Home » Posts tagged "State"

Q&A: Don’t Liberals understand the meaning of Freedom of Religion and ILLEGAL in the State of Texas?

Question by plezurgui: Don’t Liberals understand the meaning of Freedom of Religion and ILLEGAL in the State of Texas?
Their actions have been adjudicated as ILLEGAL all the way up to the Texas Supreme Court. Now, they want to force these people to give up their Freedom of Religion anyway!
Someone should go to jail over this, do you agree? If not, please explain.
Duh, the court said seizure of the children was illegal, so why haven’t they returned the children?
Liberals in Texas have proven they have no business wielding the power over free people.

Best answer:

Answer by Dave87gn
we dont know what you’re talking about

What do you think? Answer below!

Is Mubarak’s downfall really the end of Egypt’s feared State Security?

EGYPT – It’s two months since Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was ousted, after 29 years in power and more demonstrators are in Tahrir Square, this time calling for his prosecution. As he left office, protesters discovered files detailing how the Egyptian state security police – a hated symbol of Mubarak’s regime – used torture and informers to beat down any opposition to the former leader.

Louis Farrakhan prophesied an uprising in Feb 2011. Other black and union leaders have followed his lead in the Occupy Wall Street / Occupy America protests. All of these people are working together with Obama towards the same goal, fundamental change in America, the overthrow of the system. That is, its destruction as we have known it, as prophesied by Black Nationalism and Black Liberation Theology. The law was changed in 2007 to allow the President to take control of the National Guard without the consent of the states. See link below. www.stateline.org It is important for people to realize that Obama will be complicit in any unrest that occurs as a result of these “Occupy America” protests. His cohorts are inciting them. Blog: stopobamanowsd.wordpress.com Impeach Obama Tea Party: www.facebook.com

Rose Gottemoeller (Assistant Secretary of State USA, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance) Marcin Zaborowski (PISM)

Check out these National Security images:

Rose Gottemoeller (Assistant Secretary of State USA, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance) Marcin Zaborowski (PISM)
National Security
Image by Polish Institute of International Affairs
Meeting at PISM: THE WAY FORWARD AFTER NEW START

On 10 February 2011 Rose Gottemoeller spoke at PISM about New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START).

Rose Gottemoeller was sworn in as the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, on April 6, 2009. She was the chief negotiator of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the Russian Federation. Since 2000, she had been with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She most recently was a senior associate in the Carnegie Russia & Eurasia Program in Washington, D.C., where she worked on U.S.–Russian relations and nuclear security and stability. She also served as the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from January 2006 – December 2008.

Formerly Deputy Undersecretary of Energy for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and before that, Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation and National Security, also at the Department of Energy, she was responsible for all nonproliferation cooperation with Russia and the Newly Independent States. She first joined the Department of Energy in November 1997 as director of the Office of Nonproliferation and National Security.

Prior to her work at the Department of Energy, Ms. Gottemoeller served for 3 years as Deputy Director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. From 1993 to 1994, she served on the National Security Council in the White House as director for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Affairs, with responsibility for denuclearization in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Previously, she was a social scientist at RAND and a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. She has taught on Soviet military policy and Russian security at Georgetown University.

Ms. Gottemoeller received a B.S. from Georgetown University, and a M.A. from George Washington University. She is fluent in Russian.

Markle Talk Force
National Security
Image by Esthr
David Farber, Jeff Jonas, Stewart Baker …all capable of taking a joke!

Coast Guard Cutter Bertolf moors at Coast Guard base Kodiak 1
National Security
Image by U.S. Coast Guard
KODIAK, Alaska – The Coast Guard Cutter Bertolf, a 418-foot national security cutter homeported in Alameda, Calif., moors in snowy conditions at Coast Guard base Kodiak April 14, 2011, so the Bertolf’s crew can attend the North Pacific Regional Fisheries Training Center. The cutter is the first of eight planned national security cutters commissioned to replace the aging 378-foot High Endurance Hamilton Class cutters that have been in service since the 1960s. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Charly Hengen.

