Muppet Movie 1979 camera test
Jun 29, 2012
The banter is so hilariously improvised.
Welcome to Transfigurations! This blog is intended to serve the orthodox Anglican community and the wider Christian community. We pray that all that is posted here will be faithful to the Scriptures as the inspired word of God, speak the truth in love, edify, bless and transform this local body of Christ, and be an impetus for revival, repentance, prayer and intercession!
Support for ACNA pleading is grounds for discipline complaint alleges
By Jeff Schapiro
By David Fisher
June 28, 2012
by MICHAEL HANLON
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Never doubt me.The Supreme Court has vastly expanded the power of the federal government since the 1930s. In so doing, the justices have often based their decisions as much on policy as on law—and then fashioned legal justifications to back up their decisions (which, in turn, become springboards for further federal expansion). Some call this phenomenon “judicial legislation,” but we won’t get into that here. Moreover, the justices generally come from what is sometimes called the “ruling class,”—people who graduated Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.—people who have faith in “experts” and technocratic solutions to societal problems. The rulings of the Court on controversial social and political issues often reflect the views of this subset of Americans more than those of the general population (not that the opinions of either should be relevant). While polls generally show a majority of Americans opposing Obamacare, the ruling class tends to support it.With the above in mind, I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will rule that Obamacare’s purposes are laudable, that universal coverage is equitable and necessary for the country’s future, and that since the mandate is a necessary element of making the new law work, it is constitutional. That may sound like bootstrapping, but there it is.
Kraft Foods owns a number of brands, including Capri Sun, Nabisco, Philadelphia cream cheese, Ritz, Baker’s chocolate, Triscuit, Cool Whip, Grey Poupon, and Wheat Thins.
By George Conger
Although I hereby express no opinion as to the legal significance of my findings set forth above regarding the documentation relating to the Dennis Canon of the 1979 General Convention, I believe that the Dennis Canon was not properly adopted. In that regard, I affirm those findings: (1) that documentation relating to the Dennis Canon of the 1979 General Convention is missing from the archives and therefore that it cannot be verified that the canon was lawfully adopted by the Convention; (2) that no evidence exists in the archives that shows notice as required by Canon V.1 Section 5a was given to the wider church; (3) that no evidence exists in the archives that shows a motion to suspend the rules was offered to the House of Deputies under Rule VI.22 to permit the resolution to be considered out of time or that two-thirds of the deputies voted for such a suspension.In recent years I have been engaged as an expert witness in a number of court cases concerning the Episcopal Church’s property cases. I am not a canon law expert, but an expert in the Episcopal Church’s history and polity, which includes the history of Episcopal canon law, Episcopal church properties and how they were historically acquired and held, and on the evolution and growth of the Episcopal Church’s national structures in relation to its parishes and dioceses. the rest
By Avi Jorisch
By Stoyan Zaimov
By Alex Murashko
By Fred Lucas
RE: The First Islamist President of Egypt
June 25, 2012
PER CURIAM.A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” Mont. Code Ann. §13– 35–227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.” 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.
The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.
It is so ordered. the rest