I have a difficult time understanding why the companies would be allowed, or even desire to continue contaminating a product with an ingredient officially determined to be a cause of cancer. It would seem any person who suffered damage from the product after the company was put on notice would have a valid cause of action against that company. At the least, shouldn't they be required to immediately include a notice of potential harm on the product label. Have we reached the point where a known harmful substance can be included in a food product just to make it more attractive to unsuspecting consumers. I suppose the next time we have a salmonella outbreak we will give the responsible party two years to get the product off the market.
The rule for removing a speaker was changed at the beginning of this session. It now requires 9 members to trigger a vote to vacate the chair in contrast to the previous 1 member threshold. That will be a hard number to attain.
It will be several days before President Trump takes charge. A nuclear war would be over before then. With the nuts currently in control the next couple of weeks could be a dangerous time. It is easier to get into a war than to get out of one.
I buy a two to three weeks supply at each visit to the dairy and freeze the excess but there is a slight deterioration in quality upon thawing. It is still better than the pasteurized milk. I like your idea of using pre cooled and sealed glass jars to extend the shelf life and am going to try it. I remember years ago when my mother allowed the milk to clabber and used it for cooking, especially for baking. My older brother liked to eat the clabber but I wasn't as adventurous as him.
Much of the concern about this pardon is tied to the obviously stolen 2020 presidential election. We can quote slogans such as "fraud invalidates everything" but that is not entirely accurate. For example, look up the concept of "good faith purchaser" where an individual can obtain title to property that was stolen if they bought it with a good faith belief that the seller was the actual owner. While many of us passionately believe the current president was not correctly elected, he was certified in accordance with the Constitution. Entities dealing with the government had a good faith belief that he was the valid president. Any later finding that the election was fraudulent can not reverse the validity of their transactions otherwise no one could ever have full confidence in any dealing with our government or anyone else for that matter. The only recourse is to punish the responsible individuals in accordance with law and make sure the punishment is so severe as to deter future occurrences.
I am as disappointed with this pardon as you or anyone else but when President Trump promises to pardon the January 6th protesters I think that will be a just and noble exercise of Presidential judgment. Some others will likely think it is a gross abuse of power. The pardon power itself is not inherently good or bad. It is the character of the individual that is at issue.
I look at this much the same way I view the Second Amendment. Guns can be used for good or bad but is the person using the instrument that is at issue, not the gun itself. Just as with the pardon power, any effort to get around the Constitutional provision is fraught with danger. Sometimes we must accept the bad to preserve the good.
I am frequently reminded of the wisdom of my old grandmother. One of her favorite sayings was: "Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Some thing are simple, some are difficult and others are impossible. Biden has appointed over 200 Federal Judges who have handled thousands of both civil and criminal cases. He has signed numerous pieces of legislation, approved billions in spending, made agreements with foreign governments, approved numerous personal actions including military promotions and retirements and so many other executive actions they can’t all be counted. Short of inventing a Time Machine to role the clock back, invalidating all acts of a president would fall into the impossible realm.
The presidency is not governed under contract law but rather by Constitutional law. Once Congress certifies the electoral vote and a president is sworn into office, he can only be removed by Constitutional means which are limited to death, resignation, impeachment and conviction or temporarily for incapacity under the 25th amendment. In none of these circumstances are prior actions invalidated. Somewhat like a bad marriage. You can end it but you can’t erase the damage.
The starting date for the pardon, while suspicious, would be allowed under the Constitution. However, the ending date could possibly make the pardon invalid.
It specifies: from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024
It appears the pardon was signed at some time during December 1, 2024 but made effective through that full day. By including a future period of time it became a license to commit future crimes. A pardon is a legal document and the mistake of making it for any future time period should invalidate the entire document. Unless the document was signed on or after 12:00 am on December 2, 2024 there seems to be a problem.
Constitutional Powers of the President: Article II, Section 2 .....and shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
My comment: No limitations, no reviews, and no appeals.
Gaetz was a Congressman (House of Representatives) not a Senator. Although he is a lawyer, his limited legal practice and absence of judicial experience would make his nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court doubtful.
The article states there were 19 pages of legal notes taken in the raid and the contention was that these papers contained attorney client information. The judge ordered copies of the documents destroyed (not the documents themselves) pending his review of the original documents. Sounds like a wise decision as breaching the attorney client privilege could cause the case to be dismissed. Any person held in jail pending trial has a right to work with his attorney in preparation of his defense.
From the article: "It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents."
This is the argument correctly made by many who opposed Barack Hussein Obama's claim to be eligible for the presidency. It was not about his place of birth but the fact that his father was on a student visa and his mother was not of age to confer citizenship. (The same bar existed for Kamala Harris.)
This doesn’t appear to be much of a threat. Stupid, yes. Violation of hospital policy, probably. Illegal, not likely. Unfortunately this kind of nonsense is commonplace on social media.