A museum in Colorado has an exhibit that shows the Son of God in a pornographic pose. What are your thoughts with regard to free speech? I believe this does fall under free speech, my question is, what happened to decency and respect? Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Via The Blaze:
A Loveland, Co., public art museum has sparked a heated debate among the town’s residents after highlighting an exhibit which seems to feature Jesus Christ in a tawdry sex act.
The controversial piece is part of a 10-artist exhibit called, “The Legend of Bud Shark and His Indelible Ink.” The lithograph showing the son of God engaged in a sexual act is called, “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals,” and was created by Stanford University professor Enrique Chagoya.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
5 Students Sent Home for Wearing American Flag T-Shirts
Five Live Oak High School students' First Amendment rights were challenged Wednesday morning when they were asked to leave school because they donned American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. Officials at the school chose not to comment on the situation, but one student said an official called the T-shirts "incendiary.""They said we were starting a fight, we were fuel to the fire," said sophomore Matt Dariano.
The Morgan Hill Unified School District issued this statement: "In an attempt to foster a spirit of cultural awareness and maintain a safe and supportive school environment, the Live Oak High School administration took certain actions earlier today. The district does not concur with the Live Oak High School administration's interpretation of either board or district policy related to these actions."
The five teens were sitting at a table outside during their brunch break about 10:10 a.m. when Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked two boys to take off their American flag bandannas. The boys said they complied. In the same conversation, sophomore Dominic Maciel said, Rodriguez told the group to "walk with him to the office."
Dariano called his mother Diana, who spread the word to the other parents, who all arrived soon after to have a conference with Rodriguez and Principal Nick Boden. The group said they were not instigating anything and did what they always do at break - sit and talk and eat.
The boys were told they must turn their T-shirts inside-out or be sent home - and that it would not be considered a suspension - but that Rodriguez did not want any fights to break out among Mexican-American students and those wearing American flags. Dariano said other students were wearing American flags but since they were a group of five "we were the easiest target to cause trouble" according to Rodriguez, he said.
Photo by: Lora Schraft, Staff Photographer
Via
"Slaughter Solution" Could Lead to Impeachment
The democrats are doing their very best to undermine the constitution. If they choose to "back door" this bill, they will have unequivocally violated the constitution. If this happens, the people must NOT stand for it.
(...)
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
(...)
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
(...)Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
(...)
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
How hard is this to understand???
OK, it's been WAY too long since I have posted here, so thanks to Valerie and her comments on my comments on this post to inspire me to drag myself in....
Apparently I struck a nerve when I called hussein the Obamoron. But I figure after having to endure 8 years of the radical left wing moonbat lunatics hurling insult after insult at Dubya, well, if it's OK for them then it would be OK for us too. But apparently not so, the vile hypocrisy so prevalent in the current Communist administration seems to extend itself to the supporters of the worst president the country has ever seen. And what amazes me is that while day by day, the Democrats continue their onslaught to dismantle this great country the moonbats continue their march toward Utopia, blindly unaware of the consequences of the actions of the *expletive deleted*s they were not only stupid enough to believe, but managed to elect.
Anyway, on to the point of today's post.... With the shambles of the economy he has managed to create, Obamoron really has substantially better things to be doing with his time than trying to take over the jobs of parents. It is NOT the presidents job to tell kids to stay in school. Keep in mind, Valerie, I am using "you" and "your" in the plural sense.... It is YOUR job, as a parent, to raise your children and teach them to go to school, assume responsibility for their actions and become productive members of society. So by thinking that hussein needs to be in charge of raising your kids, you showing not only your children but the rest of the world that you have not managed to learn how to be responsible for yourself, you are reinforcing that fact to your children. It is the very definition of the welfare nanny state the communists in congress would so love to create that there is some super-entity somewhere that will handle all these unpleasant tasks for you, like being a parent, having a job, getting health insurance, paying your bills, and lust generally being a responsible adult.
I will go so far as to say that I find it incomprehensible how any self-respecting American would even WANT this level of someone else's involvement in their life. It disgusts me that there are so many people who are either unable or unwilling to accept any responsibility whatsoever for their own condition and are perfectly content to let others do everything for them.
I guess it comes down to the "equality of opportunity" vs. "equality of condition". What Obama-lama-ding-dong's supporters want is some sort of bleary-eyed Utopia where everyone is the same, everyone is equal and we all stroll blindly along hand-in-hand singing "We Are the World". Everyone living in a carbon-neutral urban highrise, driving a Prius, recycling and composting with our thermostats on 85 in the summer and 65 in the winter, growing organic gardens on green roofs and gazing lovingly in doe-eyed adoration at The Anointed One as He in his all-knowing power caters to their existence from cradle to grave. I DON'T THINK SO!!!!
