Please SUBSCRIBE Desi Beauty Tv
-------------------------------------------
Mobile Moba Việt luôn là người đi đầu Game Liên quân Mobile Việt Nam - Duration: 10:56. For more infomation >> Mobile Moba Việt luôn là người đi đầu Game Liên quân Mobile Việt Nam - Duration: 10:56.-------------------------------------------
Isme azam ka wazifa | powerful wazifa of isme azam | Allah pak k nam ka wazifa by kamran sultan - Duration: 3:07.Isme azam ka wazifa | powerful wazifa of isme azam | Allah pak k nam ka wazifa by kamran sultan
-------------------------------------------
Budget Deal: A Bipartisan Betrayal - Duration: 11:32.DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN HAGGLING OVER THE
BUDGET FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW, THERE WAS A BRIEF GOVERNMENT
SHUTDOWN, DEMOCRATS PANICKED AND GAVE IN, THERE WAS AN EXTENSION
-- NOW WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE THEY HAVE TO MAKE A DEAL.
OKAY,
GOD HELP US.
NOW, ON CORPORATE MEDIA YOU WILL HEAR THAT THEY
REACHED A BIPARTISAN DEAL AND THAT'S GREAT BECAUSE WASHINGTON
IS BACK TO DOING BIPARTISAN DEALS.
HOLD, WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE
WHAT'S IN THE DEAL AND WHAT IS NOT BEFORE YOU MAKE THAT
DECISION.
WE GO TO REUTERS AGAIN HERE --
YOU GUYS WERE THE ONES WHO CAUSED THE $1.5 TRILLION DEFICIT
WITH YOUR TAX CUTS, ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU CARE ABOUT THE
DEFICIT?
WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND BECAUSE THAT'S VERY
IMPORTANT.
NOW LET'S LOOK AT THE DEMOCRATS' POSITION --
IN FACT, NANCY PELOSI DID AN EIGHT-HOUR NONOFFICIAL KIND OF
FILIBUSTER IN THE HOUSE, THERE ARE NO REAL FILIBUSTERS IN THE
HOUSE BUT SHE STOOD UP AND MADE AN IMPASSIONED PLEA ON BEHALF OF
THOSE DREAMERS.
SO SHE'S AGAINST THIS DEAL.
OKAY, THAT'S TO HER
CREDIT.
WILL THEY GET ENOUGH DEMOCRATS TO SIGN ON, BECAUSE
THEY HAVE LOST A LOT OF REPUBLICANS?
I WILL GET TO WHY
IN A MINUTE, BUT YES, REUTERS DECLARES IT A RARE BIPARTISAN
DEAL.
IT'S NOT THAT RARE.
WHENEVER THE DONORS STAND TO
MAKE MONEY THERE WILL BE A BIPARTISAN DEAL.
AND HERE THE
DEFENSE CONTRACTORS WILL MAKE A TON OF MONEY, AND NOW LET'S GET
TO WHY THE ESTABLISHMENT, BOTH ON THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC
SIDE, WOULD WANT THIS DEAL.
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET MAJORITIES
TO SIGN ONTO THE DEAL?
WELL, REUTERS SAYS --
I WILL TRANSLATE FOR YOU.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE MARKETS ARE
ALREADY CRASHING, WE DON'T WANT THEM TO CRASH FURTHER, OUR
DONORS ARE IN A PANIC, AND THEY ARE INSTRUCTING ALL THE PEOPLE
THEY FINANCED IN THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY, MAKE A
GODDAMN DEAL, I DON'T CARE WHAT IS IN THE DEAL, JUST MAKE IT
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE MARKETS THE PANIC.
NOW WE GO TO THE
DEMOCRATS, JON TESTER, SENATOR FROM MONTANA, SAYS --
REALLY?
LIKE THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING PERFECT
FOR THEM, INCONCEIVABLE.
BUT IS IT EVEN GOOD?
WHAT'S IN IT?
WELL --
WELL, HOW ABOUT DACA, THE BILL MEANT TO PROTECT DREAMERS?
NOPE,
NOT IN THERE ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC PRIORITIES?
NET
NEUTRALITY, ANYTHING?
NOPE.
