Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Gun control – the wrong discussion

“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, 1781

A Connecticut man murdered 20 children and 6 adults, gun control proponents again advocating that disarming law-abiding citizens will solve the problem. And though I believe their logic is folly, we still need a reasoned debate on the issue.

But, lest we forget, gun ownership is still a constitutional right; it is not a constitutional privilege; it is not a governmental privilege; it is not a presidential privilege. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to “evolve” the Constitution to address perceived changing times and needs. It must have the permission of “We the People” in the form of an amendment for change to occur.

Unlimited power – Part III

Since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Supreme Court has found a constitutional answer to every case brought before it. Doesn’t it seem unlikely that a document prepared in the 1700s could address all issues for more than two hundred years? We currently have nine justices, none elected by the people, all appointed to their office for life, who claim absolute control over the United States Constitution. Is this what the founding fathers and the states intended? With their fear of government, why would they give unchecked power to any branch of the federal government?

The path to socialism – Part I

“We do not have socialism. We have regulated capitalism.” – ISJ reader comment

Is that true? Is it all or none? Or is the path to socialism a process so slow that each individual step is logical, masking the eventual outcome and encouraging inattention and indifference until it’s too late? More important, if we are not yet socialist, is our federal government still the limited government the founding fathers created with the United States Constitution?

Does it still respect state’s rights? Does it still respect individual rights and freedoms? Before answering, remember that this past summer the Second Amendment was upheld by only a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court, a constitutionally guaranteed right only one political appointment away from revocation.

Is the Arizona law a burden?

Those opposed to Arizona’s illegal alien law praised Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling against it as a victory for immigration rights. Really? What did the Arizona law have to do with immigration rights? Wasn’t it about illegal aliens?

In fact, according to the USA Today, many illegal aliens were so worried about the law that they were preparing to self-deport if it was upheld, proof that enforcing federal law would solve much of the illegal alien problem by promoting self-deportation.

Sanctuary cities and Arizona

Among the limited powers of the federal government are matters of immigration and border security. However, the government seems unable to carry out these constitutional responsibilities, seemingly incapable of doing what the Constitution mandates.

The federal government has ignored illegal aliens for decades, President’s Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower the only presidents who seriously tried to solve the problem, Hoover during the depression, Truman following World War II and Eisenhower following the Korean War.

Since then, illegal aliens have poured across our southern border, essentially unabated. And as their numbers rose, “sanctuary” cities passed ordinances banning use of municipal funds to support federal immigration laws, in essence aiding and abetting illegal aliens.

Impenetrable borders

Is border security a priority for the government? The president proposes adding $500 million to the Border Patrol budget, which seems significant until you remember he spent over $3 billion on the “cash for clunkers” program. Further, his solution for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already here is to create a way for them to become U.S. citizens. But won’t that just increase future illegal entry into our country rather than eliminate it?

Racism or common sense?

Reading about Arizona’s new law dealing with illegal aliens, I got the impression that Arizona had done something radical by requiring non-citizens to carry documents proving their legal status in our country. Not so. The new Arizona law only enforces existing federal law, the Alien Registration Act passed by Congress in 1940. Arizona is only enforcing federal law the federal government refuses to enforce. This is an act of necessity, of common sense and is Arizona’s latest attempt to deal with 450,000 criminals in the state. Remember, illegal aliens are criminals, not undocumented immigrants.

It’s our Constitution

Contrary to the wishes of Congress, the Supreme Court and the lower courts, “we the people” in our capacity as jurors and state legislators have the power to nullify laws we find unconstitutional.

Did the founding fathers opine on this power? In 1790, James Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and one of the original six Supreme Court justices said, “Suppose . . . a difference of sentiment takes place between the judges and the jury with regard to a point of law . . . . What must the jury do? The jury must do their duty . . . . They must decide the law as well as the fact.”

Supreme Court – Constitutional guardian or Guardian Council?

Does the  Supreme Court submit to the authority of the United States Constitution, as it should?  Or, is it complicit with Congress, functioning beyond its constitutional powers?

In 1803, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, trying to preserve the checks and balances in the Constitution said, “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained.”  He was addressing Congress, explaining that Congress could not decide if a law it passed was constitutional, that checking power reserved for the Supreme Court.

Guns, the Constitution and Switzerland

A fact regularly ignored in much of the gun debate – the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  In 2008, the Supreme Court revisited the constitutional meaning of the right of the individual to “keep and bear arms,” and unequivocally affirmed our constitutional right of individual gun ownership.

That should end the debate because a constitutional right is not the same as a governmental privilege; neither the legislature nor the Supreme Court can change a constitutional right.  Yet, gun control advocates continue discounting this reality with ongoing legislative assaults on our rights.

“Give me the youth…”

What do a group of like-minded people do when they cannot convince society to agree with them?  How do they persuade society to not only acknowledge their values, but in the end to agree with those values?  

