Those four students who harassed a Rochester area bus monitor are going to be walking to school for a year and doing community service for their abhorent behavior.
Meanwhile, bus monitor Karen Klein has received $667,000 from folks who saw her plight on the Internet and chipped in.
Let's just hope the parents of these students don't indulge them by going out of their way to transport the lil' darlings.
Greece students who harassed bus monitor Karen Klein suspended one year | Democrat and Chronicle | democratandchronicle.com
Saturday, June 30, 2012
The Breitbart cult and the mythical center
Why do the Breitbarters have so much influence?
The Breitbart cult is a paper tiger, yet it terrifies everyone in Washington. The latest instance involves Politico reporter Joe Williams, who made an innocuous statement about Mitt Romney during an interview on MSNBC. The Breitbarters treated this remark as this week's Worst Thing Ever, raising such a stink that Williams finally saw fit to tender his resignation.
Little Green Footballs (of all places) offers a very good overview of this incident. Here are the exact words Williams uttered:
It gets worse:
Want a laugh? The Romney campaign says that Drudge and Breitbart are the leading representatives of the "center right" media. Center...?
Nolte's successful crusade against Williams evinced this response from a Romney spokesperson:
Speaking of "the center": Paul Krugman recently wrote a very good piece on what he calls the "centrist dodge."
Personally, I don't feel comfortable calling Obama a centrist. By any reasonable historical standards, he is locatable somewhere on the right, though not on the extreme right. Look at the evidence: Gitmo, Afghanistan, the drones, the refusal to prosecute Wall Street criminals, the tax cuts, the free trade deals, shrinking government...
Yet the political 50 yard line has shifted so drastically in recent decades that many consider Obama a socialist (!!), while the Romney campaign classifies the caterwauling of the Breitbarters as centrism.
The Breitbart cult is a paper tiger, yet it terrifies everyone in Washington. The latest instance involves Politico reporter Joe Williams, who made an innocuous statement about Mitt Romney during an interview on MSNBC. The Breitbarters treated this remark as this week's Worst Thing Ever, raising such a stink that Williams finally saw fit to tender his resignation.
Little Green Footballs (of all places) offers a very good overview of this incident. Here are the exact words Williams uttered:
Romney is very, very comfortable, it seems, with people who are like him. That’s one of the reasons why he seems so stiff and awkward in some town hall settings, why he can’t relate to people other than that. But when he comes on “Fox & Friends,” they are like him, they’re white folks who are very much relaxed in their own company, so it really is a very stark contrast, I think, and a problem that he has not been able to solve to date, and he’s going to have to network harder if he’s going to try to compete.That statement is about as controversial as saying that water is wet, yet the resultant display of astroturfed pseudo-rage forced Williams to resign.
It gets worse:
As we noted at the time, the Breitbart operative who authored the hit piece on Williams, John Nolte, is himself a raving lunatic who often calls for his political enemies to be “murdered.” For example:I am royally sick of living in a political culture where people like Williams must think twice and thrice before allowing a single syllable to exit their lips while jackass Breitbarters get to rampage and howl like Forbidden Planet's Monster From the Id. The double standard could not be more obvious. Infuriatingly, conservatives are so thoroughly enmeshed in their delusions of persecution that they cannot bring themselves to admit that this double standard exists.Teachers who take kids to protests without parents’ permission should be murdered.
— John Nolte(@NolteNC) November 5, 2011
Want a laugh? The Romney campaign says that Drudge and Breitbart are the leading representatives of the "center right" media. Center...?
Nolte's successful crusade against Williams evinced this response from a Romney spokesperson:
“The governor will no longer allow the mainstream media to dictate the terms of this debate. This is just the beginning... We are witnessing the rise of the center right media.”In other words, Romney is allying himself with propagandists who call for the murder of people they don't like. Eliminationist rabble-rousers are the new "centrists."
Speaking of "the center": Paul Krugman recently wrote a very good piece on what he calls the "centrist dodge."
By now, the centrist dodge ought to be familiar. A Very Serious, chin-stroking pundit argues that what we really need is a political leader willing to concede that while the economy needs short-run stimulus, we also need to address long-term deficits, and that addressing those long-term deficits will require both spending cuts and revenue increases. And then the pundit asserts that both parties are to blame for the absence of such leaders. What he absolutely won’t do is endanger his centrist credentials by admitting that the position he’s just outlined is exactly, exactly, the position of Barack Obama.Krugman is wrong in one respect: He uses the present tense to refer to past events. Obama championed a short-run stimulus years ago. He hasn't talked about that tactic in recent times -- and I doubt that he ever will go that route again, even if he wins re-election.