SO THEY EXPLAIN WHAT IS SO
ATTRACTIVE TO THE DEMOCRATS --
BREAK THOSE DOWN ONE BY ONE.
DO REPUBLICANS NOT CARE ABOUT
MONEY FOR THE OPIOID CRISIS?
THE ANSWER IS YES, THEY DON'T CARE
AND IT WISH IT WASN'T IN THERE, THAT'S
A FACT, THEY ARGUED
AGAINST IT.
DISASTER AID -- WHY IS THAT WIN FOR DEMOCRATS?
SHOULDN'T REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS BOTH WANT DISASTER
AID?
WHY IS THAT A BIG THING DEMOCRATS HAVE WON ON?
MORE
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM FUNDING, YES IT'S TRUE,
REPUBLICANS OR MONSTERS AND CUT FUNDING FOR THAT PROGRAM, BUT
THAT USED TO BE BIPARTISAN, WHY IS THAT A BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRATS?
AND LAST, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER FUNDING.
SO DEMOCRATS
WANTED TO PROTECT CHILDREN WHO ARE SICK AND WANTED MONEY FOR
THE OPIOID CRISIS, BE CLEAR, REPUBLICANS FOUGHT AGAINST THAT.
AND IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY FOR THEIR DONORS SAID OKAY, FINE,
HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT.
OTHERWISE
REPUBLICANS WOULD SAY WE WERE ALWAYS FOR CHIP, OPIOID CRISIS,
TRUMP DECLARED A NATIONAL EMERGENCY -- THEN WHY IS IT A
TRADE?
IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEMOCRATS GOT NOTHING.
OTHERWISE, DO THEM ONE BY ONE.
VOTE ON EACH ONE OF THEM, AND
LET'S SEE, REPUBLICANS, ARE YOU FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
OR NOT?
LET'S HAVE A CLEAN VOTE ON IT.
NO, INSTEAD THEY PUT IT
IN, PRETEND THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF IT, AND AT THE SAME TIME PRETEND
WE GAVE IT TO THE DEMOCRATS, WHAT COULD WE DO?
WE GAVE THEM
SO MANY THINGS.
GODAMMIT.
AND BY THE WAY, PRESS, COVER IT
ACCURATELY.
SO WE GO TO REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN WARREN
DAVIDSON, HE SAYS --
CAN YOU SENSE A "BUT" IS COMING --
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF IT, THAT'S WHY YOU
WANTED TO VOTE NO. AND YOU SEE IT AS A BIG, GIANT CONCESSION TO
THE DEMOCRATS.
AH, SICK KIDS -- I MEAN, THEY AREN'T MILLIONAIRE
DONORS AT ALL.
WHAT DO I GET FROM HELPING THEM?
FOR THE GIANT
TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH I KNOW WHAT I GET, CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS, DARK MONEY, INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES, LATER
I WILL GET HIRED BY THEM, THEY GIVE ME MILLIONS.
SICK KIDS,
THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE LOBBYISTS.
SO IS IT A CONCESSION TO THE
DEMOCRATS OR ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF IT?
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE ARE
NOT IN FAVOR OF IT.
HE SAYS IT'S NOT COMPASSIONATE TO BANKRUPT
AMERICA -- I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT REPUBLICANS JUST
VOTED TO BANKRUPT AMERICA AND PUT A $1.5 TRILLION TAX CUT FOR
THE RICH, AND CREATE A $1.5 TRILLION DEFICIT FOR THE RICH.
SO IT'S COMPASSIONATE TO BANKRUPT AMERICA FOR THE RICH,
BUT NOT COMPASSIONATE TO BANKRUPT AMERICA FOR SICK KIDS
AND TO TREAT THE OPIOID CRISIS.
OKAY.
BUT, THE DEEPLY RIGHT-WING
REPUBLICANS, THE FREEDOM CAUCUS, ETC., SAY NO, NO DEAL, WE ARE
STILL VOTING AGAINST IT.
A GOP SOURCE SAYS --
YOU JUST GAVE THEM ANOTHER $165 BILLION.
LET ME SHOW YOU
WHAT THE CHART LOOK LIKE BEFORE THE NEW MONEY, THAT'S THE U.S.
DEFENSE SPENDING UP TOP.
THAT'S ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES.
