Source: Before It’s News According to financial experts in this excellent video, a compilation of MSM news reports just released today by Jason A, there is nothing that can stop the forthcoming collapse in America. To quote Jeff Berwick in this…
Monday, July 29, 2013
Saturday, July 27, 2013
An unintended consequence of any Amnesty that might get passed, is the ability for individuals to claim citizenship, return to their own country, renounce the US Citizenship and still have their children able to vote in Federal Elections.
I am basing this claim on 18 U.S.C. § 611 subsection (c) that allows for aliens who reside in the United States from before the time they were 16 years old to vote in Federal Elections if, as stated in section (1) of subsection (c), that their parents are or WERE citizens of the United States. There is no provision that says that they had to be citizens at the time of the birth of the child, only that they have been United States citizens. This is a poorly written section that provides a major loophole allowing non-citizens to vote in Federal Elections and needs to be closed.
This section is also reiterated in 18 U.S.C. § 1015 exempting these same individuals from any form of civil or criminal penalties for being a non-citizen voting in a Federal Election.
Please consider bringing a bill to amend this section of the law, or a Constitutional Amendment to restrict voting to only those individuals who are citizens by birth or naturalization.
Friday, July 26, 2013
I sit here and read these claims and think to myself, so why are they really closing? The MSM likes to keep claiming they are closing because of the ban on 20+ week abortions. The clinics claim that Texas is anti-woman and anti-choice. The pro-abortion (I won't call them pro-choice) crowd says to leave their bodies alone and to let them have the choice. Others try to use Roe v. Wade to say that the state can't do this.
Well - - - - -
Monday, July 22, 2013
Two points with that and then we will get to the real need for security. First, I think that most people that are pushing for border security are not doing so out of animosity towards a specific race or group of people. Secondly, the idea that people can freely violate the law to come here, and be allowed to stay, and if the Democrats have their way, be offered legal status, is repugnant to those of us that are law abiding citizens and to the millions that have followed the rules and are often left waiting for years to be approved.
The current push for some form of amnesty has to be stopped. We have done them before, and if we continue to do them, then the tide will never stop. We will always have to guard the border aggressively and hundreds of immigrants will continue to die each year, while trying to make the illegal crossing.
But, though these deaths are regrettable, my main concern is centered elsewhere at the moment.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
How we identify these individuals has changed over the years. In particular, early immigrants would be identified by their country of origin without any reference to being American, they would simply identify themselves and be identified as, say, Irish. This slowly transitioned into the hyphenated version of Irish-American, especially for follow on generations, while the ancestors would still be identified as Irish.
This type of identification would,and does, imply that there is an inherent trait or characteristic of these individuals based on the country of origin of their ancestors. And this type of identification leads to some serious issues.
By James S. Robbins Would you trust thousands of low-level Federal bureaucrats and contractors with one-touch access to your private financial and medical information? Under Obamacare you won’t have any choice. As the Obamacare train-wreck begins…
Saturday, July 20, 2013
The basic principle of immigration is to allow people to come into the country to better themselves and, hopefully, better the country by bringing their experiences, knowledge, and skills. The United States has a well documented and comprehensive set of Immigration laws that provide for immigrants to apply for entry and either stay for a certain time limit, or to being the process towards Naturalization to become a United States Citizen. The powers that be, though, seem to think that allowing individuals to enter the country illegally should not hinder their ability to become United States Citizens.
Friday, July 19, 2013
A person named Shirley Bells has created a petition on the Causes website called "NO gun rights for Zimmerman!" This petition is calling for George Zimmerman to have his gun rights taken away from him, even though he has NEVER been convicted of a felony.
Their argument in the petition is based on a Huffington Post article that I can't seem to find, but I did find a similar article on allvoices.com speaking about George Zimmermans "criminal records." This was submitted by an Anchor for Allvoices out of New York City. Link
This article is very clear on the fact that none of the charges ended up in convictions. Here is a
Thursday, July 18, 2013
We all know that immigrants tend to send money home to the family, that is one of the reasons that immigrants move here, is to get better paying jobs than they could back home and to then use that to support their families back home. This I have no issue with, as those immigrants are usually legal, pay their fair share of taxes, and are generally law abiding.
