pfife

I'm so sick of these dipshits being entitled to their own fiction as fact

It is now completely and totally accurate to call them pro forced birth not pro life

Dang!!!!

there's no right to privacy per the SCOTUS. Welcome to the party pals

Better than no clinics at all. But I'm coming from a pro-choice perspective - are you? Also who said federally funded clinic? Your links clearly stated Warren said Planned Parenthood should open the clinics on federal land.

I don't know if they were free or not.

If I were that person I'd prolly go the $32 route. If I lived in Mesick I'd go the national forest route. But they could also drive to the further place too if they wanted to and had the means. What government is paying the subsidies you proposed?

Seems like a not viable government policy to me.... sounds like a familiar refrain.... oh well

My recollection was that the testimony included no assertion that Trump was attempting to commandeer the vehicle. It's questionable Trump even knows how to drive. Here's the paragraph from the transcript We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. — when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.

It is current federal law that the federal government cannot fund abortions. Would the proposed subsidies be in violation of this current law? Will the law be repealed? (no) Is it the state government that is going fund the subsidies? That won't pass the state legislature so it would have to be the Governor. I'm not sure that's possible for her to do.

Who pays the subsidy?

Who pays the subsidy for the bus ride to Chicago or Canada?

Why either/or? Why not both? Oh that's me being for women's choice again.

But we are not discussing law enforcement - we're discussing who has the jurisdiction to make the rules that are to be enforced, specifically abortion policies on federal lands. You seem to be using who can enforce the laws & regulations as a proxy for who can make the laws & regulations - which may be appropriate in some cases but your article clearly stated who has the jurisdiction to make laws and regulations: Note that it doesn't say states have full authority - which is what you claimed. Furthermore, whether there's an abortion clinic in the forest is relevant to the operation of the national forest.

Your article said national forests were proprietary ownership, which is regulated by Congress, who ceded the power to the Ag Department. Nowhere did that article support your claims from earlier today that national forests were full authority of the states - in fact, it said the opposite. Also since Military bases are included same as Isle Royal , as you just ceded, that means the point about having to go to Isle Royal was NOT valid as you just claimed.

The transcript of the podcast you posted: https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3 mentioned the following federal properties we hadn't considered: post offices, veterans hospitals, research facilities, military installations. Here's who makes the rules for proprietary owned lands- congress gave the power to the Executive Branch. For exclusive owned lands: More on Concurrent, they don't say who makes the regulations, but they do say that feds can patrol so it's fair to infer the feds can make the rules on these lands too: So in summary, based on the link you posted: https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3, all three categories seem to be at least partially under the jurisdiction of the federal government: Proprietary: Congress has regulatory jurisdiction, and they ceded it to Exec branch Ag Dept Exclusive: Feds can enforce laws there Concurrent: Feds can enforce laws there I've now educated myself from your link and frankly the feds seem to have more jurisdiction than you claimed. At one point you claimed state had full authority (your words) and in this article NONE of the three types of federal land ownership say the state had full authority - they don't even come close: National forest was proprietary ownership which the article you posted said was regulated by congress, ceded to Ag Dept.

So a president can declare an emergency and steal the constitutional power of the purse from Congress, but a president can't declare a state of emergency and disregard the US forest service manual? that is one powerful document.

You are selling something - you're selling your opinion that this can't be done b/c of the jurisdiction of the land. We're 3 years removed from a president declaring a state of emergency and used that not to override a law- but to override the constitutional article that the Congress controls the purse. I didn't make the game or the rules, but those are the rules and that is the game- we all saw it with our own eyes.

I will accept that I was right yet again. Thank you. However, it's sad that the board would rather call me names than google the damn quote themselves. And then one poster googled the quote they literally called it a quote from Warren when it was nothing of the sort - it was literally a quote from someone else. The dishonesty is very high in this forum right now - to the point where accurately quoting someone is a "technicality". If it's childish to call it out, so be it. Someone's gotta call out the bullshit. Sad that no one else seems to give a fuck. I guess you all would rather just admit that I'm right. Repeatedly. Regarding something other than me being right.... yet again..... Trump declared his state of emergency on the border wall in February 2019. It was approximately 1 year before COVID was an issue in the US. Why are you referring to COVID as the case for emergency and drawing inferences from that to the current situation? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/politics/national-emergency-trump.html My argument is the reason for emergency need not even be an actual emergency - as Trump showed. Also- can you post what you're referring to regarding COVID not passing muster in courts as a reason for declaring emergency? Are you referring to Whitmer's power to declare state of emergency re: covid? I also don't know if I can buy what you're selling me on the law here b/c you told me earlier this morning that states had "full authority" - your wording- over these lands and you have since scaled that "full authority" back on at least two different occasions now (this one just above, and one I already asked about) with little to no explanation of this change in your presentation of the jurisdiction of these lands. Under normal circumstances I would buy what your selling no problem, but given your unexplained shifts here, and also that you built it on a false representation of Warren's quote - even after I said multiple times it was not her quote. Thus, I am unable to purchase at this time. Plus I'm a child with no money. Furthermore - what's the downside for trying this, regardless of your shifting notion of who has full authority or not over these lands and your assessment of legal viability of the idea? I'd argue that having a choice to get an abortion in Isle Royal is better than not having the choice whatsoever. The reason I brought up that she said lands and not parks wasn't based on the ability to get abortions in one and not the other - you're the one arguing that front. It was because you and Motown Bombed trashed the idea b/c it meant Michiganders and also Michiganians would have to go to a remote uninhabited island in Lake Superior. That, of course was totally inaccurate based on a total inaccuracy in what she said. Inaccuracies, mind you - pushed by a purported Democrat who purports to not trash Democrats/their voters/their policies (even though I quoted 8 messages of him doing exactly that just today). I'm pretty shocked you decided to eat from his bullshit trough today.

You actually probably are one that voted for the ones that appointed at least 3 of these hacks on the scotus. Given that I am totally fine with your characterization of me. Your judgment..... yeesh Being held responsible is painful and I'm the one blaming the GOP for the GOPs authoritarianism and not the left.

I never said it was my purpose in life- you're lying again. Like the lie you told about not talking about Isle Royal. Like the lie you told about what Warren said. Like the lie you told about me not complementing Nancy on the J6 commish All easily disproven with screenshots and arrows.