Personally, I don't feel comfortable calling Obama a centrist. By any reasonable historical standards, he is locatable somewhere on the right, though not on the extreme right. Look at the evidence: Gitmo, Afghanistan, the drones, the refusal to prosecute Wall Street criminals, the tax cuts, the free trade deals, shrinking government...
Yet the political 50 yard line has shifted so drastically in recent decades that many consider Obama a socialist (!!), while the Romney campaign classifies the caterwauling of the Breitbarters as centrism.
Forced night off.
Hope for the Best, Plan for the Worst
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As November approaches there are many who have determined that if Obama is reelected the American experiment is over. If Romney wins, the American experiment will be over, just not as quickly. If Obama wins the government will use force to implement its policies and there will be blood in the streets. If Obama loses the result will be called racist, and riots will break out, bringing blood to the streets. The two-party system is unsalvageable, and therefore must be eliminated. There is no saving the party system, no saving the GOP, and no saving America save for a bloody revolution.
I refuse to be a fatalist of such magnitude.
The slide towards destruction facilitated by progressives in both political parties has become a nearly insurmountable battle. Simultaneously, our moral character has been in steep decline as evidenced by the slaughter of the unborn, and the dismantling of the family unit through divorce, the liberal conditioning of our children, and disregard for the sanctity of marriage. The Supreme Court has told States they can't defend themselves inside their borders against an invading force of illegal aliens, Justice Roberts has told us that the federal government can mandate anything they want as long as it attaches a penalty and calls it a tax, Roberts also told us that we are a democracy, not a constitutional republic, so the rule of law no longer applies, only the vote at the ballot box. Mob rules. Majority wins.
I refuse to believe that there is no hope.
Islam perpetrated the stoning of Christians in Dearborn, Michigan and the police stood by and watched. Iran claims it has ballistic missiles that can reach every U.S. target in the Middle East. Europe is on the verge of economic collapse, and Christians are being slaughtered in the name of Muhammad worldwide.
I refuse to concede that the world is on the verge of collapse, or that tyranny will dominate our land.
I believe the Republican Party can be turned around, I believe that an evangelical revival may be upon us, I believe that Israel needs us now more than ever and we need to stand with her, and that the number of Muslims rejecting Islam and turning to Christ will continue to occur in record numbers. We can turn this around. I am an optimist. In the end good will triumph.
However, I am also a realist, and my guns are loaded - just in case.
Only 3% of the population fought against the British in the American Revolution. The government may have bigger guns, but we have more of them.
God help us as we enter uncharted territory.
Amen.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
As November approaches there are many who have determined that if Obama is reelected the American experiment is over. If Romney wins, the American experiment will be over, just not as quickly. If Obama wins the government will use force to implement its policies and there will be blood in the streets. If Obama loses the result will be called racist, and riots will break out, bringing blood to the streets. The two-party system is unsalvageable, and therefore must be eliminated. There is no saving the party system, no saving the GOP, and no saving America save for a bloody revolution.
I refuse to be a fatalist of such magnitude.
The slide towards destruction facilitated by progressives in both political parties has become a nearly insurmountable battle. Simultaneously, our moral character has been in steep decline as evidenced by the slaughter of the unborn, and the dismantling of the family unit through divorce, the liberal conditioning of our children, and disregard for the sanctity of marriage. The Supreme Court has told States they can't defend themselves inside their borders against an invading force of illegal aliens, Justice Roberts has told us that the federal government can mandate anything they want as long as it attaches a penalty and calls it a tax, Roberts also told us that we are a democracy, not a constitutional republic, so the rule of law no longer applies, only the vote at the ballot box. Mob rules. Majority wins.
I refuse to believe that there is no hope.
Islam perpetrated the stoning of Christians in Dearborn, Michigan and the police stood by and watched. Iran claims it has ballistic missiles that can reach every U.S. target in the Middle East. Europe is on the verge of economic collapse, and Christians are being slaughtered in the name of Muhammad worldwide.
I refuse to concede that the world is on the verge of collapse, or that tyranny will dominate our land.
I believe the Republican Party can be turned around, I believe that an evangelical revival may be upon us, I believe that Israel needs us now more than ever and we need to stand with her, and that the number of Muslims rejecting Islam and turning to Christ will continue to occur in record numbers. We can turn this around. I am an optimist. In the end good will triumph.
However, I am also a realist, and my guns are loaded - just in case.
Only 3% of the population fought against the British in the American Revolution. The government may have bigger guns, but we have more of them.
God help us as we enter uncharted territory.
Amen.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
On Heels of Primary Win, Doheny Weds.....Large Crowd Attends Gala Reception
A sign on the boathouse declaring Republican Parking Only....and a few passes by a helicopter possibly doing opposition research were the only overt signs of the campaign mode just about everyone at the Doheny wedding is in....But for today it was a respite from the endless stumping as Mr. Doheny took a wife in a church ceremony in his native Alexandria Bay.