My question, and if anyone has ever seen a decent study of this please let me know as I couldn't find
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
So, according to USA Today, Jodi Arias and her lawyers are back in court today. See article here.
The argument today is based on the criteria that the jury found that makes her eligible for the death penalty - that the killing was "especially cruel." Hmmm, with all the trial coverage of this, and the discussions regarding the photos, I don't think we need to review those; you can find them elsewhere yourself, I am sure.
Based on what we have seen, I think that most people would agree the way in which Travis Alexander died was an "especially cruel" manner. The argument this time around is that a jury doesn't have the "legal expertise or knowledge" to be able to differentiate a killing that wouldn't be considered "especially cruel" and one that is so. I don't believe that this argument is realistic. The term "especially cruel" is so vague, even judges at times have a difficult time deciding whether or not a case fits this description or not. At least with a jury, there can be a discussion and not just a limited perspective of one person.
The Supreme Court in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) applied the earlier ruling from Aprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which applied the right to a jury trial from the Sixth Amendment, via the application to the states in the Fourteenth Amendment, in that the jury had to determine if there were aggravating circumstances in a crime for the judge to be able to include this in the sentencing phase. Ring expanded this to include, specifically, crimes that could lead to capital punishment.
In the Arias case, the attorney's are now going in front of the judge asking the judge to throw out that part of the verdict that makes her eligible for the death penalty. The Supreme Court through Justice Scalia said that " the aggravating-factor determination ... logically belong ... in the guilt phase." They did also indicate that this could still be determined during the penalty phase of a trial, if the state so chooses, but that the better way is to include it in the guilt phase of the trial. This indicates the Supreme Court's belief that a jury is able to determine whether or not an aggravating factor is sufficient to warrant capital punishment, and doesn't require legal expertise.
Since the jury in this case has spoken and included the finding of "especially cruel," Ms. Arias is now eligible to be sentenced to death. And under Ring this must be a unanimous determination by the jury that she indeed deserves the death penalty. But, now we have a situation where the jury that found her guilty was unable to come to a clear conclusion on the penalty to be imposed. So we are looking at the possibility of a second jury now having to be brought up to speed on a trial, where the state has already spent, according to the article linked about from USA Today, over $1.7 million on her court-appointed lawyers alone and we don't even know what the state has spent on this case.
If the judge has the possibility of severing the "especially cruel" portion of this verdict from the jury, then they should do so to expedite this trial through the penalty phase and end this costly and protracted case.
Monday, July 15, 2013
If you look at any definition of racism, it will look similar to this:
Take for example, the apparently high impact headline from the Dailymail out of the UK "White people who kill black people in 'Stand Your Ground' states are 354% more likely to be cleared of murder".
This would appear to be a huge number indicating that a study had been conducted based on realistic data, and a true conclusion being drawn that shows that caucasians can get away with killing black people indiscriminately. Now, read the tag end of the article linked above. The individual who put out the study, John Roman, a senior analyst at Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, must have insisted on having his disclaimers in the report, because it is explained before displaying the data that there were 5,000 murders included in the data, where there was only one perpetrator, one defendant, and the parties did not know each other (or at least as far as the FBI knows) before the incident. But the clarifying statement that of those 5,000 only 25 were white on black is buried at the end of the article.
The two parts that are NOT made clear in this article are the fact that the study only includes 25 murders of White perpetrators and Black victims, in comparison to the other 4,975 that were either Black on White, or Black on Black. Essentially, this means that for every 1 White defendant that has their killing determined to be justified, this would be approximately 4% of the total related here. That is equivalent to 200 of the other cases included in these numbers. Secondly, there is no indication in the report how many murders were listed as White on White and the ratio of those that were considered justifiable, that these numbers are being compared to.
