Post Text Solely for internet search engine purposes [Quick Thoughts]

Quick Thoughts

5 comments:

Miracle in 1787 said...

Health Care Reform has now started to come before the Courts. The main deciding factor in what will determine the outcome of these challenges when it gets to SCOTUS will be, is, is the Constitution a limiting or enabling document. Does the Constitution limit Federal power to those enumerated and reserved to the Federal Government, or does the Constitution enable the Federal Government to assume others powers not necessarily enumerated or delegated outright. How the Justices view the Constitution in this matter, will determine whether portion or most of the bill is struck down, or allowed to stand.

September 16, 2010 7:31 PM

Miracle in 1787 said...

Can Socialism exist with the original meaning and intent of the Constitution? Michael Moore is one of his recent movies [Capitalism: A Love Story], states "Capitalism is not in the Constitution". However, if the Original meaning of the Constitution is followed, can anything but a Free and Open Market exist?

September 19, 2010 10:26 AM

Miracle in 1787 said...

Recess Appointments: When the Founders put in the Constitution for the President to be able to appoint a person to Office in Congress is in recess, did they intend or was it understood to mean that all that has to happen is for the President to wait for a recess to appoint Officers without the required consent of the Senate? Or was it understood to be a mechanism for the President to fill a position that required immediate action that could not wait for the Senate to convene and consider, similar to the Clause in Article I section 10, that allows the Executive of a state to request Federal assistance in an emergency if the Legislature for that state is not in session to request it themselves?

September 20, 2010 5:23 PM

Miracle in 1787 said...

Voter Fraud Another case of voter fraud has been filed by the state of Texas in Houston. Voter fraud cannot be accepted at any level, or any number, and must be sought out and destroyed where ever it exists. The very fabric of our Democratic Republic rests on, one person one vote, all votes are equal. Allowing any person or group to register unqualified persons or ballots so they can be cast, is nothing less than stuffing the ballot box. Of all things sacred in our system of governance, we can never allow our election system to be corrupt. When ever corruption is found it must be stopped and PUNISHED. If we cannot trust our own election system, how can we trust any form of our governance at all?

September 25, 2010 10:43 AM

Miracle in 1787 said...

On Monday the 0th US Circuit Court of Appeals allowed 11 Foreign Nations to file Friend of the Court letter in regards to Arizona Bill SB 1070 [Arizona Immigration Law]. This brings up several significant Constitutional Questions. 1. Do foreign States have standing to file on an international subject? This is a Challenge between the State of Arizona and the United States Governments, the bill and US Challenge does not effect a foreign state, only US laws. 2. This filing is conducted by the USDOJ, and Executive Branch, which does not have the Authority to Regulate trade or Naturalization, this is the domain of Congress. by introducing Foreign Nations in the respect to immigration, this is to assume a power of determining the Natural Status of an Individual without the consent of Congress. 3. By allowing Foreign Nations to file once again dealing with the domain of Foreign Nationals within the United States, a domain only of Congress, the Judiciary is now in a role to determine the status of a person without regards of the will of Congress, who has the sole authority to set rules of Naturalization. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43199.html http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/immigration-arizona-lawsuit-10-5-2010

October 6, 2010 8:21 PM

Today a District Judge in the District of Columbia order the immediate injunction of the Don't ask Don't Policy for the Armed Forces. The most significant Constitutional Question is not only of the policy itself, but the authority of the policy. The Constitution grants Congress alone the power to, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces", not the courts. SCOTUS has on more than one occasion ruled [correctly], Military Service is not a Constitutional guarantee, that this gives Congress alone the power to determine eligibility of service in the Armed Forces, and not the Courts. Many policies exist that restrict or prohibit service as set forth by law enacted by Congress including Disability, prior Felonies, minor medical conditions [that are not minor in combat], and education among various others. The ONLY proper method of changing this policy is by an Act of Congress, not the Courts. By allowing the Courts to determine the requirements [by the President not directing DOJ or the DOD not appealing this to SCOTUS] removes the Constitutional prerogative from the specific body it was granted to, and places it in another branch. This is not a discussion if the policy is right or wrong, but the current events of how it has been changed in regards to granted powers in the Constitution.

October 12, 2010 5:04 PM 

Miracle in 1787 said...

Political Venom strikes again. Christie O'Donnell of DE is currently being lighted up by media for asking "Where in the Constitution does it say separation of Church and State". The true fact is, it does not. The common reference of this term is associated with the First Amendment: "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." But however the term does not reside in it. It actually has its genesis from Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to the Danbury Baptist in Danbury CT. But that point aside, one is being lambasted by media for stating a fact, IT IS IN FACT NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, rather than it is not in agreement with their perception of meaning. Instead of stating it to be a "true" statement and take issue with her interpretation and contending it implies a "separation" though does not state it, a factual statement has been twisted into being presented as false due to a political disagreement. This is Political Venom. We can disagree, we can agree to disagree, but we can not change the facts, and the attempt has been made here to do just that, change a factual statement from one, and present it to be false.