From the John Birch Society:
After seeing this video I am going to agree with these gentlemen and their arguments. As a student of the Constitution and of the era in which it was written I can attest to the following:
The original "Con-Con" was called only to reform the Articles of Confederation; instead, the convention's attendees went outside of their assigned bounds and introduced a completely new form of government in the form of our current Constitution. Legally speaking the entire convention could have been arrested for treason. Also, since the Congress under the Articles had commissioned the convention for reforms, the convention had a duty to report to back to the Congress it's findings, which the Convention also failed to do; instead, the Convention took it's case directly to the people of each state effectively by passing the Confederation Congress.
If a Constitutional Convention were to be called now to address term limits, a balanced budget etc... the states could attempt to exert control over the convention and it's participants but I believe it would be exceptionally hard to legally bind a Con-Con to only address certain issues. The issue of control coupled with today's politicians makes a Constitutional Convention a very dangerous option to reform the Federal Government. If instead, reformers follow the simple procedures of amending the Constitution, control of the issues being reformed would be ensured as well as ensuring that politicians stay within the existing framework of the Constitution.
I do not believe we can trust those we have in office, or those they would select, to keep the citizens' best interest in mind. Especially in the setting of a Constitutional Convention and given all their reckless spending, and rights stealing that has occurred the last 10 years. The better course in my mind would be to attempt to address all of these issues through the already tried and proven method of amending the Constitution. So please, go to the websites of your respective state legislatures and check up on them and see if any of them are considering legislation that will call for a Constitutional Convention.
Showing posts with label United States Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States Constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Obamacare Unconstitutional
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was just ruled unconstitutional.
The centerpiece of Obamacare is the individual mandate. For those who've been ignoring the news for a while, basically you are compelled by government to purchase health care, and if you opt out, you face fines. Unpaid fines to the government don't result in the government going "shucks, we didn't really mean it", they result in jail time. Try it this year with the IRS.
They give you free health care in there, too.
J.B.H. wrote about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare a while back.
Jake Tapper from ABC asked Obama about the fine system and the president admitted he agreed fines for noncompliance were necessary.
And there are jail time penalties in the bill:
Ultimately, the question is one of the scope of federal power and the ability for the government to stretch the commerce clause to encompass any absurd suppression of citizens' rights.
This started in no small part under one of the last giant progressive presidents, FDR. Wickard v. Filburn. Filburn was a farmer who was growing extra wheat for himself to feed his livestock. The government had mandated the amount of wheat that could be grown in order to drive up the price of wheat and "help" farmers.
To begin with, it's Keynesian economics, which are predicated on meddling by a bureaucrat who believes they know more than the person on the ground - and the bureaucrat ultimately using the government's gun against the American person who rejects them. The price was low and that "hurt" farmers. But rather than support farmers growing as much wheat as possible by offering tax cuts for farmers or something - leading to more wheat and fewer hungry people, the government decided to limit the amount of wheat. Supply goes down, demand goes up. Of course, limiting the amount of food results in famines... but the bureaucrat in DC doesn't feel it.
The fedgov is hurting people in California's Central Valley right now. This time, rather than favor the price of wheat over farmers, they favor a fish over farmers.
The EPA hates Americans of Mexican descent. Obama hates brown people!
Anyhow, Filburn was growing wheat for himself, and the government (FDR's supreme court), ruled that the government could regulate crops grown for private use, as they "influence the market". The idea was that since Filburn wasn't buying wheat at government-inflated prices, he could also not use his own land to grow wheat to feed his own livestock, as his act of not buying wheat influenced the price somewhere, no matter how miniscule.
Since he used his own land to grow his own wheat and not buy government wheat he was influencing the price of wheat by taking out his buying power. It's like the government looking at the hooligan in the Broken Window Fallacy and going "we should smash some more windows!"
Filburn's right to his own property and his own enterprise on his own land were violated. The government ruled that through the Commerce Clause that it could tell you what to do with your own assets. This is what Obamacare was doing until it was ruled invalid - except now rather than just growing your own wheat, Obamacare took it one step further. If you didn't spend your money, you were subject to penalties.