The next step to back check the data, requires us to go to the original blog post by John Roman and Mitchell Downey (here) where the data is a bit clearer. Of the 73,000 murders for the time of the study, a little over 1% of those murders were considered justified or 1,148. When taken to the next level, the breakdown into single shooter, single victim, unknown to each other, we get to a number that is indicated at 4,650, with 506 of those being found to be justified, or 10.9%. They further break this down at this point to say that in Stand Your Ground (SYG) states 13.9% were considered justified in comparison to 7.2% in non-SYG states.
AND NOW THE CRUX OF THE STORY - The next search criteria they used was to find cases in which the circumstances were EXACTLY like the Zimmerman/Martin case. This included their ages and races as noted in the blog. There were 23 cases identified, of which 9 were ruled justified or 39.1%.
In the blog noted above, it does not identify whether they pulled the FBI data based on Zimmerman being White or being Hispanic, or White of Hispanic descent, so hard to know which category they used. But, regardless, since the 39.1% rate of justifiable homicide they are using for the headline and for this apparently huge discrepancy is based on a White/Hispanic man that is 29, and a Black man that is 17 years old. That is a very narrow segment of the population of the homicides in the total database. We are talking about using 0.03% (that is 3/100 of 1%) of the data to extrapolate that ALL Whites (which Zimmerman is of Hispanic descent) are 345% more likely to have their cases determined to be justifiable homicide. The 9 cases determined justifiable above make up only 0.78% of all justifiable homicides in the stated time period.
If the data they used, is as they described it, then this extrapolation is inappropriate and invalid for the population as a whole and is intended only as an inflammatory assault on gun rights and inciting the race hatred that they claim to be trying to fix.
In addition, one last point for Mr. Roman and Downey, on your blog as linked above, you state in the last sentence of the next to last paragraph that:
"Since the overwhelming majority of shootings are not justified, it seems clear that SYG laws reduce the chance for justice by moving the burden of proof from the shooter to law enforcement."
From this one statement alone, it would appear that you are unfamiliar with our justice system. Irregardless of what defense the shooter may choose to employ, in a criminal matter, a defendant in the United States is always presumed innocent and the burden to prove guilt is on the state.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Reactions to this tragedy, in most cases, have been centered on the appearance of a hate crime. We can not know for certain what Mr. Zimmerman's thoughts were, when he chose to leave his vehicle that night. We can not know for certain the mindset, either, of Mr. Martin. But, a jury has reviewed the evidence and come to the conclusion that Mr. Zimmerman should not be held criminally liable for the death of Mr. Martin.
Our country was founded on the rule of law and the idea that all people deserve to be free from tyranny and oppression. Our country is at its best when we work together, not against each other, to find the truth and advance the ideals of our founding fathers.
Unfortunately, we are all human and not divine, therefore we are all flawed and bring our experiences with us into any situation or debate. This will lead to us often following our emotions and most basic fears, instead of thinking rationally about the situation and coming to a conclusion that is reasoned and in line with what others would decide if they were to do the same. This applies across the board, no matter the situation, but is most apparent in situations where an appearance of discrimination or bias is present. When individuals of different races interact, each side brings with them their own personal experience, but also those views that have been expressed to them by others within their own race.
The unfortunate part of this part of human nature, is that the collective mindset of a group of people (based on race, religion, creed, or other unifying idea) is often skewed by a relatively small number of incidents or a series of incidents. This is not to say that the views are entirely wrong, or are based on incomplete information, but that as one incident leads to the next, and the next, a compiling of the insults and injuries tends to blind the participants to the underlying need to follow the rule of law.
Being outraged at an incident is natural and is even expected. The public, as a whole, should be outraged at every murder, rape, arson, etc., that takes place. This is because the human race understands that crimes against others are a violation of the basic tenets that are enshrined in our very own Declaration of Independence and Constitution, that we are all endowed with certain rights from the Creator. The framers of our country understood this, though, because of the social circumstances at the time, these rights were not recognized in society as a whole for all individuals.
