There is no requirement that anyone concede a point or make a case. This is not a forum of lawyers. The internet is full of conflicting opinions. A legal case can be made for something while still being difficult to pull of politically, so something can be technically possible and practically impossible at the same time.
Actually, it was on this topic.
Oh I can read, and I gave you a quote about the limitations of Executive powers.
But you made the claim and the burden of proof rests on you . If you can provide a link to support your specific claim then you will have earned my respect. If not it is you who will look like the fool. Better get to work on this sticky little problem.
Centre for inquiry - inquire into what the experts in the field have to say on this not the layman take that is shoved down my throat on state federal rights and saying it cannot be done.
You have broken the rules .
3d * Publishing private messages, emails or other correspondence** without permission from the authors is not allowed.
I am just exposing your rude attitude to the rest of the forum.
If you think you can secretly insult me, I can have you removed from this site altogether.
This was just step 1 in the process. Care for more?
I did make the case and then when you denied my links, which are probably more reliable than yours, refusing to read them, I used my words in reference to you of one of my favourite Julia Sugarbaker’s rants, concerning what you said and been saying in your posts. Julia says it better though, even though I was raised in the Ozarks (makes me more like Charlene) and she in the deep South. If you would educate yourself on the duties of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, maybe you could dig your way out, but you won’t. You won’t even see that I have made the case, because you won’t read any of the links I shared, so you’re just sinking deeper.
I will defer to the experts. Thank you
Actually, if he is sending you insulting and/or abusive private messages, you tell us. Could you please forward the PM to Lausten and me? If you can only forward it to one of us, then we can share it with the other in the mod area. Whatever the case, this a violation of the rules (more so for him than you). I’m thinking you don’t know how to forward it on this new forum, so I can excuse it this time.
If you are sending members PMs that are violating the rules then we may automatically ban you. Consider this a warning. What write4you did is not as bad as abuse using CFI forum’s PM system.
Princeplanet please refer to rule 3:e and f. Calling someone an imbecile could be considered abuse, especially in a PM, and privately abusing members will not be tolerated.
1 Like
Sounds like another campaign of falsehoods by the freedom fighters (fighters of freedom, that is) to discourage people from going to PP.
Like the reservations don’t have enough problems without setting up abortion clinics that all but invite the worst of the assault weapon armed Christianfascists to drive onto the reservation and create all sorts of hell, then getting away with it because of, well, because there are a lot of nasty crazy people being moved through governmental agencies too.
Indigenous law experts say it’s wrong to expect tribes to offer ‘safe harbor’ abortion services
Arizona Republic, Arlyssa Becenti
Basically, it is, I think. I don’t trust pro-deathers to say, “We’ve banned abortions, so Plan Parenthood is now OK.” I think they’d get rid of birth control too, if they could.
I hadn’t heard about the fed lands thing, but getting caught up. HHS is being very cautious, but it sounds like the idea is not dead.
Then there’s this from the Department of War, er excuse me, Department of Defense.
The recent Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not prohibit the Defense Department from continuing to provide essential women’s health care services to service members, dependents, other beneficiaries and DOD civilian employees, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness said in a memo released today.
Gilbert R. Cisneros Jr. noted that under existing federal law DOD may only perform or pay for abortions if the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest — called “covered abortions.”
The recent Supreme Court decision does not prohibit DOD from continuing to perform these covered abortions, consistent with federal law, he wrote.
“There will be no interruption to this care,” Cisneros said.
Well, there is that.
Yes, citizens who have never been involved in politics need to join the struggle, the crazies have had a great big head start, we need to catch up with some reality checks and a bit of tough love when it comes to dealing with the God card.
Good luck with that. I’ve been working on my husband since before we were married. He just won’t vote, but if he did, it’d be Dem probably. He seems to believe that people can vote, but it doesn’t mean anything because it’s already been decided.
Thus the dance between my optimism and can-do, and my loss of faith in tomorrow. But in the end it comes down to how do we want to live today.
I’d rather keep bailing water, rather than rolling up crying.
Although I can relate to both.
As I believe you can. 
========================
Considering most of the population sides with Democrats when it comes to actual policy - I think that’s a very good thing to get as many people to vote as possible.
You know every dang trump crazy will be going to the polls to kick our political power into the history books.
The woman was not admitted to transit because, being dispensed from getting a visa, she needed a return ticket by plane to a country without any border common with USA.
But that does not explain the way she was mistreated and questioned.
And it seems she is not the first one.
I agree 100%, but most people, politically, have no self-efficacy. I learned about that years ago in Poli Sci 101.
I predicted it!
Is the Establishment Clause Dead? A Message From SCOTUS
June 24, 2022, 1:00 AM
The US Supreme Court’s Carson v. Makin ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that Maine cannot exclude religious schools from participating in a state tuition assistance program without violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause rights of students who might choose such schools over nonsectarian independent schools.
Justice Stephen Breyer, in dissent, wrote that the decision could open the floodgates for compelled state funding of religious education. He was joined in full by Justice Elana Kagan and in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote separately to criticize the Roberts court’s erosion of previously settled law on the “play in the joints” balancing between the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses in favor of an emergent doctrine that summarily—and atextually—subordinates the constitutional mandate against governmental establishment of religion to individual free-exercise claims.
I think we need to stop looking at polls and look at districts. Republicans will say they are for sensible gun laws, but will vote for the NRA endorsed candidate, or the pro lifer.