Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits

[Ray From Cleveland]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

what federal welfare? food stamps?

The OP is vague, but what it seems they're talking about is benefits exclusive to the virus like stimulus checks and additional unemployment. HIs theory is these people are out all nights rioting during the week and obviously are not working. You can't be holding down a job if you are out until 4:00 am causing trouble.

good point-----some people use their money to take care of their families and their futures and some people BLOW it on immediate gratification like rioting and vandalism.......and elaborate tatoos

It's a theory by the rep but a good one. Besides facing time in prison, fines and damage reimbursement, you would also lose (what's being discussed) that extra $300.00 a week. It would give anybody on that program or getting a stimulus check something to think about before leaving the house with their can of gasoline.

 

[my2¢]

So the representative favors all other crimes in which convicts can currently receive federal welfare? I'd suspect this guy has a shady side that he's hiding.

It's not favoring or not favoring anything. He's introducing a bill that would potentially reduce participant who riot.

I've been fortunate to never need to know the qualifications for federal welfare, a convict neither. I take it there is not a blanket rule regarding federal welfare eligibility of convicts since this special restriction for rioters only has been proposed. It leads me to wonder about all the other crimes that are excluded from the representative's bill. What about sex offenders, racketeers, murderers, etc?

But I've come to see the error in my way. What I missed was that the propose legislation only pertains to the short term coronavirus unemployment benefits. I'm not sure a ban on their welfare is needed, garnishing that money would be sufficient, but I'm not lawyer either and am unaware of any limitation of our courts to do so.

 

[WTF19]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

you just named prune face pelosi--the hemorrhoid in her ass schumer and last but not least BEIJING joe...way to go---those names arent associated with anybody but the demoncrats

Are you saying you support the bill? Are you so eaten up with your head so far up Rumps Rectum that you can't see the long term pitfalls?

i can sense the worry in your comment---and also, telling by your comment, you must have your brain so far up prune face pelosis ass...that you cant think for yourself---just saying

I think in legal terms. A law has to be clear and concise and should not be susseptible to misinterpretation. No law should be passed that has to immediately ruled on by a court of law. This one doesn't meet that criteria. Your head is so far up Rumps Rectum that you believe anything that comes out of a Rumpsters Ass is correct. And it won't get past any committee if it even gets that far. Not every Rumpster in the House is dumb enough to vote Yay on this thing.

bain dead answer

Yah,, following the law doesn't apply to a Rumpster. And anyone that demands that you do is brain dead. Hey, I can live with that. Like millions, we will all remember that on November 3rd.

and be disappointed on november 4th

You being disappointed on November 4th isn't my problem. Maybe they will have a sauve or ointment at Walmart in the As Seen on TV section to help you.

very intelligent comment.. well thought out...way to go----NOT

 

[WTF19]

If Sleepy Joe were elected, such a rule would never be enforced against Liberal Rioters, instead they would try to manipulate the law to make Pro Life marches officially designated as "riots"so they can silence the opposition.

The problem with the Congressman's legislation is that it requires discernment that we really can't guarantee that future executives will have.

One would think that before you allowed Rump to get so loose with the Constitution, you would have considered this point. We need checks and balances and I don't see any checks and balances in this proposal. Pretty much, all one has to do is call anyone a Looter, Rioter and, poof, they are cast out. Like I said, this piece of crap won't last 5 minutes in any Federal Court. Even if Rump were to heavily stack the court because the Courts have enough to do already without this crap.

It's funny how you lie about Trump violating the COTUS, but when your hero, the obummer, actually DID violate it, all we got from you was crickets.

Why is that, daryl?

The only proof you have is because Rump says it is so. Meanwhile, even during the RNC Convention, Rump couldn't follow the law and you gave him another free ride.

No, dumbass, DACA was a direct violation of the COTUS. Even obummer admitted that. But you stalinists don't care so long as you violate the COTUS to benefit YOU.

Scumbags, all of you.

