http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2010/11/30/judson-phillips-would-restrict-voting-to-property-owners Comments On: Judson Phillips Would Restrict Voting to Property Owners by Betsy Phillips en-us Copyright 2013 Nashville Scene. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Nashville Scene readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Nashville Scene. wil@desert.net (Nashville Scene Webmaster) Sun, 19 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Sun, 19 May 2013 19:45:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
"And one final thing: God bless you."
Posted by Zombie Ronald Reagan]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:21:02 -0500 Nashville Scene Posted by R.L.Taylor]]> Sun, 05 Dec 2010 10:03:34 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by lifetree]]> Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:07:26 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by wvfii]]> Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:30:59 -0600 Nashville Scene
"But I will vehemently disagree that I'm taking a "narrow view"of the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses."

If that is true, then why is it that the Courts had to overturn existing practices at the state and federal level that had been previously considered constitutional since 1789? Historically speaking, you are advocating an extremist position that the Framers and most Americans over the years would consider as perverse and reading the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to own flamethrowers.
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:18:27 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:42:46 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Pete Wilson]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:45:30 -0600 Nashville Scene The so-called "tea parties" lack a central leadership and organizational structure. Judson Phillips is not a "Tea Party leader," as Betsy states; he is merely the founder of "Tea Party Nation" - the organizing entity of the so-titled "National Tea Party Convention" at Opryland.
Posted by Ingleweird]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:33:13 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Pete Wilson]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:46:25 -0600 Nashville Scene
And I say that no one is capable of empirically proving any such thing. Such claims are mere speculation and supposition.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:34:56 -0600 Nashville Scene
Hey that's fine with me.

You get to have your tax bill reduced for overseas military operations and I get to have my bill reduced for ALL entitlement/welfare programs of any type - Social Security, Medicare, federal support for Medicaid, food stampts, etc. etc.

I guarantee you my percentage reduction in taxes paid will be significantly higher than yours - and will stay that way consistently over time.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:31:04 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by wvfii]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:31:21 -0600 Nashville Scene
Indeed.

The phrase "separation of church and state" that is claimed to be a "Constitutional principle" appears nowhere in the text of the First Amendment.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:29:51 -0600 Nashville Scene
The amount of federal tax money spent on such things is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the spending on all the entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc.

And yet you choose to harp on the former rather than the latter.

Quite strange.

Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:23:56 -0600 Nashville Scene
No - on a user fee basis.

You are using (i.e. benefitting from) military protection services that safeguard your life and property - regardless of whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not. You should therefore have to pay for your prorata share of it.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:19:21 -0600 Nashville Scene
"And it STILL does not change the fact that faith-based initiatives are clearly unconstitutional."

Like having 'In God We Trust' on our coins? Or the National Day of Prayer?
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:06:35 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:42:07 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by wvfii]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:28:48 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:23:39 -0600 Nashville Scene
No, this time I'm simply talking about the tax dollars funneled into "Faith-based initiatives", without any safeguards put into place for proselytizing (a clear abuse of the Establishment Clause) and discrimination in hiring based on religion, even though these programs being publicly funded.
Posted by wvfii]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:00:42 -0600 Nashville Scene
Part of protecting freedom of religious expression is preventing government from taxing unpopular groups out of existence. Think of it as establishment by negation.
Posted by Mark Rogers]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:41:09 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by Maloney]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:35:25 -0600 Nashville Scene
Do you disagree, Judson?
Posted by Judson's Clocktower]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:07:37 -0600 Nashville Scene
If Phillips is serious about original intent, why stop at property owners?
Posted by hypervocal]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:43:41 -0600 Nashville Scene Posted by bubbadog]]> Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:36:10 -0600 Nashville Scene