State's Rights Tour

Well, I went last night to see Ray McBerry speak again. If you aren’t aware of who he is, he is a Republican candidate for Governor that believes the 10th Amendment is a very valuable thing. He spoke about a topic that is purpose of this blog. It regarded Chisholm v. Georgia (1793). I heard him mention this in a previous speech, but this time it caught my attention and wanted to find out for myself. So, I did a little research to verify my facts. This case involves State’s Rights and just what the intent of the Constitution was, at the time it was written.
Now, because I am human, I have been recently saying that Thomas Jefferson was the writer of the Constitution. That was completely untrue and I didn’t think that through when I said it at the time. Afterall, I did have an education and failed to apply it at the time I said it. The reality is Thomas Jefferson is the father of the Declaration of Independence. It’s James Madison that is to be credited for the writing of the Constitution. Well, recently, someone of the opposing viewpoint showed me a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. This letter, to sum it up, states that Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be re-written every 19 years. It was his belief that it becomes outdated every generation and should be “updated” as such. Here is a link to it if you’d like to read it for yourself: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html
Through further research, I found that Madison opposed this viewpoint citing that the Constitution is a permanent document and the Amendment process is what should be used instead of a complete re-write. In order to do this, you would require 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of State Legislatures to approve it in order for it to become law. The other option is through a Constitutional Convention. This is conducted by actual citizens of the states instead of their legislature. This has only been used once, to abolish the 18th Amendment. The rest were used by the first mentioned process.
Sorry to go off on a tangent like that. So, let’s get back to the issue at hand. I hear so many people on the left (and even some on the right) talk about how either the Constitution is outdated, that the Federal Government is the supreme power in this country, or that we don’t really know what our Founding Fathers intended when the Constitution was ratified. So, Ray McBerry pointed to this one particular case (Chisholm v. Georgia) to help guide our question. Here is a summary of what took place:

An Alexander Chisholm from South Carolina, in the fall of 1792, filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court. He was a merchant who wanted payment for goods/services that the state failed to pay. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the state to appear before it to hear the case. The state failed to appear, with the State Legislature citing that they were not required to appear before the court in cases that they had not approved themselves. Well, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the state to pay the money they owed. Now, keep in mind, this was in 1792-1793. This was only 3-4 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. All of the legislators in Georgia were the original legislators that ratified the Constitution. They believed there was no Constitutional power granting the federal government to require this. Well, we were not the only state that became outraged over this. As a matter of fact, the entire country did and eventually passed the 11th Amendment to the Constitution as a way of overturning the Supreme Court’s decision on this matter.
As a response, the Georgia State Legislature made the point that they do not report to the Federal Government, but that the Federal Government reports to the states. They went on to say, further, that any Federal marshal who attempted to levy upon the property of Georgia in executing the court’s order shall be, “guilty of felony, and shall suffer death, without the benefit of clergy, by being hanged.” They never had to pay the money and the federal government could do nothing to enforce their findings thanks to the 11th Amendment.

This was all done during a time when the Founding Fathers were still in charge and, thus, showed their intent for the Constitution. It’s contrary to today’s popular opinion that the U.S. Federal Government is the final power. The reality is, the 10th Amendment was put in place, before the 11th, showing that if it is not specifically stated in the Constitution, then it is up to the states to decide individually. It also shows that the Federal Government reports to the states and not the other way around. These things of note brought me back to my original opinion that Healthcare Reform, the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve System, and other frivolous processes that have been put in place over the years are, in fact, Un-Constitutional and should be overturned/prevented.

What do YOU consider to be a right?

Well, today was an exceptional day. I ticked off Democrats and Republicans alike. In case you haven't noticed, this country has been in one of the most heated debates over our healthcare system. Many on the left say it is a right for Americans to have healthcare, regardless of who pays for it, because it is for "the benefit of all". The ones on the right and even 57% of independent voters say it is not a right, because it forces an American to use their private property (money) to pay for it on top of forcing a doctor to relinquish his/her services and time which violates their personal liberties. OK, granted. The right makes a good point.

So, today, I put the right to challenge. I talked about abolishing the Department of Education. What do you think happened? Immediately, I received a swarm of comments from the very same people who argued the point against healthcare that education should be paid for by all because it "benefits us all". Now, some feel it is a right and some feel it is a priviledge. However, they all say that we should pay for this system. So, let me get this straight. The right wants us to be "smart" thanks to the taxpayer dollar, but wants our health to be paid privately. Hmmm, interesting.

That sparked a thought for me. I would like to list those things in life that we value as people. Tell me, please rank them in order of what you consider to be the most important to the least important in order to sustain life. I would guess that the things you really value the most are the very things that NO ONE is fighting to have a bill passed to provide as a "right". Yet, the least important ones are the ones that most of you ARE fighting for. Here they are in no specific order:

Food
Healthcare
Liberty
Life
Clothing
Housing
Property
Education

Just remember this people. Every single one of those things listed above existed in 1783 when the Constitution was drafted. Only a couple of them made it into the document. Why do you think that is? Do you think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin were nuts?

WE DID IT!!!!!! HR1207 WILL BE VOTED ON AND PASSED!!!!

Just got word this morning that Barney Frank has gotten on board with HR1207 "The Federal Reserve Transparency Act" and says it will be voted on and passed in October!!! All of the Phone Bombs I participated in, the phone calls to constituents, the speech I gave at SPSU, just added on top of the outrage and support from people like you who got behind this bill and made your voices heard. This is bigger than the Healthcare Bill (in my opinion) and bigger than anything else we have going on right now, because this is about our livelyhood. Check out the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DX9Iu4wNo

LiberalHater's Healthcare Bill

LiberalHater's Healthcare Reform Act of 2009 (LH2009)

I. Qualified Participants
A. American Citizen, either born or naturalized within the United States, that is actively doing one of the following:
1. Physically working and paying taxes.
2. Physically or Mentally handicapped and incapable of working.
3. Retired
4. Actively seeking employment (see below)
5. Veterans
B. Legal Immigrant that can provide documentation showing their legal status.

