So unelected Administrators at DFAS get to decide who our choices will be for President? Have you MET those guys?!?
I had a thought about the current ClusterF in the House. What if we made an Amendment that said if the House is without a Speaker for more than say, 10 days, then the Vice President takes on the job with full authority until such time as the House gets one elected.
Sorry, DSS, not DFAS. Missed the edit window.
If you think that the pharmaceutical problem is bad now, just wait until this takes effect. There will be umpty-million arguments, lawsuits, counter-lawsuits, political mongering, etc, etc, etc. over what constitutes “in the public interest” and why.
Simple. Any sort of threat against a member of Congress, or any relative of a member, is a crime that carries a mandatory 5-year prison sentence.
So the people can’t threaten to vote against them next time if they don’t vote the will of the majority? The parties can’t decide to primary a member who consistently votes with the other side?
That’s not the type of threat I meant, and you know it.
Bodily autonomy should be guaranteed, and any effort to violate should be met with 2nd amendment type outrage.
Better spell it out in detail in the constitution, then; or, sometime in the next couple hundred years, somebody’ll interpret it that way.
Yes; but, again, what that means needs to be explained. Otherwise, there’ll be people saying that it means somebody infected with a deadly disease has a right to go into schools, hospitals, crowded public places unmasked; that four-year-olds can’t be given lifesaving surgery against their current will; that doctors must perform any medical procedure desired even if overwhelming medical information is that it won’t work and will harm the patient; that police can’t arrest anybody by physical coercion no matter what they’re doing . . . I could go on.
Does “2nd amendment type outrage” mean shooting people? Are you saying that if a group of anti-abortion people have a public protest you feel they should be shot?
What I mean is that everything that is brought to bear against any perceived threat to their weaponry, slippery slope and all that, should be mirrored by supporters of bodily autonomy.
Sorry but that’s not clear.
Let me repeat my question. If a group of anti-abortion protesters are picketing a Planned Parenthood office and preventing people from entering the building, are you saying it should be legal to shoot those protesters?
I guess I should also make sure I understand what you mean by “bodily autonomy”? Are you talking about a woman choosing to have an abortion? Or do you mean something else?
Bodily autonomy: anything having to do with one’s body is the business of the owner of the body. The hue and cry that’s attached to any effort to regulate firearms should be matched by any efforts to tell someone what they can and can’t do with their body. And no, nobody should be shot.
Okay I understand what you’re saying on the hue and cry issue. You’re suggesting public protests not shooting sprees.
But I’m still not clear on where you stand on this bodily autonomy issue. Are you talking about women choosing to have an abortion? Or are you talking about people choosing not to wear a face mask in public? Or both?
Whether a woman chose to have an abortion or not would be her business alone. That’s the big thing. I really haven’t thought out any side repercussions.
Property taxes would be a good start. Many sit on valuable land.
I doubt the founders thought of the side repurcussions of how they worded the Second, either.
In writing law, it’s necessary to be really really careful about the wording. Something will still be missed in how anything of that length is worded – it’s bound to be – but all reasonable attempts should be made to foresee problems and to clarify wording to avoid them.
What does this have to do with the OP?
Each state makes it’s own property tax laws.
Valid point. Although I imagine a state trying to impose a property tax on church land might see a first amendment lawsuit before long. Not my area of expertise, however.
Yes, but Bernie Sanders, among other people, have been calliing for a federal wealth tax for years; presumably, a federal propery tax could be part of it. The federal government charging an income tax doesn’t stop most states from charging their own as well.
Moreover, it misses the point: to the delegates who wrote and ratified the constitution and the Bill of Rights, the very idea of the military as a separate caste with special privileges was just asking for tyranny. They certainly had Seventeenth Century England as a glaring example. And no, I do not believe that we are somehow immune to the USA ever becoming a banana republic because of our “culture of democracy” or whatever magical thinking people use in lieu of millennia of history regarding human nature.