Free Republic

>
In 1947 Everson v Board of Education a liberal court took the words separation between church & state out of the letter and used just those words out of context. This is where the so-called separation of church & state comes from. This his been uses ever since to remove religion from everything. The court need to put those words back in the letter and look at the complete meaning
>

Personally, I’d prefer to refer to the plain text of the Constitution: CONGRESS shall, nothing about the States, which rolls to the 9th/10th.

His letter, after the signing, can be referenced, but ultimately conveys NO bearing upon the 1st.

All we need is the courts pulling phrases out of every pamphlet/letter/parchment of the time to justify their personal wants.

“...The Boathouse, says more than 30 immigrant workers left in fear after a Department of Homeland Security worker hand-delivered a letter demanding documentation of their immigration status....”

Can SOMEONE tell me why ICE was not waiting in the wings?

Only govt can tip its hand, allow criminals to slip through their fingers, then claim ignorance\how ‘tough’ the job and a need for a bigger budget....and more (fire)power.

Tommy Sotomayor. Paging Tommy Sotomayor

>
I worked a construction job near this so-called high school 6 years ago. It’s in a hellhole known as Mastic Beach. The same place where last week the two ‘youths’ stole a guy’s dirt bike and he mowed them down with his minivan in return.
>

Damn. I hope he didn’t damage his van too badly

>
We have hundreds of brain-damaged people wandering around outside my downtown office building right now. Brain damaged from drugs and euphemistically called “the homeless.” The police are constantly dealing with them, and they are often violent and deranged. Huges spikes in crime
>

And across the fruited plains we have scores of Citizens killed in their domiciles, in the middle of the night, from no-knock raids (some @ wrong addresses), property confiscated w/o ever being convicted of a crime, and 330M+ ‘*potential* terrorists/drug-users/$$ laundering’ that the banks are tasked w/ keeping track of every transaction/withdraw/deposit (violating the 4th/5th), and keeping and bearing arms is now a privilege (req. permit in most instances)....

Think I’ll take the brain-damaged over infringing upon Rights of We the People. Least the former are consequence of their action(s) in a (once) Free country. Where the family has failed, the govt fails more often/worst degree (let PC close the nut houses, can’t ship ‘em out so they endanger others, etc.).

Seems those that refuse to learn from history have inflicted worse upon the land....At least Prohibition was valid and Constitutional, not by some illegal ‘law’\decree w/o valid authorization.

Course, them negro jazz singers are to blame.... /s

Can we ‘demote’ Roberts and promote Gorsuch?

Roberts needs to be shown how its done (so far) correctly.

>
Wait for President Trump’s 2nd and 3rd USSC picks.....

Liberal heads will explode and the Republic will be safe for 40 years.....
>

Unfort., he’s not only got to worry about the (D), he’s got to overcome the eunuchs of Congress, which will, more than happily, bend over and grab their ankles than be ‘beneath the office’ and press their cause.

Fight? HEAVEN forbid the thought!

>
Ah.

The “progressive constitutional project”.

By all means, let’s hear more about this “project”.
>

Shit, that’s EASY: Reduce every/all inalienable Right to privileges and ruled by govt decree.

Oh, Slate, you ignorant slut....

“He is an uncompromising reactionary and an unmitigated disaster for the progressive constitutional project.”

Reactionary? Seems he consults the ONLY ‘settled Law’ that matters: the Constitution.

And, if the phrase ‘progressive constitutional project’, isn’t one of the biggest oxymoron I’ve read in a long time...

>
“That didn’t require FCC or govt intervention to figure out.”

How sure are you that there aren’t FCC limits on how much power my wireless transmitters can put out? My computer certainly has FCC written on it.

And this article seems to say it too:

http://wiki.robotz.com/index.php/FCC_Regulations_on_WiFi.
>

Proves my point again. Yes, you are correct on the power ‘push’ limit...for the 2.GHz band. Don’t remember if on the 5GHz range though. Technology improves, options expand, issues resolve.

And, like most ‘law’, unenforceable. I ain’t seen any FCC/govt vehicle rolling up the street, testing the broadcast power of any WiFi signal.

Doesn’t mean a hill of beans too for those knowledgeable enough to roll-their-own firmware to bypass said restrictions.

The rest of the scenario still applies...diff channels, distances between.