The reason that the SCOTUS upheld it was the fact that the do nothing Congress couldn't get along with each other long enough to do what is right. The Executive Order was a stopgap. It should have been immediately followed up with a Congressional Bill overriding the EO. But after a decade, it's still not done. You want the EO gone, get Congress off it's dead ass. And it's not just the Democrats fault. The House has presented a DACA bill to the Senate and it sits in the bottom left hand drawer in Moscow Mitch's desk and he refuses to even let it go to a committee so that an counter off can be offered. How many free rides are you willing to give the Party of the Rumpsters. When you put the Republican Party back together, we don't want you.

wow........

 

[WTF19]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

you just named prune face pelosi--the hemorrhoid in her ass schumer and last but not least BEIJING joe...way to go---those names arent associated with anybody but the demoncrats

Are you saying you support the bill? Are you so eaten up with your head so far up Rumps Rectum that you can't see the long term pitfalls?

i can sense the worry in your comment---and also, telling by your comment, you must have your brain so far up prune face pelosis ass...that you cant think for yourself---just saying

I think in legal terms. A law has to be clear and concise and should not be susseptible to misinterpretation. No law should be passed that has to immediately ruled on by a court of law. This one doesn't meet that criteria. Your head is so far up Rumps Rectum that you believe anything that comes out of a Rumpsters Ass is correct. And it won't get past any committee if it even gets that far. Not every Rumpster in the House is dumb enough to vote Yay on this thing.

bain dead answer

Yah,, following the law doesn't apply to a Rumpster. And anyone that demands that you do is brain dead. Hey, I can live with that. Like millions, we will all remember that on November 3rd.

and be disappointed on november 4th

You being disappointed on November 4th isn't my problem. Maybe they will have a sauve or ointment at Walmart in the As Seen on TV section to help you.

Yeah. Well, hang on to your pussyhat anyway.

One of my Hats is a Service cap from the United States Air Force and I am authorized to wear it on special occasions. Plus, instead of placing my hand over my heart when the Anthem is played, I have the option to salute. I took an oath 5 times (the same oath) and no one told me that I had to no longer believe in it. And that is the problem you have with me. And millions like me. You want to call yourself a Patriot but you haven't paid enough for the right. It's a right you have to earn. You haven't paid it. That's makes you a foul mouthed freeloader.

I was talking about your pussyhat. You're going to need it. I don't care about the others.

Funny, you say things in here that you would never say in person. Guess it tells us all who the real ***** is. I don't say a damned thing in here I wouldn't say in person.

Yes, I'm sure you're very manly, but hang on to that pussyhat anyway.

then you should question your demoncrat buddies and ask them why they omitted UNDER GOD a couple times during the pledge at their circus convention or were you lying when you took the oath however many times---just saying

 

[WTF19]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

you just named prune face pelosi--the hemorrhoid in her ass schumer and last but not least BEIJING joe...way to go---those names arent associated with anybody but the demoncrats

Are you saying you support the bill? Are you so eaten up with your head so far up Rumps Rectum that you can't see the long term pitfalls?

i can sense the worry in your comment---and also, telling by your comment, you must have your brain so far up prune face pelosis ass...that you cant think for yourself---just saying

I think in legal terms. A law has to be clear and concise and should not be susseptible to misinterpretation. No law should be passed that has to immediately ruled on by a court of law. This one doesn't meet that criteria. Your head is so far up Rumps Rectum that you believe anything that comes out of a Rumpsters Ass is correct. And it won't get past any committee if it even gets that far. Not every Rumpster in the House is dumb enough to vote Yay on this thing.

bain dead answer

Yah,, following the law doesn't apply to a Rumpster. And anyone that demands that you do is brain dead. Hey, I can live with that. Like millions, we will all remember that on November 3rd.

Poor moochers-------upset that you'all may not be getting that government check anymore.

 

[22lcidw]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

There are no constitutional right to loot, burn and riot.

True.

But misdemeanor (or even felony) Disturbance of the Peace or even Rioting or even Sedition does not carry a No-Welfare penalty.

It stands Zero Chance of passage.

