Welcome, Guest

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
Kathy
Quote
No, it would protect the life of the child.  It would only apply if you believe that a child is not a life.
In roe and especially casey before being over turned the decision was to balance the privacy of the mother against the states protection of the potential life of the child.  So the fourth was applied for both mother and baby with a line trying to be drawn since it is a contradictory impossible position.  The laws allowed by the constitution give the federal power over the states on things allowed by the constitution.  This is even more proven after a civil war.   The constitution also, due to the bill of rights, stops the states as well as the federal gov when dealing with individual rights.  So when both federal and state can address an issue, the federal will take president.  The constitution can stop both state and federal on some things.

The Judicial Branch
The judicial branch is in charge of deciding the meaning of laws, how to apply them to real situations, and whether a law breaks the rules of the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest law of our Nation. The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, is part of the judicial branch.
If they do the above, then they are not legislating.  Throwing out rights is a sure way of inviting the gov into places they should not be even if based on majority vote unless they do so by a 2/3rd majority which could change the constitution to allow it.
Cheers
gww
2
GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. / Re: Bees in the Oak trees
« Last post by Ben Framed on Today at 01:33:29 pm »
Quote
Now, cotton.  Cotton flowers, which should have been obvious to me if I was thinking about it.  There are obviously seeds in cotton bolls, hence the invention of the cotton gin, and where there are seeds, there are flowers (or cones, but obviously cotton plants don't make pine cones).  Cotton is self-pollinating, so it doesn't require bees, but, as you mentioned Phillip, cotton will increase its yield when cross-pollinated by insects.  So cotton does produce nectar, both in its short-lived flowers and in extra-floral nectaries outside of flowers, in this case on the leaves.  Which means cotton honey is honey, because it's made from plant nectar.     


Thank you for digging into this deeper Reagan. 😁😁

Adding: A few years ago I posted here an article about a honey taste contest which was held in Texas. Cotton honey was the winner.

Phillip
3
Quote
If the fourth applies in one it would apply in roe which we see it does not.

No, it would protect the life of the child.  It would only apply if you believe that a child is not a life. 

The question you need to answer for yourself is where does the power to design the country reside?  Constitutionally, it should reside with the people by way of the states.  If people don't like that and want to make the courts the arbiter of power and law, then we should get rid of the states and the legislators in those states.  They have no purpose.  We can all live under one set of laws handed down by Congress.

Bad laws have been overturned before.  For the most part, they have been overturned for the protection of people.  I don't see Roe as any different except that the court did not protect babies, but left that protection...or not, to the people. 
If congress got off its backside and did a 1st trimester law like other countries have, I think most people would be OK(ish) with that.  My state would have a fit because it would not be enough, but most people would accept it.  Why won't Congress act?  Maybe for the same reasons they won't address immigration law?
4
Kathy
I do not believe you do not understand me.  As for as life, life of baby or life of someone needing a kidney.  It is not applicable to other rulings but if those other come up for review from lower courts, the same process will be used in processing the new case and that means privacy will not give strength as it did before.  If the fourth applies in one it would apply in roe which we see it does not.

I am not saying they will take a kidney, I am saying that if the majority pass a law and it is taken to the court, the right that would stop it is gone and the court would have to look at it with current views of the 5 justices.

The point is that the privacy right that stopped what people could do by majority vote is gone and so the minority will not be protected from the majority, which is what a right means in the first place.   When the majority wants to do something they do not need a right.
This is not a prediction of what the majority will do but they have in the past did unconstitutional stuff and may in the future but the court has now given away a right that I can not believe the people can or will stay happy with.  Most people do not get excited till things affect them personally and by then things are too established to change easy.  For freedom loving people, this could turn out bad regardless of your view on roe.
Cheers
gww

Ps weakening the Maranda rights is another step of the state against individual rights.
5
Quote
I read it and as I said earlier, based on this decision where the court put the states rights to protect possible life over the life of the woman leaves it for the state to decide other things based on life of one over another such as taking one of your kidney cause it would save the life of another.  Nothing in their ruling stops the federal gov from over riding the states that allow abortion.  By their position of not striking a balance as roe did, they have said it is left to majority vote cause there is now no right to privacy.  No way around this one fact based on their new interpretation of the constitution.  Get rid of all the goobly gook they wrote around it, this is the end result and the dissenting view of the minority lays it out quite plainly.

