Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Christian Schmidt
I get things done.
I get things done.

Christian's posts

Post has attachment
The U.S. Navy Just Announced The End Of Big Oil And No One Noticed

Post has attachment
Music at its finest: Let's start with a childrens' song and see what can be done with it ... 

Post has attachment
The environment of the current U.S. Government shutdown provides "dreamland for foreign intelligence services to recruit." Isn't this a compelling reason to end the shutdown first and deal with political differences later ?

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
To all who know to whom this memorial is dedicated:  I had a blast of a time here, learned a lot, enjoyed a truly first-class cuisine and the hospitality of new friends.  It's about time I start to learn a new language.

Post has attachment
Do you believe that all people are born free and equal, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity?  I do. 

Post has attachment
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Post has attachment
Senators from the Democratic Party rejected:

Substitute for Background Check Proposal 

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Proposal 

Proposal On Veterans Gun Ownership Rights

Post has attachment
A beautiful video of perception of beauty.

Post has attachment
In the oral arguments exchanged at The U.S. Supreme Court, there was an apparent absence of a powerful argument lawyers could have used to further strengthen the arguments in favor of Edith Windsor's case:

Apparently, the government and Edith Windsor agree that DOMA is unconstitutional.  The government, however, enforces this statute.

On Page 7 (see the PDF version of the transcript), Justice Scalia points out:
"[...] I mean, the Government comes in and says "I agree" -- or if there was 
jurisdiction, why did the Court ever have to get to the merits?

 If you have a, let's say, a lawsuit on an -on an indebtedness and the alleged debtor comes in and says, yeah, I owe them money, but I'm just not gonna pay it, which is the equivalent of the Government saying, yeah, it's unconstitutional but I'm going to enforce it anyway.

 What would happen in that -- in that indebtedness suit is that the court would enter judgment and say, if you agree that you owe it, by God, you 
should pay it. And there would be a judgment right there without any consideration of the merits, right? Why didn't that happen here? [...]"

Does this mean that Justice Scalia basically begged Edith Windsor's lawyers to argue that the government simply abused its power?
Wait while more posts are being loaded