It was merely a juvenile election-year stunt designed to focus attention on the so-called Law-and-Order Party.

The more simple-minded amongst right-wingers will actually believe that it is supposed to be 'real'...

If Progs win in November and fly over state Repubs act up by protesting and then rioting, will you accept it? Destroying infrastructure of course as part of the riot agenda.

 

[WTF19]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

you just named prune face pelosi--the hemorrhoid in her ass schumer and last but not least BEIJING joe...way to go---those names arent associated with anybody but the demoncrats

Are you saying you support the bill? Are you so eaten up with your head so far up Rumps Rectum that you can't see the long term pitfalls?

i can sense the worry in your comment---and also, telling by your comment, you must have your brain so far up prune face pelosis ass...that you cant think for yourself---just saying

I think in legal terms. A law has to be clear and concise and should not be susseptible to misinterpretation. No law should be passed that has to immediately ruled on by a court of law. This one doesn't meet that criteria. Your head is so far up Rumps Rectum that you believe anything that comes out of a Rumpsters Ass is correct. And it won't get past any committee if it even gets that far. Not every Rumpster in the House is dumb enough to vote Yay on this thing.

bain dead answer

Yah,, following the law doesn't apply to a Rumpster. And anyone that demands that you do is brain dead. Hey, I can live with that. Like millions, we will all remember that on November 3rd.

Poor moochers-------upset that you'all may not be getting that government check anymore.

the only thing right is i wouldnt listen to just ANYONEs demands...like if you demanded something of me---go **** yourself would be the answer. if the cops said stop looting and being criminals--well i wouldnt be there to begin with. anyhow your looting criminal buddies choose not to listen---your comment means nothing, as are the rest---just saying

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

you just named prune face pelosi--the hemorrhoid in her ass schumer and last but not least BEIJING joe...way to go---those names arent associated with anybody but the demoncrats

Are you saying you support the bill? Are you so eaten up with your head so far up Rumps Rectum that you can't see the long term pitfalls?

Or that you can't see the benefits. The only way to stop or reduce crime is a strong enough deterrent.

It can be misused is the problem. And who is going to make the determination of who is and who isn't, what is the time limit, etc.. It can easily be used to silence the other side. Yes, even the left can use it to silence the right. Wow, can you imagine if the VFW were all of a sudden deemed to be Looters and Rioters? I know that sounds extreme but using that same law, it can become a reality. America won't be destroyed from outside, but from inside and that would be just another way that a strongman (or woman) could use to cement power.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If Sleepy Joe were elected, such a rule would never be enforced against Liberal Rioters, instead they would try to manipulate the law to make Pro Life marches officially designated as "riots"so they can silence the opposition.

The problem with the Congressman's legislation is that it requires discernment that we really can't guarantee that future executives will have.

One would think that before you allowed Rump to get so loose with the Constitution, you would have considered this point. We need checks and balances and I don't see any checks and balances in this proposal. Pretty much, all one has to do is call anyone a Looter, Rioter and, poof, they are cast out. Like I said, this piece of crap won't last 5 minutes in any Federal Court. Even if Rump were to heavily stack the court because the Courts have enough to do already without this crap.

What would a federal court have to do with this? There is no Constitutional right or guarantee of welfare.

The State, City, Town, Municipality would be taken to a federal court to get this resolved. A very low Federal Court, probably the State Federal Court. And I don't see it passing muster since it would be just too easy to misuse.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

If a Federal Crime? Go for it.

It it's a state law then the next higher court to hear it will be Federal. Please stop making it up as you go to try and cover up a really bad decision.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Sleepy Joe were elected, such a rule would never be enforced against Liberal Rioters, instead they would try to manipulate the law to make Pro Life marches officially designated as "riots"so they can silence the opposition.

The problem with the Congressman's legislation is that it requires discernment that we really can't guarantee that future executives will have.

One would think that before you allowed Rump to get so loose with the Constitution, you would have considered this point. We need checks and balances and I don't see any checks and balances in this proposal. Pretty much, all one has to do is call anyone a Looter, Rioter and, poof, they are cast out. Like I said, this piece of crap won't last 5 minutes in any Federal Court. Even if Rump were to heavily stack the court because the Courts have enough to do already without this crap.

