Public Congress

1. How do you feel about America’s drug war and it’s unintended consequences? Are we really benefiting from federal drug laws? Does the government really play an effective role in personal choices to take care of one’s self or not to do so?

2. My pastor can legal opt out of the social security program as a conscientious objector on religious grounds by filling out IRS Form 4361. He can then manage his own retirement without the government managing that money for him. Should I be allowed to do the same?

3. What would you cut to balance the budget?

4. Corporations keep going to congress and getting extensions on the copyright laws to keep works from falling into the public domain to the point that even the "Happy Birthday" song is still under copyright. How many years do you think a content rights owner should be allowed to hold on before the work becomes public domain?

For a politician, yes those questions are extremely difficult, because they require the politician to actually go on the record and take a stand (one way or the other) on those issues.
But I don’t think they’re "gotcha" questions; they are fair and intelligent, and important questions to ask. Mind if I use them on the guys running in my area?

Some people act as if the concept of separation of Church and State is handed down from on high. It is not. It isn’t found in the Constitution, explicitly or even implicitly. It comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury, CT, and even that has been misinterpreted over the years. His letter clearly indicates his desire to reassure the Baptists that the State has no interest in interfering with religious life, not that all vestiges of religious life should be banished from the public domain.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Establishing a religion means to make it the official, state-sponsored, taxpayer-funded one, as was done in Britain. I don’t think there are more than a handful of people in this country who disagree with that prohibition, but there are a great many of us who believe activist judges have far overstepped their bounds in misinterpreting the verbiage and intent of the Founding Fathers insofar as the First Amendment is concerned.
ando: I want them separate as institutions, I simply do not believe that Jefferson or the other Founding Fathers had any intention of banning religion from public life as the more vociferous adherents of the (pardon the expression) religion of Separation of Church and State seem to believe.
vito: That is incorrect. We have approximately 75, and even that is if we squint realllllllly hard at the rulings handed down by activist judges. The Bill of Rights didn’t even apply to the States until SCOTUS decided the Fourteenth Amendment made it so. Once again, it’s funny the men who wrote that amendment didn’t say that such was the case, but the courts knew their intentions better than they themselves did…or at least pretended to.
Alex: That’s funny, as I find no such mandate of separation in the Virginia Charter, but I DO find the following: "AND forasmuch as it shall be necessary for all such our loving Subject as shall inhabit within the said Precincts of Virginia aforesaid, to determine to live together in the Fear and true Worship of Almighty God, Christian Peace and Civil Quietness each with other, whereby every one may with more Safety, Pleasure and Profit enjoy that whereunto they shall attain with great Pain and Peril;"

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/charter-of-virginia-1609#ixzz1ADhADEol
mike: I believe that’s pretty much what I said. Nobody is advocating establishment, but a nativity scene at the county courthouse is NOT establishing a religion.
momma: How many times do I need to repeat: I HAVE NO INTEREST IN ESTABLISHING CHRISTIANITY AS A NATIONAL RELIGION. That wasn’t my point, as should be obvious to anyone who reads what I wrote. There’s a chasm of difference between establishment of a religion and allowing tokens of religious life and observance on public property. Jefferson regularly attended Christian church services held within the Capitol Building. I suspect today’s secular left would become apoplectic if that happened today.

Yes, you are correct.

And most Americans agree with you.

who are concerned that eminent domain is being abused?!!

BASED ON BERMAN V. PARKER, JUSTICE DOUGLAS SAID THAT THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT VALUES TO CONSIDER IN SEIZING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC WELFARE BELONGS ONLY TO CONGRESS.

public has rights to market values

They act like these are gotcha or trap questions.

1. How do you feel about America’s drug war and it’s unintended consequences? Are we really benefiting from federal drug laws? Does the government really play an effective role in personal choices to take care of one’s self or not to do so?

2. My pastor can legal opt out of the social security program as a conscientious objector on religious grounds by filling out IRS Form 4361. He can then manage his own retirement without the government managing that money for him. Should I be allowed to do the same?

3. What would you cut to balance the budget?

4. Corporations keep going to congress and getting extensions on the copyright laws to keep works from falling into the public domain to the point that even the "Happy Birthday" song is still under copyright. How many years do you think a content rights owner should be allowed to hold on before the work becomes public domain?

They’re coming and pestering you. You can ask anything you want.

After-all Liberals have argued the Federal government does have the power to force its citizens to buy a product from a private company.

Do we? Is that what we argued? I though that the individual mandate was originally a GOP idea, proposed in 1993 during the debate over the Clinton health plan. I thought that real liberals wanted a nationalized single-payor system.

But then again, you don’t really know what the word "liberal" means, do you?

Or a Democrat President and a Republican Congress? Why?

I am against one party rule. It leads to corruption.
Flip Flop You must not remember why the Republicans took control of Congress during Clintons first term. This is also the same reason the Democrats retook the Congress last midterm. One party rule leads to corruption. I am just calling a spade a spade!

Of the two choices, I’d choose a Republican Congress and Democratic President. Congress has more power, and I want lower taxes and a smaller, less powerful federal government. Ideally, I’d like more Libertarians in Congress. I like things to be more diverse so one party doesn’t get too out of control.

I applaud your realization that one party in control of everything leads to more limitless corruption than when Congress and the White House are under mixed control. I just hope these mindless Obama worshipers realize that before it’s too late.

who are concerned that eminent domain is being abused?!!

BASED ON BERMAN V. PARKER, JUSTICE DOUGLAS SAID THAT THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT VALUES TO CONSIDER IN SEIZING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC WELFARE BELONGS ONLY TO CONGRESS.

eminent domain is out of control! arlington, texas used eminent domain laws to build jerry jones death star huge cowboy stadium.

hurst, texas used eminent domain to expand north east mall.

c’mon man…none of these things are of really significant importance or for the public good. it’s out of control!

now we have this big old huge highway gov perry wants to build which will simply rape a huge corridor across all of texas for no reason except to give out huge contracts to big contractors at the expense of farmers and ranchers. so far we have said HELL NO! WE WON’T GO!

i just hope people take this issue seriously because the next house eaten alive could be yours!

Why know the Democrats don’t really want to secure the border, but Bush had a Republican Congress for 6 years. Why did he fail to act?

Two words CHEAP LABOR! If he had secured the borders it would have cut into the profits of his base. The big corporate donors who depend on aliens to provide cheap labor and to endure illegal conditions. You might not have noticed, but Bush and the Republican congress accomplished absolutely nothing of positive value in their six years unless you consider an ill-advised, expensive war to be an accomplishment.

I will give them about a week before they are bought and sold by the Lobbyists representing Special Interests.

They already did – the U.S. Chamber of Commerce got them elected, using foreign money, and they expect plenty in return.

What did they ram down American throats?They might have behaved like RINOs when it came to social spending reform from 2000-2006, but look at the Dems..Even the Republican Congress under Bush never spent like that, Dems have always broken a lot of records, and spending is one of them.
I thought Obama inherited a recession, now it’s a depression, really?

I was much much better off 4 years ago than I am today.