A More Powerful Government (Quick Thoughts)

This is an article I plan on diving much more deeply into in the future. In many of my discussions I have with people about the Founding Principles of the Constitution, one of the most common things I hear is something along these lines,

“The Founders wanted a strong central government because the Article of Confederation proved a weak one can’t work”.

With the exception of one word in this context, I happen to fully agree with the statement, the word “strong” instead of '”stronger”. No matter how you word it or state it, it is this concept and the difference between Strong and Stronger in this context that makes the World’s difference in the discussion. To often in my opinion, many who favor a very strong Federal Authority are the ones who use the word strong and use it with the Founder’s in this context to justify their position of a more absolute Federal power.

Voter Rights and Checks (Quick Thoughts)

For starters I have to apologize to all for not having posted anything in some time. I do hope to post more often again, life as we all know at times can get rough. But now onto the point of this post.

Much has made the news in recent months about voting rights and voter verification as many states have adopted or are enforcing Voter ID checks to the dismay of many. This is not going to be so much as a complete Constitutional analysis or opinion but rather from the perspective of Liberty and Integrity, and is something I touched base on a couple years back.

Whose liberty comes first?(Quick Thoughts)

Much news has been made in regards to the recent policy of requiring all employers to provide health insurance covering contraception, including religious organizations who may have faith based objections to such services. This presents the question of "whose liberty comes first"? Does the Church’s freedom of religious expression come before the individual?

Memorial Day 2011 Letter

The exact origins of Memorial Day are lost to history, with numerous stories and claims to its beginning. But the known facts surrounding Memorial Day have its origin in the Civil War, and was first officially declared on May 5, 1868 by General John Logan. The first State to officially recognize Memorial Day was New York in 1873, and over time various types of Memorial Days were established by different States. Northern States typically had a Memorial Day in May, while Southern States had Confederate War Dead Day. In 1971 Memorial Day finally became a National Holiday as the last Monday in May.

Originally the purpose of Memorial Day was to honor the War Dead of the American Civil War, but just like how Armistice Day for World War I became Veterans Day for all Veterans, Memorial Day became a Day for remembering all who have fallen, not just the Civil War. Most Holidays are for celebration of our past, Memorial Day is honoring and mourning those who gave all for our future, in the defense of Freedom and Liberty.

The Price of Freedom and Liberty is high, in times of peace we measure the costs in Dollars, which annually is in the Hundreds of Billions. But it is the true price of Freedom we remember on Memorial Day, a price in blood which is beyond what can ever have a Dollar sign fixed to it. In order to protect freedom and liberty, the cost is the most important treasure we have, which is life. It costs us Sons and Daughters, Brothers and Sisters, Mothers and Fathers, and Husbands and Wives. The sacrifice of so many is what keeps us free today.

Signing with Autopen: Quick Thoughts

Today the President signed an extension on the Patriot Act using a device called autopen (the merits of the Patriot act are not of concern here, only the circumstances of its signing). The reason for this is, the President was in Europe at the time the bill was approved by Congress and ready for a the Presidents signature. According to Article I Section 7 regarding the passage of bills into Law it states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

Article I Section 7 also states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Stare Decisis; Legitimate Precedence or Bad begetting bad.

Stare Decisis (ster-ē-di-ˈsī-səs) is a Latin word meaning “stand by the decision”, it is the use of precedent, or prior judicial rulings,  in determining a law in question. Merriam-Webster defines it as¹:

A doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.

A simple internet search will turn up various different ways to define stare decisis, but all will follow the same basic principle in its definition, a doctrine of using what courts have ruled before on a similar case and apply it to a similar case. Stare decisis can be argued in many different ways from criminal and civil law, arbitration, etc., but the focus here will be only in regards to interpreting the Constitution in the Federal Court System, and the role it should play in determining what law is.

As an Originalist, stare decisis has legitimate use in not only the Supreme Court but inferior courts as well. But I also contend stare decisis is a doctrine that has no place in certain regards when determining if a law or case before the court is Constitutional. Being an Originalist an inconsistent application must be avoided in order to remain consistent in interpreting the Constitution across all cases and scenarios that may arise. So in order to do this, situations on stare decisis prudent use need to be recognized, and they way I do this is two fold:

1. What court is reviewing the case.
2. On what aspect of the case to apply it.

 

Is the United States a Religious Nation?

This is always a question that will seem to draw very strong stances from two opposite sides of the spectrum. The question itself in just how it is presented can sway the way answers will be, or the way it is presented can also just as strongly make it seem it has to be one thing and not the other. But what is the answer to the Question, is the United States a Religious Nation? Is it a Christian Nation? Was the United States based on Christian beliefs?

Is it possible the United States in some respects IS a religious nation, while not being one at the same time? It all comes down to WHAT is being asked and of WHOM.

Tolerance is accepting people are different than you.

