Free Republic

are you an antisemite preterist ?

So, in your view, anyone who rejects Darbyite nonsense -- which is what "dispensationalism" originally represented, although, concededly, it has been considerably retrofitted over the past 200 years so as to remove some of the stench of outright heresy -- is an "antisemite" and a "preterist"?

I would ask if you know how absolutely crazy you come across to us believers, followers of Christ, who reject dispensationalism and dispensationalist-based eschatology, but who are neither antisemitic nor do we subscribe to preterism. I would ask, except I think I already know the answer to my question.

The underlying problem, I think, is that the average American "evangelical" nowadays is, I'm sorry to say, as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Many such cases.

Every law student will be exposed to this on the first day of class.

Uh, I must have been out that first day then, because I was never "exposed to this." In fact, what you're asserting never came up in three years. Sorry.

Landry is going in the wrong direction. If conservatives want to do something useful on this front, they should push to get government out of education altogether.

"Public" education should be abolished, at every level. That would solve a host of societal problems right there.

Suing “Pfizer” is not the answer. Go after the people who run Pfizer. The company did nothing. Those who run it should not walk away with their golden parachutes.

The company Pfizer should be sued. The individual people at Pfizer responsible for making these decisions should be hanged.

Ron Paul knows full well the answer to the (rhetorical) question he is posing. The Globalist American Empire is in the process of collapsing. What we are witnessing now is the "looting the public treasury" stage of the process.

I welcome and applaud the former. I deplore the second but recognize that that always comes with the territory.

Using the Bush / Cheney as an example, Cheney changed residence so the electors in Texas could also vote for him otherwise he’d have been in Texas and would have lost 32 electoral votes and we’d have had Gore and Lieberman.

No, that's not how Amendment XII works. Under the scenario you lay out here, had Cheney remained an "inhabitant" of Texas, along with Bush, then Bush would have still ended up with the 271 EVs he did receive (following the brouhaha in Florida, that is), while Cheney would have ended up with only 239 (i.e., the 32 Texas Electors could not have voted for both Bush and Cheney, and, presumably, they would have cast their votes for Bush). Lieberman would have still ended up with 266 EVs.

But even though Lieberman would have had more EVs than Cheney, Lieberman still would have fallen short of the 270 EVs he would have needed to be elected Vice President. In that case, the selection of the Vice President would have devolved to the U.S. Senate, which would have then voted for which of the two men would be chosen. Per Amendment XII, the Senate would have been restricted to voting for either Cheney or Lieberman.

Funny thing is, though, following the 2000 election, when Congress convened on January 3, 2001, the Senate was split 50-50. And with no Vice President having yet been elected, there would have been nobody to break the tie had the vote ended 50-50! That would have been an entertaining scenario to see play out.

NYP: One top surrogate already said a plan is in place for Rubio to resign his seat and relocate to Maryland if Trump picks him — but the situation is viewed as less than ideal.

This would be an extreme move . . . and it wouldn't actually be necessary if Trump really wanted Rubio. Per Amendment XII, both Trump and Rubio, despite being "inhabitants of the same state" (i.e., Florida) could appear on the GOP ballot as the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates respectively. Nothing on the face of Amendment XII would work to prohibit that.

Rather, what Amendment XII would do is prohibit Florida's 30 Electors for casting their votes for both Trump (as President) and Rubio (as Vice President).

So let's imagine that Trump wins in November, with 287 EVs to Biden's 251 (i.e., one of several plausible scenarios, with Trump recapturing GA and AZ, which he'd lost in 2020, while adding NV and PA). The 30 Florida Electors can't cast their votes for Rubio, yes, but that doesn't mean that Kamala Harris receives those votes. She still ends up with but 251. Rubio ends up with 257.

Since Rubio needs at least 270 EVs to be elected Vice President -- and, under this scenario, doesn't get them -- then, per Amendment XII, the choice of Vice President devolves to the U.S. Senate. If the GOP happens to have won control of the Senate following the 2024 election, then the Republican Senators can all vote for Rubio and he become Vice President anyway.

Easy-peasy. :-)

The 12th amendment was about when 2nd place for president was then made vice president. We don’t elect a VP anymore we elect a President. He or she can select whoever they want from whatever state they want.

Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article.

Per Amendment XII, "we" -- well, the Electors actually -- most surely do elect the Vice President.

Gotta love all the FReepers who toss around their views of how the Constitution works without having any understanding of how the Constitution works. Some things never change. :-)

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, this has to be embarrassing.

Well, I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and I don't find it embarrassing whatsoever. In a "representative democracy," the people get the leaders they deserve. In this regard, Biden strikes me as an all-but-perfect embodiment of the state "We the People" today. You love to see it.

Caitlin needs to be alert and pay attention to personal security.

Clark should consider playing her basketball in Europe. They have professional women's leagues there, and I suspect she would prove popular. It can't pay much, but she's not getting paid all that much under her WNBA contract anyway. As it is, she's making her big money, such as it is, in endorsements. She might be even fare better in that regard in Europe.

Given the reaction she's gotten to date, one might even question whether it's even appropriate for her to continue to participate in a "closed shop" that has been established, it would appear, primarily to promote the, um, athleticism of homosexual Negresses.

Nope, I was wrong. See Post #17

That NBC News report lands squarely in "Cool story, bro" territory. One can only wonder why they ran with it.

