Thursday, June 09, 2011
Gestapo Tactics
Pleading guilty to breaking Godwin's Law, I am concerned about the increasing frequency of stories like those described here.
This sort of thing is right out of a WWII-era movie about the Nazis.
I agree with Glenn Reynolds that police should be strictly liable for damage and injuries they cause in the course of these raids. There are only a few kinds of cases in which these tactics are justified. The rest of the time I think it's just macho cops trying to imitate TV, and the police action violates the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. I say this as a guy who generally sides with law enforcement.
(0) comments
This sort of thing is right out of a WWII-era movie about the Nazis.
I agree with Glenn Reynolds that police should be strictly liable for damage and injuries they cause in the course of these raids. There are only a few kinds of cases in which these tactics are justified. The rest of the time I think it's just macho cops trying to imitate TV, and the police action violates the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. I say this as a guy who generally sides with law enforcement.
Labels: Constitution, Crime, Police
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Budget Battles
In the face of all kinds of forecasts that predict fiscal disaster for the United States if current spending levels are allowed to continue, the Democrats in Congress, especially the Pelosi-Reid bloc, together with the President, are adamantly opposing any serious spending cuts. Apparently they believe that they can raise taxes to balance the budget, but at the rate we're borrowing, it will be impossible to balance the budget by raising taxes, because unless something is done, spending will exceed the GDP before too long.
This leads me to the regrettable conclusion that Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their followers either have the goal of bringing this country down, or they are imbeciles. I don't think they're imbeciles. Historically, when democracies have self-destructed they are inevitably replaced by dictatorships, going all the way back to ancient Rome. This sequence of events typically occurs during a crisis, and it appears that the aforementioned Democrats have created and are bent on perpetuating a fiscal crisis of epic proportions. This cannot be allowed to continue because it constitutes an existential threat to the United States of America that is at least the equal of anything that the Axis powers of WWII or the Soviet Union could have mounted.
Wake up! In the words of Thomas Paine, "These are times that try mens souls ...." Americans of all political persuasions need to acquaint themselves with the facts--ALL the facts, not just the ones they want to hear, then think hard about what future they wish for the United States and vote accordingly.
(0) comments
This leads me to the regrettable conclusion that Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their followers either have the goal of bringing this country down, or they are imbeciles. I don't think they're imbeciles. Historically, when democracies have self-destructed they are inevitably replaced by dictatorships, going all the way back to ancient Rome. This sequence of events typically occurs during a crisis, and it appears that the aforementioned Democrats have created and are bent on perpetuating a fiscal crisis of epic proportions. This cannot be allowed to continue because it constitutes an existential threat to the United States of America that is at least the equal of anything that the Axis powers of WWII or the Soviet Union could have mounted.
Wake up! In the words of Thomas Paine, "These are times that try mens souls ...." Americans of all political persuasions need to acquaint themselves with the facts--ALL the facts, not just the ones they want to hear, then think hard about what future they wish for the United States and vote accordingly.
Labels: Congress, Constitution, Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Economy, Federal budget, Financial crisis, History, Obama, Pelosi, politics, Reid, Republicans
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Obama in 2001-Radio Interview in Chicago
This interview reveals what President Obama really thinks about the Constitution. It should be listened to every day between now and Election Day 2012, so that people know what they are voting on.
(0) comments
Labels: Chicago, Constitution, Obama
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Proposed Constitutional Amendments
I would like to go on record as supporting two proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
The first, known as the Repeal Amendment, has been introduced in Congress and reads as follows:
This proposed amendment would go a long way toward restoring the balance between the federal government and the state governments, which was thrown out of kilter by the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the popular election of US Senators. Under the original design of the Constitution, the House of Representatives, whose members were elected directly by the people, represented the people of the United States as a whole, while the Senate, whose members were chosen by the legislatures of the several states, represented the states as political entities in their own right. The effect of the Seventeenth Amendment was to make the Senate a smaller version of the House, with longer terms so that bad decisions by the voters would be around longer to cause more mischief. One positive effect of adopting the Repeal Amendment might be that unfunded federal mandates on the states would become a thing of the past.
