Saturday, March 27, 2010
This video seems to put forward the intent of the Constitution and puts into video form a powerful speech that might have been delivered by Thomas Paine.
If you see no YouTube video below, click here to see a great speech
It can not be said that this re-enactor does not have a point!
If you see no YouTube video below, click here to see a great speech
It can not be said that this re-enactor does not have a point!
Friday, April 24, 2009
The concept of nullification in Federal Powers vs State Powers
Here is an interesting article which goes over what power Federal has over State. I bet you were taught differently in school! Well find out what the deal really is here.
Link to the article
So, how does that seem to you now?
Link to the article
So, how does that seem to you now?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Obama is now in power. He has indicated that Guantanamo Bay prisoner facility is to be closed, not immediately but over a period of time. However, the military seem to be procrastinating! So the Jury is out on this one.
There is much work to be done in dismantling the Patriot Act.
So what is the aim here? Can we expect that all oppressive acts will be dismantled and thus we will have a new era of freedom? I fear this will not happen as there is pork tied up in some acts that have to be cancelled. Imagine the problems that that will create amongst the politicians.
Did you realize that laws that enact a certain minority get special treatment is also counter to the spirit of the constitution? Say there is a law that enables that women get placed in a position so as to meet a quota of women. Isn't this a discriminatory action when you are wanting to place the best person for the job in that job? It should devolve into the person with the best qualifications filling the position. This would be a strictly per the market place activity.
How about illegal immigrants? This is a case where you have to look at the big picture. If the person broke the law to get into this country, then they should suffer the consequences as the rule of law should prevail. However, what about their kids. If they were born in the USA, then they did not break the law. Their parents did, but they did not. If they are over the age of majority, then they should stay. If not, then they could be advised to go with their parents but not forced to do so.
Why is this? Each person is an individual and is responsible for their own actions.These actions are expected to not break the law, and so if the law is not broken, they are free to do as they wish. However, breaking the law abrogates the right to their freedom, it is forfeit until the sentence is carried out.
Government officials can only carry out what the law says. That is the rule of law. There is no right to enter arbitrary sentences. It should all be very predictable.
There is much work to be done in dismantling the Patriot Act.
So what is the aim here? Can we expect that all oppressive acts will be dismantled and thus we will have a new era of freedom? I fear this will not happen as there is pork tied up in some acts that have to be cancelled. Imagine the problems that that will create amongst the politicians.
Did you realize that laws that enact a certain minority get special treatment is also counter to the spirit of the constitution? Say there is a law that enables that women get placed in a position so as to meet a quota of women. Isn't this a discriminatory action when you are wanting to place the best person for the job in that job? It should devolve into the person with the best qualifications filling the position. This would be a strictly per the market place activity.
How about illegal immigrants? This is a case where you have to look at the big picture. If the person broke the law to get into this country, then they should suffer the consequences as the rule of law should prevail. However, what about their kids. If they were born in the USA, then they did not break the law. Their parents did, but they did not. If they are over the age of majority, then they should stay. If not, then they could be advised to go with their parents but not forced to do so.
Why is this? Each person is an individual and is responsible for their own actions.These actions are expected to not break the law, and so if the law is not broken, they are free to do as they wish. However, breaking the law abrogates the right to their freedom, it is forfeit until the sentence is carried out.
Government officials can only carry out what the law says. That is the rule of law. There is no right to enter arbitrary sentences. It should all be very predictable.
Labels: Now we have a new President....
Friday, December 26, 2008
Isn't it amazing that the Constitution is a document only a few pages long while new laws legislated onto the books are thousands of pages long. Simplicity is the key to the Constitution, and simplicity should be the key to new laws. Perhaps instead of enacting a new law, congress should be obliged to withdraw an old one and rewrite another in a simpler way so as to achieve the aims of the desired new law.
The lawyers need not fear losing work, there is plenty to go around re-wording the old legislation!
The lawyers need not fear losing work, there is plenty to go around re-wording the old legislation!