The decisions specifically said that it was not applicable to other past rulings.  So unless a case on something else is brought to them, they decided to hear it, and they decide to overrule a prior ruling, the argument that they are coming for other things doesn't wash.  They don't come for anything.  They did not come for Roe.  That said, everyone knew Roe was going to be overturned eventually and that's why states had trigger laws in place...and now most of them are relitigating those laws because having something on the books is not the same as implementing something.

It would be unconstitutional to take your kidney.  At the lease, the 4th amendment would apply. I guess I'm not really understanding your comparison of limiting abortion to taking a kidney.  One is a life and the other is an organ.

They did strike a ballance, which Roe did not.  They sent it to the people.  Roe took it from the people.  No matter how you look at it, it is the job of legislators to make law.  That's not what courts are supposed to do.  There can be a federal abortion law, or it can be left to the states.  No matter how the prior court got to Roe, it was wrong.  The fact that they invented a right earlier and made bad decisions doesn't mean those bad decisions should be carried forward built on an invented right.
6
THE COFFEE HOUSE ((( SOCIAL - ROOM ))) / Re: 4th of July
« Last post by Kathyp on Today at 11:28:56 am »
Quote
Red flag laws were followed.  The cops confiscated knives and in a short time they were given back to the father.  Because everyone has a right to own weapons. :rolleyes:  The cops reported the incident to the state police and washed their hands.   The red flag laws are temporary not permanent.  The primary effectiveness of red flag laws is for suicide not planned mass shootings over long periods of time.
The constitution makes no mention of mental illness because the right to bear arms was meant for militias to protect against foreign invaders.  It is assumed that if you had a mental issue you would not be part of a militia.
To answer Mikes question what is needed is very extensive back ground checks and waiting periods for ALL sales of firearms.  If anyone exhibits any kind of aggression, sorry for your luck, you never get a fire arm.  No pass on "I was just joking".  That is how the law can get tougher.

While you are taking your government and history class, take a class on red flag laws around the country and on background checks and how they work.
7
CRAFTING CORNER / Re: Mothers Day Quilt
« Last post by The15thMember on Today at 11:20:53 am »
That looks amazing!
8
Ok, I think the confusion here is stemming from the fact that no where on this thread have we actually defined "honeydew".  Honeydew is the waste excretion of certain insects that feed on plant sap (think aphids, scale bugs, etc.)  These insects have piercing mouthparts which they stab into a plant and then suck out its internal juices.  Because these bugs eat only plant sap though, they need to eat copious amounts of it to get enough protein in their diet, way more than their tiny stomachs can hold, and they end up ingesting way more sugars than they need for their own carbohydrate intake, just to get the other nutrients they require.  As a result their digestive tracts move really quickly, and a lot of the sugars survive out the back end.  :wink: :cheesy:  Their waste is therefore attractive to other insects who are searching for sugary liquids, like bees, and also ants, some of whom even farm aphids for their honeydew.  This is why honeydew honey is only questionably honey, because the source for the honey is not a plant, it's an insect. 

Now, cotton.  Cotton flowers, which should have been obvious to me if I was thinking about it.  There are obviously seeds in cotton bolls, hence the invention of the cotton gin, and where there are seeds, there are flowers (or cones, but obviously cotton plants don't make pine cones).  Cotton is self-pollinating, so it doesn't require bees, but, as you mentioned Phillip, cotton will increase its yield when cross-pollinated by insects.  So cotton does produce nectar, both in its short-lived flowers and in extra-floral nectaries outside of flowers, in this case on the leaves.  Which means cotton honey is honey, because it's made from plant nectar.     
9
GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. / Re: Nematodes for SHB
« Last post by FloridaGardener on Today at 10:36:15 am »
Actually I use Dixie H700 disposable kitchen towels, not Swiffer.  I just say (write) "Swiffer" because that's what people know. 

I'm going to also try blue shop towels split in half.  It may be enough fuzz to stop SHB but not trap bees by their corbiculae.
10
I tried it.  It's shipped as a powder and mixed with water before use.  It looks orange when mixed and is very runny, so it slops on quick.

At first the wood doesn't look any different.  After a few months, it starts to look weathered.  I still do see a little mildew on corners but I live in Florida the humidity capital of the western world.

After 2 years, next to crip white hives, they look a bit grubby - def. the ol' barn wood look.  But if all were the same, and the purpose is only an easier upkeep, I'd have to admit I haven't painted those nuc boxes in 2 years. :)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10