The underlying assertion -- i.e., that Trump acted with intention in having the BATF produce the revised regulation that re-defined "machinegun" to include a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock, with the confident expectation that the Supreme Court would eventually overturn this new regulatory definition -- is the height of fantasy.

In the first place, there could have been no assurance at all, at the time the BATF promulgated the revised regulation, that any subsequent challenge to the regulation would ever make it to the Supreme Court. Indeed, as the Court made clear in its decision today, it granted certiorari in the case in order to resolve a Circuit split: i.e., in previously decided cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had held that the BATF's revised definition of "machinegun" was not authorized by the National Firearms Act of 1934, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had held the exact opposite. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, ruling on a request for an injunction, held that the party bringing a challenge to the BATF's revised definition was "unlikely to succeed on the merits."

As for the litigation below in the Cargill case itself, the U.S District Court had upheld the BATF's revised definition, and, on review, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed the District Court's ruling. Thereafter, however, on rehearing en banc, the full Fifth Circuit reversed the panel's decision and found that the BATF's revised definition was contrary to the language of the National Firearms Act.

Given this history, and given that other Courts of Appeals had landed in different places, it seems evident that, on the merits, this was actually a pretty close call, as a matter of statutory interpretation. In light of this, that Trump did what he did, in the confident expectation that his cynical (if, perhaps, politically adroit) ploy would turn out the way it did, is rather too incredible to credit.

Again, I don't know what NBC News intends by the tale it has spun out here, but this story reeks of fake news.

The True Believer Idolaters don’t take kindly to facts.

Quite correct. In my experience, almost everyone who insists on viewing the world through an ideological and/or partisan lens is rarely open even to considering facts that contradicts, or even shed doubt on, their own interior narrative.

Geeez…USSC says it’s unconstitutional and Biden says to Congress : “Pass a law”

Except that the Supreme Court didn't find the ATF's regulation "unconstitutional." Rather, the Court ruled that the regulation was contrary to the plain language of the pertinent provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Those are two different things entirely. Congress is not without authority to change the language of the National Firearms Act to prohibit bump stocks.

In his separate opinion, Justice Alito said exactly that:

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act."

Repent, or you will hear, “ I never knew you.”

I would say that that is pretty presumptuous of you, but, then again, I consider the source. :-)

#Revelation3:9

Isn’t that great. Azeri turks are israel’s best ally? That helps explain why the israeli’s helped the azeris’ ethnically cleanse Nagorno-Karabahk. The azeris’ used israeli drones to defeat the christian armenians. Our great “freind” israel helped muslim azeri turks kill armenian christians.

For the most part, deluded American evangelicals who embrace dispensationalist theology -- i.e., Christian Zionists -- don't care about their brothers and sisters in Christ when it comes to matters of this nature. Rather, they seem only to care about those today who hold themselves out as being Jews and who live in the modern nation-state of Israeli.

Quite a deception going on within the body of Christ.

would be if it had included “due to lack of standing.”

Actually, everybody who's commented on this post is wrong.

The entire story, not simply the headline, is "misleading," given the posture of the case that was before the Supreme Court.

The reality is, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had originally affirmed U.S. District Court's ruling, in which the District Court had found in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which had challenged the FDA's action at issue here. The FDA then sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court earlier granted. That's the very reason why the FDA was the petitioner in this case and the Alliance was the respondent.

With its decision today, the Supreme Court overturned, unanimously, the Fifth Circuit's decision, finding that the Alliance didn't have standing to bring its original action in the first place. In the view of the Justices, both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit had gotten their "standing" analysis wrong.

So the entire thrust of this story -- i.e., that the Supreme Court today "rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone" -- is rather off. What the Court did was reject the Alliance's claim that it had standing to bring its (originally successful) challenge in the first place.

I don't think this reflects any intentionality on the part of NBC News. Rather, I suspect that it simply shows that reporters today have no better understanding of what's going on here than the typical Freeper poster.

Pure tautological nonsense. Replaced by what? The Constitution has kept this nation intact thru war and civil strife. It is the oldest written Constitution in the world, copied by many nations. It can and has been amended. Unfortunately, we are in a post-Constitutional period. The answer is to return to the Constitution, not replace it.

With all due respect, you're utterly clueless as to how late it is. But, please, do go on with your Boomercon idol worshipping.

The Federalist Papers?!? Really? No, you're NGMI.

Every American must now consider two critical questions about the government which owes its existence to the Constitution:

1) Are you safe?

2) Are you happy?

Exactly. And nicely put.

Answering for myself:

Am I safe? No, I don't think I am safe, insofar as I consider the greatest threat to my wellbeing, and that of my family, to be my own government.

Am I happy? There, I would first say that, being that I am in Christ and am trusting in him for eternal life, I'm certainly "happy" in that respect. But as for this present life, in this fallen world, no, I'm not very happy at all.

As you obviously recognize as well, those on this site who truly believe that we're going to be able to "vote our way out" of our present predicament are deep in the throes of delusion.

The Constitution is a magnificent document inspired by Providence.

Idolatrous nonsense.

This silly attitude, I'm sorry to say, is a large part of the problem we see today, as "we the people" are losing our liberties in real time.

Governmental structures are simply tools, a manmade means to an end. They are never an end in themselves. Until people wake the eff up and recognize that our "constitutional system" has now failed, and that it needs to be replaced, there's no hope of the current slide being reversed.

We stil have people to put in prison.

And, ideally, on death row.

You’re a Doctor??

No, this person is a bought-and-paid for liar and shill.