|
Ron, It does not matter who administers it---it is illegal to force anyone---a man, woman or any combination thereof. Bloated, corrupt, government, whether state or local, is just about politics as usual...whatever is popular at the time is what makes politicians tick. They don't give a crap about individual citizens. To administer any kind of forced payment, just because a few people think it is the moral thing to do, is a false premise which ends in defiance. In practically every situation where government gets envolved with dispensing morality via legislation, failure is the end result!! The only way for us to overcome a dispicable government is to resist it with as much resource as we have available to us, including every dirty trick that they have used on us. Resistance and going underground are acceptable...A f__king men and hallelujah!! |
-- "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message k.net... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article t, Bob Whiteside says... "J" wrote in message roups.com... I think the fifty state models could actually help with 14th amendment challenges to unfair CS awards. Georgia just declared their guidelines unconstitutional, maybe other states could follow? What about a challenge based on equal protection because state formulas differ so much? Just a thought.... 14th amendment challenges to CS law have been tried repeatedly using different legal tactical approaches. While there has been some success in getting CS law ruled unconstitutional at the trial court level, the appellate process has consistently overturned the trial court judges. ==== In *state* appellate courts--And it does not necessarily follow that federal courts would rule similarly. ==== That is true. Read Mark Levin's book "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America" for a real eye opener on how the U.S. Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional authority and imposed personal preferencewww, policies on our nation regarding issues like marriage/divorce that are not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. So the question I have is simple - Why should five supreme court justices be allowed to rule on a state rights issue like marriage/divorce involving only one state and have their decision become the law of the land for all states? I have often thought there should be an amendment that requires the congress to make a law after the scotus rules. IOW's scotus rules on an issue,then the ruling would be taken up by the congress,debated, and laws changed or created based on the ruling rather than the courts decision be followed as law.Or maybe more congressional oversight should be applied After all, this is a representitve republic,right? Not to mention the fact that the judicial branch was to be the weakest branch...It seems to me that a system like that would quell the *appearence* of judicial activism...I didnt say it was a good idea...;) "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." --Herbert Spencer theelectricguns.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com