The Commerce Clause is thus:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
What does this mean? According to SCOTUS in Gonzales V Raich, which illegalized home-grown marijuana:
The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890.
What's it really mean?
It was set up so that trading between states would be regular. So that if someone in Vermont wanted to sell something in Maine, they didn't have to pay tariffs to cross New Hampshire. That's about it. It was to keep Kansas from telling flights across the state they have to stop selling drinks at the state line. That was the purpose.
The purpose was not to tell a farmer that if he grew wheat for himself he'd go to jail, or to tell you that when you work for your money, you have to buy a healthcare plan or go to jail.
For those who would contend that not being a lawyer means that you, Joe, Jane, Pedro, Shaniqua or Vinh don't have a voice, that's nonsense. The Constitution was not written in some esoteric language. It's pretty plain even now.
You don't get from this:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
To this:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”
The centerpiece of Obamacare is the individual mandate. For those who've been ignoring the news for a while, basically you are compelled by government to purchase health care, and if you opt out, you face fines. Unpaid fines to the government don't result in the government going "shucks, we didn't really mean it", they result in jail time. Try it this year with the IRS.
They give you free health care in there, too.J.B.H. wrote about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare a while back.
Jake Tapper from ABC asked Obama about the fine system and the president admitted he agreed fines for noncompliance were necessary.
And there are jail time penalties in the bill:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
But for now, a judge has ruled against Obamacare and the "buy it or go to jail" mandate - and invalidating the entire bill. Next step is the government going to the supreme court to push for it again.Ultimately, the question is one of the scope of federal power and the ability for the government to stretch the commerce clause to encompass any absurd suppression of citizens' rights.
This started in no small part under one of the last giant progressive presidents, FDR. Wickard v. Filburn. Filburn was a farmer who was growing extra wheat for himself to feed his livestock. The government had mandated the amount of wheat that could be grown in order to drive up the price of wheat and "help" farmers.
To begin with, it's Keynesian economics, which are predicated on meddling by a bureaucrat who believes they know more than the person on the ground - and the bureaucrat ultimately using the government's gun against the American person who rejects them. The price was low and that "hurt" farmers. But rather than support farmers growing as much wheat as possible by offering tax cuts for farmers or something - leading to more wheat and fewer hungry people, the government decided to limit the amount of wheat. Supply goes down, demand goes up. Of course, limiting the amount of food results in famines... but the bureaucrat in DC doesn't feel it.
The fedgov is hurting people in California's Central Valley right now. This time, rather than favor the price of wheat over farmers, they favor a fish over farmers.
The EPA hates Americans of Mexican descent. Obama hates brown people!Anyhow, Filburn was growing wheat for himself, and the government (FDR's supreme court), ruled that the government could regulate crops grown for private use, as they "influence the market". The idea was that since Filburn wasn't buying wheat at government-inflated prices, he could also not use his own land to grow wheat to feed his own livestock, as his act of not buying wheat influenced the price somewhere, no matter how miniscule.
Since he used his own land to grow his own wheat and not buy government wheat he was influencing the price of wheat by taking out his buying power. It's like the government looking at the hooligan in the Broken Window Fallacy and going "we should smash some more windows!"
Filburn's right to his own property and his own enterprise on his own land were violated. The government ruled that through the Commerce Clause that it could tell you what to do with your own assets. This is what Obamacare was doing until it was ruled invalid - except now rather than just growing your own wheat, Obamacare took it one step further. If you didn't spend your money, you were subject to penalties.
The Commerce Clause is thus:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
What does this mean? According to SCOTUS in Gonzales V Raich, which illegalized home-grown marijuana:
The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890.
What's it really mean?
It was set up so that trading between states would be regular. So that if someone in Vermont wanted to sell something in Maine, they didn't have to pay tariffs to cross New Hampshire. That's about it. It was to keep Kansas from telling flights across the state they have to stop selling drinks at the state line. That was the purpose.