I prefer plan B- where the federal government actually follows the principles and ideals of our founding fathers, as laid out in the Constitution. There aren't many in Washington who act like they are even aware that precious document exists, but I assure you it does. The federal government exists to protect national security and uphold our bill of rights- period. Here's a link, in case any of you have forgotten what they are.... It really is that simple, folks.
I want the government out of my refrigerator. I do not want their hand on my thermostat. I do not want them in my car. I absolutely do not want them in my children's school. I do not want them in my gun cabinet. I do not want them in my doctor's office. I sure as hell do not want them in my checkbook, nor do I want them in my 401k. I do not want them in my computer. I do not want them in my bedroom.
I want them at the borders of this country. I want them ZEALOUSLY defending the rights of every single US citizen to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I want them protecting and furthering the hopes and dreams of our founding fathers that this may be a nation limited by nothing. Where an individual's success is bounded by nothing other than their God-given talents and a drive to make the absolute best possible outcome for themselves.
Apparently I struck a nerve when I called hussein the Obamoron. But I figure after having to endure 8 years of the radical left wing moonbat lunatics hurling insult after insult at Dubya, well, if it's OK for them then it would be OK for us too. But apparently not so, the vile hypocrisy so prevalent in the current Communist administration seems to extend itself to the supporters of the worst president the country has ever seen. And what amazes me is that while day by day, the Democrats continue their onslaught to dismantle this great country the moonbats continue their march toward Utopia, blindly unaware of the consequences of the actions of the *expletive deleted*s they were not only stupid enough to believe, but managed to elect.
Anyway, on to the point of today's post.... With the shambles of the economy he has managed to create, Obamoron really has substantially better things to be doing with his time than trying to take over the jobs of parents. It is NOT the presidents job to tell kids to stay in school. Keep in mind, Valerie, I am using "you" and "your" in the plural sense.... It is YOUR job, as a parent, to raise your children and teach them to go to school, assume responsibility for their actions and become productive members of society. So by thinking that hussein needs to be in charge of raising your kids, you showing not only your children but the rest of the world that you have not managed to learn how to be responsible for yourself, you are reinforcing that fact to your children. It is the very definition of the welfare nanny state the communists in congress would so love to create that there is some super-entity somewhere that will handle all these unpleasant tasks for you, like being a parent, having a job, getting health insurance, paying your bills, and lust generally being a responsible adult.
I will go so far as to say that I find it incomprehensible how any self-respecting American would even WANT this level of someone else's involvement in their life. It disgusts me that there are so many people who are either unable or unwilling to accept any responsibility whatsoever for their own condition and are perfectly content to let others do everything for them.
I guess it comes down to the "equality of opportunity" vs. "equality of condition". What Obama-lama-ding-dong's supporters want is some sort of bleary-eyed Utopia where everyone is the same, everyone is equal and we all stroll blindly along hand-in-hand singing "We Are the World". Everyone living in a carbon-neutral urban highrise, driving a Prius, recycling and composting with our thermostats on 85 in the summer and 65 in the winter, growing organic gardens on green roofs and gazing lovingly in doe-eyed adoration at The Anointed One as He in his all-knowing power caters to their existence from cradle to grave. I DON'T THINK SO!!!!
I prefer plan B- where the federal government actually follows the principles and ideals of our founding fathers, as laid out in the Constitution. There aren't many in Washington who act like they are even aware that precious document exists, but I assure you it does. The federal government exists to protect national security and uphold our bill of rights- period. Here's a link, in case any of you have forgotten what they are.... It really is that simple, folks.
I want the government out of my refrigerator. I do not want their hand on my thermostat. I do not want them in my car. I absolutely do not want them in my children's school. I do not want them in my gun cabinet. I do not want them in my doctor's office. I sure as hell do not want them in my checkbook, nor do I want them in my 401k. I do not want them in my computer. I do not want them in my bedroom.
I want them at the borders of this country. I want them ZEALOUSLY defending the rights of every single US citizen to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I want them protecting and furthering the hopes and dreams of our founding fathers that this may be a nation limited by nothing. Where an individual's success is bounded by nothing other than their God-given talents and a drive to make the absolute best possible outcome for themselves.
CONSTITUTION 101
What do you know about the Constitution of the United States of America?
The US Constitution was designed, not simply as a list of the rights that you have, but as an ideal system of government. The US Constitution created a system of government that would have some power over the nation to unify the states and provide for causes that required unified action. And instead of putting all of the power of the national government in one body, or in one person, the power that this national government could exercise would be divided among three branches of government: the Executive (the Presidency), the Legislative (the Senate and the House of Representatives), and the Judicial (the system of courts). This basic structure is the structure of the Constitution.