110414-G-RS249-6214-Bertolf moors at Kodiak Island

Peaceful Republic or Police State?

May 20, 2011 – Judge Napolitano on how our freedoms have been systematically wiped out since the Constitution was signed RonPaul2012.com Ron Paul Video Playlist www.youtube.com Rand Paul Video Playlist www.youtube.com Peter Schiff Video Playlist www.youtube.com Jesse Ventura Video Playlist www.youtube.com Freedom Watch Video Playlist www.youtube.com Gerald Celente Friends safetyjoe-infobomb.blogspot.com Max Keiser Video Player safetyjoe-infobomb.blogspot.com Alex Jones Video Player safetyjoe-infobomb.blogspot.com FAIRUSE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 USC section 107 of the US Copyright Law. judge napolitano, freedom watch,
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Part 2 of Fatal Extraction. B’stard’s plan to become a billionaire threatens the constitution, the monarchy and any ”mediorcre” family. in Britain.

Washington State, Catholic Resident Fires Back at Atheist Group’s Anti-Religion Placard next to Christian Nativity Scene

Washington State, Catholic Resident Fires Back at Atheist Group’s Anti-Religion Placard next to Christian Nativity Scene











Photo by Associated Press


Olympia, WA (PRWEB) December 6, 2008

A Washington State Resident is responding publicly to a state sanctioned atheist attack on the Christmas holiday.

Steve Sanborn of Mead, Washington, this week sent a formal email to the Washington State Attorney General’s office with hopes he might persuade state officials to understand that an atheistic attack on religion is not equal to an artful depiction of historical religious beliefs.

The state this week authorized a placard to be placed in the state Capitol by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) of Madison, Wisconsin. The placard is placed next to an authorized Christian Nativity scene. Several Christian organizations are also filing complaints to the state.

Sanborn says the offensive placard is not a statement of belief but rather an attack on Christ-centered holy days and Christianity itself.

The placard reads, in part, “At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

“Merry Christmas to you too,” Sanborn said. “I’m a Catholic and the placard posted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation essentially states that I am therefore cruel and stupid – and the state has sanctioned this?

“Even Ebenezer Scrooge opted to leave Christmas alone. Why can’t atheists be as generous as Scrooge at Christmas and leave it alone?” Sanborn asked.

The Nativity scene and Atheist placard were installed alongside each other in a hallway between the state Senate and House chambers, separated by a large bust of the state’s namesake, George Washington. These and other displays were granted permits from state groundskeepers to be placed in the Capitol’s grand marble hallways.

Sanborn said he does not recall FFRF ever making a public foray when Muslim or Jewish holidays are in season.

“We live in a predominantly Christian nation, not an atheist one. If it is equal time these people want, then perhaps they ought to erect their own stable with no one in it,” Sanborn said. “This would actually reflect what they believe rather than attack those who believe otherwise.”

FFRF co-president, Dan Barker, was quoted in recent news as saying it was important for atheists to offer their viewpoint alongside the overtly religious Nativity scene.

“Our members want equal time. Not to muscle, not to coerce, but just to have a place at the table,” said Barker.

“For the state to assert that such a placard is somehow equal in the world of ideas merely shows its inability to be logical,” Sanborn stated. “Will the state now allow me to offer my viewpoint on a placard that says Atheism is a form of insanity?”

As Bill O’Reilly did earlier this week, Sanborn says he encourages other Christians to contact Washington State Governor, Christine Gregoire, at 360-902-4111 to respectfully tell her how they feel about the offensive placard.

Contact Steve Sanborn via email at emptystable @ gmail.com.

###




















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







In comparison to the United States Constitution, how difficult is it to amend State constitutions?

Question by Bob J: In comparison to the United States Constitution, how difficult is it to amend State constitutions?
The United States Constitution is much easier to amend.

They are both very difficult to amend.

Some State constitutions are easier to amend, but most are more difficult

State constitutions are relatively easy to amend.