What would a federal court have to do with this? There is no Constitutional right or guarantee of welfare.

The State, City, Town, Municipality would be taken to a federal court to get this resolved. A very low Federal Court, probably the State Federal Court. And I don't see it passing muster since it would be just too easy to misuse.

Federal courts deal with constitutional issues, and this has nothing to do with the Constitution. That's besides the fact if a law was passed, signed by the President, there isn't much you can do about it unless you can make a case where it violates your rights. Nobody has a right to welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

you just named prune face pelosi--the hemorrhoid in her ass schumer and last but not least BEIJING joe...way to go---those names arent associated with anybody but the demoncrats

Are you saying you support the bill? Are you so eaten up with your head so far up Rumps Rectum that you can't see the long term pitfalls?

Or that you can't see the benefits. The only way to stop or reduce crime is a strong enough deterrent.

It can be misused is the problem. And who is going to make the determination of who is and who isn't, what is the time limit, etc.. It can easily be used to silence the other side. Yes, even the left can use it to silence the right. Wow, can you imagine if the VFW were all of a sudden deemed to be Looters and Rioters? I know that sounds extreme but using that same law, it can become a reality. America won't be destroyed from outside, but from inside and that would be just another way that a strongman (or woman) could use to cement power.

You either have an extremely short memory or didn't read the OP. The bill stated those who are convicted of rioting would be subject to benefit loss provided to those affected by the virus. So it's the judge or jury would would make the call of guilty or not guilty.

 

[easyt65]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

If a Federal Crime? Go for it.

It it's a state law then the next higher court to hear it will be Federal. Please stop making it up as you go to try and cover up a really bad decision.

Cover up? Me? This is great! I fully support taking tax payer-funded benefits from domestic terrorists who prey on tax payers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

you just named prune face pelosi--the hemorrhoid in her ass schumer and last but not least BEIJING joe...way to go---those names arent associated with anybody but the demoncrats

Are you saying you support the bill? Are you so eaten up with your head so far up Rumps Rectum that you can't see the long term pitfalls?

i can sense the worry in your comment---and also, telling by your comment, you must have your brain so far up prune face pelosis ass...that you cant think for yourself---just saying

I think in legal terms. A law has to be clear and concise and should not be susseptible to misinterpretation. No law should be passed that has to immediately ruled on by a court of law. This one doesn't meet that criteria. Your head is so far up Rumps Rectum that you believe anything that comes out of a Rumpsters Ass is correct. And it won't get past any committee if it even gets that far. Not every Rumpster in the House is dumb enough to vote Yay on this thing.

bain dead answer

Yah,, following the law doesn't apply to a Rumpster. And anyone that demands that you do is brain dead. Hey, I can live with that. Like millions, we will all remember that on November 3rd.

and be disappointed on november 4th

You being disappointed on November 4th isn't my problem. Maybe they will have a sauve or ointment at Walmart in the As Seen on TV section to help you.

Yeah. Well, hang on to your pussyhat anyway.

One of my Hats is a Service cap from the United States Air Force and I am authorized to wear it on special occasions. Plus, instead of placing my hand over my heart when the Anthem is played, I have the option to salute. I took an oath 5 times (the same oath) and no one told me that I had to no longer believe in it. And that is the problem you have with me. And millions like me. You want to call yourself a Patriot but you haven't paid enough for the right. It's a right you have to earn. You haven't paid it. That's makes you a foul mouthed freeloader.

I was talking about your pussyhat. You're going to need it. I don't care about the others.

Funny, you say things in here that you would never say in person. Guess it tells us all who the real ***** is. I don't say a damned thing in here I wouldn't say in person.

