Weekly/biweekly Michigan legislative activism thread December 7, 2012
Rick Snyder’s twitter account if you want to offer some direct encouragement.
https://twitter.com/onetoughnerd
What happened today is more reason to pass the gun bill.
>>In his statement, union president Cook said, “Those who think that students and teachers will be safer with MORE guns in our schools are just plain wrong. Thinking that teachers should carry weapons and fire on threats is a recipe for even more death — not safety,” he said.
Note: Union president.
Note: Makes pronouncements without backing it up with data.
>>“I hope Governor Snyder understands this and vetoes SB 59, not only for the safety of our children but out of respect for those who died today in Connecticut,” Cook said Friday.
Interesting logic. Would he recommend a veto of 0bamacare after hearing about a child who died as a result of socialized medicine?
If my child had died, I doubt I would feel he was respected due to a politician vetoing a bill.
It only took 30 seconds for the screaming gun-grabbers to take to the streets after this nutcase goes on a rampage in CT.
Certainly it is a tragedy. It should never be the children. No parent should ever have to bury a child.
But, the guns are not the culprit here. The culprit took the coward’s way out. And, we’ll be bombarded with psycho-babble profiles and self-righteous libtard outrage for weeks, along with calls to outlaw the only tools that MAY preserve this grand experiment.
Better we should home school whenever possible; and, secure the schools when it’s not.
This is a far different world than the one in which I grew up. It is a world that calls for constant vigilance, and constant preparedness.
Lets have a conversation on How every one of these killers
were mentaly Ill!! and how the mental health world shields them, and blocks the actions needed to stop them.
These Deaths are directly caused by Liberals.
These so called “Gun Free Zones” are a Joke....
Well the gun-free zone certainly helped the victims today, didn’t it? No, of course it didn’t.
Why? Because...
A gun-free zone is a murder-zone.
It’s an area where someone will be free to kill as many people as they can without fear of retaliation for a good 10 minutes or so, maybe more.
They only thing that stops the deadly force of a bad person is the deadly force of a good person.
The gunman went into that school building knowing he was the only one who would be armed. One has to wonder if he’d have so brazenly gone in not knowing everyone else was unarmed. One suspects there have been more shooting in schools than in say, police precincts.
One of the local talking heads was trying to take this stance today, pointing out how much he supports the 2nd Amendment, etc, ad nauseum & that we shouldn't jump to conclusions - and then he did exactly that 2 minutes later. I didn't bother to call in since he's just plays at being conservative, but I was disgusted (much like Lou Dobbs tonight) that the libtards instantly started their caterwauling. ((Not to say it wasn't coming, but within an hour of this happening - absolutely appalling.))
“Regardless of what the details and facts are”
Pretty much the basis of every useful idiot’s “thinking.”
There is NO Guilt by Association on the part of gun owners. Punish killers not law abiding citizens. If you still insist upon associated guilt you socialists and Marxists are the most blood thirsty and murderous people that have ever existed on the planet. So...lets take your guns away then we will have peace in the world. That will really save lives. Right? Idiots
I’m waiting for the companion story about Steve Cook giving up his guns to set an example for everyone else.
Only a union goon or politician (or those who blindly vote for and follow them) could equate disarming someone against violence for protecting them from violence.
Mark
When was the last time that muslim or arab terrorists massacred children at an Israeli school? Oh yes, that was BEFORE the teachers were armed!
How many armed good guys were at the school in Beslan before the attack? ZERO!
Mark
Is every labor union official lacking common sense? (rhet)
If potential shooters of people in schools or churches KNOW that there will likely be people in those places who are carrying, they would most likely change their plans to shoot the places up... unless they were like this Adam Lanza who planned on dieing in advance.
The first thing the communists do after seizing power is to disarm the populace.
We need a ban on communists in the Federal Government.
The degenerate communist union bosses are pissed that their membership has been freed from compulsory withholding of union dues , thats what this is about and nothing else.
That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.
As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.
We are getting ready to hit the CPUSA and the American communist movement so hard that they wont have time to crawl back under the rocks they came out from.
No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.
If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.
There’s nothing patently illegal about the next GOP POTU issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision
Its stupid to allow the Communists to use the same mechanism (witholding) the Federal apparatus uses to fund itself.
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) 381 U.S. 437
UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 399. Argued March 29, 1965. Decided June 7, 1965.
Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.
(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.
(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.
(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.
(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.
(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, “shorthand” expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.
(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 ,which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.
(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.
334 F.2d 488, affirmed.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.
Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a union’s access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union’s officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]
Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with “knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504.” It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .
Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pro-union-activist-michigan-governor-well-be-your-daughters-soccer-game_666554.html
"The union president offered the condolences of the Michigan Education Association’s members and said, “I am a gun owner and avid outdoorsman, but something must be done to protect our children from such acts of violence.”
Brilliant. One union member expresses condolences for the children at the school shooting, and another union member threatens the Governors child. Effing retards.
Hey, Teacher’s Union
Leave My Guns Alone! (little Pink Floyd to start the convo)
Dear Teacher’s Union of my state:
Don’t blame the guns and the whackos completely. While you have been getting raises and more days off, our classrooms go without emergency exits. Our schools are not secured (I can just walk into any one of my grandkids schools, no one checks me out). Our kids and their teachers go without active shooter training and drills. So you just shut the hell up! Oh, and dude? You’ll probably be hearing about that crazy old grandma who paid visits to some schools in Michigan and DEMANDED to know what the schools plan to do in case of an active shooter. You’ll hear that she did a walk-thru of the school, pointing out the different ways a shooter can not only get around, but take advantage of the “lock-down” method. You’ll be hearing from a lot of us. Get ready, it’s gonna get hot in your seat!