Our society has advanced over time and we have recognized that we were marginalizing or ignoring some of the very people the Constitution is designed to protect. This led to the Civil Rights Movement, the abolition of slavery, and many other advances in our understanding and treatment of individuals and the rule of law being established to protect these individuals that had been previously marginalized.
The problem today is not that we don't recognize the rights of these individuals, but that we have come to the point of tipping the scales the opposite direction. Now we have a situation where the majority has overstepped the line of balance and is providing more rights to certain individuals than others, while ignoring their own rights.
This is most apparent when a situation arises that, on its face, appears to have any form bias against one of the individuals involved in the situation. This isn't just applicable to race, it also comes into play in gender, religious, sexual orientation, and life issues. The Martin/Zimmerman situation is one of many situations that have a large impact on the psyche of a group. Others include the same-sex marriage issues in this country right now, as well as the recent abortion law issues in Texas. These situations, when they arise, have a tendency to lower the thoughts and actions of those within the group to the lowest common denominator. Reason often gets set aside and the members of the group will strike out, either verbally or sometimes physically, against those that they feel they are being oppressed by.
We, as a people, have to understand and realize that in a Republic, as our country is, it is not about who can make the most noise, it should be about what we can do as a society for each other. We are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as guaranteed to us by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but we also have to take into consideration that these liberties are intended for individuals. Groups of people have come to be classed together and when one individual in that group has a problem, the others rise up in defense of that person. This is perfectly acceptable, but at the same time, saying that all the persons in another group are to blame is not right, nor acceptable. Our country should believe in personal responsibility and individuals should take personal responsibility for their actions and not blame entire groups for what is perceived as injustice.
The President of the United States is charged with executing the laws of the country. The Constitution makes it clear that the President has a duty to faithfully follow the law. The President should not be weighing in with personal opinions about a situation, especially when those opinions tend to favor one side or the other. The President, to properly be faithful to his duty to execute the laws, should seem to be like the Lady of Justice statutes, holding the scales and looking for the balance of justice against the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, the Presidency has devolved into a celebrity status symbol, in many respect, and instead of being impartial and collecting the facts before making a determination, unsubstantiated opinion is taken by the media and spread as gospel.
The President weighing in on an issue that is a matter of the state to make a determination on, even prior to a jury being selected, is tantamount to jury tampering. When the President speaks, the country tends to listen. In addition, the Federal government is charged with upholding Federal law and not states laws. When a matter occurs within a single state, our system is set up in such a way, that the State has first jurisdiction over the matter. The State makes the determination of guilt or innocence. If we allow the Federal government to decide at some point that they will prosecute someone at the level of the case here, then the States rights are going to be abolished and we will be under one government, not of the people, but of the power structure that underlies politics in Washington DC.
There have been cries of issues on both sides of this matter. The defenders of Mr. Zimmerman claiming prosecutorial misconduct, the proponents of Mr. Martin of civil rights violations. Either of these is a matter for the State to decide and not the federal government. This is a matter that should never have been in the national spotlight to begin with. This was a local matter and should have been handled as such.
But, with the explosion of technology and the desire of people to see and hear about everything that is going on anywhere, the general population that encourages and wants this becomes complicit in any issues that arise around the cases involved. With our ready access to entertainment that provides a thrill in movies, amusement parks, books, etc., one of the things that most people have found boring and tedious, a trial for a crime, has to be livened up and made grist for the publicity mills. If the media doesn't make the trial "relevant" to enough people, then people won't watch and the media outlets won't make money. They sensationalize and repeat the information so many times, they impact the psyche of the people watching. The media should be there to provide the information, but not to sensationalize it or make it more "tantalizing" to their audience. The all mighty buck and getting those ratings has overtaken any idea that our media can be objective and just report the facts as they come out. Now they have to analyze everything ad nauseum to the point where it all depends on who you watch what your opinion is. They tend to take the decision making process out of the hands of the individual and put it in their own hands.