The purpose was not to tell a farmer that if he grew wheat for himself he'd go to jail, or to tell you that when you work for your money, you have to buy a healthcare plan or go to jail.
For those who would contend that not being a lawyer means that you, Joe, Jane, Pedro, Shaniqua or Vinh don't have a voice, that's nonsense. The Constitution was not written in some esoteric language. It's pretty plain even now.
You don't get from this:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
To this:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
Without a hefty load of BS between them. If you don't spend you money the way the govt says, you got to jail. Nonsense.Sunday, December 19, 2010
What We Believe Part V: Gun Rights
Bill Whittle's Part V of the explanation of Tea Party/conservative beliefs:
We see natural law revisited here. If it's yours, it's yours - and your property is your right - and your right to defend. No legitimate government can take away the right to property. Indeed, original phrase used by the founders was "life, liberty and pursuit of property". If it's yours, it's yours - be it your home, your house, your car, your labor, your wealth or your body.
Photo by Oleg Volk.
Just today, I stumbled across this essay: Violence Is Golden. It's a very direct assessment of how society works, and how violence works. It's a more elaborate version of Robert Heinlein's explanation in Starship Troopers via Sgt Zim of the application of force.
Photo by Oleg Volk.
It's something that, like Whittle says, most conservative/Tea Party/traditionalist types instinctively understand. It's not something that needs to be elaborated on to be understood - but it's worth it to examine beliefs anyway. For most folks, Oleg Volk's posters are simply direct, visual statements of common sense. Through examining these beliefs, it makes it easier to convey them to those who don't understand - those who fear firearms and place their blind trust unwisely in the monopoly of force that the state controls.
Again, by Oleg Volk.
But for people who live in a bubble, it is not easy to understand. For rich city people who believe that the police are there in an instant, perhaps banning guns makes sense. They don't have to experience violence in their lives. They are never threatened by crime, animals, nor do they feel the boot of oppressive government - the police are invariably subservient, because the super-rich are connected to the county/city/state/federal government.
For the not-super-rich city dweller, the modest suburbanite, or the rural resident of whatever means, physical security is a real concern - even against tyrannical government.
For people who've been victimized on a massive scale - they know what gun control really means firsthand. It isn't a myth, it isn't a "can't happen here", and no amount of "we live in a good neighborhood" or "we have laws against that" means a damn thing. They know that violence exists - sometimes in the form of common thugs, but more often in the form of tyranny.
Volk's work again.
And that line of defense is just part of beauty of the Second Amendment. The Founders knew a way to prevent tyranny, oppression, and crime (which is just tyranny or oppression on the personal scale). And they knew that the more of it we exercise, the fewer rights we have trampled - the freer we are, and the safer we are. The greater that defense, the greater the deterrence against oppressors.
No freeman should ever be disbarred the use of arms.
For those unconvinced, I suggest exploring Oleg Volk's site: A Human Right. It's also a good site to explore your own opinions on the Second Amendment, as well as something to show to others who may not have the frame of reference to understand.
Also, since it's fun and informative and persuasive, check out Penn & Teller skewering Gun Control.
She can resist tyranny, oppression, and crime. Sunburn, not so much.
And Oleg Volk has an awesome job.
We see natural law revisited here. If it's yours, it's yours - and your property is your right - and your right to defend. No legitimate government can take away the right to property. Indeed, original phrase used by the founders was "life, liberty and pursuit of property". If it's yours, it's yours - be it your home, your house, your car, your labor, your wealth or your body.
Photo by Oleg Volk.Just today, I stumbled across this essay: Violence Is Golden. It's a very direct assessment of how society works, and how violence works. It's a more elaborate version of Robert Heinlein's explanation in Starship Troopers via Sgt Zim of the application of force.
