Gov & Law 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments
12 views | +0 today
Gov & Law 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments
4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Andrew Lawrence from MOVIES VIDEOS & PICS!

Jon Stewart Applauds Rand Paul for Filibuster: 'Worth Kicking Up A Fuss For' ~ 3/6/2013

Like, Favourite, & Share! Jon Stewart 'somewhat' applauds Rand Paul on The Daily Show for using filibuster over drones, and says its 'Worth Kicking Up A Fuss...

Via Troy Mccomas (troy48)
Andrew Lawrence's insight:

Jon Stewart at his finest.....(*sigh*)

Andrea Pastorino's comment, March 16, 2013 2:36 PM
Another great show by Jon Stewart. He just totally got the point, according to me. Do United States really need such a huge military program? Is there a imminent, real danger that needs a strong Defense department? I think that's better to save money on weapons and feed the new generation's minds
Rescooped by Andrew Lawrence from Government and Economics!

A Smart Way to End the Stupidity of Sequestration

A Smart Way to End the Stupidity of Sequestration | Gov & Law 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments |
There are two main problems with sequestration. The first is that the $1.1 trillion in budget cuts happen in an idiotic, across-the-board fashion. Think farm subsidies are less valuable than medical research, and thus should take a bigger cut?

Via Joel Leagans
Andrew Lawrence's insight:

Well well well, we got a smarty pants over here, don't we. For real, we do! This guy knows his business. Instead of going cold turkey and just shaving off the $1.1 trillion, we should take it slow and gradually decrease our spending. I can't believe the White House and its staff declined the proposal from the Repubs. IT'S GIVING YOU MORE POWER, DUDES.

Joel Leagans's curator insight, March 6, 2013 2:08 PM

Great read on how to solve sequestration!

Telavive Taye's comment, March 8, 2013 8:19 PM
Though you(Mr. Leagans) have commented for the methedology of fixing the sequestration debacle outlined in this article as bieng proper, i find the title itself to be a bit too much of an overstatement. I agree it is a great read and I have learned about an alternative the White House has on its hand, but the penultimate message of the article seems to undermine the need of overcoming party polirization and real and warranted deal by both the parties. The sequestration is truly scary when one sees how indiscriminte the cuts are. The proposal made by senators Inhofe and Toomey might seem like the republicans are taking a leap forward to fix the cuts, but allowing the five chief agencies to decide which cuts should/should not proceed is a double-edged sword. On one side, as outlined by John Mccain, allowing the president to take over one of the most important responsibilies of Congress, holding of the purse, would be dangerous when looking at cuts in the defense sector. On the other hand, this proposal by these two Republican senators does not seem so sincere on thier parts for fixing the sequestration because as they are backed up by numerous republicans, they do not seem to give that much hoot about the cuts. As Obama well phrased it, the so called "flexibility" given to him and the five chief agencies is not so flexible, because it's hard when choosing about "..cutting funds for a handicaped kid or a poor kid or cutting funds of one navy over the other..." The republicans are being very religious about the taxing part of the deal, but they still are not giving much leway for the White House on how to reach a deal, and on the other had, the Democrats wanting to craft a perfect deal with tax-hikes seems not so favorable. Washington, please start working.
Joel Leagans's comment, April 4, 2013 3:08 PM
Well this Andrew Lawrence guy is an idiot.
Rescooped by Andrew Lawrence from Gov & Law Amendments!

Video: Truck Driver Stands Up To Unconstitutional Checkpoint

Video: Truck Driver Stands Up To Unconstitutional Checkpoint | Gov & Law 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments |

A truck driver who passed through an unconstitutional checkpoint 30 miles from the Mexican border stood up for his 4th Amendment rights by refusing to answer questions in another example of how Americans are re-asserting their liberties.

Andrew Lawrence's insight:

Holy cow this guy has got guts! I would have been terrified to not answer the questions...but this trucker is right! He had and has the right to not answer any questions. Beautiful performance of upholding our rights and freedoms right there. We aren't prisoners in a violent country. We are free citizens. Gah. 'Murica.

Andrea Pastorino's comment, March 16, 2013 2:13 PM
I'm really impressed by the cold-heartedness of this man who's brave enough to stand up and fight for his rights. He seems to know very well his rights and he doesn't give up even when the officer becomes more and more inquisitive. Great example of a battle for rights.
Lauren Heim's curator insight, April 30, 2014 8:48 PM

This truck driver had some  crazy bravery to stick up to the border patrol. And though he got pretty lucky he did have the right to do what he did. He held his ground when there was no probable cause and the border patrol had violated the 4th amendment or were about to. The man also plead the fifth in which he has the right to.

Abigail Beinborn's comment, May 2, 2014 1:37 PM
I think it takes a lot of courage to stand up to any patrol. This man stood up for his rights of the fourth and fifth amendment. I think he did the right thing.