Look at the process of legalizing abortion.  Proponents first appealed to society, exaggerating the number of women dying from illegal abortions and claiming these deaths mandated legalizing abortion.  When that failed to get the needed support, they turned to the courts and got the desired outcome of legalizing abortion.   

Dr. Tiller – the murderer is murdered

Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed last week while serving as an usher in his church.  Is this a fitting end for the man who performed over 60,000 abortions and arrogantly performed “late term” abortions? 

Even those who support abortion early in pregnancy by arguing that the fetus is not yet a human being would have to agree that the “late term” babies Dr. Tiller murdered were human beings and would have lived had he delivered them on the same day he murdered them.  Can you call this anything but murder?  Can you see any difference between Dr. Tiller’s murders and murdering a baby after he or she is born? 

Role of the Supreme Court?

A Justice of the United States Supreme Court is retiring.  A chance to re-shape the court.  A chance to change history.  Wait a minute.  Don’t the above statements suggest the United States Constitution is flexible, open to interpretation, no need to amend it? 

Dare I suggest the primary role of the United States Supreme Court is to preserve and protect the integrity of the United States Constitution as written and intended by the Founding Fathers?  And isn’t Congress the only branch of government given the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution, as prescribed in Article V? 

Selective law enforcement

 

    

 

 What do you do with a county sheriff who treats criminals like criminals, who enforces all the laws, not just the politically correct ones? 

Simple. You claim racism, civil rights violations, and contact the Justice Department. His critics hoped it would seek to remove him from office. Instead, Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general in charge of the investigation, said that if the investigation uncovers violations, her office “will provide recommendations on ways to improve practices and procedures.”  

“Make my day” gun laws

Guns are back in the news, or perhaps more correctly, still in the news, this time in Colorado.  A 22-year-old man drove home with a blood alcohol of 0.26, three times the legal limit.  He drove to the wrong house, beat on the front door hollering obscenities when he could not get in, went to the back door beating on it while hollering more obscenities, and then broke a window, reaching in to unlock the deadbolt.  At that point, the homeowner, who had been on the phone with police the entire time, shot him twice, killing him.

“to provide for the…general welfare of the United States”

Our Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War to free us from a government that controlled our lives.  They created the United States of America with a Constitution granting specific, limited powers to the government, guaranteeing that “We the people” controlled the government.  So how does Congress regularly circumvent the Constitution, expanding their power without “We the people” consenting?  Remember, our Constitution begins with “We the people,” not “We the Congress.”

Congress deceptively takes power from “We the People,” knowingly interpreting the Constitution differently than the Founding Fathers intended.  And how do they justify this?  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the limited powers of Congress, beginning with an overview of their role which contains the phrase “to provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” 

What are blue laws?

The Founding Fathers built our nation with a religious foundation.  I believe they wanted religion in government; but did they want government in religion?   

Let us look at the ‘blue’ laws, created by well-meaning people to enforce moral standards, including keeping Sunday as a day of worship and rest.  Most blue laws were passed before the Revolutionary War, before our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.  The term ‘blue’ probably originated sometime later, in the 1700s, when people living rigid moral codes were called blue. 

Should gay marriage be legal?

On November 4th three more states passed constitutional amendments refusing to legalize gay marriage, raising the total to thirty states with similar amendments.  Gays were outraged at the outcome and at those who did not support legalizing gay marriage.

Gay rights activists are attacking the Mormon Church because it backed the initiative against gay marriage.  Gays told the church they “will pay a price.”  Gay rights activist John Aravosis said, “Utah is a hate state … and Mormons are persecutors.”  He promises that they will “destroy the Utah brand.”  Someone even terrorized Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City by sending letters containing a white powder.  And, Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, was forced to resign by gay activists because he donated money to the campaign to not legalize gay marriage. 

Edward Bushell and the power of juries

Can a citizen exert power over the government?  Can a citizen be protected from government enacting bad law?  Can a citizen do anything about bad law?  Does the jury represent the citizen, the government, the court, or do they represent the Constitution of the United States of America?  Does the jury answer to the court or do they answer to their judgment and conscience?  Can a jury rule on law, or must they only rule as the court directs?  How do juries relate to the branches of government that have the power to enact and interpret the law?   

What to do about illegal aliens?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is challenging a federal government plan to use the Social Security Administration’s “no match” rule to crack down on illegal aliens.  Currently they send “no match” letters to employers who have more than 10 employees with a mismatch between their name and their social security number. Previously, there were no incentives for employers to respond, allowing them to ignore these letters.  The new plan from Homeland Security would give the employer 90 days to resolve the mismatch, fire the employee, or face legal consequences.  The chamber is concerned there will be a significant financial impact on industries that employ large numbers of illegal aliens.  They also are concerned that requiring industries to comply with the law will create costly paperwork and procedures.  But, the Social Security Administration only sends mismatch letters to employers with 10 or more mismatches.  Are we to believe employers with large numbers of illegal workers are unaware they are hiring illegal aliens?  How much sympathy does a company deserve when knowingly employing illegal aliens?