Attorney Mary Reidy and Mr. Doheny said their 'I do's' and then marched their crowd with a bagpipe leading the way from St. Cyril's Church...past visiting bikers...and on to the Uncle Sam docks where chartered craft took some five hundred to the storybook island home Doheny has spent eight years having built.
The visitors from 18 states and the District of Columbia milled around Shamrock Island, mingling, eating and drinking....It was a great day for the political class to hang out...I saw people I hadn't seen in ages.
Later it was on to Caprice Island across a newly constructed span. More socializing and then dinner. The menu was standard buffet style fare with slabs of grilled chicken and pork tenderloin joined by some fairly standard salads and shredded carrots or asparagas. Dragging all the food and catering gear to the island must have been a pain.
Hors d' oeuvres served earlier were excellent and the beers available were Labatts Blue Light, Michelob Ultra and the groom's favorite, Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Lots of people were taking pictures, but clearly my presence made aides nervous, as the only other media present was a newspaper executive and a cable news reporter who was off duty. I'd be glad to send a couple photos to the paper or Newzjunky if they want them.
Pictures from the Church were distributed by Mr. Doheny's staff and many guests posted their own photos on Facebook.
No Liz Benjamin, perhaps showing NNY weddings can never really be "A" list affairs. As fancy as this event seemed to some, it's standard fair for Saturday's in the Hamptons.
As for the helicopter, I didn't see it, but Sheriff Burns says it looked like someone flying low for pictures. A couple people reported seeing boats off shore but I only found this suspicious craft with the camera disguised as a blond in a bikini.
My point is there was nothing out of the ordinary to photograph, although the NNY media may want to note that I noticed Assemblyman Blankenbush was on crutches, although he was in good spirits.
So was Assemblyman Will Barclay seen peaking out from behind the centerpiece.
For the record, I left the soire at 6:30, but enjoyed the day and the hospitality.
I did leave my gift in the car, so I will have to drop it off Monday with an operative.
The visitors from 18 states and the District of Columbia milled around Shamrock Island, mingling, eating and drinking....It was a great day for the political class to hang out...I saw people I hadn't seen in ages.
Later it was on to Caprice Island across a newly constructed span. More socializing and then dinner. The menu was standard buffet style fare with slabs of grilled chicken and pork tenderloin joined by some fairly standard salads and shredded carrots or asparagas. Dragging all the food and catering gear to the island must have been a pain.
Hors d' oeuvres served earlier were excellent and the beers available were Labatts Blue Light, Michelob Ultra and the groom's favorite, Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Wedding Cake....I Was Told This is an Important Photo to Take (Bottom Layer Not Lined Up With Next Layer)
All in all it, aside from the setting, it was a pretty North Country type wedding, but I didn't stay to see if there was a garter retrieved...a bouquet thrown and God forbid a dollar dance...Splendid weather and solid logistics made everyone's trip to the Island smooth. One sad note along the way there was the now defunct Pine Tree Point Club now in a clearly deteriorating state.
Pictures from the Church were distributed by Mr. Doheny's staff and many guests posted their own photos on Facebook.
No Liz Benjamin, perhaps showing NNY weddings can never really be "A" list affairs. As fancy as this event seemed to some, it's standard fair for Saturday's in the Hamptons.
As for the helicopter, I didn't see it, but Sheriff Burns says it looked like someone flying low for pictures. A couple people reported seeing boats off shore but I only found this suspicious craft with the camera disguised as a blond in a bikini.
For the record, I left the soire at 6:30, but enjoyed the day and the hospitality.
I did leave my gift in the car, so I will have to drop it off Monday with an operative.
Wedding Played Out as Hundreds of Bikers Flooded Bay
Some Cheered as Couple Passed By on Way to Boats
The wedding will quickly yield to the rigors of a campaign for Congress, as the recent Supreme Court ruling has defined the race with Rep. Bill Owens to be all about Obama Care.
While spurning wedding coverage over the weekend, one news outlet did report Mr. Doheny doing significant fund raising off the health care issue.
Ringing In My Ear
By Douglas V. Gibbs
My left ear rings 24/7, and it rings very loudly. The ringing began after a head trauma I suffered in 1985. At first the ringing drove me nuts. It literally was driving me to levels of insane I really had no intention of visiting. My neurologist indicated that the ringing was the result of nerve damage that could not be repaired, and for the kind of ringing in my ear there was no remedy. Medicines were tried, and failed. A surgery was tried, giving me a little of my hearing back (very little), but the ringing remained. Sometimes it was louder than other times, but it was always ringing, and it was always loud.