II. Unqualified Person/s
A. Any person found to have the following:
1. No proof of citizenship or legal immigration status
2. Traces of illegal substances or alcohol in their system at the time they receive services.
3. Physically able to seek employment, but has remained on the welfare system for six (6) months or longer without finding gainful employment.
4. Who has not paid their required taxes in full within 24 months of the required deadline.
5. Any welfare recipient who is seeking maternal services after their third child.

III. Hospital Requirements
A. All doctors/hospitals must be provided identification proving the citizenship or legal immigrant status before providing services.
B. Any person attempting to receive services that is found to not have the appropriate documentation will immediately be handed over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for further investigation and/or deportation.
C. Any person that is qualified to receive services under Article I. Section A4 must submit to alcohol and drug testing before receiving any service. If the blood system shows traces of recent usage, services will be denied.
D. Unqualified person/s attempting to receive services and are found to have a public threatening illness will be immediately quarantined and necessary measures will be taken to restore them to a “safe condition” before release into the public.

IV. Government Requirements
A. In order to pay for this bill, it must be paid for in its entirety by accomplishing the following:
1. Congress will abolish the Federal Reserve System, pay down current debts to the Federal Reserve, and restore coining money interest and debt free to the American People.
2. Congress will abolish the Department of Education.
B. Abortions and Counseling Services will not be included.
C. No tax increases may take place at any income level either directly, or indirectly.

V. Provisions of Coverage
A. No one that qualifies under this plan may be denied service due to a pre-existing condition.
B. No one that is qualified will be denied service and/or passed up based on age or health condition.

Just wondering...

Let me ask you something, let's talk about this healthcare thing for a minute from another standpoint. OK, I have a couple of friends that actually believe they want to help those that are "working 2 jobs and can't afford health insurance". That's a legitimate concern, I agree. So, I have been thinking this through. What if we did the following:

1. We had a bill that would provide coverage for all actively working American Citizens, Legal Immigrants, the handicapped, and those that are able bodied to work and are actively trying to get some work.

2. Everyone would have to submit to drug and alcohol screening before receiving services if you're not actively working.

3. The hospitals and doctors would be required to check for proper identification to prove your citizenship and/or legal status. If you can't provide it, you don't get services.

4. Abortions would not be covered.

5. Counceling (marriage, personal, etc) would not be covered.

6. The ENTIRE program is paid for by eliminating one MAJOR program (like the Department of Education) so that not one single penny is taken away from the American People to pay for it. You want a new program, get rid of an old one of equal value.

If people agreed to this, I MIGHT be willing to sacrifice my liberty ideals to support it. Convince me if I'm right or wrong. Please, chime in.

The "A" Word

ABORTION....Ohhhh, I bet that just gets under your skin doesn't it? Why is that? Well, to put it plainly, it's because you probably feel the same way I do. It's a stalemate. This is like playing Tic-Tac-Toe, you're never going to win. People tout about how there are two sides to this, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. I happen to believe that there are really three positions, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice (as an individual), and Pro-CollectiveChoice (as a combined people). I stand in the last option on my opinions. Let me explain...

I, personally, believe that life begins at conception. However, I am also a true believer in liberty. This is a moral issue and there is no denying that. If you hear the viewpoints of those that oppose abortion and those that want choice, they both have OUTSTANDING arguments. That's why it's stalemate. No one will ever win that fight, because they both have excellent points to make to "prove" their side. So, how do we resolve it?

I was giving this some thought recently and it really started eating at my brain last night when I went to the GOP meeting in my district to hear Ray McBerry (the Georgia Governor Candidate) talk about State's Rights and Freedom. He is a Pro-Life Candidate and said that government should always default on life when there is ever a question. Although I do agree with this, it raises concerns for me. Should we really allow a politician decide morality?

If you recall in the Scott and Laci Peterson trial, Scott was charged and convicted in a court of law for double homocide since his wife was pregnant at the time. Yet, this very same court system would not feel that it was murder if Laci had taken upon herself to abort the child. Is this not a double standard??? The problem is, there has never been a precendence set for the rule of law.

Therefore, I propose that a referendum vote be put up to the American People and let us decide COLLECTIVELY one simple question: "Does life begin at conception or birth?" Whatever we decide as a whole should be an amendment to the Constitution explaining where life begins when we deal with the "right to life" issue. This will set a precedence for all law and not just abortion.

Where we are...

I've been sitting here today thinking about where this country has gone just in the last 6 months. It is an amazing feat I must say. There were some very positive things that seemed to be possible, but it all crashed down fairly fast. As it stands we have:

1. The first African-American President who is on a continual path to destroying the hope of any other black man/woman of being elected to that office in my lifetime.
2. He has achieved falling in the #3 slot on my top 5 worst Presidents ever. Yes, Woodrow Wilson and Ulysses S. Grant come before him.
3. We are about to embark upon the largest program of fascist nature in American history.
4. A federal deficit that once the healthcare bill is put into place, will reach not only a record, but an astronomical $21.5 Trillion.
5. We are close to another Great Depression.
6. We're now losing the war in Afghanistan.
7. Legislators that actually believe we don't know what we're talking about and want to rush through legislation even when 75% of us don't want it.
8. Proposals to amend the Constitution to include a right to healthcare.
9. States tossing around the idea of succession.
10. The closest we have ever come to an outright Revolution since the days of The War Between the States.

Where do you sit in all of this?