Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’
» posted on Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 at 10:31 pm by Jeremy Herrera
From what I read and watched the bill in no way states that a business has to discriminate against anyone. What it does state is that if a Christian business chooses to refuse service due to their Constitutional religious beliefs they can. To me it is simply stating what the Constitution already guarantees, the right to one’s religious views. Now I really don’t believe most business would stop serving gays when this bill comes out.
Now what I do have a hard time with is that people comparing racism to anything that is deems discrimination of gays. Sorry but a person of color can not change their skin or even hide their color when walking through town. But with homosexuality you never know who is or isn’t gay until they tell you so.
Now you may ask, where do I stand on this? Simply with the Constitution and the rights we all have within them. No one person should be forced to serve another person by laws the government creates. Just as the Jim Crow Laws were wrong, so is laws that force anyone person to break their religious beliefs.
» posted on Thursday, February 20th, 2014 at 10:29 pm by Jeremy Herrera
News Story: Democrat wants FCC to stifle Fox News:
While trolling the interact for my daily dose of news I came across this story about Mike Dickinson. After reading it made me wonder just how much this and many more politicians actually know or better yet, believe in the Constitution… Well at lease believe that we all are covered by the Constitution.
What even scares me more is the fact that it doesn’t really matter which party you’re talking about on this subject. If it did then I would have expected the Speaker of the House to have brought up impeachment charges against the current lawless President for at the very least his repeated violation of creating laws without Congressional bills by way of executive orders. Yes, I know the former President Bush also used executive orders, just as many other Presidents. However almost never has one actually did so completely without the Congress challenging them or the Supreme Court rejecting them. Now if you know your history, executive orders were not meant to be used as a way to by-pass Congress but as a tool for an emergency that required fast and reasonable actions that Congress when in session would then create a bill that would either equal the order or give for such an order. But this President has created laws regardless if the Congress has acted or not. He has out right used his pen to create laws that even when the Congress does their job and rejects the law he still moves forward with no one stopping him.
Ok, so I digress…
So going back to Mike Dickinson who is hoping to win the seat of Rep. Eric Cantor. Well he appears according to his Twitter posts to not believe in equal protection of and from the law as he wishes for the FCC to regulate Fox News. Well, as much as you may not agree with Fox News or not they have the freedom of the press just like every single news company in the US. Now this also means he agrees with the current FCC rules that will be placing a monitor in every newsroom in the nation to monitor and inquire how they conduct their jobs. That is, how they perform interviews, write stories, choose the news to run with and etc.. All of which is un-Constitutional and nothing far from the former USSR or China where the government controls the media.
So is he ok with the FCC monitoring all the news outlets? I don’t know, but according the other news stories I heard over the radio this morning…. Well none of the news groups seem to like the new FCC rules and are preparing to fight them.
» posted on Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 7:28 pm by Jeremy Herrera
» posted on Thursday, February 13th, 2014 at 4:10 am by Jeremy Herrera
» posted on Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 2:52 pm by Jeremy Herrera
What part of the Constitution do you not understand about treaties? You have no right to sign treaties without a 2/3 Senate approval. So why are you going to sign a UN treaty that at this time appears to lack the 2/3 required?
Trust me I know why you think you can by-pass the required approval set forth by the Constitution… First you have a boss, BHO who just believes he can by-pass Congress or ignore them by signing executive orders and creating new laws in that matter. Second, I don’t believe those of you in the government s-called leadership positions really care or understand the Constitution as the Law of the Land. Nope you found it a nuisance.
Here’s a thought Mr. Kerry…. Read what it says…
US Constitution, Article II. Section 2. Paragraph II:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
» posted on Thursday, June 27th, 2013 at 4:20 pm by Jeremy Herrera
As many of you may guess, I am not in support of gay marriage. No big surprise here but please read on to see why I believe that the Supreme Court ruling wrong and actually could cause more pain for thousands of people of both sides in the future.
First I will state my believe in the definition of marriage and how the government should handle the regulations of civil unions. If you noticed I didn’t say that the government is to regulation marriage but civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution and the government has no bearing on marriage as such. Civil unions are what the government is supposed to recognize for the regulation of taxes and protection of the people’s rights. When I got married the Preacher didn’t say that power invested in him to marry me under God and the government but that by the power of God I was married and under the power of the government he unified me and my wife in a civil union. As such that separated marriage as a religious institute and the civil union as a governmental institution. As such, if the church you attend believes are within their doctrines then they would marry you. But the government should recognize the civil unions of everyone.
Now how did this ruling screw up the country yesterday? Well first if you believe in the Constitution, the states have the right to regulate marriage by the power of the peoples vote. No where in the Constitution does it mention marriage as being regulated by the federal government but it does have the 10th Amendment that gives the states the right to create laws that are not expressed in the Constitution. Sure many of you will say that this is the same thing as slavery. Sorry but you would be wrong. Slavery did violate the Constitution by removing the rights of a person to perform or be a part of the federal government and the rights that the Constitution gave every man, and in affect take their basic Constitutional rights away from them.
So where did the Court screw up? They first rejected the states rights to create and pass laws that the people of that state believes are right for them. This in affect removed the Federalism even further from what the Founding Fathers had created. This country was founded to be a nation of many smaller countries, otherwise know as states in today, with a common union to promote the freedom endowed by their Creator. This was to prevent the federal government from becoming an overbearing big government so the states and the people of those states could manage their own affairs. It was meant for the power of the people to be stronger than the federal government.
Now I have seen people argue, how could anyone pass a law or think preventing one group or another from being married is just. How they wish people would stop hiding behind religion to cover their fears and insecurities. How can people believe in voting away another groups right away.
Well I say to them that laws will always remove what someone believes is their right away and others will always say that one group is hiding behind their religious beliefs to create and pass laws. Even in this case their are people that have no religious belief that disagree with same sex marriage. There are also many that have are very loyal religious people that will state that they believe in same sex marriage, and in both cases I have met gays that take both sides of the issue. So how is it that anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage are hiding behind a religion? Sure many do base their ideas from their religion, but not everyone.
Now lets look at the second part of the statement of voting away others rights. From a completely non-religious view that comment makes no sense. It makes no sense because their are many hundreds of laws that prevent people from doing things they found a violation of their rights. And in fact this ruling yesterday has opened the door for those groups to file lawsuits and win under the same wordings. Take the polygamous marriages that many of the Muslim and orthodox Mormon religion believe in. Or lets look into the rights of those in NAMBA? There are many laws that prevent those groups from expressing their “rights” to marry or to show their love to whom they wish. How is these group different than the same sex marriage laws that the people of California passes. In the case of the polygamous marriages, other than the people needing to be of the legal age to marry, why can’t someone have more than one wife or husband? And if they are of NAMBA, why can’t these sick men love young boys as they wish if the parents are ok with it? Yeah I know many of you will say that I can’t compare those because that isn’t part of our culture. Well, but it is because just as homosexual relationship were part of our culture before the gay marriage so have those groups. And both of these examples have no religious beliefs to support or deny these groups, or hide behind…
Lastly, as for what I consider the biggest mistake from yesterdays ruling was the fact that the Court didn’t actually rule for or against same sex marriage in California. Don’t believe me? Just read up on the ruling and you will see that they left the door open for more challenges to come because they only overturned the appellate court ruling because the filing was done by people that the Supreme Court said had no standing to file the lawsuit. That in affect means that if a person files a lawsuit that has standing to file a new lawsuit you will have thousands of people once again wondering if their marriage will be legal or not. To this I believe the court complete did a mis-justice to both side of the issue. They have left many gay couples’ hearts open to more hurt and wonder than they closed. As I told a gay friend of mine, don’t look at this ruling as a celebration because she may find herself back in the same situation in the future.
post a comment | filed under New Continental Congress | tags: 10th Amendment, Becky Sue, Constitution, Constitutional, continent, DOMA, Federal Reserve Board, government, Probes, rights, Terrorist Group
» posted on Sunday, February 14th, 2010 at 8:43 pm by Jeremy Herrera
You know the say thing is that you won’t see those nit wits in the Mass Media admit that their BS news stories have been all lies. Nope, I am sure that you will instead only learn about this story from conservative blogs for the next two or three months while the Mass Media tries to avoid it. Once they realize that they can’t hide the truth anymore they will try to tap dance around it even more… Then the masses will have to learn just how controlled their life have been controlled by puppet masters.