Faced with a problem I could not resolve, I realized this was one of those rare moments in life where I would just have to live with whatever was making me uncomfortable. I lived my life trying to figure out how to stop the ringing, or ignore it. I couldn't sleep, for the ringing kept me up at night. I had trouble working because the ringing made it hard to focus on my duties.
The ringing was especially loud when I remembered it was there, and thought about how much I hated that damn ringing in my ear.
One day I didn't hear it, until I realized I didn't hear it.
As long as I kept myself busy enough that I didn't have time to focus on the ringing, the ringing was gone. I was still there, but I learned to ignore it. My mind didn't have time to worry about the ringing when I kept it calculating, writing, working, and studying. I even went to bed cramming my brain with thoughts and ideas. Eventually, I learned to fall asleep that way, thinking about things.
Eventually, the ringing became nothing more than an occasional minor irritation.
The only time I really hear it now is when I acknowledge its existence. . . like right now.
Perhaps, in a sense, that is it. It only exists when I let it exist.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
My left ear rings 24/7, and it rings very loudly. The ringing began after a head trauma I suffered in 1985. At first the ringing drove me nuts. It literally was driving me to levels of insane I really had no intention of visiting. My neurologist indicated that the ringing was the result of nerve damage that could not be repaired, and for the kind of ringing in my ear there was no remedy. Medicines were tried, and failed. A surgery was tried, giving me a little of my hearing back (very little), but the ringing remained. Sometimes it was louder than other times, but it was always ringing, and it was always loud.
Faced with a problem I could not resolve, I realized this was one of those rare moments in life where I would just have to live with whatever was making me uncomfortable. I lived my life trying to figure out how to stop the ringing, or ignore it. I couldn't sleep, for the ringing kept me up at night. I had trouble working because the ringing made it hard to focus on my duties.
The ringing was especially loud when I remembered it was there, and thought about how much I hated that damn ringing in my ear.
One day I didn't hear it, until I realized I didn't hear it.
As long as I kept myself busy enough that I didn't have time to focus on the ringing, the ringing was gone. I was still there, but I learned to ignore it. My mind didn't have time to worry about the ringing when I kept it calculating, writing, working, and studying. I even went to bed cramming my brain with thoughts and ideas. Eventually, I learned to fall asleep that way, thinking about things.
Eventually, the ringing became nothing more than an occasional minor irritation.
The only time I really hear it now is when I acknowledge its existence. . . like right now.
Perhaps, in a sense, that is it. It only exists when I let it exist.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Today's Radio Schedule with Douglas V. Gibbs
Prior to joining Vince Daniels, I will be on American Daily Review from noon until 12:30 Pacific. JASmius and I use that program as a pregame show for Constitution Radio later in the day. Tune in to ADR at BlogTalkRadio.com/AmericanDailyReview.
Finally, at 5:00 pm Pacific Loki and I will discuss the ramifications of these Supreme Court rulings, and what the Constitution has to say. Join us for Founding Truth at 5:00 pm Pacific on BlogTalkRadio's Halls of Valhalla Radio Network.
WDT: Average of four Watertown students kicked off bus daily
It takes a while for long form coverage of certain things, but that video of the potty mouthed youngster on a city school bus has revealed widespread behavior problems on the busses, that on average four times a day result in a suspension.
The kid in question in the Internet video has been kicked off the bus for the school year, which is now over. Shorter suspensions are routinely handed out and cameras are on the busses, so this incident was well known weeks before it went viral on the Net.
Its a sign of the times we have this extensive a problem and its a shame it took a You Tube posting to let us know just how ill mannered many in a new generation have become.
Makes it tough for the kids who do behave.
Watertown Daily Times | Average of four Watertown students kicked off bus daily
The kid in question in the Internet video has been kicked off the bus for the school year, which is now over. Shorter suspensions are routinely handed out and cameras are on the busses, so this incident was well known weeks before it went viral on the Net.
Its a sign of the times we have this extensive a problem and its a shame it took a You Tube posting to let us know just how ill mannered many in a new generation have become.
Makes it tough for the kids who do behave.
Watertown Daily Times | Average of four Watertown students kicked off bus daily
Romance Trumps Politics Under Sunny Skies in Thousand Islands As Doheny Nuptuals Held
It's wedding day for Congressional candidate Matt Doheny and his fiance Mary Reidy, a Bay State native and Manhattan attorney.
The pair will say their vows at 11 AM at the Catholic church in his native Alexandria Bay. An elaborate and gala reception will be held under sunny skies this afternoon at the groom's estate on Caprice Island.
.JPG)
The pair will say their vows at 11 AM at the Catholic church in his native Alexandria Bay. An elaborate and gala reception will be held under sunny skies this afternoon at the groom's estate on Caprice Island.
