla]

Wait a minute, so you think if someone gets married in South Dakota, and then they move to Maryland, they have to get a whole new marriage license in Maryland because South Dakota can't force them to recognize it?????
Most of our laws should be across the board so there is no confusion from state to state......

There are precedents for both arguments. You don't need a marriage license change if you move to another state, but you do need a new driver's license and vehicle registration. You also need a new business license, doctors and lawyers (I think) need to become licensed in a new state.

Suppose you're arrested for DWI in a state where the limit is .07, and convicted of a felony, but then you move to a state where the limit is .1. Should your record be expunged?

There are lots of items like this that do not transfer between states, and the states should be allowed to recognize whatever they want to without being forced to recognize them using the force of the Constitution. The only thing that the Constituion should compel states to recognize are our civil rights, and marriage is not amongst those.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Wait a minute, so you think if someone gets married in South Dakota, and then they move to Maryland, they have to get a whole new marriage license in Maryland because South Dakota can't force them to recognize it?????
Most of our laws should be across the board so there is no confusion from state to state......

That is a state issue whether they recognize the license or laws of another state. They do not have to. Most states recognize the marriage license or divorce of another state or country, but they do not have to. As I understand it, some states recognize a marriage in Mexico but not a divorce. Many states have the right to carry a concealed firearm licenses or permits. Some states recognize other states; some do not. Some states recognize none of them. All gun control laws at any level that control law abiding citizens violate the Second Amendment. I have *LOTS* of historical facts backing that up, so you don't want to go there.

The so called "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment only applies to states application and recognition of federal laws. Activists judges and the ACLU don't like that so they invent their own meaning.