For the record, you will see my comments intermixed with the words of the speech.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Trump's First State of the Union Address
For the record, you will see my comments intermixed with the words of the speech.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
First Day of School
Over 200 years ago, old power wigged men decided that the oppression by the English Crown had gone on long enough. They acted, with the help of France, and formed a new government that we enjoy today. Along the way, many of the wrongs were corrected - Woman's Sufferage, Civil Rights Act - unfortunately one thing continues to erode; States Rights.
The 10th Amendment has been eroded and really leaves little in regards to State Rights anymore. The concept is rather simply; the power of the country is to reside in the State Houses of government and not Washington D.C. States no longer are allowed to choose their Senators; instead they are elected which allows money from outside the State to influence not mention the carpetbaggers. The concept of State Rights was to prevent a strong centralized system of government to rule over the land as the issues facing New Yorkers were much different than issues facing those from other States.
Just like today, issues facing Minnesota differ than those facing Arizona, Texas or even Maine. These
"laboratories of Democracy" were set in place for this reason. When you get your new iPhone or Galaxy, we all choose which Apps we are to have, right? Well that is the same concept with State Rights.
If the laws of the land are the same in Minnesota as they are in California as they are in New York and we don't like them then we have no place to relocate to. Just like if we tire of Angry Birds and want to move onto Candy Crush, we have that ability by adding and deleting Apps. If you live in Minnesota and you don't like the fact that you cannot openly carry your weapon of choice, you have the ability to move to a State that does.
Some common laws ought to exists to aid in the flow of goods, the protection of private property and ensure basic civil rights exist. Let's hope our young children wake up and realize the benefits of a de-centralized system of government while we still have some freedom of choice, assembly, religion, and association.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Embrace the news!
Stop, pause, take a breath! President Obama is handing real Conservatives a gift here. For decades our State National Guards have been at the mercy of the President. Remember we are a collection of States that have seen their Rights eroded since the ratification of the United States Constitution. The time is now to regain those Rights given the States in the 10th Amendment.
Governors, Senators and House of Representatives its time to pass legislation that brings back the control of the National Guard. Then it is time to exploit the 2nd Amendment by keeping readiness in the expansion of the National Guard and Militia's within our States. When a President comes calling for our National Guard or Militia we will then have the ability as a State to say - Yes or No.
Allow the President's Budget and the cuts to take place in exchange for giving the States back control of the deployment of the National Guard and Militias. Real Conservatives ought to pick up this mantra. By picking up this mantra, States will regain control of a Right they were given to start with and we gain more standing for the 2nd Amendment.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Term limits on the Supreme Court
Section 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.
Section 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire a the end of the fourth year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices in the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.
Section 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be nominated to a full term.
Section 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
Section 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be subject to litigation or review in any Federal or State court.
Section 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the State may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
Section 7: The States' override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.
Section 8: Congressional or State override authority under Section 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.
Thus far I have been on board completely with Levin as to Amendments needing to be added that will lead us to more freedom and control over our lives. When I read this chapter the first time my knee jerk reaction was yes. I do like the notion of term limits on Justices while at the same time I struggle with the notion that 9 people can make decisions that drastically impact our lives.
With our country becoming more and more polarized, we have seen - especially in my life time - the courts outcomes are not based on Constitutional limitations rather by judicial review. That judicial review has turned the courts into a defacto legislature. The fact that 9 humans cloaked in black robes will judge cases in the purview, limited by the Constitution originally and later expanded in Marbury v Madison, without error is a fallacy. Humans by our very nature are flawed thus the 9 Justices are flawed despite their education and training.
Adding another layer that gives Congress more check and balance on the Judicial system while also allowing the States that same authority is interesting. What makes this additional twist more interesting is the limitations that Congress and the States have to override a decision.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Repel of DADT should be catalyst of getting the Federal Government out of the rite of marriage
Last week Congress passed legislation that will pave the way for the repel of "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy in the United States military. In response, Vice President Joe Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" last week, "I think the country's evolving. And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with [the Defense of Marriage Act]" http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/25/biden_says_repeal_of_dont_ask_will_pave_way_for_gay_marriage/. The undercurrent of tolerance in America is moving perhaps "evolving" from the bigotry, racist and sexist thoughts of the 50, 60, 70, and 80's. What Vice President Biden is missing is that while society is becoming more tolerant of alternative views and lifestyles it is not the role of government to enact legislation to reflect in the manner Democrats are wanting to.
Instead of eroding State rights by enacting laws that re-defines marriage our Federal government needs to focus on stripping out marriage from our tax codes. Marriage is not something that government should be involved in. The rite of marriage is something that citizens enter into and should be allowed to do so without the interference of government. That interference comes in many forms. That being said, if groups of people in California, Michigan, Iowa, etc...want to enact amendments to their State Constitutions to define marriage then so be it. The definition of marriage is not a power enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. And if people within these States agree/disagree with the new laws they have options – they can leave the state, fight to propose legislation to change the law, or plainly accept the law of the State.
In the end, I believe that marriage should be done within the framework of one's beliefs and not something sanctioned by the Federal Government. Vice President Biden is correct we are becoming more tolerant as a society so let's take the right step and remove the Federal Government from the marriage industry instead of expanding it.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Proposition 19: State Rights being tested
California is at it again. Proposition 19 – Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act – is on the ballot for November. "Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration 'strongly opposes' a California ballot measure to legalize marijuana, warning that federal drug-enforcement efforts would be 'greatly complicated' if the measure passes" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575554261952309990.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news). Putting aside the issue of marijuana as a control substance, a bigger issue is at hand. The issue is State Rights vs. Federal powers. Personally, I do not see why a state could not pass a law that would legalize marijuana.
