Comment

Comment by J.R. on April 16, 2011 at 2:40pm

History of marriage law in Maryland as of 1640 a.d.

Chapter 7, Laws of 1640:An ACT touching marriages
CREATED/PUBLISHED: 1640
NOTES: Marriage was allowed only after publication of banns three times; or oath was made at the county court that neither part was an apprentice, etc., related, or under government of parents and a certificate was issued by the County Court of such oath.
SOURCE: Archives of Maryland Online
REPOSITORY: Maryland State Archives Chapter 7, Laws of 1658: An ACT for the publication of marriages
CREATED/PUBLISHED: 1658
NOTES: Marriage could be performed by either a minister or magistrate
SOURCE: Archives of Maryland Online
REPOSITORY: Maryland State Archives Chapter 5, Laws of 1662:An ACT for the publication of marriages
CREATED/PUBLISHED: 1662
NOTES: Marriage allowed three weeks after publication at Church, County Court or meeting house, or by particular license from Lt. Governor or Chief Governor. Two witnesses to the marriage required.
SOURCE: Archives of Maryland Online
REPOSITORY: Maryland State Archives Chapter 16, Laws of 1662: An ACT imposing a fee on them who shall be married
CREATED/PUBLISHED: 1662
NOTES: Pastors or magistrates permitted to charge 100 pounds tobacco as fee for marriage
SOURCE: Archives of Maryland Online

Here is a link to more laws in Maryland in the 1600s:

http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000099/html/t99....

(This was from a bing search for "history of U.S. marriage laws prior to 1700 a.d. I didn't check all the other links, since this answers the question at hand.)

Comment by J.R. on April 14, 2011 at 9:06pm

Roma, the compensation for the Gulf oil spill is nothing if not a big mess.  Many victims and businesses still have not been paid for their losses.  The compensation fund set up by British Petroleum (BP) has not functioned well and some are having to get legal advice as to what their legal recourse is.  Some cases may already be in the courts, and that might be the most effective way to get results, but the court route is often very slow. The fact that they're suffering further financial harm by being made to wait for compensation will likely result in higher court awards down the road.  That doesn't help them now.

What's disgraceful about the entire matter, is that Obama and his worthless administration have apparently abandoned these people and businesses.  You rarely hear anything in the news about this huge problem any more.  It's a sad state of affairs when Obama can redistribute American wealth to foreign bank bailouts, his major campaign donors, and the Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U.,) but he's not concerned enough to do anything to help solve the entire Gulf area's problems, including cleanup problems, making sure the people get the money owed them, and restoring the economic base. Likely reason he has not done so is that there's nothing in it for him. 

Obama just recently granted permission for BP, but not American oil companies, to begin drilling again in the Gulf.  He should have made them pay all the compensation claims first.  Maybe the fact that people are now seeking legal counsel for redress through the courts will jack BP up enough to fork over the money they owe these people and companies.  For Obama, it's like, oh well, they're only Americans, who cares about them?  He could give the United Nations and extra $300M, voluntarily, over and above the massive dues the U.S. already pays that corrupt body, but these Americans can take an old cold 'tater and wait. 

Here's a link to searchpages of results that will explain how all over the board the compensation process is:  http://www.bing.com/search?q=LOSSES+NOT+PAID+FOR+IN+GULF+OIL+SPILL%...

Comment by Joe Story on April 14, 2011 at 3:59pm

Check out my theAwarenessEngineer blog this what I think we need to do on order to get the candidates talking about the issues. Ne is just a place holder I want to know where they stand.

Comment by JL Gawlik on April 13, 2011 at 8:46pm

Here is a good Congress.org Soapbox alert:

 

http://www.congress.org/soapbox/alert/41435501

 

Comment by JL Gawlik on April 13, 2011 at 8:00pm

Steve, the Constitution was written as a timeless document. Not to be rewritten. It can be amended to as it has been, but not rewritten. Even the amendments that did not work, there are one or two of them have been left in with a later amendment changing it, but it was left there for us to remember that the amendment was a mistake, and for us to not forget. I really get fed up with people who want to 'forget' our history. Without our history, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

 

Just like the civil war, it was not over slavery, perhaps for a few but the majority of southerns were dirt poor and did not own slaves, many were barely making it. It was about state's rights and the federal government over stepping their bounds like they are now and being taxed to death. All the states up north could afford the taxes because all the manufacturing, industries, ports, etc., were ALL up north but we were being taxed the same. IF you want to rewrite the whole constitution, then you will destroy our country, period.

Our voices should be heard MORE at the local level not the federal level, it has gotten perverted, it is now the opposite.

In May we will probably get a Democratic mayor because of the voter's apathy at the local level, for the first time in years... one who has Washington, D.C.'s ears, which we do not need for obvious reasons. We have not had a true Republican in decades, the last two were RINOs.