The calls for a civil rights case against Mr. Zimmerman are, in my personal opinion, inappropriate and an injustice to the rule of law. Our Constitution, and the laws created from it, provide a particular protection that ensures that government does not persecute an individual. This is the concept of double jeopardy. When someone has already been tried in a criminal case for their actions, and found not guilty for whatever reason the jury decides, they are not supposed to be tried again for that same crime. That is exactly what the people calling for a civil rights action are calling for, a second bite at the apple. The idea that because the Federal government is separate doesn't fly in this case. The Constitution binds the Federal government in several areas, and this is one of them. Allowing the Federal government the right to try someone a second time for a crime they have already been cleared of is morally repugnant to me. The State has used the process established by the founding fathers in our legal system, and has found that Mr. Zimmerman was not to be held responsible for Mr. Martin's death. Why should the Federal government get a chance to do the same thing? This violates the protection from double jeopardy that every one of us expects from the States.
The moral of this whole story is that we as a society have gotten to the point where we allow matters that, in reality, should be local and personal to become national and group based. We need to return to the idea where each of us is responsible for our own actions and not allow ourselves to be swayed by what everyone else thinks. This leads to a mob mentality that is dangerous, not for any one individual but for all individuals.
The Amendment Guy
Friday, July 12, 2013
I went to Mark Levin's site and watched the video promoting his upcoming book, Liberty Amendments. Obviously, since this book is not out yet, I don't know the contents, but based on the video, here is what I am assuming from it:
He would propose that we get the states together and decide to have a Convention of the States to Propose U.S. Constitutional Amendments. Meaning that the states would get together first to apply to Congress as one application from the necessary number of states to trigger the Convention to debate and then vote on Amendments to be presented to the states for ratification.
As noted in the text here, only that line which is of particular interest:
Article V - U.S. Constitution -
"on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,"
The Constitution indicates that the Legislatures could apply for a convention and that the purpose of this would be to propose amendments. This particular way of getting amendments proposed, and then passed to the states, has never been used. Every amendment in the U.S. Constitution, to date, has been proposed by Congress and then sent to the states for ratification. Though in regards to the Seventeenth Amendment, the direct election of Senators, many of the state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called in an effort to pressure the Senate to finally relent and approve and send to the states the proposal that became the Seventeenth Amendment. This was also the case with the Equal Rights Amendment that failed to be ratified.
In recent history, as with the Equal Rights Amendment, the state legislatures will pass a resolution in regards to a specific topic with their application for a convention, or as I have seen recently, they will only send a letter to their Senator "asking" for them to submit a resolution to Congress for a particular amendment. As noted, this has not been successful as of yet, and I question why states are asking their Senator to submit something. If the legislature of a state has decided an issue, they should be able to direct the Senator to act on behalf of the state in Congress, and if the Senator fails in acting, the state should be able to hold them to account for that - not necessarily remove them, but censure and reporting to the citizens of the state in what matters the Senator did not follow the direction of the state legislature. Since we are a Republic, and the representative in Congress are suppose to represent the interests and concerns of the citizens they represent, this seems like a reasonable request to me.
I believe that the ineffectual use of the process is why Mark is suggesting, if my understanding of his video is correct, that the states get together and send the application as one application from among enough states to trigger the convention.
Mark, if you get a chance to read this and I have misinterpreted what I heard, I apologize for that.
But, if what I have assumed here is correct, and based on historical evidence provided above, I actually have the same fear that Congress has of calling an open Convention of the states in regards to Amendments. Unfortunately, with no specific direction in the Constitution, nor I believe in the Federalist Papers on this subject, since I have not seen anyone discuss this in depth, we are left with a situation where we aren't fully informed on what the framers intents were in providing this method of amending the Constitution. Maybe Mark's book will explain his interpretation of what we do have in sufficient depth to clarify this matter.
My fears are that with the current state of our society, and the level of political correctness we currently have, a Convention with unfettered access to propose amendments will be an unworkable process. Every special interest group, from PACs, Corporations, Christian (or insert any other religion here) Fundementalists/Evangelicals/Conservatives/Orthodox, same-sex marriage advocates/detractors, and basically every other realm of society, will insist on having their point of view debated and their point of view submitted to the states as a proposed amendment.
