So how long until the health care systems in small states like Arkansas finally collapse from the Covid Pressure? It keeps getting worse and worse daily here. Just because New York is doing better people are acting like it’s over. It’s just beginning here. Let’s see how the job numbers look two months from now when we are all sick.
It certainly could be a third amendment issue if the hotel owners do not want the NG in their hotels. Whether or not hotels would count as “any house” in the third amendment would be the key factor and need to be decided by the courts. This isn’t just a matter of semantics either. Would an 18th century inn have been considered a house for third amendment purposes in the framers’ minds or would they have been fine saying if an inn keeper doesn’t live there it’s fair game? Whether or not the third amendment has actually been violated is not the same as whether or not this is a third amendment issue.
Muriel Bowser neither owns nor lives in the Marriott Marquis and there is no reasonable argument that a public accommodation renting out rooms to the government under the terms of a preexisting contract possibly constitutes quartering. If you want to fantasize about facts that would make it a Third Amendment issue, have fun.
He doesn’t even look at death rates just economy. All those states he named have been all reaching Covid cases highs. So we just gonna kill thousands so he can brag on stocks.
buddy, it is too early in the AM for me to give a shit what he says in some presser about the jobs report.
We had massive protests for days and this fuckjob hid in a bunker and stayed on Twitter. Unemployment better than last month? This fucker called a press conference within 30 minutes. If that doesn't show you what he cares about, nothing will.
Hard to imagine that this administration wouldn't figure out a way to fudge the numbers (that just happen to fly in the face of all other indicators) given their restraint in firing people who don't agree with their point of view or who investigate them for not being on the up and up.
They looked into it further and found that apparently what happened is that the state was laid off five years ago and no one ever told them, but through some kind of glitch in the payroll department, they still get a paycheck. So they fixed the glitch. It'll work itself out naturally.
In about 30 minutes Kayleigh McEnany will appear at a press conference, call it fake news and claim the “George” he was referencing is clearly George Washington.
He was talking about inequality from police, not the economy. But quickly turned back to the economy 3 seconds later.
You know what the fake news media refuses to show? That in George’s last breath he said, with tears in his eyes, “Sir, thank you, sir, for doing so much for me and my people. I only wish I was going to live a little longer in these halcyon days of Trump! NO COLLUSION!”
A one month job report convincing Republicans they fixed the economy is pretty risky if goes to shit again.
You mean in the same week he staged a photo-op and we continue to have daily protests? He is talking about the economy, that’s all that matters. Virus = bad Inequality = bad Unemployment improving for a historic high to being the 2nd highest rate since they tracked the statistic = good
Since troops aren’t really people and are just guns with legs, this is actually a second amendment issue. Heller already established that DC can’t ban types of guns it doesn’t like and the president (as a resident of the district) is permitted to keep his pew pew toys stored however he chooses.
Well since I do like to have fun, I started to really fantasize about the full extent of the reaches of the potential third amendment issues here. Here's where it got me. So the Quartering Act of 1765 was passed by Parliament and it pissed of the colonists. Why? Was it because it forced soldiers into homes? No. It was because it required colonial governments to pay for the construction of barracks and for provisions to house soldiers. If they couldn't do that, then inns and pubs and such public places were to be used, and provisions still provided. And if they filled up, then barns and other non occupied buildings were to be used, and provisions still provided. And only if all those spaces are filled would soldiers be housed in homes, and provisions still provided. Parliament said it was because they wanted to protect the colonies after the French and Indian War from potential further conflict with enemies of the crown, but colonists didn't buy that since the troops were stationed in the coastal areas and not on the frontiers and therefore felt it was an occupying force. My point in bringing this up is not to argue who was right then, though I do fall on the side of the colonists in the argument. Rather it is to show that the first anger to quartering soldiers in the colonies came from having to provide the funds from taxes for the housing and provisions for what they felt was an unnecessary and potentially hostile occupying force which was meant to intimidate during a time of peace. I'd imagine they actually would have hated an innkeeper who was willing to accept their tax paid funds to house soldiers. Especially as this was still relatively early in the idea of no taxation on colonists from Parliament without representation in Parliament. So where does my fantasy lead me? To the reading of the third amendment that says this as much about the improper use of government revenues (taxes) in the quartering of soldiers in peace time. Crazy, right? I know. But its just that those damn commas fall awkwardly. And since there is little case law on this, the amendment hasn't been as broken down as the second amendment, so who knows which clause will be given more importance. But hear me out. "No Soldier shall, in times of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Does this mean that no matter whether it is during peace time or war that no soldier shall be quartered but in a manner to be prescribed by law, and that the consent of the owner is also a necessary component, but only in times of peace? If so, then the first question is not whether the owner has consented, but rather whether it is a time of peace time or war, and then whether the quartering has been done in a manner prescribed by law. And only then if these questions have been answered affirmatively would you then look to see if the owner consented. If a governor, or in the case of DC, the mayor, does not request NG assistance as is required under the law for the president to authorize its use outside of federal lands, then that would seem to me to be a violation that soldiers only be quartered in both times of peace and war in a manner prescribed by our current laws. Even if the owners of the Marriott Marquis are willing to take the money. Are we not also paying for them to eat and be transported from the hotel? If Mayor Bowser says she doesn't need them, then this is not being done as prescribed by our laws.