Republican controlled house says.."DEFUND Obamacare, or we're SHUTTING the GOVT. DOWN "

[Ms Tree]

Another face of the loving and caring GOP. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett speaks,

In an interview with CNN affiliate WHP-TV, Corbett was answering a question about comments made by a member of his legal team who had compared same-sex marriage to the marriage of 12 year-olds, with both unions being illegal.
Corbett, a Republican, said that “It was an inappropriate analogy. I think a much better analogy would have been brother and sister, don’t you?”

This was his attempt to walk it back,

I explained that current Pennsylvania statute delineates categories of individuals unable to obtain a marriage license. As an example, I cited siblings as one such category, which is clearly defined in state law. My intent was to provide an example of these categories.

Yea, that makes it all better. GOP needs to get the crazy out of their party. The world is changing and the GOP needs to keep up if they want to remain relevant.

 

[southwind]

And I take it you think Harry "Tinker Bell" Reid and Nancy "The Witch" Pelosi are sane?

 

[Ifly2]

Absolutely

I don't actually like them, but they are not there for me to like

They are there to keep the GOP and its puppet-masters from destroying the country. Or at least slow them down.

It is not actually supposed to be a popularity, or likability, contest.

Roger Ailes kick started that change, thank you not

 

[southwind]

That's funny because that's exactly why the GOP is there, to keep the Demorat Loonies from passing laws in the middle of the night, behind locked doors or at least slow them down ( per government shutdown if need be). They're already running this country, nose first, into the dirt and we can only hope there's something left to salvage come 2016 and that the U.S. has not become a Nanny State, with it's citizens beholden to the government, for day to day (Cradle to grave as the Demorats would like) existence !

 

[Ifly2]

The first sentence in your post is actually right.

Sort of.

The government was not designed for a two-party system, it was warned against by those who knew, and it quite obviously doesn't work very well.

It is the natural evolution of division of power corrupted by way too much $$$.



The second sentence, an opinion. That's your business, just like what you and your "lil' woman" get up to is.

You really call her that?

 

[P. REZ]

Contrary to popular low information voter conscious, PPACA is not settled law! Just wait to the first penalty is paid and off we go to the SCOTUS. Roberts clearly wanted to kick the Act back to the political process. His wish may come true and he will be relieved of his own "catastrophic" error. When the penalty/"tax" becomes a higher percentage of a person's income, collection efforts go beyond merely withholding refunds, or criminal penalties attach, thereby leaving the land of a "tax" and clearly becoming what Congress called it: a penalty?

What is settled is that this thing is a complete abomination that already has wrecked the health insurance and job markets. The die hard liberals/socialists know it but just can't bring themselves to fault anything Obama does. Just check out the skyrocketing costs of health coverage premiums, the mass switch from full-time to part-time work and the mass stripping of benefits. Grisly. Check out the unemployment and underemployment rates for the 18-30 demographic. Dystopian. But that all is a little too much reality for the blogosphere and not enough theory.

This is B.S. that businesses are doing this and that 18-30 group will lead the re-birth of Unions. Oh happy days are coming.

 

[P. REZ]

That's funny because that's exactly why the GOP is there, to keep the Demorat Loonies from passing laws in the middle of the night, behind locked doors or at least slow them down ( per government shutdown if need be). They're already running this country, nose first, into the dirt and we can only hope there's something left to salvage come 2016 and that the U.S. has not become a Nanny State, with it's citizens beholden to the government, for day to day (Cradle to grave as the Demorats would like) existence !

Go get anger management help.

 

[KCFlyer]

Obama blocking Catholics and others from worship services this weekend....

http://www.milarch.o...699&ct=13344123

http://www.marinecor...aplain-services

http://townhall.com/...dience-n1717701

I'm sure this will make Tree quite happy, but it's preventing observant Catholics and others from practicing their faith, which is Constitutionally guaranteed.

Where in the Constitution does it state that the US Government will supply the facilities and pay for the services of Catholic services?

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Where in the Constitution does it state that the US Government will supply the facilities and pay for the services of Catholic services?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Or is it the Free Exercise Clause or maybe the Establishment Clause. I'm also thinking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons.

 

[Ifly2]

"AMENDMENT I

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."

Nope, nothing in there that says the government will supply the facilities and pay for the services...

 

[Ifly2]

"AMENDMENT XIV

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.

SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

SECTION 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."




Nope, not there either.

 

[Ifly2]

Or here... Hmmmm...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause

Free Exercise Clause refers to the section of the First Amendment italicized here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economc theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.[3]

Constitutional scholars and even Supreme Court opinions have contended that the two religion clauses are in conflict. E.g., Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981). As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Such a special benefit seems to violate the neutrality between “religion and non-religion” mandated by the Establishment Clause. McConnell explains:

If there is a constitutional requirement for accommodation of religious conduct, it will most likely be found in the Free Exercise Clause. Some say, though, that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to give any special benefit or recognition of religion. In that case, we have a First Amendment in conflict with itself—the Establishment Clause forbidding what the Free Exercise Clause requires.[4]

Historically, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in dealing with this problem. When the Court leans toward more accommodation for the Free Exercise Clause, there is greater conflict.

When the Amendment was drafted, it applied only to the U.S. Congress; state and local governments could abridge the free exercise of religion as long as there was no similar provision in the state constitution. In 1940, the Supreme Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that, due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments.

[1] Michael McConnell, Religion and the Constitution (2002), pg. 105.
[2] Id. at 107.
[3] Richard Posner and Michael McConnell, "An Economic Approach to Issues of Religious Freedom," 56 University of Chicago Law Review 1 (1989).
[4] McConnell, note 1 above, at 102."

 

[delldude]

COTUS will hear arguments this session on this subject.

Fly, you need a link?

 

[Ifly2]

Or... Here.....

42 USC Chapter 21B - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B

 

[Ifly2]

Or, Wait for it.... Here.....

Either....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000cc

42 USC § 2000cc - Protection of land use as religious exercise


So... Where is it again?

Or does all that education and experience cause you to just go around blowing smoke out your hole?