Best answer:

Answer by wartz
My state California, is much easier. It took a majority vote of the voters last week. The US Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of congress to send an amendment to the states and approval by 3.4 of them before it is ratified.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement as Proposition 8 Passes in the State

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement as Proposition 8 Passes in the State











Los Angeles (PRWEB) November 5, 2008

As reported today by the Wall Street Journal California voters passed Proposition 8. According to California Family Law Attorney Veronika Melamed of the law offices of Feinberg & Waller, A.P.C., the measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California. Now that the voters of California have passed Proposition 8, and amended the State’s Constitution, what does this mean for the state and for the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that have been solemnized since June 17, 2008? And, what can proponents of same-sex marriage do now?

The voters of California have chosen to amend the state’s Constitution to explicitly provide that, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Coming in reaction to the state’s Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage in California, opponents of same-sex marriage sought assurance that no future court decisions would again grant same-sex marriage rights in California.

The California Supreme Court is delegated with the task of upholding the state’s Constitution and assessing whether the laws enacted by the Legislature and the voters comply with the Constitution. In carrying out this task, the Supreme Court’s decision in May 2008, granting same-sex couples the right to marry, was based on its interpretation of the California Constitution and whether Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5, defining marriage as, “between a man and a woman” comported with the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s Constitution.

In the course of its analysis, the California Supreme Court ruled that Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5 were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and that same-sex couples could marry in California. The Supreme Court’s decision was based solely on constitutional analysis, and centered on the fact that the prohibition against same-sex marriage was a law, and that it violated the Constitution. This, then, became the foundation for Proposition 8: unlike the state’s previous attempts to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman through the enactment of legislative provisions, such as with 2000’s Proposition 22 which added Family Code Section 308.5, this year opponents of same-sex marriage placed an initiative on the ballot to actually amend the California Constitution.

The difference is significant: while the Supreme Court may strike down laws for being in violation of the State’s Constitution in performing its job of enforcing the Constitution, the Supreme Court lacks the power to overrule a constitutional provision. By making Proposition 8 an amendment to the Constitution, the law ensures that the Supreme Court must enforce the provision, and must now ensure that other laws comply with this Constitutional provision.

And now the questions begin: with a Constitution that may now prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, through its definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, what will happen to those same-sex marriages that were solemnized when marriage between same-sex couples was “legal?” And, if the public wants another change, what can be done to “undo” Proposition 8? The question of what happens to current same-sex marriages has no easy answer, nor is the passage of Proposition 8 the last California may hear on the topic of same-sex marriage.

One of the main issues that must be resolved in answering the question of what will happen to current same-sex marriages is whether the new constitutional amendment is retroactive in its application; that is, does it now invalidate the same-sex marriages that occurred following the Supreme Court’s ruling in May 2008? As reported in the Los Angeles Times, some constitutional scholars believe that the new amendment will only affect prospective same-sex marriage, leaving intact those same-sex couples that married before Proposition 8 passed. The experts base their opinions on judicial history where courts have traditionally made constitutional amendments retroactive only if they were explicitly written that way, resisting an abrogation of people’s rights and freedoms unless directly mandated to do so. In support of the argument that Proposition 8 is not intended to apply retroactively, scholars point out to the Los angeles times that nothing in the proposed language states that the constitutional amendment will be retroactive in its application. Furthering the argument against retroactive application is California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s statement issued through his office on August 4, 2008, that Proposition 8 will be prospective in its application, leaving intact the same-sex marriages entered into prior to its passage.

Others say that the retroactive application of Proposition 8 will depend on whether the Proposition was intended by the voters to be retroactive, and point to the language contained in the California Voter Guide which states that, “A ‘YES’ vote on this measure means: The California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Those who believe that Proposition 8 will be retroactive in nature argue that the language in the California Voter Guide expressly states, and informs the voting public, that passage of the proposed amendment will affect the validity and recognition of same-sex marriage, and will apply regardless of when or where the marriages were performed. The implication in this interpretation of the Proposition goes beyond California’s borders: in addition to invalidating same-sex marriages performed in California, the State and its agencies and offices will be prohibited from recognizing or validating same-sex marriages performed in any other state or country, even if legal and recognized where performed.