America has spent trillions on fighting the drug trade. Not to say that is a reason to legalize it but those that I know that use marijuana are not a threat to society no more than the person getting behind the wheel that has been drinking. Then again I don't want to get bogged down in a conversation on the substance control aspect of marijuana. This is similar to the same sex marriage debate. If a group of people, as in California, want to legalize marijuana and are not going to sell it or advertise the sale of it outside of the state does the Federal government have jurisdiction? Does the Supremacy Clause apply? Is this an example of State Rights vs. enumerated powers to the federal government?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Opt-Out is a Cop-Out
For weeks leading up to the Senate Finance vote on the Baucus Bill – that still has not been given Legislative language (thus not a bill) – the White House and leading Democrats courted the vote of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who is fighting for his political future, announced Monday that the merged bill in the Senate will have an "opt-out" public option. The very type of option that Olympia Snowe and Senate "Blue Dog" Democrats are dead set against having as an option. The move by Sen. Reid may put him in the crosshairs of the White House as the Obama Administration has used a lot of political capital to make health care reform appear to be bi-partisan.
President Obama has been campaigning and fundraising for a number of Democrats embattled for political life in the past weeks. Will the move by Sen. Reid put his biggest political chip in jeopardy by putting in a public option? Only time will tell. Having an "Opt-Out" option will negate a slew of lawsuits, well that is if State's get a backbone, as forcing States to offer further expansion of Medicare is an affront on State Rights. As I have said before in previous blog entries, health care reform is needed to curb the escalating premiums and bring cost savings within the industry itself.
The goal of President Obama is to reduce costs and increase competition. The trouble with the public option is that it does neither. To increase competition, open the borders of the states to allow insurance companies to offer coverage across state lines. Roughly 1600 insurance options exist within the borders of the United States yet the majority of states have between 2 and 5 options. Looking to Economics 101 for an answer is required. Economics 101 sales, provided the price is at equilibrium, an increase in supply, while keeping demand the same, the price will drop. So, why are that so many politicians disregard this model of Economics?
The other goal is to reduce cost. Doctors must carry expensive insurance to shield themselves from lawsuits. The malpractice insurance does not discriminate. Surgeons, specialists, and family practioneers all must carry it to protect themselves. Tort reform is required. Without Tort reform doctors will need to earn more and more money to cover the cost of malpractice insurance. So, why doesn't the Democrat led Congress include Tort reform within their health care reform platform?
We can create legislation that will not cost $.01 but Congress lacks the courage to do so while achieving the goals of health care reform. So, why doesn't Congress do it?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A win for State rights: Thune Amendment fails passage
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does allow for all Americans to keep and bear arms. Sen. Thune argued that “An individual should be able to exercise their Second Amendment constitutional right and be able to travel through individual states as long as they live by the laws of those states.” I agree with Sen. Thune and nearly every state that has ‘conceal and carry’ law state that only permits approved in that state are recognized. That being said, if it our right as Americans to keep and bear arms, then no state or federal regulation ought to bar anyone from bearing arms across state lines.
Why ‘conceal and carry’ when one has the right to openly carry? Sen. Dianne Feinstein warned that Thune’s amendment “is a grave threat to public safety. Concealed-weapons laws that work in rural states may not be suitable in urban areas. What’s good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York.” Sen. Feinstein listen to yourself and apply that logic to other legislation and issues facing our nation; gay marriage, smoking bans, or Cap and Trade.
The NRA states that “the right to self defense does not end at state lines.” I agree completely with the NRA and the supreme law of the land already gives one the right to “bear” arms across state lines. All one has to do when crossing state lines, regardless if one has a ‘conceal and carry’ permit, is to keep their gun visible at all times. The Supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, already permits this. Openly bear your arms and exercise your Constitutional right!!!!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Health Care: Obama's Waterloo!!!
While I agree that reform is needed but let’s not try to ram it through without making sure it doesn’t exist mandates on States and other agencies that are fiscally disabling. Sometime during the late 80’s to today the State Rights have been eroded by ever increasing mandates by the Federal Government. A prime example is No Kid Left Behind program that forces ADHD and other kids with special needs back into the mainstream classrooms in exchange for Federal dollars. Another example is the use of highway funds to push the .08 legal limit and soon to be cafĂ© standards. For if a state does not institute either billions of dollars in Federal money will go elsewhere.
So when people say let’s take our time on Health Care and do it right the first time, we do not need a President that runs short on patience and diligence. The very same President that is pushing for a public option that will, according to the CBO, strain state budgets. The only saving grace is the President does not have the power, at least not yet, to control the CBO reporting or fire members of the CBO as he did with an Inspector General earlier this year.
Tim Kaine, in a mass email message, stated when talking about the Republican platform on health care is that “Their plan is simple: oppose health care reform as a political ploy to weaken the President and defeat his entire agenda of change. But if we follow the Republican “Party of no” and do nothing, we’ll not only ensure more of the same but saddle our children and grandchildren with a growing burden on exploding costs and declining care that they may never overcome.” Really Mr. Kaine, are you sure you are not looking at the President’s plan?
Now the pundits have touted that Republicans have not offered an alternative. Republicans have and most recently were working with Blue Dog Democrats to find a bipartisan plan. The trouble is the compromised plan does not call for a public option. No matter which side of the fence one falls when it comes to health care reform, all agree something needs to be done.
Moving forward we need to pressure our Congress to act intelligently, diligently, and in a manner that will produce reform that actually drives costs down. They can start by telling the President “No!” to a public option. Or at least “No!” until it has been determined that the cost curve is trending downward. I am one of the millions of American’s without health care and I do not want it provided for me by the government. Assist me in obtaining private health insurance, I can live with that. As the stimulus bill has done nothing to curb the economic landscape, please do not act with similar haste with health care.