tvc184

From the way I have read this case, this is what it comes down to it. We all know Supreme Court decisions have said that teachers in class or at school functions cannot lead prayer. The Supreme Court has said however that everyone has a right to pray at any time as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. So if you’re in the middle of English class, you can’t walk up in front of class it’s start chanting verses because that disrupts a class and interferes with rights of another person. You can sit in your seat and pray anytime you wish. If I am reading yes case correctly, a football coach has a duty to the school and the law. His team played a football game and it is over. He could have just as well walked up to the district superintendent in the stands and asked, “Am I now off duty and free to go where I wish?” I cannot imagine any other answer other than, yes. You can go to the locker room and talk to your kids, you could drive to a fast food place and get your burger or you can go home. So the coach walked to the football field, kneele and says a brief prayer. Did he violate the constitution? Did he interfere with anyone else’s right to go about their business or have their rights violated? The game is over and some players have headed to the locker room. So are hanging around and mingling with a crowd, talking to parents etc. Some have gone to where the coach is saying a prayer and decided to pray with him. did they violate anyone’s right? Since they are now free to go, can they pray as they wish? Just just not seem like a difficult decision. A coach on his own time and within his own constitutional right, he decided to pray. He interfered with no one else and he’s not compelling anyone to do anything. Fo that he was terminated. It seems it was the coach who had his First Amendment rights violated, not any students or anyone else. Not a constitutional right but written federal law in the EEOC, it appears that he has a job discrimination claim against the district. Federal law bans discrimination at work based on sex, race, national origin, religion, pregnancy and age (which is over 40). So was he off duty and they completely blew his rights out of the water by saying that he cannot pray on his own time or he was on duty and not allowed to pray when it does not interfere with his job? Either way this coach should get a hefty settlement of the school district. The strangest part of this decision was the fact that three liberal judges felt that he had no right to pray and he violated someone else’s constitutional rights when he did.

It went that far because the school board denied his right to pray on his own time And fired him for up holding his constitutional rights.

I noticed even on Facebook that a D&C would now be against the law. At least one, if not several people, that does not like this ruling likely came up with that scenario. Like, “Oh yeah!! No abortions!? Well a doctor can no longer treat a medical condition!”. Nonsense Then it goes viral as if it is fact. A D&C can obviously be used as an early stage abortion but there are other medical reasons for the procedure

Hahaha…. It gets better. Lyft is giving them a lift for abortion travel. I wonder if Lyft will use Lyft to give them a lift.

If they really believe that, it just adds to their ignorance. Abortions are still legal.

Other than emotions, this is my belief on the original Roe v. Wade decision. 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Criminal law is almost always within the authority of the states. Just like marijuana is illegal in Texas but legal in Colorado, that is a 10th Amendment issue. The Constitution does not define what drug laws are in the context of state criminal laws So Texas can do as it wishes and Colorado can do with it wishes.. By the same token the Constitution does not define a human life. That is left to the states. Under Texas criminal law in the Penal Code, an individual (person) is considered from the moment of fertilization. This is that definition: (26) "Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth. So under the authority of the 10th Amendment, Texas has defined a person/individual as anybody from the moment of conception. Some states define it as having a heartbeat and some states define a person as having been born. That is each state’s authority under the 10th amendment. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade came along and said Texas, you are not allowed to define what a person is. The decision was kind of, well you kind of can because you can charge a father with murder for hitting the mother in the stomach with his fist but you cannot define a child as a person if the mother wants to get rid of it. What constitutional right or section did Texas violate? The Supreme Court back then essentially said a state could not define a child as a human in reference to the mother. Obviously the justices claimed a legal justification but what was the actual rationale for it? What is there really a legal basis in the 14th amendment to say a woman can have an abortion or simply emotional on the beliefs of the justices in the decision? So the Constitution does not define a person and the 10th Amendment gives the state that authority. The Supreme Court stepped in and said we are going to take away that authority under…… what?

What does a miscarriage, D/C and abortion have to do with each other? Unless you’re suggesting that it mother be charged with murder because she had a miscarriage, it is a moot point. When the mother has a miscarriage, the baby is deceased. The medical follow up is not an abortion or the taking of a live human baby.

I hate to ask but does she have a clue that you cannot vote to overturn it? Does this supposedly educated person understand it was not a vote of the people or Congress but a constitutional ruling?

Predictive text again. I hate it when I’m using voice but I turned it off for a while yesterday and it makes it tougher when typing. On the other hand, yelling quite a bit might be the answer. NOT WITHOUT A CONDOM!!!

I see nothing in the comment that I quoted about you being against abortion.

You said for an unwanted child. So these women are going to take care of an unwanted child for 18 years, for which they could be criminally prosecuted if they do not, instead of using a few cents for birth control and they can probably get free or donated anyway? I doubt it.

So you were saying that murder is okay as long as we save a little money? Since when have the Democrats ever worried about printing money that we don’t have?

Or maybe people will decide that since they are now responsible, they will start using voice control.

Supreme Court rulings generally start with a syllabus which gives a relatively brief description of the decision. The syllabus might be 1 to 3 pages. Then it goes on into as many as 15 pages describing how they came to the official conclusion. In addition to the official ruling, some justices may issue a concurring opinion meaning that they agree with a ruling but for different reasons. Then the justices on the losing side may issue a dissent describing why they disagree. The syllabus in this case concludes with this paragraph: The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self- defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public. It clearly says that other constitutional rights do not require you to justify why you need them. Why should the second amendment?

SCOTUS ruled that people have the right to carry handguns in self-defense and a state cannot set a restriction that the person has to prove a need. [Hidden Content] Reading the actual case was just released, it appears that states like New Jersey, New York and California will now have to an act of law that requires them to issue a license to people who wish to carry handguns in self-defense. They overturned a New York law that says they don’t have to issue a license unless you can prove a need. The ruling was that the Second Amendment does not require you to prove why you need self defense.

At this moment in time the EV is a scam in my opinion …..

In his mental state, Biden forgot that it was a secret.

When the Easter Bunny has to distract you and take you away…. [Hidden Content]

We have had police shootings at my agency (I was involved in one when an officer shot and killed a person about 10 feet from me). One is so clear cut and I have asked it to be released. It obviously shows that the officer was unquestionably correct but it still tends to flame some people. It is still not released years later. I could see nothing gained by releasing this video. If they do then we will see it but even with seeing something on video will offer not change in peoples’ opinions.

Yes, if the door was not locked, that was stupid.

I like the idea of armed teachers but that guy’s logic is terribly flawed.

TGM is now Tom Cruise’s highest grossing movie worldwide of all time. In the short time it has been open, it earned $817 Million. Another $200M would put it the top 30 movies ever.

I don’t know how the “I” got in there except predictive text. The Sugarland Express incident started in Port Arthur.

Which started in Port Arthur…,

There you go with “you guys”. 1. Declaring martial law is a stupid claim. 2. I don’t recall any time saying anything about martial law. I honestly can’t remember anyone in this forum claiming that Obama was going to declare martial law to seize guns. Maybe you read such an opinion somewhere else. If someone else here said that, again it is a stupid claim. 3. Quite to the contrary, I laughed when Obama came up with his many point executive order because I said his orders would have no enforcement under law. 4. The Democrats absolutely want to end most private ownership of our arms and the president today will gladly sign such a bill but the Senate does not have enough votesto overcome the filibuster. 5. if I said, you know how you people are, you would be having a fit.