.JPG)
Happy Couple Seen With Friend Lee Hector at a Recent Campaign Fundraiser
No update on the blog for a few hours while I attend the event and wish the couple well.
Meanwhile you can stop by Fort Pearl and visit our Second Annual Car Wash and visit with Diana and Emily.
Denver Trappings
I'm gearing up for this evening's Sonic Masala Presents End Of Financial Year Party - and for whatever reason I'm sitting on my balcony drinking Western Australian beer and listening to country. Not the gee-up most people want and need - and I will be putting on Tiny Spiders and the excellent Lantern record (through Bathetic) in a mo - but there is something about the single 'The Way It Is' by "ramshackle all-star country band" Denver that has me in a warmy, gauzy glow. Based in Portland, Denver features members of Blitzen Trapper and Alela Diane’s Wild Divine, has three chief songwriters (Birger Olsen, Mike Elias, Tom Bevitori) exchanging lead vocals, all adding up to an air of drunken wistfulness leading itself to drunken camaraderie and back-slapping at the bar. It is incredibly hard to bottle something as universal and communal as that - yet this track does that for me. I could even see myself donning a Stetson and heading to the local saloon - well, I do have the checked shirts for it...
Denver - The Way It Is
Email of the Week: Three Beautiful Children
I told her she had three beautiful children. She didn't have to get all pissed off and threaten me with a bomb, and everything. It was an honest mistake!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Scaring Friends Til The Spectre Gets Its Fill
Last year I was a pretty big fan of Toronto degenerates Pow Wows and their Nightmare Soda LP (check out what I thought here). While we wait for something new on that front, Pow Wows guitarist Jay Share-It has given us this - Scare Your Friends, a cassette of demo sessions he recorded under the moniker Fill Spectre. The crazy thing about this isn't that it is good - that was a given in my opinion, despite some of the songs really struggling against the DIY tracking limitations - but how disparate these fourteen songs are, and how well it all holds up. Swinging in genre focus from incessant Cramps love to mordant lo-fi folk to garage swagger to industrial 80s industrial New Wave, Share-It manages to inexplicably hang it all together. This is worthy of a proper release, not just a 99 (count em...) personally made cassette roll out. Nevertheless, word on the street is that he is putting a band together to tour the songs. Great news indeed. But until then - come here and get yourself a tape. It's worth every penny.
Fill Spectre - Homesick Party Kids
Fill Spectre - Good To Be Bad
Fill Spectre - Mr Money
Friday, June 29, 2012
Supreme Court Obamacare Ruling: Justice Roberts is No Hero
By Douglas V. Gibbs
After the Supreme Court ruling regarding the constitutionality of the health care law, America changed. The final remnants of the Constitution were burned, ripped, and stomped upon. The courts completed the transformation of America as Barack Obama said he envisioned way back during his presidential campaign in 2008. My phone did not quit ringing. People were shocked, and outraged. The calls and emails continually streamed in for two days.
Then, some conservatives who always try to see a silver lining, came up with an interesting theory. Perhaps Justice Roberts, who sided with the liberal crazies, is not a traitor after all. Perhaps he is using a back door to get America back on track. Perhaps his unexpected move is pure brilliance, and all we have to do is see it!
Yes, Roberts ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional as based on the Commerce Clause, and the opinion by Roberts may have reduced to opportunity for misuse we see in relation to the Commerce Clause. He may very well understand that the Commerce Clause was not originally intended to be a skeleton key for statists to unlock every big government action they can get their hands on. (For more on the Commerce Clause, go to Understanding the Commerce Clause).
Roberts also indicated that the federal government does not have the authority to mandate as argued by the liberal left - but then added, unless the penalty is a tax.
We'll get back to that.
Finally, as argued by those wishing to lift Roberts on their shoulders, "he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty."
That may be a doorway he opened for the States to nullify as constitutionally allowed, while protecting the States from retaliation from the federal government.
Some may also argue that Roberts created a scenario that would energize the people opposed to Obamacare. People that were on the fence about voting in November are now raring and ready to go. Folks that were not overly concerned by the law have now been educated in ways they may not have been otherwise, and will also vote in November to unseat Obama, and a large number of democrats in Congress.
Hallelujah. But at what price?
Ever hear the old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right?"
For a moment let's visit just one of a myriad of unconstitutional actions by the federal government the other day when they ruled on the health care law. Justice Roberts changed the law by saying it is not constitutional through the commerce clause, but in order to save the act Roberts altered the definition of the penalty, making it a tax. If it is a tax, he reasoned, and since Congress has the power to tax, that once again makes Obamacare constitutional.
By doing this, he modified the law. He altered the definition of "penalty" in the law to mean "tax."
