In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
AS IF
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
The Government and courts dont have enough to work on; Now This.
Congress forge rare unity on circumcision bill
It is a rare issue on Capitol Hill for which Jewish and Muslim lawmakers will battle side by side. Male Circumcision is apparently one of them. Alarmed by efforts in San Francisco to ban circumcisions of infants, two Democrats, Californias Rep, Brad Sherman, who is Jewish and Minnesotas Rep, Keith Ellison , a muslim are co-sponsoring a house bill called the "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011" that would prevent San Francisco or any other municipality from prohibiting circumcision for males under the age of 18. In Judaism circumcision is obligatory for newborn males. It is not required in Islam but traditon encourages it.
Both Lawmakers cited religious rights and health benifits of the practice.
San Francisco Votes on the Issue in November.
Congress forge rare unity on circumcision bill
It is a rare issue on Capitol Hill for which Jewish and Muslim lawmakers will battle side by side. Male Circumcision is apparently one of them. Alarmed by efforts in San Francisco to ban circumcisions of infants, two Democrats, Californias Rep, Brad Sherman, who is Jewish and Minnesotas Rep, Keith Ellison , a muslim are co-sponsoring a house bill called the "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011" that would prevent San Francisco or any other municipality from prohibiting circumcision for males under the age of 18. In Judaism circumcision is obligatory for newborn males. It is not required in Islam but traditon encourages it.
Both Lawmakers cited religious rights and health benifits of the practice.
San Francisco Votes on the Issue in November.
Comments
I wonder how long it will take for them to scream "Unconstitutional"[:o)]
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- Lawmakers in Tallahassee could be headed for "a patriotic whiz-fest at the Capitol clinic". That's the call from a well-known author and columnist for the Miami Herald, Carl Hiaasen, who wants all legislators to "pee in the cup".
"These are the folks that control $70 billion dollars of taxpayer money," Hiaasen told the Associated Press. "I think they should be first in line to be drug tested, and here's the deal: I'll pay for it. But they all have to do it, all at once. Maybe the first week of the session? Go to the same lab, and send me the bill."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What was the movie where everyone had to constantly be "tested" and they weren't allowed to breed if they didn't test genetically perfect??? That has nothing to do with this....but now it is driving me crazy because I can't think of it.
Demolition Man????????
What was the movie where everyone had to constantly be "tested" and they weren't allowed to breed if they didn't test genetically perfect??? That has nothing to do with this....but now it is driving me crazy because I can't think of it.
"Code 46" maybe?
It is unconstitutional.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
there-in lies your conundrum....
since their houses, papers and effects, are provided by the taxpayers (who actually have jobs) and their persons are maintained by those same taxpayers, what rights do they forfeit for being a DEPENDANT of the people who are productive members of society? Maybe unconstitutional for the politicians, but I am all for drug testing the welfare leeches.
quote:Originally posted by Sav99
It is unconstitutional.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
there-in lies your conundrum....
since their houses, papers and effects, are provided by the taxpayers (who actually have jobs) and their persons are maintained by those same taxpayers, what rights do they forfeit for being a DEPENDANT of the people who are productive members of society? Maybe unconstitutional for the politicians, but I am all for drug testing the welfare leeches.
I understand that outside of the Constitution it makes sense. But, everyone of us are secure in our persons unless, a warrant is issued upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. There is no welfare clause to the Fourth Amendment.
The issue isn't about welfare people, the issue here is about handing over to the Government control of sovereign citizens, in violation of the US Constitution.
Just C " they did a test here in Florida and found that the welfare recipients had less drug use per capita than the people not on welfare.
There are over two million people in Fla. on some kind of welfare but ,only a thousand were tested.
Seems to be a rather small sampling to assume that the other two million or so welfare recipients would be 98% clean.
With an estimated ten to thirty BILLION dollars worth of drugs coming into this country each year, people working, paying taxes and taking care of their families must be doing a lot of drugs.
Just think, if everybody was on welfare, we could win the war on drugs.[:o)]
Something just doesn't add up here.
the sample size in that test was so ridiculously small as to be outright LAUGHABLE.
quote:Originally posted by JustC
quote:Originally posted by Sav99
It is unconstitutional.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
there-in lies your conundrum....
since their houses, papers and effects, are provided by the taxpayers (who actually have jobs) and their persons are maintained by those same taxpayers, what rights do they forfeit for being a DEPENDANT of the people who are productive members of society? Maybe unconstitutional for the politicians, but I am all for drug testing the welfare leeches.
I understand that outside of the Constitution it makes sense. But, everyone of us are secure in our persons unless, a warrant is issued upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. There is no welfare clause to the Fourth Amendment.
The issue isn't about welfare people, the issue here is about handing over to the Government control of sovereign citizens, in violation of the US Constitution.
I see them as being nothing more than the children of the taxpayers, and therefore, they can do as their parents tell them to.
IMHO, the "warrant" in this case is/should be infered when you TAKE MONEY THAT YOU DIDN'T EARN, FROM THOSE OF US WHO DID EARN IT. Since the gov't is forcibly taking my money(stealing it), to give it to the folks who are too lazy/uselss/stupid/addicted to work( receivers of my stolen money), then they should have to forfiet the right to not be tested. IF you're found doing drugs with the money I MADE, and had to unwillingly give YOU, then YOU should be expected to conduct yourself in a certain way.. A good start would be to act appreciative, since I could have used that money for my family, and not to support their drug abusing, lazy *. The percentage of folks who actually deserve welfare to overcome a tough patch, is SMALL.
