Posted on 12/23/2017 1:07:44 PM PST by iowamark
However democrat controlled counties in Texas have never really been that smart. Especially in the valley where they are 98% PRO wetback ran.
Run it just like Mehico
Have you seen the way the Mehico(ans) treat newspaper people who expose the drug cartels? They disappear or are found dead.
The Rio Grand valley has a lot of corruption. Both the Anglo and Tejano population (and often local government) in the Valley are unlike most of the rest of the state.
By the way, Lagordiloca means “the fat crazy woman”.
I think we have a very serious case of violating freedom of speech here. If she stole the information from the police it is one thing. If she overheard or obtained the information personally this is unlawful censorship and intimidation!
Go back to law school
OH yeah. Spent a decade in the valley area (longer if you count running steers) chasing these grass crawling illegal invaders and working with CSO. I know the politics and the back door deals that happen.
Why is that one female smiling ?
Yep, old tradition.
Would the Laredo Police Department arrest Woodward and Bernstein? Or Walter Cronkite? Or Edward R. Murrow? Or Jake Tapper? Or any of the “news organizations” that are reporting what is being leaked to them today about Trump? Reporters report information. It’s what they’re supposed to do.
Cops are constantly “asking” reporters to “sit on info”. The key word being “asking”.
From an article on Weegee:
"Gritty photographer Arthur Fellig - better known under the alias Weegee - made a name for himself by documenting the harsh reality of crime, injury and death while covering New York City from the 1930s into the 1940s. Check out some of the pioneer crime scene photographer's most famous work ... Most people are trained to smile when they see a camera flash, but this woman found a most inopportune moment to showcase her pearly whites. In this 1940 Weegee photo, she smiles on the beach in Coney Island next to her drowned boyfriend's lifeless body."
So that I can listen to a bunch of shit-heads tell me that the plain meaning of something is not really the actual meaning because a bunch of black-robed god-kings say so?
No thanks.
All you have to do to convince yourself that the USSC is populated by a bunch of shitheads is read Schenck v. United States:
They set up the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding Congress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, and bringing the case here on that ground have argued some other points also of which we must dispose. […] Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. […] We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights.Translation: Even if the Constitution prohibited without exception the ability of Congress to pass laws regarding speech, the Congress has an interest in speech and can therefore pass such laws.
Or take Kelo v. New London, which allows the government to imagine some increase in taxation [ie projections] to seize private property and turn it over to another private entity and use that as satisfying the "public use" portion of eminent domain. — That's right, under Kelo the government can simply imagine some increase in taxes resulting from taking your property and BAM! it's legitimate. [According to the USSC.] — Actually, here's a little thought experiment:
The 15th is clear:
Amendment 15
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
See the underlined? It explicitly restricts both the states themselves as well as the federal government.
You’re still not getting it...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
What portion there allows the judiciary to alter the Constitution? — Either Congress shall […]
applies to only to Congress as it is written, or it does not. If it does not, then there is something which must alter the First Amendment.
The Fourteenth does not do this — if anything the privilege or immunity
of the First Amendment is to be free from Congress [eg] imposing a State Religion across the whole of the US is held perfectly in place by restricting Congres… there is no such privilege or immunity
which constrains the states except under their own Constitutions. In Other Words, there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment which would actually alter the First Amendment in its application implicitly. To claim otherwise is to accept the usurpations of the Judiciary, allowing them power over the Constitution and making themselves superior to it.
The end result of this claim is to make the commissioned superior to the commissioner, to elevate the messenger above him that sent the message, to make the servant greater than the master — instead of the Judiciary being subject to the restrictions of the Constitution, it becomes its master, lording their own will over everyone, wrapping it up in legalese and bludgeoning everyone while coyly claiming that they're upholding the Constitution.
"...wrapping it up in legalese and bludgeoning everyone while coyly claiming that they're upholding the Constitution."
Merry Christmas and Happy New Years to you and your family/friends.
Love is an emotion that has value only when shared. I love you all.
And why not!!!
You want to learn of your family member’s possible death while you are checking facebook?
BS to your comment
And who checks FB ‘religiously’?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.