Photo by Oleg Volk.It's something that, like Whittle says, most conservative/Tea Party/traditionalist types instinctively understand. It's not something that needs to be elaborated on to be understood - but it's worth it to examine beliefs anyway. For most folks, Oleg Volk's posters are simply direct, visual statements of common sense. Through examining these beliefs, it makes it easier to convey them to those who don't understand - those who fear firearms and place their blind trust unwisely in the monopoly of force that the state controls.
Again, by Oleg Volk.For the not-super-rich city dweller, the modest suburbanite, or the rural resident of whatever means, physical security is a real concern - even against tyrannical government.
For people who've been victimized on a massive scale - they know what gun control really means firsthand. It isn't a myth, it isn't a "can't happen here", and no amount of "we live in a good neighborhood" or "we have laws against that" means a damn thing. They know that violence exists - sometimes in the form of common thugs, but more often in the form of tyranny.
Volk's work again.And that line of defense is just part of beauty of the Second Amendment. The Founders knew a way to prevent tyranny, oppression, and crime (which is just tyranny or oppression on the personal scale). And they knew that the more of it we exercise, the fewer rights we have trampled - the freer we are, and the safer we are. The greater that defense, the greater the deterrence against oppressors.
No freeman should ever be disbarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson
An armed society is a polite society.- Robert Heinlein
For those unconvinced, I suggest exploring Oleg Volk's site: A Human Right. It's also a good site to explore your own opinions on the Second Amendment, as well as something to show to others who may not have the frame of reference to understand.
Also, since it's fun and informative and persuasive, check out Penn & Teller skewering Gun Control.
She can resist tyranny, oppression, and crime. Sunburn, not so much.And Oleg Volk has an awesome job.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Vote
Image via WikipediaMy fellow United States Citizens,
Today I have decided to change up our usual format due to today be November 2, 2010.
Today the midterm elections occur and this time around everyone regardless of the views you hold need to be heard, from both the left and right of the political spectrum.
Today is the day where each American needs to do his or her one most sacred duty:
That of heading to the polling place and casting your vote for your congressmen and various state post as well. If you have never served your country by being a military veteran and you wish you could have, by casting your vote today you will have done your country, your state, and your local areas a valuable service - that being your participation in the politcal machinery which our professors and other learned men call our democracy.
Are you fed up with out of control spending and fiscal idiocy in Washington D.C?
Go vote!
Are you tired of seeing congressmen and women trying to control your lives trough the implemetation of Obamacare?
Go Vote!
Do you feel as if Congress is slowly eroding our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Go Vote!
Today I have decided to change up our usual format due to today be November 2, 2010.
Today the midterm elections occur and this time around everyone regardless of the views you hold need to be heard, from both the left and right of the political spectrum.
Today is the day where each American needs to do his or her one most sacred duty:
That of heading to the polling place and casting your vote for your congressmen and various state post as well. If you have never served your country by being a military veteran and you wish you could have, by casting your vote today you will have done your country, your state, and your local areas a valuable service - that being your participation in the politcal machinery which our professors and other learned men call our democracy.
Are you fed up with out of control spending and fiscal idiocy in Washington D.C?
Go vote!
Are you tired of seeing congressmen and women trying to control your lives trough the implemetation of Obamacare?
Go Vote!
Do you feel as if Congress is slowly eroding our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Go Vote!
Are you unhappy with the way the current administration in Washington D.C. presents the United States to the rest of the world?
Go Vote!
Keep in mind that even though your one vote may not seem that much in the political grand scheme of things, you couple that vote to your neighbors, your fellow townspeople, others that reside within your county and in your state, one can get a pretty clear picture of what,"WE THE PEOPLE," want.
So my fellow citizens, let your voices be heard today even if you support the current regime in Washington, its your right, and its granted to you by virtue of the United States Constitution, not the federal government.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Words from another "Barry"
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - Barry Goldwater
Simply put and to the point, that sentence alone should galvanize the Tea Parties and all freedom and liberty loving patriots around our country. We should not be afraid of the mainstream media and it's government overseers charges of "extremism." America was founded on the principles of individual freedom and liberty. From the recent "Patriot Act" to the government takeover of healthcare, and ensuing increase in taxes, our freedoms and liberties are under attack like never before.
