Well this was certainly unexpected…
Another of many reasons that I continue to no longer be an Oregon resident.
How can any state feel that they are above the U.S. Constitution? Do inalienable rights mean so little to Oregon and her residents that they should be easily cast aside?
Lawsuit Challenges Oregon Law Prohibiting Mathematical Criticism Without a License
Do you know how many times God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Once.
Just so nobody thinks that I am taking it out of context:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the
earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation. ”
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, that is much more than just God. That is is the equivilent to god, leaving all faiths open. IN fact Nature’s God coule be interpreted to be much closer to Pagans than Chistians. Funny thing isn’t it?
How many times does God appear in the Constitution? Zero.
How about the Bill of Rights, is he there? Nope.
How many times does God show up in the Articles of Confederation? Zero.
For a nation that some feel was founded on God, the supporting documents just aren’t there.
Now a country founded on the belief that ALL should be able to practice the religion of their choosing, that is all over the place. The First Amendment does a good job if putting that out there for us.
So here we see the government intruding into your lives and asking you to shed your rights yet again! This week it was Pennsylvania, and recently it was Texas.
There is a study to find out the statistics of drivers operating motor vehicles under the influence. Okay, I see some validity to the data to be collected. Just how voluntary is it if you are being required to be pulled over and coerced to provide a blood sample or cheeck swab?
Even if you do take the bribe err… incentive for the inconvienience. Are you going to get immunity from prosecution if you does have substances in your system?
Do you really trust that your DNA will not end up in a database somewhere?
If you do, have you not been watching the news, reading Twitter, Facebook, etc.?
Bottom line, these “stops” are unconstitutional. Be civil, but I would suggest that you not yield your rights.
As the Supreme Court takes on the issue of California’s Proposition 8, and the federal DOMA, and Jeb Bush weighs in that he believes marriage should be a states rights issue, where do you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, and why. Is it a matter that should be left to each state, should the federal government be involved and to what degree. Or is this a constitutional violation of civil rights, placing it in the hands of the Supreme Court.
The federal government has once again made a huge power grab to expand federal powers over the states. They are, as I type, in the process of removing the power of sheriffs across the country to arrest people and to act as law enforcement.
Delaware has already submitted to this ploy. But with Delawares AG being Joe Biden’s son, what would you expect? This is the next step towards martial law and complete take over of the federal government.
The Michigan House of Representatives unanimously voted in favor of House bill 5768. A bill which states that no state employee can assist in any way with the federal government carrying out actions pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act. An act which authorizes the federal government to detain indefinitely and without cause anyone. The 2012 NDAA reeks of McCarty era politics, now states are standing up and saying NO we are not going back to that dark time.
Should the federal government be allowed to bypass all due process in pursuit of their assumed enemy?
Are the states right to fight back against this act that would give the federal government absolute authority in detaining citizens?
Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason to believe that, in significant part, James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, that Congress could not use its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. His argument is based on a multiplicity of the historical evidence, including debates between James Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788; the record from the First Congress; and the antecedent of the American right to bear arms provision in the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.