If Tolerance is not the Social-Political “Catch Phrase” of the 21st Century, I do not know what is! Tolerate this, tolerate that, you have to tolerate this thing or situation. What is tolerance? The American Heritage Dictionary (4th Edition) defines tolerance as:

• “The capacity for respecting the beliefs or practices of others”
  
  

The Repeal Amendment

Virginia may be the first of many states to propose an Amendment to the Constitution that empowers the States to repeal any Federal Statute or Law, commonly called "The Repeal Amendment". A rough draft of the possible Amendment reads as follows.

• “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Simply put, Two-Thirds of the States [Presumably through Legislative Acts] can vote to repeal ANY Federal Law or Regulation. This would be an important step back toward a Federal System, by limiting Federal Power directly through State Actions.

 

Capital Punishment

When you hear Capital Punishment, you a probably thinking about the death penalty. Well I am going to talk about the other certainty of life, taxes. The tax burden in the US is not the heftiest in the world, but that does not mean it is small. It is most of it you just don’t see, but you pay it none the less. A good chunk of your taxes are paid before you have the chance to feel the money, in payroll deductions. So how much are you really paying? The average tax burden in 2008 was 28.2%¹³. What does this mean? In short nearly 1/3 of what you earn goes to taxes, lets see how.

Say you want to buy a new TV. You find a nice flat screen at a local retailer, just what you where looking for. It cost $999.99 dollars for the TV, but you know you have to account for sales tax, thinking it will only minimize the overall increase of your purchase you get it. But how much did it really cost you? How much Tax did you just pay to get this new TV? Well it was not just sales tax, it was not just taxes at all. Lets look at what it REALLY cost, and how much tax you really just paid to get this treat!

Gerrymander against the Democratic System.

If you have ever looked at Congressional or even perhaps State Districts, you may have noticed that some seem to form peculiar shapes. Why would who ever draws these do that and not make them more like, well a box? The answer is simple, it is called a Gerrymander, drawing these political districts in such a manner that gives an advantage of one group of people over another to ensure the highest probability that a candidate of this specific group is elected to that office.

While I watched the results of the 2010 National Elections on TV, one commentator’s statement struck me more than any other one made that night. “Now that they have the power during redistricting”, in other words, to Gerrymander Congressional Districts to their favor.

Gerrymandering can undermine the entire electorate, have results that do not represent the people as a whole, can be used to consolidate power to one group or small number of groups or one party. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of it is, instead of the people voting and choosing who their politician will be, it is politicians choosing who will vote for them or their group or party.

Voting System Integrity

Another case of voter fraud has been filed by the state of Texas in Houston. Voter fraud cannot be accepted at any level, or any number, and must be sought out and destroyed where ever it exists. The very fabric of our Democratic Republic rests on, one person one vote, all votes are equal. If you have watched the news, certainly Houston is not the only place or organization to have voter issues in recent memory. Allowing any person or group to register unqualified persons or ballots so they can be cast, is nothing less than stuffing the ballot box. Of all things sacred in our system of governance, we can never allow our election system to be corrupt. When ever corruption is found it must be stopped and PUNISHED.

But the issue of the voting system integrity does not stop here. There are issue with even how votes are counted, or what constitutes a vote? In large populous election, small issue with either non-eligible voters, or missing, extra, or invalid votes will probably not make the difference, but if the vote is close it certainly can.

Political Venom: Left vs Right

(One man Shouts) All the Left wants to do is Tax! (Followed by another)The Right wants to tell you who you can marry! The Tea Parties are Racists. The Progressives are Marxist. I'm sure you have heard these and many other accusations before of either what you believe, or of the other side. What happened to talking about what we believe?

Too often too many from both the left and the right make blanket accusations about the other side, in an attempt to demonize, marginalize, discredit, make fun off, insult, or disparage those who do not believe as they do. Does this get us anywhere? Does this bring us closer together as a people, or is the tool that is dividing us more and more each day? Does this help convince people who may be right or wrong? Or is this done for self or group satisfaction to feel better of their own belief which they can not easily justify on fact?

The only person standing... is the man in a wheelchair

The purpose of this site is to discuss Originalism and the Founding Principles, and this post has nothing to do with either, but I did feel it necessary to share this with you.



Remember seeing this a few years back
(Photo: Raymond Malkiewicz/Everafterimages.com)

 I remember seeing this photo some years back, perhaps you did too and I think it is quiet telling on respect of the Flag or National Ensign. Of all the people who had reason to not stand as the Flag passed, it is most assuredly the man in the wheelchair, yet he is the only one whom is. Now nobody is bound to stand, and nor should anybody ever be bound to rise for the flag [less those who are under oath to protect it like Military, Police, Politicians etc..], but it is nonetheless a show of respect for what it stands for, which is more than ever can be put into simple words.

 

Today I had my, "The only person standing... is the man in a wheelchair". Today I went to a parade of Firetrucks, and it was magnificent. There were firetrucks from across the State, as well as neighboring states. It had Color Guards, Honor Details, Fife and Drum Bands and Corps, and more firetrucks of the past and present than I have ever seen in my life before. In all it was a 2 hour plus procession of fine brave men and women who voluntarily run into burning and damaged buildings for our sake, honoring their past, and of course showcasing their toys, and included a family member in the parade, since I have two firefighters in my family.