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The 2nd amendment has been bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling which as of June 26, 2008 has gone in the direction of allowing people to posses firearms. In a country where freedom is a given in the constitution and where the expectation is that you go out and make your own life by your own efforts, this is expected. If you have to rely on the ppolice for protection, then you are in real trouble. Yes, there should be police who back up the rule of law. Yes, a citizen should be able to defend himself against any normal force another citizen can bring to bear. So if he chooses to bear arms, he can. But in so doing he has added responsibility along the lines of safety and in assisting others who need his additional force.
I saw the movie "Dragonheart" where the code of a knight plays an important part in the movie. There is mention of the sword being used to protect the weak against the strong. Thus the firearm would be used to the same purpose.
Here is a video on the subject of the 2nd amendment and the DC gun ban:
I saw the movie "Dragonheart" where the code of a knight plays an important part in the movie. There is mention of the sword being used to protect the weak against the strong. Thus the firearm would be used to the same purpose.
Here is a video on the subject of the 2nd amendment and the DC gun ban:
Thursday, September 11, 2008
On the Constitution and Rule of law
Noted an article today about news people at the Republican Convention reportedly being arrested, tortured, injured, by police because there were allegedly disrupting the convention.
I have no idea who is telling the truth. Perhaps neither. I'm sure there are injuries as these are mentioned in the article and thus must exist as proof of the brutality.
However. The police are not republicans. So there may or may not be a connection
Arrests allegedly were made and opinions were stated that there could be heavy prison sentences under the State Law which is modeled on the Patriot Act. Opinion was stated that there would be no trial because the reporters were being classed as Terrorists.
The Constitution allows for Habeus Corpus. This must not be denied. The Constitution allows for a trial under law. This must be granted.
Until I see video footage of these or other instances committed by the Police, I can not make an opinion. However, I do expect a public hearing as soon as possible.
I have no idea who is telling the truth. Perhaps neither. I'm sure there are injuries as these are mentioned in the article and thus must exist as proof of the brutality.
However. The police are not republicans. So there may or may not be a connection
Arrests allegedly were made and opinions were stated that there could be heavy prison sentences under the State Law which is modeled on the Patriot Act. Opinion was stated that there would be no trial because the reporters were being classed as Terrorists.
The Constitution allows for Habeus Corpus. This must not be denied. The Constitution allows for a trial under law. This must be granted.
Until I see video footage of these or other instances committed by the Police, I can not make an opinion. However, I do expect a public hearing as soon as possible.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Preserving the original intent of the constitution
How can the original intent be preserved. Over time, words get re-defined, populations change their ideas of what their society wants, and pressure is applied to license criminality despite the altruistic intent of the authors.
Words redefined: Being aware of this, the writers of the constitution would specify the dictionary used to check the definitions. reference could be made to treatises that explain the background of the constitution although there would then be argument to include that in the document!
Changing of ideas: There are core values that a society hold that should not change. The constitution should only be addressing core, unchangeable values. But if the ground rock of society does change, the constitution would have to stand as a guide to those who have made the change and act as a reference point. Anything that is wholly wrong would be obvious against the truth of the constitution
practicing License: People should be courageous enough and of a strong will enough to counter the criminal intent. If the people who are of the constitution of mind enough to protect their integrity, then the criminal will have a hard time of it and hopefully be shunned and ignored ever-after as the blackguard they are for forwarding their own self-interest.
Words redefined: Being aware of this, the writers of the constitution would specify the dictionary used to check the definitions. reference could be made to treatises that explain the background of the constitution although there would then be argument to include that in the document!
Changing of ideas: There are core values that a society hold that should not change. The constitution should only be addressing core, unchangeable values. But if the ground rock of society does change, the constitution would have to stand as a guide to those who have made the change and act as a reference point. Anything that is wholly wrong would be obvious against the truth of the constitution
practicing License: People should be courageous enough and of a strong will enough to counter the criminal intent. If the people who are of the constitution of mind enough to protect their integrity, then the criminal will have a hard time of it and hopefully be shunned and ignored ever-after as the blackguard they are for forwarding their own self-interest.