Article I, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution states that all legislative powers belong to the Congress. That would include the power to modify a law. (Learn more about this concept in my article: All Legislative Powers Are Granted to Congress)
Roberts, in his attempt to constitutionalize Obamacare, acted in a legislative manner, making his action an unconstitutional one.
By upholding the mandate, based on the assumption that the penalty is a tax and that makes it constitutional, Justice Roberts has actually opened up Pandora's Box. Even if the law is successfully repealed by President Romney (which requires Mitt to win the election, and for the Senate to do better than simply earn a republican majority) the precedent will exist in the minds of the establishment, and more importantly, the progressives. The government, according to these knuckleheads, will be be able to tell you all kinds of things you have to buy. . . as long as they attach a penalty, and call it a tax.
If Obamacare remains in force, the danger heightens. The law is the biggest behavior modification program in history. You will be required to act in a manner that is considered to be acceptable behavior by the federal government if you want your health care. They will be able to tell you what to eat in the name of saving the taxpayers from having to pay for the health care of some obese person, they will be able to tell you what activities to engage in the name of preventing injuries so the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for that either. They will be able to order you to exercise (and if you refuse to, will they attach a penalty and call it a tax?), because your good health is good for the country since now the taxpayer will be paying for Obamacare.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Doug. Obama said you can keep your doctor, and your insurance, if you like it.
This system is not designed for you to keep your doctor, and your insurance. It is designed to steer us toward single payer. It is designed to destroy the private insurance industry, and replace it with socialized medicine. The fine for not having insurance is less than the cost of insurance. Employers, to save money, will opt out of providing health care benefits, and pay the fine. Employees, unable to afford health insurance, or the fine, will then be left with no choice but to settle for governmental programs. Eventually, as the fine rises, and the States programs diminish, everyone will be compelled to use the federal health care system, until we finally have single payer - opening the rest of Pandora's Box - which will end up giving the federal government full control over your lives, your decisions, and your activities, in the name of keeping the cost down for the taxpayers.
As for you freedoms in that system? Those are at the behest of the health secretary, where in the health care law it repeatedly gives that person unlimited power with a simple statement: "As the secretary shall determine."
A liberal commenter said this is the FDR effect. The people will grow to like Obamacare, and then the republicans won't be able to win an election without supporting it.
First of all, that is a dirty way to play politics, but yes, that is how liberalism works. Entitlements are not because they care so much. It is all about buying votes, and gaining power. It is their goal to eliminate all opposition, through the buying of votes.
Obamacare won't remain intact because the people like it as the liberal commenter predicts, though, if Obamacare remains in place. It will be because the people become imprisoned by it, and can't escape.
Is that really what you want in America?
Rush Limbaugh said that no there is no place to go. The courts have befuddled him. He doesn't understand that the very idea that a few men in black robes have the ability to determine the fate of a law that will affect over 300 million people is an unconstitutional proposition. (Read more about the unconstitutionality of judicial review)
Limbaugh is wrong. There is a place to go. The States can nullify the law by ignoring it, and refusing to implement it, and the States can hold an Article V. Convention (Read more about Article V. Conventions HERE) to propose amendments that can further limit the powers of the courts. The founders showed us that the courts can be further limited by amendment when they proposed and ratified the 11th Amendment. (Learn more about nullification in my article: Nullification - A State's Right to Enforce the Constitution)
The fact is, Justice Roberts protected Obamacare, and sided with the liberal judges. He helped validate to many people the very dangerous and totalitarian health care law that is being considered the center-piece of Obama's presidency. Justice Roberts is no hero, but the opportunity to get this turned around still exists. We must be vigilant, we must be passioned, and we must not give up. This can be turned around. The Constitution has given us the tools. All we must do is not give up the fight.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
After the Supreme Court ruling regarding the constitutionality of the health care law, America changed. The final remnants of the Constitution were burned, ripped, and stomped upon. The courts completed the transformation of America as Barack Obama said he envisioned way back during his presidential campaign in 2008. My phone did not quit ringing. People were shocked, and outraged. The calls and emails continually streamed in for two days.
Then, some conservatives who always try to see a silver lining, came up with an interesting theory. Perhaps Justice Roberts, who sided with the liberal crazies, is not a traitor after all. Perhaps he is using a back door to get America back on track. Perhaps his unexpected move is pure brilliance, and all we have to do is see it!
Yes, Roberts ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional as based on the Commerce Clause, and the opinion by Roberts may have reduced to opportunity for misuse we see in relation to the Commerce Clause. He may very well understand that the Commerce Clause was not originally intended to be a skeleton key for statists to unlock every big government action they can get their hands on. (For more on the Commerce Clause, go to Understanding the Commerce Clause).
Roberts also indicated that the federal government does not have the authority to mandate as argued by the liberal left - but then added, unless the penalty is a tax.
We'll get back to that.