I have zero patience for the welfaretards that I see buying steaks and seafood with their "independance" card (what a joke, it should say "dependance" since that is all they are) and then buying smokes and alcohol with CASH from their pockets. That's MY F'N MONEY. IMHO, you get only so long to be on welfare, and then you are on your own. AND, while on welfare, they should be picking up litter, painting the schools and public buildings, etc etc etc.
quote:Originally posted by Sav99
quote:Originally posted by JustC
quote:Originally posted by Sav99
It is unconstitutional.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
there-in lies your conundrum....
since their houses, papers and effects, are provided by the taxpayers (who actually have jobs) and their persons are maintained by those same taxpayers, what rights do they forfeit for being a DEPENDANT of the people who are productive members of society? Maybe unconstitutional for the politicians, but I am all for drug testing the welfare leeches.
I understand that outside of the Constitution it makes sense. But, everyone of us are secure in our persons unless, a warrant is issued upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. There is no welfare clause to the Fourth Amendment.
The issue isn't about welfare people, the issue here is about handing over to the Government control of sovereign citizens, in violation of the US Constitution.
I see them as being nothing more than the children of the taxpayers, and therefore, they can do as their parents tell them to.
IMHO, the "warrant" in this case is/should be infered when you TAKE MONEY THAT YOU DIDN'T EARN, FROM THOSE OF US WHO DID EARN IT. Since the gov't is forcibly taking my money(stealing it), to give it to the folks who are too lazy/uselss/stupid/addicted to work( receivers of my stolen money), then they should have to forfiet the right to not be tested. IF you're found doing drugs with the money I MADE, and had to unwillingly give YOU, then YOU should be expected to conduct yourself in a certain way.. A good start would be to act appreciative, since I could have used that money for my family, and not to support their drug abusing, lazy *. The percentage of folks who actually deserve welfare to overcome a tough patch, is SMALL.
I have zero patience for the welfaretards that I see buying steaks and seafood with their "independance" card (what a joke, it should say "dependance" since that is all they are) and then buying smokes and alcohol with CASH from their pockets. That's MY F'N MONEY. IMHO, you get only so long to be on welfare, and then you are on your own. AND, while on welfare, they should be picking up litter, painting the schools and public buildings, etc etc etc.
It is an emotional subject, I agree. But that a side, the Constitution still remains.
In response to the new attempt to get people on certain welfare to be required to take a drug test, a prominent author has proposed this .It has been proven that the people required to take this test were cleaner than the average proportionate numbers of ordinary citizens..
I wonder how long it will take for them to scream "Unconstitutional"[:o)]
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- Lawmakers in Tallahassee could be headed for "a patriotic whiz-fest at the Capitol clinic". That's the call from a well-known author and columnist for the Miami Herald, Carl Hiaasen, who wants all legislators to "pee in the cup".
"These are the folks that control $70 billion dollars of taxpayer money," Hiaasen told the Associated Press. "I think they should be first in line to be drug tested, and here's the deal: I'll pay for it. But they all have to do it, all at once. Maybe the first week of the session? Go to the same lab, and send me the bill."
That must be one helluva big cup! [:0][:D]
It is unconstitutional.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It appears to me that your argument would make it unconstitutional to require a drug test as a requirement for employment.
They are only requiring it as a condition of participating in the program, which is voluntary.
What was the movie where everyone had to constantly be "tested" and they weren't allowed to breed if they didn't test genetically perfect??? That has nothing to do with this....but now it is driving me crazy because I can't think of it.
Gattaca
What was the movie where everyone had to constantly be "tested" and they weren't allowed to breed if they didn't test genetically perfect??? That has nothing to do with this....but now it is driving me crazy because I can't think of it.
Gattica?
quote:Originally posted by Sav99
It is unconstitutional.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It appears to me that your argument would make it unconstitutional to require a drug test as a requirement for employment.
They are only requiring it as a condition of participating in the program, which is voluntary.
That is how they/you get around the Constitution. Are you suggesting also that it would be ok to outlaw all ammunition? You know, so long as we still have the Right To Keep And Bare Arms. This issue is about OUR freedom. Not welfare.
quote:Originally posted by carbine100
quote:Originally posted by Sav99
It is unconstitutional.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It appears to me that your argument would make it unconstitutional to require a drug test as a requirement for employment.
They are only requiring it as a condition of participating in the program, which is voluntary.
That is how they/you get around the Constitution. Are you suggesting also that it would be ok to outlaw all ammunition? You know, so long as we still have the Right To Keep And Bare Arms. This issue is about OUR freedom. Not welfare.
Sorry but I do not get the correlation between meeting a requirement to receive public funds, that many of us have to meet in order to earn those funds for you, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Please explain how your statement reflects to my first statement regarding employment.
Please don't misunderstand my stance, I don't believe the government should in any way try to legislate morality and am all for the legalization of all drugs.
I also do not believe the government should be in the charity business.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from
those who are willing to work and give to those who would
not.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)