THE TOP
EIGHT COUNTRIES AFTER US COMBINED DON'T EQUAL OUR OLD
BUDGET, LET ALONE OUR NEW BUDGET, WITH THE EXTRA $165
BILLION.
OUR DEFENSE SPENDING IS RIDICULOUSLY HIGH.
AND YOU THINK
IT GOES TO THE TROOPS?
A PRIVATE IN THE ARMY MAKES $19,000.
BILLIONS FOR LOCKHEED MARTIN, BILLIONS FOR BOEING, BUT $19,000
FOR THE SOLDIERS.
THEY NEVER CARED ABOUT THE TROOPS, IT WAS
ALWAYS A LIE.
IF YOU ARE AN ACTUAL AMERICAN CITIZEN THE
REPUBLICANS WILL CRAP ALL OVER YOU.
BUT IF YOU ARE A RICH
DONOR, TAX CUTS FOR YOU.
MO BROOKS STILL LOOKS AT THIS DEAL
AND SAYS NOPE --
JUSTIN AMASH SAYS --
YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT FISCAL INSANITY?
CAN I SEE GRAPHIC 37
AGAIN?
THIS IS FISCAL INSANITY, $1.5 TRILLION ADDED TO THE
DEFICIT BECAUSE YOU WANTED YOUR RICH DONORS TO GET TAX CUTS.
AND
THEN THEY HAVE THE NERVE, A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER, TO SAY OH
MY GOD, I CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THE BUDGET AND THE DEFICITS.
AND BY
THE WAY, REPORTERS, WHY ARE YOU LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT?
EVERY TIME THESE SONS OF BITCHES TALK ABOUT THE DEFICIT,
SHOULDN'T YOU GO DIDN'T YOU JUST CREATE A $1.5 TRILLION HOLE IN
THE DEFICIT?
WHY ARE YOU PRETENDING TO CARE ABOUT THE
DEFICIT, BECAUSE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO YOU DIDN'T CARE WHEN YOU
WERE GIVING IT TO THE RICH.
SO SAVE ME YOUR CROCODILE TEARS
ABOUT FISCAL INSANITY.
MO BROOKS SAID IT'S A DEBT JUNKIE'S DREAM,
THIS BILL.
A DEBT JUNKIE'S DREAM IS $1.5 TRILLION HOLE IN THE
DEFICIT SO YOUR DONORS CAN GET TAX BREAKS.
ONE LAST ONE FROM
BROOKS, HE SAID ALL I KNOW IS UNFORTUNATELY THOSE WHO VOTE FOR
THIS BILL ARE BETRAYING OUR COUNTRY'S FUTURE AND SELLING OUT
OUR KIDS AND OUR GRANDKIDS.
GET A LOAD OF WHAT A SCUMBAG MO
BROOKS IS.
SO HE SAYS GIVING HEALTH INSURANCE TO SICK KIDS IS
SELLING OUT KIDS.
BUT GIVING TAX CUTS TO THE RICH IS NOT SELLING
OUT KIDS.
OH MAN, IN 2027 83% OF THE TAX BREAK GOES TO THE TOP
1%.
EVEN TODAY, THE TOP 1% GETS ON AVERAGE OVER $50,000 IN
BREAK.
PAUL RYAN BRAGS ABOUT IT, YOU GOT $1.50 A WEEK, THEY ARE
GETTING OVER $50,000 EVERY YEAR, AND THAT'S LOW.
THAT'S ON
AVERAGE FOR THE TOP 1%.
THE HIGHER YOU GO THE BIGGER THE
BRAKES ARE.
THE KOCH BROTHERS ARE GETTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN BREAKS.
AND THEN YOU PERTAIN TO CARE ABOUT THE DEFICIT AND
THE KIDS?
NO, NO.
EVERY ONE OF THOSE GUYS IN THE FREEDOM CAUCUS
WHO VOTED FOR THOSE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH ARE ABSOLUTE LIARS.
NEVER CARED ABOUT THE DEFICIT, AND DON'T CARE ABOUT IT NOW.
THEIR PRIORITIES ARE PROTECT THE RICH, OR TEXT THE
MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, PROTECT EVERY ONE OF OUR DONORS
AND TAKE IT OUT ON KIDS AND AVERAGE AMERICANS.