See, everyone wants the best signal possible. People are more than capable of making that happen on their own. Aside from nefarious reasons, why would ANYONE want interference (nobody’s trying to watch the encrypted Skinamax channel anymore, right /s), so why would they do the same for TV/radio/WiFi/cell/etc.?? Don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly enjoy seeing/hearing static. :)

>
If no limit, I could put a linear on my laptop and use my home network at work (miles away). Of course so could anyone else, which is why it needs to be regulated.
>

You mean aside from physics? Even if you were using light based communication (laser), one still needs to worry about 1) Curvature of the Earth 2) obstacles 3) particle spread 4) weather 5) delay 6) orientation....Looks good on paper, but to implement?? Bah! (I’ve tried) /s

Still, say you COULD. What would others need to do to interfere in your setup? On/across your trajectory? Same transmission method(s)? Times of day? That still leaves a multitude of options for others to utilize, w/o issue.

Biz do this all the time. Find what/where is in use around, and find a route w/ the least interference. Might be same setup as the neighbor, but tweak ONE thing...Doesn’t mean they can’t be neighborly either and help each other.

All, not needing GOVT tentacles to accomplish.

Boy, talk about hijacking a thread :P

>
I understand your point - I’m taking the position that we’re so far from winning that argument, we need to frame this specific case in a context we can win while living under “discrimination” laws as they’re defined today.
>

Sorry, but what would framing the debate improperly\illogically gain? Govt cannot follow the simple English of the Constitution, but a nuanced argument, they’ll ‘see the light’??

Fine, we win one. What does that single, small cut-out gain us from the long train of abuses??

>
Everyone is pre-programmed to think “discrimination = bad”. Unless we can show that we’re not violating the law we’ll lose.
>

IMO, you can chalk that up to govt, shitty ‘leaders’ and shittier electorate. Govt education not teaching critical thinking (harder to control), parents allowing the same and ‘leaders’ who couldn’t articulate how to fold a paper airplane...Yet, expect ‘em to talk to Joe-6-pk how we ALL discriminate, and that’s not a bad thing?

99% of these douches have NEVER worked in their lives. *WE* pay for their every wish in and out of office. They’re going to rock-the-boat on THAT gig??

>
Which means we must differentiate the different types of discrimination, an event vs. a person. We will lose if the context is just “not serving a person”.
>

Sorry, but that’s WAY too nuanced. Want to keep it ‘winnable’ and on the electorate level, IMO, stick w/ the “right to refuse service” angle. Still in the populace vocabulary, easy to understand and apply across the spectrum (and grow out from different scenarios).

Course, they win on that front, there’s no more ‘personal discrimination’ allowed in the U.S. (IE: best keek yo mouth SHUT.)

>
MEANWHILE, b4 winning THAT battle, we can admit it is ALSO unconstitutional to discriminate against the religious when the government IS handing out favors.
>

HA! You expect govt to be consistent/logical while being in this illegal state of being? /s

>
I agree but I was talking about pushing leftist or perverted actions from a minority of citizens on to the majority that might not be in agreement.
>

I believe I concurred w/ your statement, FRiend. (180 from our Founding....minority over the majority); perversion or no.

>
That train left the station 100 years ago. I think government has an obligation to mitigate the damage it has caused.
>

You expect govt to mitigate what it caused? How? You can’t get ‘em to even fess up they are THE problem (just look at the crap w/ the Colorado mine. “Wasn’t me.” “Can’t help ‘em, we don’t have the $$”.)

Hell, we have elected officials DEAD TO RIGHTS, and they never police (arrest/jail) their own. Govt have EXEMPTED itself from the laws they pass upon US; *their* MASTERS...not the other way around.

>
I also think pragmatism is a conservative value. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. That includes what is politically possible.
>

Ah, politically possible. How’d that pragmatism work vs. the 6 O’Care repeal bills passed before Trump took office? Couldn’t seem to find the ‘political capital’ after they were ushered into the W.H and Congress w/ majorities.

PP (even after SHOWING their illegality selling fetal parts)? Foreign Aid (taxpayer $$ pissed away). Hell, they can’t even de-fund NEA and NPR!

40+ years been waiting for the other ‘1/2 of the loaf’ re: illegal aliens; won’t even TOUCH Roe v. Wade.

MOST *powerful* branch of the 3 and not ONE G*-damn thing done to roll back ANYTHING over the past 8 years, let alone 40+.

FULL control of Congress, last time, gave us: NCLB, Part-D, TSA, NSA and a bunch of other Freedom\Right trampling works.

So, excuse me if I don’t follow that “Thank you, sir, can I have another” school of political thought.