This is obviously an untenable position to put ourselves in. If the Convention turns away any group, without actually taking up their proposal, then the Convention would face a legal challenge at the Supreme Court. If the Convention accepted all proposals, they will face an unending stream of proposals, many of which would dramatically alter the state of the society if they do get passed and could undermine the original intent of the framers, though since the amendment still has to go to the legislatures of the states to be ratified, there is somewhat of a check on that.
In addition, who will attend this Convention? How many from each state? If this is the place that amendments get proposed, what is to keep someone from buying off enough delegates to get their proposal through?
With no specific direction, or inferred direction, from the framers of the Constitution in this regards, I believe that the only way to address this is to get either Congress or the Supreme Court to make a determination how a Convention would be handled. The difficulty here is determining what that legislation should be and how to make it so that no state gets deprived of the right to submit a proposed amendment, but would make the process one that would be workable.
I have been aware for many years of this second process to amend the Constitution, but only just recently considered even trying to get the process triggered. My intent was to get enough states to pass one amendment along to Congress, triggering a single Convention for that one amendment, which would then be able to be used as a precedent setter and a way to be able to provide a framework for future Conventions. But, in rereading Article V in light of Mark's video, I have to agree that there is not enough specific information in the Constitution to be able to say on the application of the legislatures that it would be for that specific purpose. Maybe the best way would be to include that in the application, that the convention would be only for that particular amendment as submitted by the state. Then, once we get one Convention called, the discussion could be opened as to how to proceed with future Conventions.
I will draft up an actual amendment proposal to define the scope of the Convention, and post that in the near future.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
which is the decision they rendered June 28, 2012 in regards to the Individual Mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare.) This was sent to them via the Public Information Office (PIO) webform on the SCOTUS website here.
I am not sure if the PIO will even show this to the Justices or not, but worth a try. As you can see from below, I personally don't think they should have reinterpreted the "penalty" as a "tax" so they could consider this Constitutional, as it gives Congress carte blanche on taxing us for ANYTHING WE DON'T DO that Congress feels we should. Agree? Disagree? Let me know.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Our founding fathers understood that they could not write a document that would always cover every conceivable right, privilege, or circumstance. They understood that the People might want or need to change the document to ensure that the government remained under control and did not infringe on the rights that they confirmed were from God (the Creator, as they had previously noted in the Declaration of Independence.)
The amendment process itself actually can take two forms. An amendment proposed by Congress itself, or upon application to Congress by two-thirds of the State Legislatures and then having to call a Constitutional Convention of the States.
The first method is the only successful process that has resulted in any amendment to the Constitution being enacted.
There have been occasions when Congress has reacted to popular efforts at amendments and issued a proposed amendment themselves, rather than having enough states submit the application and having to call a Constitutional Convention of the States. I believe the reason for this is two-fold; first, the mechanics of a Constitutional Convention of the States has never been decided on nor provided for by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution itself and, secondly, the fact that since the scope of a Constitutional Convention of the States have never been defined, Congress is apprehensive that additional amendment efforts could be brought up during the Constitutional Convention of the States.
The idea of having a Constitutional Convention of the States was a brilliant idea, in my opinion, on the part of the Founding Fathers. Though a significant group in the Constitutional Convention felt that only Congress should propose amendments, they chose to allow the language that is in Article V to be added. This gave the States the ability to propose amendments to the Constitution that Congress itself would not, or are not willing to, propose.
In the current environment in Washington DC, there are some subject matters that would more than likely never be handled or proposed by Congress itself. And even though there was a recent proposed amendment for term limits on Congress by a Senator, every source that I have looked at that follows politics concur that this amendment proposal has no chance. Now, imagine if two-thirds of the States would submit a term limit amendment proposal? Congress would have no choice then but to call all the States together in a convention to settle the point.