THAT'S NOT AN
OPINION, THAT'S A FACT BASED ON THEIR VOTING.
IT'S A FACT.
YOUNG TURKS.
-------------------------------------------
【シャドバ】そうだグラマスになろう ふーどの人のゲリラ放送(ふーどの部屋)2月09日 - Duration: 1:32:31. For more infomation >> 【シャドバ】そうだグラマスになろう ふーどの人のゲリラ放送(ふーどの部屋)2月09日 - Duration: 1:32:31.-------------------------------------------
The Anti-Federalist Papers | Brutus 13 - Duration: 9:47.Having in the two preceding numbers, examined the nature and tendency of the judicial power,
as it respects the explanation of the constitution, I now proceed to the consideration of the
other matters, of which it has cognizance.
— The next paragraph extends its authority, to all cases, in law and equity, arising under
the laws of the United States.
This power, as I understand it, is a proper one.
The proper province of the judicial power, in any government, is, as I conceive, to declare
what is the law of the land.
To explain and enforce those laws, which the supreme power or legislature may pass; but
not to declare what the powers of the legislature are.
I suppose the cases in equity, under the laws, must be so construed, as to give the supreme
court not only a legal, but equitable jurisdiction of cases which may be brought before them,
or in other words, so, as to give them, not only the powers which are now exercised by
our courts of law, but those also, which are now exercised by our court of chancery.
If this be the meaning, I have no other objection to the power, than what arises from the undue
extension of the legislative power.
For, I conceive that the judicial power should be commensurate with the legislative.
Or, in other words, the supreme court should have authority to determine questions arising
under the laws of the union.
The next paragraph which gives a power to decide in law and equity, on all cases arising
under treaties, is unintelligible to me.
I can readily comprehend what is meant by deciding a case under a treaty.
For as treaties will be the law of the land, every person who have rights or privileges
secured by treaty, will have aid of the courts of law, in recovering them.
But I do not understand, what is meant by equity arising under a treaty.
I presume every right which can be claimed under a treaty, must be claimed by virtue
of some article or clause contained in it, which gives the right in plain and obvious
words; or at least, I conceive, that the rules for explaining treaties, are so well ascertained,
that there is no need of having recourse to an equitable construction.
If under this power, the courts are to explain treaties, according to what they conceive
are their spirit, which is nothing less than a power to give them whatever extension they
may judge proper, it is a dangerous and improper power.
The cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls — of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction; controversies to which the United States are a party, and controversies between
states, it is proper should be under the cognizance of the courts of the union, because none but
the general government, can, or ought to pass laws on their subjects.
But, I conceive the clause which extends the power of the judicial to controversies arising
between a state and citizens of another state, improper in itself, and will, in its exercise,
prove most pernicious and destructive.
It is improper, because it subjects a state to answer in a court of law, to the suit of
an individual.
This is humiliating and degrading to a government, and, what I believe, the supreme authority
of no state ever submitted to.
The states are now subject to no such actions.
All contracts entered into by individuals with states, were made upon the faith and
credit of the states; and the individuals never had in contemplation any compulsory
mode of obliging the government to fulfil its engagements.
The evil consequences that will flow from the exercise of this power, will best appear
by tracing it in its operation.
The constitution does not direct the mode in which an individual shall commence a suit
against a state or the manner in which the judgment of the court shall be carried into
execution, but it gives the legislature full power to pass all laws which shall be proper
and necessary for the purpose.
And they certainly must make provision for these purposes, or otherwise the power of
the judicial will be nugatory.
For, to what purpose will the power of a judicial be, if they have no mode, in which they can
call the parties before them?
Or of what use will it be, to call the parties to answer, if after they have given judgment,
there is no authority to execute the judgment?
We must, therefore, conclude, that the legislature will pass laws which will be effectual in
this head.
An individual of one state will then have a legal remedy against a state for any demand
he may have against a state to which he does not belong.
Every state in the union is largely indebted to individuals.
For the payment of these debts they have given notes payable to the bearer.
At least this is the case in this state.
Whenever a citizen of another state becomes possessed of one of these notes, he may commence
an action in the supreme court of the general government; and I cannot see any way in which
he can be prevented from recovering.
It is easy to see, that when this once happens, the notes of the state will pass rapidly from
the hands of citizens of the state to those of other states.