People all over the country for are discussing government and its role in American society. Tea Parties and other patriot groups such as Oath Keepers call for strict adherence of the United States Constitution while the federal government in Washington D.C. gets ready to run it again through a paper shredder after passing healthcare and now turning its attention to giving millions of ILLEGAL immigrants amnesty, to ensure statist hegemony in the federal government for the forseeable future.
So get behind Arizona and its state government, goto a Tea Party meeting, talk to your neighbors about what is happening across the nation. Discuss Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Discuss our founding fathers principles of individual responsibility, belief in God, economic freedom, minimal taxes, and most important minimal government.
Do not fear the labels, after all they are just words. Armed with the truth and principles, we can stay above the petty name calling that the statist agenda in Washington D.C. uses to take good people and good organizatiosn out fo the fight to defend individual freedom and liberty.
Don't be afraid, and don't be afraid to scream at the top of your lungs the words,
DON'T Tread on ME!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tJhryc0iwLefozHJkl8SdpRvQgOouJlJ5EYj1r6K3XYjP1UL1UuXXUhYpHzKV-Wiqn9rOeaxS2H4tQziEg1ANoVu18r1muLhwpJh2ggD_XlgSHcyiWAI8sksFtAhCe1yUqMoMHHIW-_Mrg1x3Axk8=s0-d)
Simply put and to the point, that sentence alone should galvanize the Tea Parties and all freedom and liberty loving patriots around our country. We should not be afraid of the mainstream media and it's government overseers charges of "extremism." America was founded on the principles of individual freedom and liberty. From the recent "Patriot Act" to the government takeover of healthcare, and ensuing increase in taxes, our freedoms and liberties are under attack like never before.
People all over the country for are discussing government and its role in American society. Tea Parties and other patriot groups such as Oath Keepers call for strict adherence of the United States Constitution while the federal government in Washington D.C. gets ready to run it again through a paper shredder after passing healthcare and now turning its attention to giving millions of ILLEGAL immigrants amnesty, to ensure statist hegemony in the federal government for the forseeable future.
So get behind Arizona and its state government, goto a Tea Party meeting, talk to your neighbors about what is happening across the nation. Discuss Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Discuss our founding fathers principles of individual responsibility, belief in God, economic freedom, minimal taxes, and most important minimal government.
Do not fear the labels, after all they are just words. Armed with the truth and principles, we can stay above the petty name calling that the statist agenda in Washington D.C. uses to take good people and good organizatiosn out fo the fight to defend individual freedom and liberty.
Don't be afraid, and don't be afraid to scream at the top of your lungs the words,
DON'T Tread on ME!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Without Keg Stands and the Freshman 15
Beautiful scenery (of the flesh and ecological varieties), freedom from authority, all night parties, spring breaks in Panama, free flowing booze, all the tail one could chase, large sums of money freely given with just a simple promise to pay ten years down the road...college sounds pretty awesome in theory. For most, college truly is that much fun; it is completely understandable given the not so harsh reality and the further glamorization of college by popular media (Old School, Animal House, Van Wilder, every Kenny Chesney song ever written) that everyone wants to go to college.
As an educational system, our curriculum standards are written from grade 3 up for college readiness. If a child fails the college readiness exam, we consider he or she a failure overall. Upon researching school districts, Frisco ISD in Frisco, Texas, a very WASP-y district, boasts that 99% of their students aim for a university education post graduation. Schools everywhere are cutting trade education in favor of hosting more AP classes and intervention periods in which teachers pull specific students for one on one tutorials. Why the urgency? Why the insistence?
