Sounds like mail fraud. Maybe your freedom will be returned to you.
Freedom is only for MEN, so perhaps it’s male fraud.
But if you want money then doesn’t that make it feemail?
And what about freedomme?
I’m pretty sure that allowing Obama to make a recess appointment that stood for one day would make them lose their freakin’ minds. Let alone the potential for multiple appointments that would last for multiple months.
Not a stupid idea in any context. Congress does not have to be in session all the time. Removing the period between November and January of an election year as a time when Congress can convene isn’t really dumb at all.
Removing about one-quarter of all the days Congress is in session in a given 12-month period isn’t a dumb idea? Yeah, right.
24 month period, actually, so 1/8th, and Congress is not always in session anyway. Keeping Congress almost always in session, now that’s a stupid idea.
Lame duck sessions are mainly invitations for mischief, anyway - such as impeaching the last President Clinton just for spite.
No, Andrew Jackson. Despite his less-than-enthusiastic position on enforcing Supreme Court decisions, he was firm about what the federal government should do with the doctrine of nullification (state law>federal law) being asserted in South Carolina :rolleyes: way back in 1832. He sent troops and armed ships to SC and said
[QUOTE=Andrew Jackson, Commander in Chief]
if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.
[/QUOTE]
and more eloquently wrote
[QUOTE=Andrew Jackson, President]
I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.
[/QUOTE]
The freedomme totally destroyed the slavesubbe. The footage is available for $39.95.
The difference though, is that South Carolina was prepared to resist militarily to prevent enforcement of a federal law. Whereas modern nullification advocates just withhold all state cooperation, which is perfectly legal.
But continuing to pay them as if they were is. Fer chrissakes, they are only in DC Tuesday thru Thursday when they are in session. They spend less time in Congress than a part timer does at WalMart.
But you’re not distributing the closure time over the 24-month period: you’re proposing to take it all out of a single fiscal year. In fact, out of a contiguous 3-month period.
What’s your justification for saying that this particular chunk of the calendar should manage without any Congressional sessions whatsoever every other year?
[QUOTE=adaher]
and Congress is not always in session anyway. Keeping Congress almost always in session, now that’s a stupid idea.
[/QUOTE]
Why? What do you think is the optimal amount and distribution of the time that Congress should be in session? What are your specific objections to the legislative calendar as it stands at present?
Do you imagine that, e.g., international or economic crises will just never happen during your proposed biannual 3-month recess? If/when they do happen, what’s your proposal for how the not-in-session Congress should respond to them?
Or are you just, as usual, reflexively kneejerking to any criticism of a stupid Republican idea by automatically supporting it?
Well the rest of the time they need to be getting wined and dined by lobbyists and shilling for money, duh!
Just think how many failed attempts to repeal Obamacare they could have racked up working full-time.
The House just passed a bill to encourage the National Science Foundation to fund science education for girls. Among the four Republicans who opposed the bill, one was, of course, crazy (redundant) Louie Gohmert, who thinks that it discriminates against boys.
A bill recently passed by the Tennessee state senate would protect the right of Mental Health Professionals to reject potential clients due to ickiness (more of that good old religias freedim).
I dunno about this one. I mean, I hate the legislation. And hate that the law would even be necessary or desired. But we’re not talking about a general doctor who should be able to set a leg, prescribe medicine, and perform surgery regardless of the sexual orientation of the patient.
These are mental health professionals. If you have such a strongly held belief that you would feel compelled to cite this law as a rationale for refusing to treat a patient, I sincerely believe that you’d do more harm than good if you were compelled to try.
If someone believes being gay is a sin and worth going to go to hell…do we really want that person counseling a troubled homosexual?
Licensed therapists already have ethical guidelines in place for dealing with this situation. Legislation is not necessary. “Party of small government” strikes again!
Broadway?