Why does the federal government to support the rights of “outsiders”?
Question permanent : Why is the federal government to support the rights of “outsiders”,
and rights of its citizens and the constitution he swore to respect? Oklahoma Court blocks against Sharia in command of Hamas CAIR “… People have ceased to be their own rulers” – Abraham Lincoln (thanks to Jerry Newcombe) Hamas-linked CAIR is a fantastic breasts in this victory over the will of people, and says, “CAIR said that the electoral arrangements would violate the constitutional rights of ordinary Oklahomans – including the right to wear religious headscarves in driver’s license photographs, choose Islamic marriage contracts, the introduction of Islam will, or to be buried according to one’s religious beliefs.” But This CAIR is once again lying. The law prohibits legislators from Oklahoma legislation Oklahomans as a whole using Sharia rather than American law. It does not prohibit individuals from getting married or writing wills in any way they wish. “The Court decided, Oklahoma blocks change to Islamic law,” Tim Talley Associated Press for the eighth November (thanks to everyone who sent this in): Oklahoma City – A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts with regard to international or Islamic law when deciding p?ípad?.Americký District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange ruled on Monday morning in Oklahoma City after a brief meeting. It prevents the State Election Board from the confirmation of results of general elections on Tuesday, when the change was approved by 70 percent of voters …. It was issued in litigation filed Executive Director Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. Muneera Awad said during the hearing that the law stigmatizes his náboženství.No either Sharia is in line with the U.S. Constitution or not. Now we have the opportunity to air that in public is tolerated? Best answer:
answer James
answer to your question: What part of “right” word, can not you understand? For a few paragraphs of oil propaganda: What we see here is that the American public Education to teach students how to think and how to read critically, rather than accept any babble to come. “Jihadwatch” is a bunch of nutters.
know more? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Isn’t it EXTREMELY IRONIC Eric Holder is considering suing AZ for “civil rights violations”?
Question by Mirack Obomney: Isn’t it EXTREMELY IRONIC Eric Holder is considering suing AZ for “civil rights violations”?
Apparently “civil rights” are more important than CONSTITUTIONAL rights to Eric Holder.
On the one hand he thinks this new Arizona law may violate certain individuals civil rights……….
On the other hand he is considering potentially stripping U.S. CITIZENS of basic Miranda rights if they are suspected of domestic terrorism. (I don’t care what you think of the Times Square bomber……….he’s a U.S. citizen)
What do you think??
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/09/holder.arizona.immigration/index.html?hpt=T2
Washington (CNN) — Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday that the Justice Department was considering a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law.
“We are considering all of our options. One possibility is filing a lawsuit,” Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Possible grounds for the lawsuit would be whether the Arizona law could lead to civil rights violations, he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/09/eric-holder-miranda-right_n_569244.html
Attorney General Eric Holder said for the first time today on ABC’s “This Week” that the Obama administration is open to modifying Miranda protections to deal with the “threats that we now face.”
“The [Miranda] system we have in place has proven to be effective,” Holder told host Jake Tapper. “I think we also want to look and determine whether we have the necessary flexibility — whether we have a system that deals with situations that agents now confront. … We’re now dealing with international terrorism. … I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception [to the Miranda protections]. And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face.”
America’s system of Miranda rights developed out of a 1966 Supreme Court ruling which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of an alleged rapist and kidnapper, Ernesto Arturo Miranda, had been violated during his arrest and trial (Miranda was later retried and convicted).
It just seems if the govt. has the ability to strip you of your rights as a U.S. citizen, then YOU DON”T HAVE RIGHTS………..you have privileges granted by the govt.
qncy…………..”You do realize civil rights are those rights that are protected by the US Constitution right”
Yes. So why is Eric Holder trying to play both sides??
Best answer:
Answer by robot_hooker5
As head of the DOJ, Holder should read the law before making comment.
Give your answer to this question below!
Nice ‘decrees’ photos
some nice pictures of decisions that I found:
Executive Order Karaoke 5, 2008
Figure by graduation
Executive Order Karaoke is a public event where people can sing your favorite mixture of executive orders Bush to popular music, yesterday and today.