The other proposed amendment has been bouncing around the Internet for a while, and as far as I can tell has no formal title. I'll call it the "Sauce For The Goose Amendment," and it reads:
The purpose and effect of the Sauce For The Goose Amendment are self-evident; Congress has developed a penchant for adopting one set of laws for the citizens generally and a different (and invariably more favorable to the Members and Senators) set for themselves and their staffs. As a result, they don't have to live with the havoc they've created in such areas as, for example, employment law, and have given themselves a gold-plated health plan that is exempt from the Obamacare provisions. Nothing could better guarantee a legislature that is out of touch with the citizens they purportedly represent.
I believe that adoption of these two amendments would go a long way to righting the Ship of State, which has developed an alarming list to port in recent decades.
(0) comments
The first, known as the Repeal Amendment, has been introduced in Congress and 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.
This proposed amendment would go a long way toward restoring the balance between the federal government and the state governments, which was thrown out of kilter by the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the popular election of US Senators. Under the original design of the Constitution, the House of Representatives, whose members were elected directly by the people, represented the people of the United States as a whole, while the Senate, whose members were chosen by the legislatures of the several states, represented the states as political entities in their own right. The effect of the Seventeenth Amendment was to make the Senate a smaller version of the House, with longer terms so that bad decisions by the voters would be around longer to cause more mischief. One positive effect of adopting the Repeal Amendment might be that unfunded federal mandates on the states would become a thing of the past.
The other proposed amendment has been bouncing around the Internet for a while, and as far as I can tell has no formal title. I'll call it the "Sauce For The Goose Amendment," and it reads:
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.
The purpose and effect of the Sauce For The Goose Amendment are self-evident; Congress has developed a penchant for adopting one set of laws for the citizens generally and a different (and invariably more favorable to the Members and Senators) set for themselves and their staffs. As a result, they don't have to live with the havoc they've created in such areas as, for example, employment law, and have given themselves a gold-plated health plan that is exempt from the Obamacare provisions. Nothing could better guarantee a legislature that is out of touch with the citizens they purportedly represent.
I believe that adoption of these two amendments would go a long way to righting the Ship of State, which has developed an alarming list to port in recent decades.
Labels: Congress, Constitution
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque
I think the Constitution gives the folks who want to build the mosque a block from Ground Zero the right to do so, subject to the same local zoning and other restrictions that would apply to other houses of worship.
I think that to actually build the mosque would be a perpetual irritation to the majority of people in the US, who believe that to build it there is inappropriate and an affront to those who died in the 9/11 attacks. Instead of bridging the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims in the US, it would widen and deepen the gap, and would be a detriment to harmony between Muslims and non-Muslims in this country. Most people on both sides of the issue would (correctly, in my view) immediately or eventually see the facility as a victory monument to the Islamist "martyrs" who carried out the attack.
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
(0) comments
I think that to actually build the mosque would be a perpetual irritation to the majority of people in the US, who believe that to build it there is inappropriate and an affront to those who died in the 9/11 attacks. Instead of bridging the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims in the US, it would widen and deepen the gap, and would be a detriment to harmony between Muslims and non-Muslims in this country. Most people on both sides of the issue would (correctly, in my view) immediately or eventually see the facility as a victory monument to the Islamist "martyrs" who carried out the attack.
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Labels: Constitution, Ground Zero, Islam, Muslims, religion
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Academic Freedom for Me, But Not For Thee
FoxNews.com reports that a 24-year old grad student pursuing a degree in counseling has been told by her college, Augusta State U. in Georgia, that she must change her religious beliefs regarding gay, lesbian and transgendered persons or be expelled from the program, according to a lawsuit filed against the school.