Finally, as argued by those wishing to lift Roberts on their shoulders, "he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty."
That may be a doorway he opened for the States to nullify as constitutionally allowed, while protecting the States from retaliation from the federal government.
Some may also argue that Roberts created a scenario that would energize the people opposed to Obamacare. People that were on the fence about voting in November are now raring and ready to go. Folks that were not overly concerned by the law have now been educated in ways they may not have been otherwise, and will also vote in November to unseat Obama, and a large number of democrats in Congress.
Hallelujah. But at what price?
Ever hear the old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right?"
For a moment let's visit just one of a myriad of unconstitutional actions by the federal government the other day when they ruled on the health care law. Justice Roberts changed the law by saying it is not constitutional through the commerce clause, but in order to save the act Roberts altered the definition of the penalty, making it a tax. If it is a tax, he reasoned, and since Congress has the power to tax, that once again makes Obamacare constitutional.
By doing this, he modified the law. He altered the definition of "penalty" in the law to mean "tax."
Article I, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution states that all legislative powers belong to the Congress. That would include the power to modify a law. (Learn more about this concept in my article: All Legislative Powers Are Granted to Congress)
Roberts, in his attempt to constitutionalize Obamacare, acted in a legislative manner, making his action an unconstitutional one.
By upholding the mandate, based on the assumption that the penalty is a tax and that makes it constitutional, Justice Roberts has actually opened up Pandora's Box. Even if the law is successfully repealed by President Romney (which requires Mitt to win the election, and for the Senate to do better than simply earn a republican majority) the precedent will exist in the minds of the establishment, and more importantly, the progressives. The government, according to these knuckleheads, will be be able to tell you all kinds of things you have to buy. . . as long as they attach a penalty, and call it a tax.
If Obamacare remains in force, the danger heightens. The law is the biggest behavior modification program in history. You will be required to act in a manner that is considered to be acceptable behavior by the federal government if you want your health care. They will be able to tell you what to eat in the name of saving the taxpayers from having to pay for the health care of some obese person, they will be able to tell you what activities to engage in the name of preventing injuries so the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for that either. They will be able to order you to exercise (and if you refuse to, will they attach a penalty and call it a tax?), because your good health is good for the country since now the taxpayer will be paying for Obamacare.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Doug. Obama said you can keep your doctor, and your insurance, if you like it.
This system is not designed for you to keep your doctor, and your insurance. It is designed to steer us toward single payer. It is designed to destroy the private insurance industry, and replace it with socialized medicine. The fine for not having insurance is less than the cost of insurance. Employers, to save money, will opt out of providing health care benefits, and pay the fine. Employees, unable to afford health insurance, or the fine, will then be left with no choice but to settle for governmental programs. Eventually, as the fine rises, and the States programs diminish, everyone will be compelled to use the federal health care system, until we finally have single payer - opening the rest of Pandora's Box - which will end up giving the federal government full control over your lives, your decisions, and your activities, in the name of keeping the cost down for the taxpayers.
As for you freedoms in that system? Those are at the behest of the health secretary, where in the health care law it repeatedly gives that person unlimited power with a simple statement: "As the secretary shall determine."
A liberal commenter said this is the FDR effect. The people will grow to like Obamacare, and then the republicans won't be able to win an election without supporting it.
First of all, that is a dirty way to play politics, but yes, that is how liberalism works. Entitlements are not because they care so much. It is all about buying votes, and gaining power. It is their goal to eliminate all opposition, through the buying of votes.
Obamacare won't remain intact because the people like it as the liberal commenter predicts, though, if Obamacare remains in place. It will be because the people become imprisoned by it, and can't escape.
Is that really what you want in America?
Rush Limbaugh said that no there is no place to go. The courts have befuddled him. He doesn't understand that the very idea that a few men in black robes have the ability to determine the fate of a law that will affect over 300 million people is an unconstitutional proposition. (Read more about the unconstitutionality of judicial review)
Limbaugh is wrong. There is a place to go. The States can nullify the law by ignoring it, and refusing to implement it, and the States can hold an Article V. Convention (Read more about Article V. Conventions HERE) to propose amendments that can further limit the powers of the courts. The founders showed us that the courts can be further limited by amendment when they proposed and ratified the 11th Amendment. (Learn more about nullification in my article: Nullification - A State's Right to Enforce the Constitution)
The fact is, Justice Roberts protected Obamacare, and sided with the liberal judges. He helped validate to many people the very dangerous and totalitarian health care law that is being considered the center-piece of Obama's presidency. Justice Roberts is no hero, but the opportunity to get this turned around still exists. We must be vigilant, we must be passioned, and we must not give up. This can be turned around. The Constitution has given us the tools. All we must do is not give up the fight.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
It's been a day
I'm trying to think of a way the situation could have been more hellish.