Ironically, as both positions have legal validity, it will be up to the California Supreme Court – the same court whose ruling allowed same-sex marriage – to interpret whether Proposition 8 was intended to be retroactive or prospective. And until such time as this question is decided, same-sex married couples will be in a “legal limbo” waiting for third parties to determine their fate. If it is eventually determined that Proposition 8 was, in fact, retroactive, then same-sex couples will find their marriages to be of no legal effect in California, and they will be denied the rights and expectations they had enjoyed until Proposition 8 was passed. If, however, Proposition 8 is found to be prospective in its application, then there will be a group of same-sex couples who will continue to be married, most likely forfeiting that appellation only in the event that they should ever divorce.

What options are available to those who still oppose Proposition 8 , and what can be done about the constitutional language in the future? If the language proposed by Proposition 8 is part of the California Constitution, one of the alternatives for proponents of same-sex marriage is to change the Constitution. Proponents will need to draft language proposing a repeal of any newly-enacted amendment or an altogether new amendment to be included in the Constitution. They will then need to raise the requisite 694,354 signatures to have the amendment certified for the next electoral ballot. California will then go through the same battles and arguments as it did during this election, with the voters again determining whether the Constitution will be amended on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The other alternative is further legal battles. Opponents of Proposition 8 may argue to the courts that passage of the amendment is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits any group from being treated differently than any other. Opponents may also argue that passage of Proposition 8 is violative of the U.S. Constitution’s Contracts Clause prohibiting states from enacting laws that impair contracts, and that marriage is, after all, nothing more than a contract. Both of these arguments will likely be undertaken in the federal courts, and may eventually end up being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear these arguments.

For the full history of same-sex marriage in California go to the article Same sex Marriage in California at http://www.Feinbergwaller.com/CM/Custom/family-law-Publication.asp

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Related The Constitution Press Releases

How do state constitutions compare in length and detail to the United States constitution?

Question by dicegamble: How do state constitutions compare in length and detail to the United States constitution?
How do state constitutions compare in length and detail to the United States constitution
Please help!!!

Best answer:

Answer by optical illusion
Here are some helpful links for your review.

Constitution for the United States of America
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

Each state in the United States has its own constitution. Of course, all state constitutions are inferior (in a legal sense) to the United States Constitution, and when reading state constitutions, this must be kept in mind – a state constitution, for example, cannot validly authorize a state religion. However, many state constitutions guarantee civil rights that the United States Constitution does not. The Vermont Constitution, for example, abolished slavery long before the U.S. Constitution did so.

Below is a list of links to online versions of state constitutions.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/usstcons.htm

The following U.S. territories also have constitutions:
American Samoa
http://www.asbar.org/asconst.htm
Guam
http://www.guamattorneygeneral.com/pdf/oa2000.pdf
Puerto Rico
http://premium.caribe.net/~amvr/constitu.htm
US Virgin Islands
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode48/usc_sup_01_48_10_7.html

o_O

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Pro-Putin Weaver Lands State Duma Seat

Pro-Putin Weaver Lands State Duma Seat
A weaver from the Ivanovo region who shot to fame in 2007 for demanding that the Constitution be amended to allow Vladimir Putin to serve a third term as president has been handed a United Russia seat in the State Duma.
Read more on The Moscow Times

Indiana Senate approves marriage amendment
The Indiana Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly OK’d a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage and civil unions.
Read more on Indianapolis Business Journal

Cutting Edge Concerts Featuring Laurie Anderson Work – Review
Victoria Bond’s Cutting Edge Concerts series highlights recent works, and chats with their composers.
Read more on New York Times

Malloy Expresses Solidarity With State Employees; Rift With N.J. Governor Widens

Malloy Expresses Solidarity With State Employees; Rift With N.J. Governor Widens
Hundreds of union members and their allies gathered on the Capitol grounds Wednesday afternoon in an act of solidarity with public employees in Wisconsin.
Read more on Hartford Courant