Assuming the allegations of the complaint as cited in the story are true, it would seem that Augusta State is a hotbed of progressive/PC groupthink. Augusta state is presumably an entity of the government of the State of Georgia. Whatever happened to the First Amendment there?
As the parent of a high school senior who will soon be shelling out tens of thousands of dollars per year in tuition, fees, books and other college expenses, this kind of story makes me leery about sending my kid to any college, with the possible exception of Hillsdale.
(0) comments
Assuming the allegations of the complaint as cited in the story are true, it would seem that Augusta State is a hotbed of progressive/PC groupthink. Augusta state is presumably an entity of the government of the State of Georgia. Whatever happened to the First Amendment there?
As the parent of a high school senior who will soon be shelling out tens of thousands of dollars per year in tuition, fees, books and other college expenses, this kind of story makes me leery about sending my kid to any college, with the possible exception of Hillsdale.
Labels: Constitution, Education, gays and lesbians, Political correctness, Progressivisim, religion, schools, sexual orientation
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Obama's Speeches
I watched the signing of the Finance Reform bill a little while ago. Sad.
What's sadder (because I weep for my country that it has chosen Mr. Obama to be President), is that every time I hear Obama speak, I am reminded of the old joke about the Three Big Lies.
For those of you who were born yesterday, the Three Big Lies are:
(0) comments
What's sadder (because I weep for my country that it has chosen Mr. Obama to be President), is that every time I hear Obama speak, I am reminded of the old joke about the Three Big Lies.
For those of you who were born yesterday, the Three Big Lies are:
"This won't hurt a bit."How much damage can this guy, along with his allies Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Dems in Congress, do before he's turned out of office? I don't want to find out, because I suspect that it will involve our Constitution being rendered a dead letter.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
"Of course I'll respect you in the morning." (or some variation on that theme)
Labels: Constitution, Democrats, Financial Reform, government, Humor, Obama, Pelosi, Reid
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Scorned In Our Own House
That's the headline/photo caption on the homepage of Fox News Online as I write this. The story is about Mexico's President Felipe Calderon's address to a joint session of Congress in which he scolded the United States and Arizona in particular about the need to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
I guess that kind of arrogant (and rather ungrateful) behavior is what happens when the President of the United States and his minions go out of their way to apologize for the country's sins, real or imagined, to any and every government on the planet, bowing and scraping as they do so.
I can't find it in my heart to blame Calderon too much, since he's on the brink of losing his country to narcoterrorists and the Mexican economy isn't much better than that of Greece (due in large part, by the way, to stifling economic policies and corruption going back at least a century). He knows that people of Mexican heritage in the US, whether here legally or illegally, send about a billion dollars a year to their relatives in Mexico, and if that cash spigot were to dry up Mexico would be in dire straits, indeed.
The irony is that the bracero program that was in effect from the middle of WWII until the Johnson administration worked pretty well for both countries. It was canceled in 1964, largely due to the efforts of US labor unions, who saw the program as a threat to their efforts to organize domestic agricultural workers. Of course, back then we didn't have the drug problem we have now.
I am among the many who are all in favor of immigration so long as it is done in compliance with the law. I have no sympathy, however, for those who are in the country illegally. I think our immigration laws ought to be revised to let more people in from all countries, and to allow guest workers from Mexico and elsewhere, providing they fulfill several requirements that are part of the Mexican immigration law, in particular the following:
I also think the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that provides that "All persons born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...." should be amended to further provide that the mother must be a lawful resident of the United States at the time of such birth, i.e., no "citizenship tourism" allowed and no green card for Mom means no automatic citizenship for Baby. This would solve the "anchor baby" problem. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted the United States had no immigration laws to speak of. We wanted pretty much everyone we could get, in order to settle and develop our vast West. Times have changed.
