Messages

I am unsure as to why you would lose citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country when current State Department policy as well as Supreme Court decision don't provide for the loss of citizenship in this case and the current law is retroactive.

You can't swear loyatlies to two countries. And there is a MAJOR PROBLEM if our CIC has oaths of loyalty to another country.

Irregardless of your opinion, current state department policy clearly states that acquiring citizenship in another country, especially while a minor, does not revoke your current US citizenship. 

I am unsure as to why you would lose citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country when current State Department policy as well as Supreme Court decision don't provide for the loss of citizenship in this case and the current law is retroactive.

Checked in open records while I was at the Courthouse: he and his girlfriend Susan Lyles were found guilty on 9 out of 10 charges.  Sentencing will be December 30th and they are out on bail until that point in time.

December 08 crude @ $59.33, down $3.08.  Natural Gas closed @ $6.708 down $0.54.  I can help too Dan.

I realize that the meeting was for information only and am not getting hyper over it.  Rather, I was expressing a concern over the likelihood and the general process of discovering what is needed in any potential new structure.  I fully realize that we can't have 500 people at each meeting expressing opinions, and I DIDN'T suggest that we should, my suggestion was on a planning or steering committee only.  Further to that, we did elect board members, however, this doesn't preclude the public being very involved in any planning sessions.  I have been to a Senate hearing both in Topeka and in Washington as well as the Canadian Senate in Ottawa, and understand fully well how the process works.  I also understand that steering committees with respresents of many different sub-groups of the populace are very beneficial when planning any potential school construction and the bond issues that would result.

Now that I'm done breathing  , I'll move on. 

I couldn't agree more David, I firmly believed that despite what was said at the meeting, the school board isn't encouragin community involvement.  We (meaning us but also the school board) should go to great lengths to ensure that the community is actively involved in all the discussions not only on our "campus" but the curriculum as well.  This presents the perfect opportunity to coordinate the curriculum and the facilities and attempt to provide a facility that can be flexible enough to adapt to the educational needs of our students for the next 25 years.

On my rant, if the school board were truly interested in receiving the opinions of the community, they could have sent home letters informing parents of the meaning.  Was it on channel 2?(sorry, I never watch it)  Did we post flyers or other notices of a special meeting?  I read the Prairie Star, I don't recall a notice of a special meeting (not saying that it is necessary), but rather that it would be intelligent to have done so.

I don't blieve that the board understands to get a bond passed that will geniunely improve the educational environment of this area, you need to actively court the community.  This needs to be resolved.  This board and its administrators have a communication disability.  Certainly you will never have the attendance that you will hope for at any school board meeting, but no effort was made.  They need to seek the buy-in of the community from the beginning, that way we aren't redoing this several times to get community support.

Sorry for the rant, was upsetting me.  I will get off my soap box now!

[deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;]

It wasn't legislating from the bench, but rather a finding a TX law unconstitutional under the due process clause of the 14th amendment which is as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unless it has changed, that was the last thing that my dad taught me.  However, I believe this argument centers around burning the flag as a statement of protest.

Sounds like a judge with no power to legislate from the bench, controlling the punishments to legislate from the bench.   

Also, it is interesting that as a person interested in protecting the rights of others you will protect the rights of a speeder, who is caught on videotape speeding, however, would you defend someone's right to burn the flag as an expression of speech?

Would you protect the right to choose?

Would you protect the right to be Mirandized, despite the fact that many conservative justices have scaled it back over the past 10 years?