And when the citizens of other states possess them, they may bring suits against the state
for them, and by this means, judgments and executions may be obtained against the state
for the whole amount of the state debt.
It is certain the state, with the utmost exertions it can make, will not be able to discharge
the debt she owes, under a considerable number of years, perhaps with the best management,
it will require twenty or thirty years to discharge it.
This new system will protract the time in which the ability of the state will enable
them to pay off their debt, because all the funds of the state will be transferred to
the general government, except those which arise from internal taxes.
The situation of the states will be deplorable.
By this system, they will surrender to the general government, all the means of raising
money, and at the same time, will subject themselves to suits at law, for the recovery
of the debts they have contracted in effecting the revolution.
The debts of the individual states will amount to a sum, exceeding the domestic debt of the
United States; these will be left upon them, with power in the judicial of the general
government, to enforce their payment, while the general government will possess an exclusive
command of the most productive funds, from which the states can derive money, and a command
of every other source of revenue paramount to the authority of any state.
It may be said that the apprehension that the judicial power will operate in this manner
is merely visionary, for that the legislature will never pass laws that will work these
effects.
Or if they were disposed to do it, they cannot provide for levying an execution on a state,
for where will the officer find property whereon to levy?
To this I would reply, if this is a power which will not or cannot be executed, it was
useless and unwise to grant it to the judicial.
For what purpose is a power given which it is imprudent or impossible to exercise?
If it be improper for a government to exercise a power, it is improper they should be vested
with it.
And it is unwise to authorise a government to do what they cannot effect.
As to the idea that the legislature cannot provide for levying an execution on a state,
I believe it is not well founded.
I presume the last paragraph of the 8th section of article 1, gives the Congress express power
to pass any laws they may judge proper and necessary for carrying into execution the
power vested in the judicial department.
And they must exercise this power, or otherwise the courts of justice will not be able to
carry into effect the authorities with which they are invested.
For the constitution does not direct the mode in which the courts are to proceed, to bring
parties before them, to try causes, or to carry the judgment of the courts into execution.
Unless they are pointed out by law, how are these to proceed, in any of the cases of which
they have cognizance?
They have the same authority to establish regulations in respect to these matters, where
a state is a party, as where an individual is a party.
The only difficulty is, on whom shall process be served, when a state is a party, and how
shall execution be levied.
With regard to the first, the way is easy, either the executive or legislative of the
state may be notified, and upon proof being made of the service of the notice, the court
may proceed to a hearing of the cause.
Execution may be levied on any property of the state, either real or personal.
The treasury may be seized by the officers of the general government, or any lands the
property of the state, may be made subject to seizure and sale to satisfy any judgment
against it.
Whether the estate of any individual citizen may not be made answerable for the discharge
of judgments against the state, may be worth consideration.
In some corporations this is the case.
If the power of the judicial under this clause will extend to the cases above stated, it
will, if executed, produce the utmost confusion, and in its progress, will crush the states
beneath its weight.
And if it does not extend to these cases, I confess myself utterly at a loss to give
it any meaning.
For if the citizen of one state, possessed of a written obligation, given in pursuance
of a solemn act of the legislature, acknowledging a debt due to the bearer, and promising to
pay it, cannot recover in the supreme court, I can conceive of no case in which they can
recover.
And it appears to me ridiculous to provide for obtaining judgment against a state, without
giving the means of levying execution.
-------------------------------------------
পটুয়াখালী রাজ্জাক বিশ্বাস এর সাপ এর খামারের এক্সক্লুসিভ ভিডিও | Snake Farm Razzak Biswash - Duration: 10:32.Snake Farm Razzak Biswash in Bangladesh
-------------------------------------------
ANH MUỐN EM SỐNG SAO _ NGỌC TRINH|Nhạc Sống Miền Tây|Ban Nhạc Điện Tử Sơn - Duration: 5:23. For more infomation >> ANH MUỐN EM SỐNG SAO _ NGỌC TRINH|Nhạc Sống Miền Tây|Ban Nhạc Điện Tử Sơn - Duration: 5:23.-------------------------------------------
Shraddha Arya Lifestyle, Net Worth, Salary,House,Cars, Awards, Education, Biography And Family - Duration: 4:37.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét