Katy Football player talks about religion in the program and how they were trying to indoctrinate children. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/op...Jc96ca4whIU1cP7uXmF-2J8Xzu5XPRLP-mjzrMMJ9XgNs DD
States still have their own constitutions and those constitutions can place additional restrictions on legislatures. And said state constitutions are a product of you guessed it, state legislatures. The state constitution still has just as much effect as the US Constitution and nothing in the US Constitution prohibits State Constitutions from regulating election law. All that line says is that legislatures regulate elections. That doesn't say that state constitutions have no role or that state courts are prohibited from enforcing said constitution. State courts don't strike down maps on federal grounds. They strike down maps based on the individual state constitutions. This idea that state legislatures are exempt from state constitutions because of a line in the US Constitution is insane. So if state constitutions are amended to introduce additional anti-gerrymandering provisions or provisions mandating an independent commission, by this logic, legislatures can just ignore all of that and do what they want.
The "independent state legislature" (ISL) doctrine is clearly: Anti-democratic. Anti-check and balance. Both of which the founders were very concerned about. So why is there that phrase in the Constitution? It's the meaning of the word "Legislature". It has been understood to mean "state governments", not exclusively the legislative branch. This extremist idea has a chance now with an extremist Court. It probably will come down to Robert and a 5-4 decision. If you are very concerned about that, you should be. Putting Elections in the Wrong Hands | Brennan Center for Justice The Framers didn’t trust state legislatures. “What led to the appointment of this Convention?” John F. Mercer of Maryland rhetorically asked his fellow delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. “The corruption & mutability of the Legislative Councils of the States.” They especially did not trust legislatures to run elections. James Madison insisted that the Constitution give Congress the power to override state laws concerning election administration. “t was impossible to foresee all the abuses,” he explained. He worried that legislators would engage in vote suppression and gerrymandering. (They didn’t call it that — the word didn’t exist yet, and anyway Elbridge Gerry was standing right there! — but that’s what they meant.) “Whenever the State Legislatures had a favorite measure to carry, they would take care so to mould their regulations as to favor the candidates they wished to succeed.” Add in the fact that the Framers had a real thing for checks and balances, and it should be clear that they would not, under any circumstances, have given state legislatures near absolute power over elections — the lifeblood of our democracy. And yet, that’s exactly what a small circle of scholars and activists would have us believe. According to the “independent state legislature theory” (ISLT), neither governors, state judges, nor even state constitutions can stop legislators from, for example, entrenching their power through gerrymandering or restricting voting access. ... Where do they get the nerve? From a misreading of a single word in the U.S. Constitution. The Elections Clause gives “legislatures” the power to set the “times, places, and manner” of elections. (And — to underline how little the Framers’ trusted state legislatures — Congress “may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”) Since the founding, “legislatures” has been understood to mean “state governments.” From the founding through today, state constitutions and state courts have consistently checked election legislation. So, it’s no surprise that a century’s worth of Supreme Court precedent rejects the theory. But at least four sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices are ISLT-curious, so voting rights advocates must ensure the Court doesn’t backtrack. The ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,’ Explained | Brennan Center for Justice There are two relevant clauses. One is the Elections Clause, which reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The other is the Presidential Electors Clause, which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The dispute hinges on how to understand the word “legislature.” The long-running understanding is that it refers to each state’s general lawmaking processes, including all the normal procedures and limitations. So if a state constitution subjects legislation to being blocked by a governor’s veto or citizen referendum, election laws can be blocked via the same means. And state courts must ensure that laws for federal elections, like all laws, comply with their state constitutions. Proponents of the independent state legislature theory reject this traditional reading, insisting that these clauses give state legislatures exclusive and near-absolute power to regulate federal elections. The result? When it comes to federal elections, legislators would be free to violate the state constitution and state courts couldn’t stop them. Extreme versions of the theory would block legislatures from delegating their authority to officials like governors, secretaries of state, or election commissioners, who currently play important roles in administering elections. Critics also reject the theory’s narrow approach to the Constitution’s text. They point out that the term “legislature” doesn’t necessarily mean “exclusively the legislature.” The First Amendment, to draw a parallel, literally prohibits only “Congress” from discriminating on the basis of speech and religion. But we understand the amendment to apply to the federal government in its entirety, including the judicial and executive branches. That’s why, to take one example, a judge can’t close off her courtroom to atheists.
Putin doesn't like it so Mojo doesn't like it. Nothing really impacts Mojo much because he's a Russian Bot.
I think Putin likes it in the West but not in Russia because it allows him to present the West as an evil boogeyman against traditional Russian values to his supporters. Likewise, he can appeal to Western voters who don't like it that he is the value of...traditional values.
That many more people are getting tax breaks that are not available to me as a single person. The government should not treat people differently based on their marital status.
Sounds like a personal choice. Choices have consequences. If you care that much, you should be personally responsible and get married. Gay marriage is also more than just taxes...it's custody agreements, being able to combine assets, hospital visitation rights, pensions, benefits, veterans' benefits...
So you are also upset with straight married people who get the same tax breaks. How does gay marriage negatively impact you in ways straight marriage doesn't?
Not universal. It depends on the situation. There are many situations where it's better to not marry (and people do this) to get a tax advantage. Besides that, there are ~1m same-sex couples (not all choose to marry after Obergefell) vs ~62m different-sex couples. Overall, any actual tax-related impact on you from legalizing same-sex marriage is probably close to nil.
right, more tax revenues said 300k choose to marry due to Obergefell, avg wedding is ~10k = 3B spending assuming ~8% sales tax, that brings in 240m in tax revenue
sales tax is local, it just gets spent on ineffective and racist policing DEFUND THE POLICE, BAN GAY WEDDINGS
unjustly gotten and spent. Thoreau boycotted paying the poll tax and wrote "Civil Disobedience" to explain why. We need an updated "Civil Disobedience" for a Woke Age
