Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (767091)	1/30/2014 4:42:37 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Tenchusatsu TopCat Respond to of 1575178

>> Is that your final answer? This is the same guy who holds himself out as an expert on American civics, who believes he understands America inside out, and who believes every person is PhD material. And once again, it becomes apparent that 9th grade was a serious stumbling block for him. Message 28796239

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (767091)	1/30/2014 4:52:53 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 1575178

What are you talking about? Did you read what you posted? Except by calling a "Constituional Convention" That means they.democracy can override it!! Good lord. Except, except, except! < If the decision interprets the Constitution or an Amendment, Congress cannot override the decision EXCEPT by calling for a Constitutional Convention to change that provision of the Constitution or Amendment. (Not likely) This would require cooperation from the States, and is not something Congress could accomplish on its own. << I believe the congress can override the supreme court. Is that your final answer? wiki.answers.com Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision. If the decision interprets the Constitution or an Amendment, Congress cannot override the decision except by calling for a Constitutional Convention to change that provision of the Constitution or Amendment. (Not likely) This would require cooperation from the States, and is not something Congress could accomplish on its own. If the decision interprets a federal law, Congress can amend or replace the law to correct its deficiency. If the Supreme Court interprets both by comparing the law to the Constitution or Amendment to see if the law is constitutional and decides the law is unconstitutional because it is vague or can be applied in a discriminatory manner, Congress can amend the law in such a way that the Constitutional problem is solved. Technically, this is not "overriding" the decision, but it is one way Congress can make a law do its intended purpose without being unconstitutionally vague about the subject and purpose. Other than that, only the Supreme Court can overturn its own precedent.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (767091)	1/31/2014 1:45:32 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1575178

House GOP Leaders Back Legal Status for Immigrants BUT NOT CITIZENSHIP OR A 'SPECIAL PATH'; YOUNGER ILLEGALS COULD GET CITIZENSHIP By John Johnson, Newser Staff newser.com ( Smells like AMNESTY to me, Ten..) Posted Jan 30, 2014 7:06 PM CST (NEWSER) – House Republican leaders issued a set of principles today on immigration reform, and the consensus seems to be that they offer enough wiggle room to get a deal done this year. Some highlights: Legal status: Many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants now in the country would be able to attain legal status, though not citizenship.No 'special path': They would attain that legal status not through a "special path"—Republicans say that would be unfair to those who have followed the rules—but only after they "admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits)."Citizenship for 'dreamers': Kids brought here illegally by their parents—often referred to collectively as the "dreamers"—would get a path to citizenship.Border security: None of the above takes place until enforcement is beefed up. How it's being received: Washington Post: It's a big deal because this is "first the first time that (House GOP leaders) would be open to allowing the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants to live and work legally in the United States." The Hill: "The endorsement of a path to legal status for many of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants is a significant step toward comprehensive immigration reform for a party that has long resisted policies that some deride as amnesty." Politico: It sees the move as a "modest change" for the GOP leaders themselves, but "for a Republican Party that advocated 'self-deportation' as recently as 2012, it’s a massive shift." New York Times: "The Republican proposal seeks to walk a fine line: offering legal status—but not citizenship, and not through a special path—to undocumented immigrants who meet certain conditions."President Obama: “I actually think we have a good chance of getting immigration reform,” President Obama told CNN.Chuck Schumer: "While these standards are certainly not everything we would agree with, they leave a real possibility that Democrats and Republicans ... can in some way come together and pass immigration reform."John Boehner: In releasing the plan, he sought to emphasize what the GOP won't do. "These standards are as far as we are willing to go. Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that for her caucus, it is a special path to citizenship or nothing. If Democrats insist on that, then we are not going to get anywhere this year."The AP has the GOP principles in text form here.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (767091)	1/31/2014 2:30:43 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1575178

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (767091)	2/1/2014 8:26:22 AM
From: steve harris	2 Recommendations Recommended By Bilow Tenchusatsu Respond to of 1575178

It needs to be noted the left wanted the supreme court to decide abortion but the popular vote to elect Algore yet block any votes from the 80% military. The end justifies the means....... It really is that simple, the way the left thinks. "I know what I want, now what needs to be done to get there, irregardless of the law."

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (767091)	2/2/2014 12:06:20 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575178

How a Cult-Like Church Changed a Texas Town THE CHURCH OF WELLS DIGS IN AGAINST FRUSTRATED LOCALS By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff newser.com ( You just live in the wrong state, Ten. ) Posted Feb 2, 2014 5:46 AM CST (NEWSER) – Andy and Patty Groves were dying to see their daughter again. Distraught over her grandfather's death, Catherine Groves joined a cult-like church in the tiny town of Wells, Texas. So her parents drove to Wells, where Catherine, now a docile believer, would only meet them in a shotgun shack at midnight with a church "elder" present. Thus began Andy and Patty's battle with the Church of Wells—a congregation led by three twenty-something men who preach a kind of Calvinism (man is a "loathsome insect" saved only by "the mere pleasure of God") and urge its 90 members to break away from their families, Texas Monthly reports. With the sheriff's office unwilling to help, what were Andy and Patty to do? Like other parents trying to reclaim their adult children, they sought help from local clergy. "Every family that’s called has the exact same story," says pastor Josh Luellen. "It’s identical." Frustrated, Luellen led a hundred townspeople outside the Church of Wells, singing "Oh, How I Love Jesus" as an elder shouted back, "You are false Christians!" Since then, the townspeople have boycotted church-owned businesses and the church headquarters has been sold off, KTRE reports. What's more, the local DA is investigating the death of a church baby who received prayer instead of medicine, and an elder has been arrested in New York state for aggravated harassment, reports KETK. But the church lives on, and even posted a video of Catherine's baptism. So it's a stalemate. "It would be easy for us to say they should leave town, but I wouldn’t wish them on anybody else," says Luellen. "I want them to come to the Lord truthfully." Click for the full article.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (767091)	2/2/2014 5:40:01 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575178

Ten, I was just listening to "Prairie Home Companion" on NPR, and they had a bluegrass band singing an old country spiritual "He's the Greatest Creator of them All". It reminded me that the Christian God was a little paranoid, and made his worshippers agree to worship Him, exclusively, right there in the Ten Commandments. In doing this, isn't he ADMITTING that there are OTHER Gods that people could worship? Other choices they could make?