President Obama recently signed the health care bill into law and with it a huge overhaul of student loans. He commented on the overhaul, which discards the banks role in student loan lending, by saying "Those were billions of dollars [in interest] that could have been spent helping more of our students attend and complete college". My question is this: Why do MORE of our young adults need to attend college? We have a tremendous educated work force, yet tremendous unemployment; more education does not equal more jobs. More and more companies are outsourcing because Americans are refusing to work cheaply enough to meet said companies budgets. The notion is that if you have an education, you shouldn't have to work at McDonalds, or a road crew, or answering phones for AT&T. You are entitled to a better job, an easier place in life because you slaved and sweated and toiled for your degree. Reed College in Washington state recently refused admittance to a select group of students because they couldn't pay for their education. Of course, the NYT had a field day victimizing these poor, unfortunate souls who were being "discriminated against" because of their inability to pay. By that logic, does Wal-Mart discriminate against me when I can't afford an LCD TV? Higher education is neither required to make a living, and in this day and age, half the time it's not beneficial either.
The highest paying job I've ever had required a GED; the highest earner at that position in that location made over 100k a year. I'll never make that with my B.A. Some of the most respected positions in the community don't require higher education-police officers, fire fighters, paramedics. Why does our government keep insisting that higher education is a right? Is it possible that by enabling us to go to college, the government is really crippling us? In today's college focused educational system (that is derived directly from the government program "No Child Left Behind"), kids are not taught anything about common sense. They learn nothing about child rearing, farming, budgeting, how to maintain a house, or how to fix a car. All they learn is what the textbooks (also censored by government agencies) tell them to know. All I'm allowed to teach as an educator is how to pass a multiple choice test. I should be teaching them how to work hard and earn their keep, how to fill out checks and job applications. Instead, we talk about how to eliminate answers and highlight titles. Eliminating answers and highlighting titles are not real world, real life skills. I'm always one to give the benefit of the doubt, but I'm starting to fear that maybe this is all calculated, all planned. Yes, the government wants to you attend college and become liberal (a documented phenomena). Yes, the government pushes everyone like a herd of cattle that direction. Yes, the government makes it as easy as signing your name to attend university. It is possible that, yes, the government is carefully coercing us to do what it pleases? That's a tad paranoid, but I just can't see the value in emphasizing higher education so vehemently. Society needs educated people, but we need skilled people just as much. We need landscapers, and food servers, and janitors. Those positions are hard work and when done correctly, can foster confidence and instill the values that our grandparents held so dear-dignity, self-respect, and humility. I'll take a person with those qualities any day over someone who has a 3 dollar piece of paper to prove that they learned the difference between transcendentalism and romanticism.
If the actual education is what is of value, then why isn’t the government creating 60 billion dollar budgets for local libraries! The local library can teach you mountains more than any four year education. The problem is, the issue at stake here is not the actual acquisition of knowledge; the issue is that for whatever reason, the federal government wants young people to physically attend college. College attending voters came out in record numbers to vote for Barak Obama; could the democratic party be leaning on that trend to continue and hence the addendum to the health care bill? Perhaps this is all ideological, and the higher ups in D.C. believe that people have a right to higher education. I'm fairly sure there is no moral code, religious or otherwise, that states that education leads to happiness or emotional health. Our constitution does not promise "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of the MBA." Higher education is simply an option, right for some, and not for others. Holding a degree makes me no better, no higher, no more morally or ethically sound than anyone with one. To suggest so would be elitist, arrogant, and myopic. Yet, that's what our government-run school systems do every day. We come down on children and make them feel like failures to society if they are not the picture perfect Berkley kid or MIT prodigy. Higher education needs to be a privatized sector with capitalism at it's core; those who wish to go can get their paper route at 14 and start saving up. Those that don't wish to go should be encouraged to trade schools, family businesses, or just a good job. That would put money back into our economy, create jobs for AMERICANS, and maybe even pull out of this slump we've delved into so willingly.
