*runs away before SK explodes*

I found this little gem in GAFF. And dear god, the very idea scares me.

You know, it’s easy to talk about how the US is going to hell and all, and how I’d love to leave this country? Well, it’s getting harder just to talk about it. I need money. Now. And I need to get the fuck out of here. Now.

The post is as given on GAFF, sans comments of the poster.

Ooh, a blogger, better panic

It’ll be blocked by the Supreme Court. Don’t worry.

Deja vu…

so finally they are giving my father power(I’m just kidding God)"What do you mean not to post this? Thare is nothing to do up in heaven.Oooh if I do 10 hail Marys I can…She is right over thare.

Do you even read what you have wrote? Or do you just type randomly and hope it comes out slightly coherent?

This actually came up in my local newspaper as an opinion article in support of it. It seemed like such an stupid, baseless idea that I didn’t bother responding with a letter of my own.

If something like that ever happens, Clarence Darrow will just rise from the dead and show em’ what’s up. Don’t worry. :stuck_out_tongue:

I couldn’t help but notice the first post in the third link was made 3 days ago. :hint:

I agree with that. My blood pressure rises when I talk about how much the current America sucks.

I’d like to leave for good, but $800 USD isn’t enough. Which is what I have stashed in my “Get the fuck out of America” stashbox. Maybe by the end of summer, though. On Friday, I have at least another 100 dollars going to that fund(Maybe 200, even).

I had a bunch of stuff prepared, but I lost it. It wouldn’t stand. Also, the GAFF thing is different from what some of the other links say. As it is posted, it would fail simply for Congress trying to regulate the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction (which can onyl be changed through an amendment). Congress can changes the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiciton, as stated in Ex Parte McCardle, but not original. I could write a whole essay on this, but I’ll save you the reading. Also, the act has an inherent contradiction in that it wants to use common law. Common law is not a part of the Constitution. Early judges primarly used common law since there weren’t cases to use as precidence. However, it was never a par tof the Constitution. Hell, the Preamble doesn’t really even any rights or such, as stated in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. There is a lot of other stuff, but I don’t want to get into it.

And while running seems like a simple solution, it solves absolutely fuckin’ nothing. Instead of conceding victory to those you hate after one or two battles, why not stay and help fight.

Its our duty to fight to make changes, its not our duty to turn tail and run at the first sign of adversity. I for one, won’t give up the fight.

Freedom of religion means freedom from ALL religions

Where to…? As for me, I wanna go back to Germany. ^^

Also, I for got to add, the that the act fails since it would overturn a lot of Supreme Court decisions (which can only be overturned by a Constitutional Amendment or the Supreme Court). You need to remember that the Supreme Court is equal to the President and Congress. Hell it could even be said to be more powerful, but definitely not less. The only time it was really less powerful was during Reconstruction after the Civil War, and that was because Congress was pretty much on a rampage.

I’ll fight the good fight here as long as I have to, but I would like to be able to smoke marijuana without having to worry about the authorities. And there’s so many signs of adversity in America now, that it will destroy itself in due time. And I sure as hell don’t want to be part of the WWIII axis.

and Trill, I plan on either going to Canada or the Netherlands. Some place where I can smoke weed without being labeled a drug offender.

I’m right in your corner with the marijuana problems. Canada is pretty lax on pot possession, which is a bonus.

I just refuse to let the neocons take over this country without a fight.

As it stands now, they may have already hit the high water mark with the Terri Schiavo case. Most of the religious rhetoric that Tom Delay and his croonies dispensed seems to have backfired.

The last week or so, have seen a rift begininng to form inside the GOP, with the moderates taking on the neo cons, trying to wrestle control back from them. Hopefully this will incite some change, as the Republican party has had its lips firmly attached to the religious rights ass the last 15 years.

No it doesn’t. It means freedom to practice (or not) religion without fear of government reprisal. Then there’s the Establishment Clause, but that only means government can’t endorse religion. There’s no freedom FROM religion; that implies a ban of public showing of religion.

I think you mistook my meaning, as happens alot around here…

I ment freedom from any religion being endorsed, or put above another, and from religion being a part of government at all.

Well, that’s a completely different idea. Freedom from religion implies the ban of religion. That’s what the phrase has pretty much always meant.

Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by Amendment XI.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Technically, congress can do this, but I can’t see it passing, it violates everything the Republican Party stands for.

Most notably the limiting of the federal government powers that has been a main component of the Republican Platform for decades.

As far as the religion part goes:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It pretty simply and basically exempts religion from having anything to do with government at all, in either a positive or negative way.