I realize that many will find these measures harsh, but I firmly believe that a nation that cannot or will not defend its borders will not long remain a nation. Our political leaders of both parties have been "ostriching" on this issue for at least two decades, and we absolutely must get a handle on this problem for both economic and national defense reasons.
(0) comments
I guess that kind of arrogant (and rather ungrateful) behavior is what happens when the President of the United States and his minions go out of their way to apologize for the country's sins, real or imagined, to any and every government on the planet, bowing and scraping as they do so.
I can't find it in my heart to blame Calderon too much, since he's on the brink of losing his country to narcoterrorists and the Mexican economy isn't much better than that of Greece (due in large part, by the way, to stifling economic policies and corruption going back at least a century). He knows that people of Mexican heritage in the US, whether here legally or illegally, send about a billion dollars a year to their relatives in Mexico, and if that cash spigot were to dry up Mexico would be in dire straits, indeed.
The irony is that the bracero program that was in effect from the middle of WWII until the Johnson administration worked pretty well for both countries. It was canceled in 1964, largely due to the efforts of US labor unions, who saw the program as a threat to their efforts to organize domestic agricultural workers. Of course, back then we didn't have the drug problem we have now.
I am among the many who are all in favor of immigration so long as it is done in compliance with the law. I have no sympathy, however, for those who are in the country illegally. I think our immigration laws ought to be revised to let more people in from all countries, and to allow guest workers from Mexico and elsewhere, providing they fulfill several requirements that are part of the Mexican immigration law, in particular the following:
- Foreigners (including lawful resident aliens whether or not pursuing citizenship) will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no government health care, no public education or other government assistance programs. Any foreigners who are or become an economic burden on the United States or any State will be deported.
- Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
- Anyone who enters the United States illegally will be actively hunted and, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged.
- Entering the United States illegally after being deported is a felony, requiring imprisonment for not less than two years (no plea bargains).
I also think the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that provides that "All persons born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...." should be amended to further provide that the mother must be a lawful resident of the United States at the time of such birth, i.e., no "citizenship tourism" allowed and no green card for Mom means no automatic citizenship for Baby. This would solve the "anchor baby" problem. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted the United States had no immigration laws to speak of. We wanted pretty much everyone we could get, in order to settle and develop our vast West. Times have changed.
I realize that many will find these measures harsh, but I firmly believe that a nation that cannot or will not defend its borders will not long remain a nation. Our political leaders of both parties have been "ostriching" on this issue for at least two decades, and we absolutely must get a handle on this problem for both economic and national defense reasons.
Labels: Arizona, Border Enforcement, Constitution, Illegal Aliens, Immigration, Mexico
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Question About Arizona's New Illegal Alien Law
Amidst all the brouhaha and accusations, I've seen nobody addressing the following question:
I will not buy any answer that's based on ICE being federal and the Arizona cops being state. It's pretty clear on the face of it that the federal government has defaulted on its Constitutional obligation* to defend the borders, so it would seem that Arizona has the right to defend itself against invasion by foreign nationals. (Thank you, Professor Reynolds.)
People have objected to the professor's theory on the grounds that the definition of "invasion" has been settled by Congress and the courts, and it doesn't include gradual and long-term illegal entry by foreigners. However, as a practical matter when citizens are being murdered and other felonies are being committed by drug gang members and just general lowlifes who are in the United States illegally, is the state of Arizona required to sit on its hands and wait for the feds to take action that might never happen?
What about the clause after the invasion clause. Suppose the Arizona Legislature "applied" to the federal government to come in and protect the state of Arizona against domestic violence being perpetrated by the illegals? Back in law school I was taught that the word "shall" connotes a mandatory action. Would the feds do nothing and thus twice violate the same Constitutional section?
Would the intentional failure by a President to defend the border constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would be grounds for impeachment? (Ans.: Not against Obama with the present Congress. - Ed.)
If nothing is done by government the people will take matters into their own hands, and vigilantism would probably be a lot worse for Hispanics, whether here legally or illegally, than anything the Arizona cops (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) would do.