So, while college may be lots of great things, it's also four years you could be earning a salary, having babies, traveling the country, reading books of your own choosing, or otherwise enriching your life without keg stands or community showers or the freshman 15, and I could've told you all that without my degree.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vfOf2buwFcE0sZiw847S7u_x45YqtGY0pNTAFkA_BgHF8h5YLxvQH54LVEfci29q8ObezEZccKEHbpzoXnW8FoXUhTk5N5djXjTEeStnJ8fK-3_WBCuc3yimFEw8pywfIcCxDJ5ukQV3W8OoSLcb0=s0-d)
As an educational system, our curriculum standards are written from grade 3 up for college readiness. If a child fails the college readiness exam, we consider he or she a failure overall. Upon researching school districts, Frisco ISD in Frisco, Texas, a very WASP-y district, boasts that 99% of their students aim for a university education post graduation. Schools everywhere are cutting trade education in favor of hosting more AP classes and intervention periods in which teachers pull specific students for one on one tutorials. Why the urgency? Why the insistence?
President Obama recently signed the health care bill into law and with it a huge overhaul of student loans. He commented on the overhaul, which discards the banks role in student loan lending, by saying "Those were billions of dollars [in interest] that could have been spent helping more of our students attend and complete college". My question is this: Why do MORE of our young adults need to attend college? We have a tremendous educated work force, yet tremendous unemployment; more education does not equal more jobs. More and more companies are outsourcing because Americans are refusing to work cheaply enough to meet said companies budgets. The notion is that if you have an education, you shouldn't have to work at McDonalds, or a road crew, or answering phones for AT&T. You are entitled to a better job, an easier place in life because you slaved and sweated and toiled for your degree. Reed College in Washington state recently refused admittance to a select group of students because they couldn't pay for their education. Of course, the NYT had a field day victimizing these poor, unfortunate souls who were being "discriminated against" because of their inability to pay. By that logic, does Wal-Mart discriminate against me when I can't afford an LCD TV? Higher education is neither required to make a living, and in this day and age, half the time it's not beneficial either.
The highest paying job I've ever had required a GED; the highest earner at that position in that location made over 100k a year. I'll never make that with my B.A. Some of the most respected positions in the community don't require higher education-police officers, fire fighters, paramedics. Why does our government keep insisting that higher education is a right? Is it possible that by enabling us to go to college, the government is really crippling us? In today's college focused educational system (that is derived directly from the government program "No Child Left Behind"), kids are not taught anything about common sense. They learn nothing about child rearing, farming, budgeting, how to maintain a house, or how to fix a car. All they learn is what the textbooks (also censored by government agencies) tell them to know. All I'm allowed to teach as an educator is how to pass a multiple choice test. I should be teaching them how to work hard and earn their keep, how to fill out checks and job applications. Instead, we talk about how to eliminate answers and highlight titles. Eliminating answers and highlighting titles are not real world, real life skills. I'm always one to give the benefit of the doubt, but I'm starting to fear that maybe this is all calculated, all planned. Yes, the government wants to you attend college and become liberal (a documented phenomena). Yes, the government pushes everyone like a herd of cattle that direction. Yes, the government makes it as easy as signing your name to attend university. It is possible that, yes, the government is carefully coercing us to do what it pleases? That's a tad paranoid, but I just can't see the value in emphasizing higher education so vehemently. Society needs educated people, but we need skilled people just as much. We need landscapers, and food servers, and janitors. Those positions are hard work and when done correctly, can foster confidence and instill the values that our grandparents held so dear-dignity, self-respect, and humility. I'll take a person with those qualities any day over someone who has a 3 dollar piece of paper to prove that they learned the difference between transcendentalism and romanticism.