Yes, I'm sure you're very manly, but hang on to that pussyhat anyway.

then you should question your demoncrat buddies and ask them why they omitted UNDER GOD a couple times during the pledge at their circus convention or were you lying when you took the oath however many times---just saying

Bringing that up says you never served. A person taking the Oath is not required to say the last phrase. It's optional. Atheists and other religions serve with honor as well. It gets replaced with "I so affirm". Contrary to popular belief, there are atheists in foxholes. But there has been one hell of a lot of conversions on the spot though.

For Officers
I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)

For Enlisted
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

You bring up the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't say it but that's what you are saying. In my lifetime 2 states have been added and 2 words have been added to the Pledge. Yes, in my lifetime. When I first heard it, those two words weren't there. The year that those two words were added: "Under God" was 1954. Eisenhower was encouraged to request Congress to add those two words during the 2nd Red Scare. It was the fear of Communism. Below is Red Skelton doing his wonderful insightful take on the Pledge of Allegiance. If I had my way, it would be a required video in ALL middle schools. It makes me proud of what I have done for America and ashamed for what America has become. And I want to bring back honor to America in my lifetime. No matter what your political beliefs are, this deserves a listen to. It's from 1969 before the complete erosion of the Nation took such a hard turn.

 

[iceberg]

If Sleepy Joe were elected, such a rule would never be enforced against Liberal Rioters, instead they would try to manipulate the law to make Pro Life marches officially designated as "riots"so they can silence the opposition.

The problem with the Congressman's legislation is that it requires discernment that we really can't guarantee that future executives will have.

One would think that before you allowed Rump to get so loose with the Constitution, you would have considered this point. We need checks and balances and I don't see any checks and balances in this proposal. Pretty much, all one has to do is call anyone a Looter, Rioter and, poof, they are cast out. Like I said, this piece of crap won't last 5 minutes in any Federal Court. Even if Rump were to heavily stack the court because the Courts have enough to do already without this crap.

constitution is pretty much NOT for a soft coup either, so **** off.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If Sleepy Joe were elected, such a rule would never be enforced against Liberal Rioters, instead they would try to manipulate the law to make Pro Life marches officially designated as "riots"so they can silence the opposition.

The problem with the Congressman's legislation is that it requires discernment that we really can't guarantee that future executives will have.

One would think that before you allowed Rump to get so loose with the Constitution, you would have considered this point. We need checks and balances and I don't see any checks and balances in this proposal. Pretty much, all one has to do is call anyone a Looter, Rioter and, poof, they are cast out. Like I said, this piece of crap won't last 5 minutes in any Federal Court. Even if Rump were to heavily stack the court because the Courts have enough to do already without this crap.

What would a federal court have to do with this? There is no Constitutional right or guarantee of welfare.

The State, City, Town, Municipality would be taken to a federal court to get this resolved. A very low Federal Court, probably the State Federal Court. And I don't see it passing muster since it would be just too easy to misuse.

Federal courts deal with constitutional issues, and this has nothing to do with the Constitution. That's besides the fact if a law was passed, signed by the President, there isn't much you can do about it unless you can make a case where it violates your rights. Nobody has a right to welfare.

And the Feds don't have the right to do so. Public Assistance is award by the States. And the States have it in their constitutions. Here is something about Welfare or Public Assistance from Yale Law. It pretty well puts it all into perspective.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL WELFARE: THE EMERGING LEGAL ISSUES

What you see today is sort of a leftover from the LBJ time period at the Federal level. But the real Welfare or Public Assistance is the responsibility of the State and the State normally allows the County to administer most of it.

But there still stands the Federal Social Security Act done by the LBJ Admin and Congress which is to protect children. Other than that, all other responsibilities falls on the states and the courts.

Give that a read. It's worth your time.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

you just named prune face pelosi--the hemorrhoid in her ass schumer and last but not least BEIJING joe...way to go---those names arent associated with anybody but the demoncrats

Are you saying you support the bill? Are you so eaten up with your head so far up Rumps Rectum that you can't see the long term pitfalls?

Or that you can't see the benefits. The only way to stop or reduce crime is a strong enough deterrent.