Once an amendment is either proposed by Congress or the States, it must be ratified by the States. Three-fourths of the States must ratify the amendment via their Legislatures, by a convention of citizens in each state, or at a Constitutional Convention of the States. The process to ratify via the Legislatures has been well used, with 27 amendments currently added to the Constitution, and Congress chose the Legislature ratification process each time. In modern times, there have been states that have even tried resorting to citizen referendums to allow the citizenry to vote on whether or not to ratify the amendment, but the Supreme Court of the United States and Congress have both questioned the validity of those referendums, as the Constitution states that the Legislature shall be the one to be addressed with the ratification request. Though no amendment's ratification has been invalidated due to a referendum, this could still be a challenge that could be used.
Next up: Defining a Constitutional Convention of the States
If you are liking this blog, please remember to follow by putting in your e-mail address above and also please share this blog with your friends and followers below. Also you can follow me on Twitter @Amendment_Guy
- Get the word out on any of the Amendments on here that you like.
- Tweet or ReTweet any of the pages or my links on Twitter
- Post to Facebook
- Email to your friends,
- Keep an eye on #AmendmentGuy hashtag on Twitter
- MOST IMPORTANTLY - send the Amendment(s) to your state legislature!
CLICK HERE to read a proposed amendment and if you agree, send this on to your state legislature. Please comment if you send it on as to what state you have sent it to, so we can track this.
The Amendment Guy
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Please feel free to comment or voice an opinion, that is what this blog is about.
Friday, June 28, 2013
The Amendment Guy
This is my first real attempt at a blog, so you will forgive me if it isn't exactly what you would expect, but I will try my best to make this work.
First, some about me. I am an average, middle-aged guy that has watched what has happened to our country over the last several years. I have worked most of my life, but am currently facing a career change. I am currently in school, as of this writing, in an effort to learn some new skills and acquire employment.
I am a veteran of the US Navy, just one tour of duty, and during peacetime. I respect any and all individuals who have chosen to serve our country by joining the military in any branch of service. Military service, whether during peacetime, time of war, or time of conflict, is one of the actions that deserves the highest honer in our country.
Though I am not highly educated, those around me generally consider me a smart person. At times, I know that I can be stubborn and bullheaded about my point of view, but when someone can prove their point to me, then I will gladly accept a new viewpoint.
I have come to realize that it doesn't matter what party a politician supposedly represents, the only person that they really represent anymore is themselves. Very few of the politicians in Washington DC truly appear to care or listen to their constituents. Often this applies to local politicians as well, but I will let you review the performance of your local politicians and make up your own mind. A local politician is more likely to be open to the people, as he lives among the people he/she is looking to govern, so has to face them daily and be able to justify their actions to the people. Politicians in Washington DC can avoid this for the most part, and with the disconnect between where they live and where they work, often the message gets lost in the filters of the staff or just the volume of how many messages they may get bombarded with (from their party leadership or other members of Congress attempting to sway them, from citizens directly, or citizen action organizations.)
I created this blog to try to open the discussion amongst as many people as possible regarding how to best make changes that will have a positive impact on our country and to help initiate those processes.
The US Constitution, regardless of what any politician or judge might say, is the highest law of the land. It was created to ensure that there would be a separation of the Federal government and the State governments. The framers of the Constitution intended for the Federal government to be a limited government providing security for the states on a collective basis, and to help provide guidance and direction for the country as a whole. They did not envision the federal government as a full time, or life long pursuit, nor did they intend for the federal government to be in control of everything.
Yet, today, it seems as certain politicians think that they are above the Constitution and that they are the law of the land. That they can do whatever they want without constraint. Well, I hate to be one of the ones to tell you this, but that is not so. The federal government is beholden to the States. The federal governments power comes from the will of the People of the States and if the People or the States do not like what the federal government is doing, we have the right and the ability to tell them to stop or to change course.
So, what mechanisms are available? Well, we will discuss those in several upcoming posts. Please feel free to comment or to share this blog with whomever you like.
Thanks for reading.