* Art. IV, Section 4 reads in its entirety:
(0) comments
How, exactly, will the procedures and tactics used by Arizona law enforcement officers under the new law to identify and arrest illegal aliens differ from those already used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers?Seems to me the answer to that question is important. If the Arizona cops don't do anything differently in identifying and arresting illegal aliens, why is it OK for the ICE officers but not for the Arizona police officers?
I will not buy any answer that's based on ICE being federal and the Arizona cops being state. It's pretty clear on the face of it that the federal government has defaulted on its Constitutional obligation* to defend the borders, so it would seem that Arizona has the right to defend itself against invasion by foreign nationals. (Thank you, Professor Reynolds.)
People have objected to the professor's theory on the grounds that the definition of "invasion" has been settled by Congress and the courts, and it doesn't include gradual and long-term illegal entry by foreigners. However, as a practical matter when citizens are being murdered and other felonies are being committed by drug gang members and just general lowlifes who are in the United States illegally, is the state of Arizona required to sit on its hands and wait for the feds to take action that might never happen?
What about the clause after the invasion clause. Suppose the Arizona Legislature "applied" to the federal government to come in and protect the state of Arizona against domestic violence being perpetrated by the illegals? Back in law school I was taught that the word "shall" connotes a mandatory action. Would the feds do nothing and thus twice violate the same Constitutional section?
Would the intentional failure by a President to defend the border constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would be grounds for impeachment? (Ans.: Not against Obama with the present Congress. - Ed.)
If nothing is done by government the people will take matters into their own hands, and vigilantism would probably be a lot worse for Hispanics, whether here legally or illegally, than anything the Arizona cops (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) would do.
* Art. IV, Section 4 reads in its entirety:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (Emphasis added.)
Labels: Arizona, Constitution, defense, Illegal Aliens, Mexico
Monday, April 26, 2010
Good Advice
I just got the following quote from Patriot Post:
Too bad that the Supreme Court of the United States hasn't followed that advice since at least LBJ's Great Society. The Justices would do well to begin following that advice forthwith.
(0) comments
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
Too bad that the Supreme Court of the United States hasn't followed that advice since at least LBJ's Great Society. The Justices would do well to begin following that advice forthwith.
Labels: Constitution, Supreme Court, Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Slaughter Solution = No Solution
So Nancy Pelosi, apparently lacking enough votes to pass the bogus Obamacare bill in connection with the reconciliation scheme, is now trying to give her reluctant (i.e., cowardly) charges the ability to "pass" the bill without the "up or down vote" that Pres. Obama recently called for. I guess the plan is for the Dem congress members to go home over break and claim with a straight face that they "didn't vote for Obamacare." Not only is this an unconstitutional abomination, it shows how stupid the Dem leadership is if they think the folks back in the hinterlands are not wise to the game.
(0) comments
The Founders were men of honor and courage, unlike many of the current political class. Having lived under the tyranny of George III, the drafters of the Constitution did their best to make it tyrant proof. Unfortunately, when two or all three branches are controlled by dishonorable cowards, there is no such thing as "tyrant proof."
If Obamacare becomes law, whether via the "Slaughter solution" or otherwise, our only chance of salvation will lie with the Supreme Court, and I would not put it past this bunch to emasculate that body somehow, or at least those Justices who believe that the words in the Constitution actually mean something concrete per se, as opposed to being "guidelines" which cast "penumbras" from which rights "emanate."
I continue to be astounded at the degree to which Obama, Pelosi and Reid (Oh, my!) seem to be using the nation portrayed in "Atlas Shrugged" as a template for their plans for our country. They deserve every bit of the infamy that their activity will engender. It's a shame that our laws provide no way of getting rid of them before the next election cycle, because the amount of damage they can do in the next couple of years will be flabbergasting.
Labels: Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Health Care, Obama, Pelosi, politics, Reid