It can be misused is the problem. And who is going to make the determination of who is and who isn't, what is the time limit, etc.. It can easily be used to silence the other side. Yes, even the left can use it to silence the right. Wow, can you imagine if the VFW were all of a sudden deemed to be Looters and Rioters? I know that sounds extreme but using that same law, it can become a reality. America won't be destroyed from outside, but from inside and that would be just another way that a strongman (or woman) could use to cement power.

You either have an extremely short memory or didn't read the OP. The bill stated those who are convicted of rioting would be subject to benefit loss provided to those affected by the virus. So it's the judge or jury would would make the call of guilty or not guilty.

If you read my last response, you would see that the Feds can't make that call. It's clearly a States call.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Excellent.

Republican Congressman Introduces Legislation to Strip Convicted Rioters of Federal Welfare Benefits - Big League Politics

This will last about 5 minutes in a Federal Court. Let me guess, it was co-sponsored by Larry, Mo and Curly.

you just named prune face pelosi--the hemorrhoid in her ass schumer and last but not least BEIJING joe...way to go---those names arent associated with anybody but the demoncrats

Are you saying you support the bill? Are you so eaten up with your head so far up Rumps Rectum that you can't see the long term pitfalls?

Or that you can't see the benefits. The only way to stop or reduce crime is a strong enough deterrent.

It can be misused is the problem. And who is going to make the determination of who is and who isn't, what is the time limit, etc.. It can easily be used to silence the other side. Yes, even the left can use it to silence the right. Wow, can you imagine if the VFW were all of a sudden deemed to be Looters and Rioters? I know that sounds extreme but using that same law, it can become a reality. America won't be destroyed from outside, but from inside and that would be just another way that a strongman (or woman) could use to cement power.

You either have an extremely short memory or didn't read the OP. The bill stated those who are convicted of rioting would be subject to benefit loss provided to those affected by the virus. So it's the judge or jury would would make the call of guilty or not guilty.

If you read my last response, you would see that the Feds can't make that call. It's clearly a States call.

No, because the bill is for federal benefits, not state. It does not say all unemployment benefits, it says the federal unemployment benefits. If you are found guilty in a court of law for rioting, you lose those benefits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Sleepy Joe were elected, such a rule would never be enforced against Liberal Rioters, instead they would try to manipulate the law to make Pro Life marches officially designated as "riots"so they can silence the opposition.

The problem with the Congressman's legislation is that it requires discernment that we really can't guarantee that future executives will have.

One would think that before you allowed Rump to get so loose with the Constitution, you would have considered this point. We need checks and balances and I don't see any checks and balances in this proposal. Pretty much, all one has to do is call anyone a Looter, Rioter and, poof, they are cast out. Like I said, this piece of crap won't last 5 minutes in any Federal Court. Even if Rump were to heavily stack the court because the Courts have enough to do already without this crap.

What would a federal court have to do with this? There is no Constitutional right or guarantee of welfare.

The State, City, Town, Municipality would be taken to a federal court to get this resolved. A very low Federal Court, probably the State Federal Court. And I don't see it passing muster since it would be just too easy to misuse.

Federal courts deal with constitutional issues, and this has nothing to do with the Constitution. That's besides the fact if a law was passed, signed by the President, there isn't much you can do about it unless you can make a case where it violates your rights. Nobody has a right to welfare.

And the Feds don't have the right to do so. Public Assistance is award by the States. And the States have it in their constitutions. Here is something about Welfare or Public Assistance from Yale Law. It pretty well puts it all into perspective.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL WELFARE: THE EMERGING LEGAL ISSUES

What you see today is sort of a leftover from the LBJ time period at the Federal level. But the real Welfare or Public Assistance is the responsibility of the State and the State normally allows the County to administer most of it.

But there still stands the Federal Social Security Act done by the LBJ Admin and Congress which is to protect children. Other than that, all other responsibilities falls on the states and the courts.

Give that a read. It's worth your time.

This has nothing to do with welfare, it has nothing to do with HUD, it has nothing to do with Social Security or food stamps. It's strictly for federal benefits related to Covid-19.