Appreciate keeping it civil, it’s sorely lacking around here recently.

Let’s look to what the govt wants to do to w/ the internet. The same as they’ve done w/ the FCC (IE: *CONTROL*). Luckily, that genie isn’t going back and, I’d bet $$ to do-nuts, they’d have a damn quick ‘Revolution III’ should they decide to attempt it; even if for the good of the Public, of course.

>
Well, airways are a finite resource. If left totally unregulated, we may not be very happy with the results...mostly likely resulting in totally unusable frequencies, due to everyone stepping on everyone else.
>

‘Finite’ is only a limit of existing technology/science. Let’s take radio for example: What required a broad spectrum at the dawn of radio can now be broadcast to the nearest .1 on the FM dial. What’s that today...88.x to 107.x?? That’s quite a bit of broadcasting going on.

Airways are also limited by geography and distance. Energy needed to drive signals further and further out; you’re ‘stepping on toes’ would most likely occur at the *fringes*/overlaps of each range, not where a signal is stronger\est.

That ‘quite a bit’, from above, is multiplied over NUMEROUS geographical locations, utilizing the SAME frequencies for its region...it’s not ‘D.C. can ONLY have 101.1, and nobody else can use it’. And biz would be stupid to create the conflicts by setting up the SAME freq. so close together; whereas alternating frequencies would cause no issue (City A @ 100FM, City B @ 105FM, City C @ 100FM)

Just as the Free Market today works w/ WiFi in your ‘hood. EVERYONE doesn’t use the same channel (freq). And those on the other end of the block aren’t interfering w/ your end (distance/geography). That didn’t require FCC or govt intervention to figure out.

>
But the FCC has to TOTALLY get out of the policing business regarding speech. They should only be involved in divvying up the airways and that is it.
>

R-I-G-H-T. Because no govt agency/dept/etc. has grown beyond its charter/scope and all have stayed within the budget confines from their inception. (SEE: Fed Reserve, EPA, NSA).

Govt lives to grow GOVT, not Freedom, not choice and NEVER freely\cheaply.

The ONLY way to get the FCC out of policing is to abolish it absolutely.

>
Even if the story was true, why is it a problem if the FCC chairman is meeting Trump? Doesn’t he work for Trump? They keep acting as if Trump is some malevolent outside force that shouldn’t be interacting with the USG.
>

Well, I for one HOPE he’s a outside, malevolent force...that rips 99% of Fedzilla by the roots and takes it to its knees.

One can hope, no?

Scary enough I had to read one here, defending the FCC *smh*

I’m pretty sure it was an honest mistake. With all the ‘diversity training’, they never go around to all the cool noises the boat could make. /s

>
A monument to 3% of the population.

Only in America. It’s been going on for way too many years......the minority overrides the majority.
>

Considering we’re 180 from our Constitutional founding (protecting the minority from the majority), I’d say that’s to be expected.

>
At the very least she should be impeached for cultural appropriation for those wig hats. I mean if there’s reason to try to impeach Trump with ZERO evidence, then the wigs must surely be grounds for her.
>

Believe the proper term is: Hair-hatted hooligan. /s

Acting like a fool again...
- Tony S.

>
Or a Jewish print shop being required to produce flyers for Nazi’s.

This MUST be framed in terms of free speech and coerced speech. This IS discrimination - but against an EVENT not the PERSON. Between forced servitude and coerced speech this is requiring you to put your labor toward an EVENT with which you have a conscientious objection to. It is part of being able to live according to your beliefs.

If a baker won’t sell a ready-made cake on the shelf to somebody because they’re gay that is one thing, it is entirely another when you’re requiring somebody to enter into a contract to create something for an event they don’t agree with. This is NOT discrimination against a person but an event.

Unless this perspective is argued, that it is more of a free speech issue than religious freedom, the point is lost. The argument will otherwise be that religious beliefs don’t trump discriminating against a person. That is not the point.
>

Sorry FRiend, but THAT’s some fuzzy logic right there (no pun intended).

In no way is discrimination ‘bad’, be that vs. any noun. That is called freedom of CHOICE; to associate, or not.

Operating a biz, owning some parcel, etc. does not take that Right away; does speaking on a soap-box on the street corner (public accommodation) negate your 1st A. Rights?

One is free to, or not, do anything they wish. The market/word of mouth will show how those choices are perceived.

It is not a matter only dealing w/ the 1st, but Freedom in general.