The Constitution is divided into Articles. The First Article gives the duties and responsibilities of the Legislative branch of Government. The Second Article explains the duties and responsiblities of the Executive branch of government. Article Three describes the duties and responsibilities of the Judicial branch of the Federal government. Article Four lays out some of the rights and responsibilities of the states, however because the states existed prior ot the Federal government, they retained the rights the had previously enjoyed and Article Four explains the states' roles in the new Federal Government. Artivles Five, Six and Seven give the procedures for the amendment of the constitution, dealings with the new nations debts, oaths to be administered for office, and how to ratify the constitution, that is, for it to be accepted and become binding on the people.
After those Articles come the Amendments to the Constitution. A number of Americans were hesitant to fully support this new constitution because it had no written guarantee of rights of the citizens. Many of the framers did not see this as necessary, because under thier design, the new Federal government had a limited role dealing with the issues that were relevant to the nation as a whole. They believed that the states were the people's guarantor of the rights which they enjoyed like the right to free speech etc. and thus, a written guarantee of the rights of citizens was not needed in the Federal Constitution.
As it was designed, the US Constitution was an outline for the Federal Government. It was not intended to meddle in the everyday affairs of Americans. It was designed to deal with the issues that were vital national issues. However, there was a great concern among Americans that the Federal Government could grow into something like the Monarchy in Great Britain and many people wanted a written guarantee of their rights against the Federal Government. In order to get a majority of Americans to support the Constitution, it was promised that the first amendments would be made to the constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights, which would outline the rights that the Federal Government could not infringe upon.
These rights include:
- I - Right to Free Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, Petition Govt. for Redress of Grievences.
- II - Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
- III - No obligation to house military soldiers.
- IV - Right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- V - Rights as to Trial, no takings without just compensation
- VI - Right to speedy trial, Right to Confront accusers/witnesses.
- VII - Right to trial by jury in civil cases.
- VIII - No Excessive Bail, Fines or Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
- IX - Rights not listed in Constitution are retained by the people.
- X - Rights not given to Fed gov. are reserved to the states or the People.
The US Constitution was designed to limit the federal government. The framers believed that citizens were happiest when the government was not interfereing in their lives. Thus, they believed that the Federal Governemnt should be limited so as not to assert authority over the states and the people which would cause a great burden on Americans in the loss of their rights or in the laying of burdensome taxes.
As the years have gone by, many of these rights have been limited, and in many instances the original intent and meaning of the Constitution have been ignored by many in the federal government for varying reasons. Over the years, the federal government has ballooned in size to the point where now there is a federal agency involved in almost every function of our lives. Housing, Food, Environment, Health, Employment, Energy, Welfare, Education and Communications are all areas in our life that are affected by Federal Regulation. It could soon be the case that the federal government will be able to tax you for your personal (that is from breathing) CO2 emissions. Is that right? Is it really true that we need Federal Regulation of these aspects of our lives? If they were truly vital government functions, might the states do a better job of regulating this than the Federal Government? Is it right that the government is spending taxpayer dollars to "bail-out" Banks and Car Companies and Unions?
In this series of articles, I will demonstrate the various protections that that Constitution provides against a massive, expensive and oppressive Federal Government.
The genius behind the constitution is this, if we do not like what is happening in the Government, we have an option. Simply, vote the bums out. If we see that our representatives are not following the US Constitution, it is our DUTY to vote them out of office. If our representatives are not representing our best interests, or if they repeatedly ignore our desires, we can simply vote them out. No need for armed revolution, no need for coup d'etats, simply vote them out of office. Early on in US history, the Supreme Court took upon itself, and gave itself the Authority to decide what is Constitutional and what is not. The founders did not include this in the constitution and did not intend this to be the case. Thomas Jefferson wrote that when it comes to questions of constitutionality, the final decision is not with the Supreme Court, but with the People: "The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union." The people of the union speak through their representatives, through amendments to the constitution and through who they elect to office. This can only work however if the people are educated on the constitution, and if they vote to enforce it.
In order to preserve liberty and the freedoms you enjoy, you must learn about the US Constitution and compare it to what the government is doing. There is no reason to assume that the Federal Government always acts constitutionally or that it is wiser than common sense. Remember, this is the government that gave billions of tax dollars to bankrupt companies, all the while assuring us that the companies would not go bankrupt, but then did. This is the government that, in a frenzied and misplaced panic, gave billions of tax dollars to banks. These are all actions and powers not given to the Federal Government from the Constitution. It is time for you to know for yourself whether your representatives follow the Constitution or whether you need to vote the bums out.
The US Constitution is a model for a government with limited powers that is divided up in order to protect citizens from the infringements of their liberties and to provide for what is necessary in the Federal Government. When we are educated about what it is, and what it provides, we will be in a much better position to vote into office the people who will work to preserve the constitution and our liberties as Americans.
In the following weeks, I will address Article I, II, and III of the Constitution and then the remianing articles and then I will address the amendments to the constitution all in more detail to help provide a better understanding of what the various parts of the constitution mean.
Next week, Article I.