If the actual education is what is of value, then why isn’t the government creating 60 billion dollar budgets for local libraries! The local library can teach you mountains more than any four year education. The problem is, the issue at stake here is not the actual acquisition of knowledge; the issue is that for whatever reason, the federal government wants young people to physically attend college. College attending voters came out in record numbers to vote for Barak Obama; could the democratic party be leaning on that trend to continue and hence the addendum to the health care bill? Perhaps this is all ideological, and the higher ups in D.C. believe that people have a right to higher education. I'm fairly sure there is no moral code, religious or otherwise, that states that education leads to happiness or emotional health. Our constitution does not promise "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of the MBA." Higher education is simply an option, right for some, and not for others. Holding a degree makes me no better, no higher, no more morally or ethically sound than anyone with one. To suggest so would be elitist, arrogant, and myopic. Yet, that's what our government-run school systems do every day. We come down on children and make them feel like failures to society if they are not the picture perfect Berkley kid or MIT prodigy. Higher education needs to be a privatized sector with capitalism at it's core; those who wish to go can get their paper route at 14 and start saving up. Those that don't wish to go should be encouraged to trade schools, family businesses, or just a good job. That would put money back into our economy, create jobs for AMERICANS, and maybe even pull out of this slump we've delved into so willingly.
So, while college may be lots of great things, it's also four years you could be earning a salary, having babies, traveling the country, reading books of your own choosing, or otherwise enriching your life without keg stands or community showers or the freshman 15, and I could've told you all that without my degree.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Unconstitutionality of Government Healthcare
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution delineates what the Congress of the United States can do in a legal sense. No where in this area, or in any area of the Constitution is health care mentioned as a right.
However, Article 1, Section 8.1 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"The Congress shall have the power... to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...."
This clause known as the general welfare clause, is the clause that the leftist in Washington hang their hat on whenever they feel the need to pass laws that by nature are unconstitutional. However, James Madison, in writing The Federalist #41, said the following:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare."
Madison goes on to say that that very idea that congress can legislate whatever it wants is a "misconstruction" that:
"Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."
The "no other enumeration or definition of powers of Congress" Madison was writing about is the rest of Article 1, Section 8, which tells us exactly what the Congress can do. There was no need to put into the constitution what the Congress couldn't do, all that needed to be present was what it could do, every thing else was to be off limits to the Congress.
Further explaining himself Madison, defends his idea by stating:
"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."
So, he is saying it is a natural thing to make a general statement and then to further define it by adding specifics. Which means that if anything falls outside of those specifics, that it should not be considered part of the broader, previously made statement.
The two points to consider are that:
Because our president told us:
And that my friends is EXACTLY what they intend to do, unless we as Americans unite against these socialist that are now in power and vote them out of office starting in November 2010, and cleaning up the rest of the mess in November 2012.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tpu5hXkWiOQJsP6P_v1wGJS2RED5WtWiT5BNU6xuc44l_uB-qUcZWG1LcoyD24HZ_1kce7EGtzcX7lFJnsrCkyuSKk4omAW7kFBBjQaj8JMVhiD7NH46MxNEeBnSE3NzZROa_RYxqtivXmuIop1P6R=s0-d)
However, Article 1, Section 8.1 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"The Congress shall have the power... to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...."
This clause known as the general welfare clause, is the clause that the leftist in Washington hang their hat on whenever they feel the need to pass laws that by nature are unconstitutional. However, James Madison, in writing The Federalist #41, said the following:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare."
Madison goes on to say that that very idea that congress can legislate whatever it wants is a "misconstruction" that:
"Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."
The "no other enumeration or definition of powers of Congress" Madison was writing about is the rest of Article 1, Section 8, which tells us exactly what the Congress can do. There was no need to put into the constitution what the Congress couldn't do, all that needed to be present was what it could do, every thing else was to be off limits to the Congress.
Further explaining himself Madison, defends his idea by stating:
"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."
So, he is saying it is a natural thing to make a general statement and then to further define it by adding specifics. Which means that if anything falls outside of those specifics, that it should not be considered part of the broader, previously made statement.
The two points to consider are that:
- The constitution does not specifically allow the Congress to legislate health care.
- Just because it isn't an enumerated power granted to Congress by the constitution does not mean that Congress can legislate healthcare under the general welfare clause.
Because our president told us:
And that my friends is EXACTLY what they intend to do, unless we as Americans unite against these socialist that are now in power and vote them out of office starting in November 2010, and cleaning up the rest of the mess in November 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