Karaoke Executive Order # 3, 2008
Figure by graduation
Executive Order Karaoke is a public event where people can sing your favorite mixture of executive orders Bush to popular music, yesterday and today.
Executive Order Karaoke 9, 2008
Figure by graduation
Executive Order Karaoke is a public event where people can sing your favorite mixture of executive orders Bush to popular music, yesterday and today.
ISLAM is a “religion” or a political/social guideline ?
Question by ShtHammer: ISLAM is a “religion” or a political/social guideline ?
Only the most politically-correct person would attempt to deny that Islam is a threat to the United States and any freedom-loving country.
Islam may reference a prophet and a deity… but outlines VERY CLEARLY law which it DEMANDS be imposed on all people (Islam is translated to “submission”.) It calls for the control of government and the behavior of the people in public, and most terrifyingly clear…. PUNISHMENT for anyone who stands in its way of GLOBAL DOMINANCE and fails to convert.
No one could argue the same applies to any other “religion”, so we are forced to ask ourselves what is the BEST WAY to deal with the encroachment of Islam into the rest of the “free world”?
In America, it is particularly hard to act, because even in the face of clear and present DANGER, our government pleads impotence due to Constitutional “Freedom of Religion” (which the FEDERAL government technically has no say in 1 way or the other, as the Constitution reads, “CONGRESS shall make no law….”)
Perhaps America would be best served if we had a national movement to STOP calling Islam a “religion” and call it what it REALLY is… a social/political structure. Through this, we could STOP allowing Islam to function as an “equal” and an “untouchable”… and in doing so, PROTECT our citizens.
Best answer:
Answer by ORFN
A comprehensive system to destroy Western Civilization.
What do you think? Answer below!
Cool “constitutional law” images
some cool images Constitutional Law:
Constitutional Law Moot Court 1
Figure by Biko
3 to 4 September 2008. For a constitutional law class, our professor of our record (his way), the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. We blockmates and I are in different roles as Supreme Court Justices petitioners and respondents. I was on the Sigaw ng Bayan / initiative petitioners as Erica’s Aumentado. Some of us even took the role of prosecutor and Joaquin Bernas amicus curiae.
Constitutional Law Moot Court 1
Figure by Biko
3 to 4 September 2008. For a constitutional law class, our professor of our record (his way), the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. We blockmates and I are in different roles as Supreme Court Justices petitioners and respondents. I was on the Sigaw ng Bayan / initiative petitioners as Erica’s Aumentado. Some of us even took the role of prosecutor and Joaquin Bernas amicus curiae.
Q&A: When is “substantive due process” going to expire?
Question by : When is “substantive due process” going to expire?
First of all, let’s remember what it means. Procedural due process means exactly what it says: no one should be deprived “of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Substantive due process means something different: no one should be deprived “of life, liberty or property without due law.” Back in 1930 Holmes said that the due process clause should be “taken in it’s literal meaning,” and that his colleagues on the Court had given that clause an “extended and artificial signification.” (Baldwin v. Missouri, 1930, dissenting opinion by Holmes.) Fifty years later law school professor John Hart Ely said “there is simply no avoiding the fact that the word that follows the word ‘due’ is ‘process.’ … ‘[S]ubstantive due process’ is a contradiction in terms, sort of life ‘green pastel redness.’ … [S]ometime within the next thirty years we may be rid of it,” [i.e. substantive due process]. Ely, “Democracy and Distrust,” 1980.
But that was 31 years ago and I still can’t see any sign that substantive due process has been eliminated from constitutional law. Do you see and sign? Do you want it to be eliminated — even knowing that means the end of Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas?
Best answer:
Answer by Jesse
That law expire every time a person pay a fine or spend time in jail when not guilty. You cannot go into a court room unprepared and not knowing the charge against you.You can not depend on an attorney to do all the leg work and research of facts according to your case. I have been though this many times. I win every time,and I get their attention. Stand-up to the judges,attorney and the law. If not due process has fail.
Add your own answer in the comments!