Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for February 07, 2014

Zipper, you fool, you had the fate of the town in your hands!

Is Legal Exposure a treatable condition?

tumblin tumbleweeds, the future of those who don’t jump on the bandwagon?

homophobe, with an ‘e’.

problem with people like Zonker is they are not focused with laser like fear as most Rightwingers are. fear is a wonderful mind killer as the Right proves with almost every statement out of their mouths.

Scorpions and tumbleweeds in the mountains? Narcotic “tourism”? Is that as big as gun tourism?

What do you take for political exposure?

" Homophobs beware. (hmm Google doesn’t recognize “homophob” yet. Isn’t that odd. I thought it was a real word))"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~English is a living language; we add new words all the time. But if you find it in a dictionary, I’m pretty sure it will bespelled ‘homophobe.’

Zonk shouldn’t be too concerned, after all Jack Daniels is distilled in a dry county.

“Legal exposure”: Is Zipper scared that he can be sued for not warning the town??

that’s because you’re missing a letter.It’s Homophobes, with an ‘e’ at the end, which they still don’t recognize but they do homophobic and xenophobes so it’s just a matter of time and/or dictionary updates.

”Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution deals with the States as they are PROHIBITED from passing laws. And, Article IV, Section1, deals with the States as their “Public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings” shall be given “Full Faith and Credit” in other States. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, deals with the Presidential power to make Treaties; and nowhere therein are there any statements concerning any form of “obligation” on the part of the President to “admit” to having “thrown out a Treaty”. Additionally, the Panama Canal Treaty contained, in its original form, a time for termination; which came during President Carter’s Administration. The U.S. merely fulfilled its part in acknowledging that date of termination, and turning the Canal over to the Republic of Panama, as the Treaty required.^One poster claims a “treaty” for the Federal Laws on marijuana; however this poster gives no evidence as to WHAT Treaty this might be – and when ratified, by Congress. In point of fact, marijuana IS NOT regulated by treaty, and is legal in many countries other than the U.S.A.”.I thought it would bore you, but from:http://www.canorml.org/news/unhappybd.html.“Mar 30th, 2011 – Today marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotic Drugs, which initiated the international policy of cannabis prohibition. Pursuant to the treaty, cannabis is prohibited in every single country in the world . . . Anslinger had pushed for a treaty against cannabis in order to shore up the act’s dubious constitutionality under U.S. law (the act was later declared unconstitutional for other reasons, …”..Treaties come right below the Constitution itself in empowering the Federal Government to comply with the international agreements. As to the President following the law we have Paragraph 3 which includes: “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.I understand that “faithfully executed” means nothing to some but I’m just not one of them. I have no problem with breaking the treaty, just think we should be honest about it..As to breaking treaties from:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm.“The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress.”.There’s no reason to be paranoid when someone proposes the President break the treaty he has decided to not enforce.Every law which can be selectively executed is not faithfully executed.