Comment by JL Gawlik on April 13, 2011 at 7:11pm

I voted for McCain, i would not have nominated him for the Republican party, he is clearly a RINO. We voted for Romney the primaries also. I have never voted straight party although i have always looked for the conservative. I know many people who refused to vote period because they did not like McCain and they did not like Obama. 

 

I just wonder IF ALL of those people had of voted would we have Obama in the WH now?  There was even several signs on San Jose Blvd. stating that they were not going to vote period because they did not like either choice in 2008. I wish there had of been a grass root movement like the Tea Party before the 2008 elections. As far as personal social choices those should be decided on at the local level. It has no business at the federal level and quiet frankly i think it has screwed up the whole purpose of the Federal government, bloating it along the way. I am fed up with people trying to make all of us the same painting us with the same brush look where it has gotten Europe. That is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

Comment by J.R. on April 13, 2011 at 7:08pm

Well, you're right, Roma, small government does not provide for fixing a problem that does not yet exist.  The Founding Fathers wisely anticipated that problems would occur and established a Judicial Branch to deal with those problems in the future, with regard to both civil and criminal law and the courts that would be set up to adjudicate both civil and criminal cases. They understood this was necessary for a civil society and protection of the people and their property. 

Amendments have been added to clarify the founder's intent in establishing a Judiciary to administer adopted common law. The 5th and 14th Amendments were added to provide for due process and equal protection that apply in both civil and criminal law.  The 6th Amendment was added guaranteeing the right to a jury trial in both civil and criminal courts. The 1st Amendment was added to prohibit the establishment of a state religion and protect personal rights, such as free speech and association and to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was clear they intended a government of, by and for the people.

In anticipation of future problems and needs, they also established the Legislative Branch to make the laws and provide needed changes to those laws to accommodate changes over time.  And they established the Administrative Branch to administer the operations of departments of the federal government only insofar as necessary to carrying out the business of government on the federal level, diplomacy with other nations, and raising and supplying the military for the protection of the nation and its people.  

What we have now, is an over-reaching Executive Branch that is usurping both Judiciary and Congressional powers and trying to assume unto itself, complete power over the people, without regard for the rights and freedoms the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee them. They are also increasing their land grabs and dictatorial rights over natural resources in sovereign states, as well as assuming dictatorial rights over oil drilling in international waters, none of which they have a constitutional right to do.

Comment by J.R. on April 13, 2011 at 6:15pm

Steve, I also believe what you are basically referring to is limited government, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended.  That's one reason the U.S. Constitution is so plainly and clearly written and states simply and directly exactly what the role of each of the three branches is... and nothing more in that regard.  It is those specified roles that were, and are, obligations to be fulfilled.  It's simplicity and clarity were meant to prevent reading new imperatives for the federal government into it, in order to meddle in, manipulate or direct not only what sovereign states must do or not do, but also what we all must do or not do in our daily and personal lives.

Anything beyond what is in that ingenious and timeless document, infringes on both state sovereignty and the sovereign rights of American citizens.

You expressed this concept very well, by example.

Comment by J.R. on April 13, 2011 at 4:45pm

I agree with you, Roma.  McCain would never have been my choice for President.  I simply believed he was the only one in the race who had a snowball's chance of beating Obama. Mine was a defensive vote. I knew from everything Obama said during the campaign, my research on his background and voting record, and my knowledge that he had been a member of the New Party, an offshoot of the Communist Party U.S.A. in Chicago, where they had an office in the same building with A.C.O.R.N. (where Obama taught community organizing based on the Alinsky model and was a lawyer for A.C.O.R.N.), that he was neither fit nor qualified to be President. And, I still don't believe he was eligible and was purposefully not vetted by the Democrat-controlled Congress, even though they vetted McCain.  Nancy Pelosi was the one who signed off on his eligibility, without any vetting.

Comment by J.R. on April 13, 2011 at 3:52pm

John McCain was one big, huge mistake as a presidential candidate.  He truly lives up to the characterization of him as a R.I.N.O.  I voted for Romney in the primary and had to force myself to hold my nose and vote for McCain in the general election, since he was the lessor of two evils.  I hoped Palin could help bring about a victory, but McCain was a very lame and lackluster candidate and many conservatives were already familiar with his fence-sitting approach and buddy-buddy relationship with Ted Kennedy and other left-wing elitists. Those were the folks that stayed home and didn't vote.  We can't allow that to happen again.

Roma, that voting record for John McCain puts the lie to any idea that he is a conservative.  Too bad J.D. Hayworth didn't beat McCain in the 2010 Senate race.  Hayworth proved he is a conservative when he served in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 26
• Next ›
• Page