Thread: The U.S. Senate is poised to pass Senate Bill 1 (Section 220

Originally Posted by biffhamer

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

How are those emoticoms getting into the 'copy?'

I didn't put them there.

What gives with this?

.

Next time you have a C & P Preveiw first and if smiles appear check the box that says "Disable Smiles in this post"



Or, go back and edit it and check "Disable Smiles in this post"

You can also fix it manually by placing a space between numbers and parentheses. What's happening is that the text, which include a number adjacent to a parenthesis, is html code for one or another smilie. For example, if I type an "8" next to a closed parenthesis, I get . If I place a space between them , I get 8 ).

On the topic of this bill, my hope is that Bush would veto any such legislation that actually made it to his desk. Should this abomination somehow be passed, it would appear to be a clear violation of the spirit of Amendment I. As I have noted several times (but as few people seem to believe), the Amendments don't apply in any case in which they have been waived, as is the case for any person or entity accepting federal benefit by agreement. Once an organization has filed for a federal ID number or has been chartered as a corporation, it has become subject to direct federal regulation, for which Constitutional protections do not apply. The thing that has hopelessly confused Supreme Court rulings is that the Court must balance its accurate interpretation of the law against the desire to keep the public in the dark as to the status of its constitutional rights. When operating under the regulatory authority of the federal legislative democracy, there are no rights, as they have been waived and replaced by civil liberties under Roman Civil Law and/or the lex mercatorum. The government alternately grants and rescinds these liberties as the mood strikes it, and the high court may itself dictate the extent or limitations of these civil protections.

The point is that we may end up being in the predicament of having to rely upon the caprice of the court to determine whether such a law would overstep the federal civil protections.

Crocket, you're referring only to Section 220, or are there also other parts of this bill that are problematic?

Crocket, this is exactly why I am 100% for private church schools solely funded by the students parents and private benefactors. When no federal monies are accepted, they have absolutely no say so in the curriculum or teachings of doctrine.

If it were not due to cost that is where our kids would be. We homeschool and do not accept any help from the school district. They once tried to convince us that our kids were still eligible to participate in extra-curricular programs within the school while being homeschooled. I looked into it and found out that if we had done that, our kids would have been subjected to the districts oversight, as well, they would still be able to collect 100% funding from the state for our kids, although they would only be there maybe two times a week!

Done! Wrote everyone!

Look at Amendment 20 to SB 1, though I don't know if this will come up for debate next Tues.:


S.AMDT.20
Amends: S.1 , S.AMDT.3
Sponsor: Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] (submitted 1/10/2007) (proposed 1/11/2007)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To strike a provision relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S400

STATUS:

1/11/2007:
Amendment SA 20 proposed by Senator Bennett to Amendment SA 3. (consideration: CR S438; text: CR S43

COSPONSORS(3):

Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 1/10/2007
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 1/11/2007
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 1/11/2007

Originally Posted by Kate

Crocket, you're referring only to Section 220, or are there also other parts of this bill that are problematic?

The principles of free speech apply to any public political speech, and the principle of subjection to federal regulation applies (as per the Slaughterhouse rulings) to any corporate or registered entities. In answer to your specific question, though, I have not had the time to read the entirety of the legisaltion as proposed because I have been working my backside off this week. If things slow down in the next week or two, I'll try to get back to the Congressional website and review all the legislation that's in the works.

Just a reminder that the senate will be back at it tomorrow - discussing Senate Bill 1.

Let your Senators know that they need to remove section 220!

OK DONE, notified both my senators, although Sen. Craig from Idaho is a hopeless case, he wrote the ag bill with Boxer but crapo sometimes listens. Craigs time is up in 2008, am hoping I can help get that brainless numbskull out of office.

SOSADFORUS, Idaho? You live there? If so, we're neighbors. Idaho has a few good fighters as politicians (one of Canyon counties commisioner).