[urbanrealtor]

I vote because it gives me a small voice that I otherwise would not have.

While also believe in the paradox of democratic divergence (think France in the 1800’s), I believe that exercise of democracy is better than the alternative.

[urbanrealtor]

I vote because it gives me a small voice that I otherwise would not have.

While also believe in the paradox of democratic divergence (think France in the 1800’s), I believe that exercise of democracy is better than the alternative.

[urbanrealtor]

As I recall Alvin Greene was elected by Republicans in an open primary.

Am I wrong about that?

[urbanrealtor]

As I recall Alvin Greene was elected by Republicans in an open primary.

Am I wrong about that?

[urbanrealtor]

As I recall Alvin Greene was elected by Republicans in an open primary.

Am I wrong about that?

[urbanrealtor]

As I recall Alvin Greene was elected by Republicans in an open primary.

Am I wrong about that?

[urbanrealtor]

As I recall Alvin Greene was elected by Republicans in an open primary.

Am I wrong about that?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=faterikcartman]
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion — hence the establishment clause.

The “separation of church and state” was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940’s by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn’t some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so — even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don’t tell me just because a judge says it’s there it’s there, because even you don’t believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you’ve been missing.[/quote]

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can’t be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[urbanrealtor]

More specifically, any escrow will verify payoff with all identifiable stakeholders.

If you buy a short through an escrow, the title company won’t allow it to close without a clear understanding from the tax man.

It is, however, entirely possible for a seller to ask you to contribute to their liens (including tax liens).

If you buy on the courthouse steps then it is possible for you to inherit a previous owner’s tax debt.

Those can be attached to the property up to 120 days after the auction.

But then that is not a short sale.

[urbanrealtor]

More specifically, any escrow will verify payoff with all identifiable stakeholders.

If you buy a short through an escrow, the title company won’t allow it to close without a clear understanding from the tax man.

It is, however, entirely possible for a seller to ask you to contribute to their liens (including tax liens).

If you buy on the courthouse steps then it is possible for you to inherit a previous owner’s tax debt.

Those can be attached to the property up to 120 days after the auction.

But then that is not a short sale.

[urbanrealtor]

More specifically, any escrow will verify payoff with all identifiable stakeholders.

If you buy a short through an escrow, the title company won’t allow it to close without a clear understanding from the tax man.

It is, however, entirely possible for a seller to ask you to contribute to their liens (including tax liens).

If you buy on the courthouse steps then it is possible for you to inherit a previous owner’s tax debt.

Those can be attached to the property up to 120 days after the auction.

But then that is not a short sale.

[Author]

Posts