Maybe if I had been manacled to a Randroid. Yeah. That would have been worse. A Randroid who kept insisting that Mistress Ayn's philosophy was the quintessence of morality because something something initiation of force something something John Galt something something this city is afraid of me I have seen its true face the streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown...
Where was I? Oh yes. Dundalk.
A street fair. In a park. With music. I did some sketches to pass the time.
At one of the stands, someone was giving away these strange, rectangular objects which the Dundalkians (much like the apes in 2001) regarded as alien artifacts. These artifacts were, in fact, books.
I picked up a copy of Gore Vidal's The Golden Age, the finale to his American history series. This volume covers the era from 1939 to the 1950s -- and goddam right that was a golden age. Vidal probably uses the term ironically, but I would apply it, with neither blush nor smirk, to entire era of "New Deal normal," 1933 to 1980. We were all Keynesians then, which meant that our many problems were reparable.
Before the fucking libertarians and neo-liberals and neo-conservatives commandeered America's discourse, we had hope. There was war, there was racism, there was madness and corruption -- but there was also prosperity, international prestige and a respect for education. Now, we've whelped up a generation of dimwits capable of the hilarity documented here.
Apparently, there are scads of right-wingers so outraged by the Supreme Court's ACA decision that they are tweeting threats to move to Canada. Yes, Canada. Examples:
I'm moving to Canada, the United States is entirely too socialist.
#SCOTUS holds up free healthcare for everyone?! Screw this commie country, I'm moving to #Canada #whoswithmeAnyone who thinks that the ACA equals "free healthcare for everyone" has achieved a truly Dundalkian level of doltishness. I like this response:
By the way, don't let anyone lie to you about Canada's health care system: It's great. I've seen it up close and personal. Next time a libertarian spreads falsehoods about the way those damned bolshevik northerners doctor you up, ask if he or she has ever actually spent time in a Canadian hospital.
If libertarian ex-pats overrun the place, they'll turn it into a terrifying corporate wasteland. The national anthem will need new lyrics:
O Canada
Belongs to Saint Ayn Rand
Never expect
to get a helping hand
With Nietzschean will we say the rich
must always live tax-free
And if you're poor then just lie down
and take the rich man's pee.
Sick folks should just
die quietly
Oh Canada
Upon the poor we pee!
Oh Canada
Upon the poor we pee!
And on an unrelated topic: Pepsi is now adorning cans of pop with images of Michael Jackson. I hope his heirs got paid in advance. The company burnt him once before.
Tuffing Out The Wild Desires
King Tuff has had a pretty big first half of 2012. First of all they sold out their Wild Desire 7" on Suicide Squeeze, whose title track slays in so many ways. Kyle Thomas's vocals are perfectly laconic, his guitar solo is insanely awesome, and he manages to capture elements of 60s Kinks, 70s Clash and T-Rex, throw it all into a reverent blender and spew forth one of the best singles of the year. The crazy thing is that he doesn't blow his wad here - Wild Desire is only foreplay.
King Tuff - Wild Desire
King Tuff, his second LP after 2008's Was Dead and first for Sub Pop, is overflowing with charm, charisma and riffs that it's hard not to throw out all other albums and mold this permanently to the turntable. This is distilled garage pop brilliance, albeit with a better guitarist than usual at the helm, yet the solos (and there are a few - all amazing) never overshadow the innate positivity that emanates from Thomas throughout the recording. Sometimes it may have benefited from a bit more edge and bite to take away from the giddiness felt throughout - but then that never hampered last year's excellent album Goodbye Bread from SF god Ty Segall, did it? Also, has an amazing cover sleeve. Always an attractor...
King Tuff is out now on Sub Pop. This too is hard to get on vinyl - it's been selling better than even Sub Pop predicted - but you can still grab it (also in a bundle with the excellent bat logo T-shirt) here.
King Tuff - Bad Thing
King Tuff - Keep On Movin'
Article V. Convention: The States' Tool To Bring the Federal Government Back Into Constitutional Limitations
By Douglas V. Gibbs
An "Article V. Convention," can completely shake the foundations of our governmental system, and steer the federal government back into the restraints of the U.S. Constitution.
Article V. is the section of the Constitution that explains the amendment process. The allowance for Congress to propose amendments was actually an after-thought, and only added during the final days of the Constitutional Convention. Originally, only the States were going to be allowed to propose amendments. The anti-federalists feared that by granted the authority to Congress to propose amendments, the federal government world work to completely re-write the Constitution. However, it was argued that the fail-safe to that was the fact that the States would still be needed to ratify the proposed amendment.
The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new. 49 States have called for an Article V. Convention through the submission of over 750 applications. The convention, however, has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place (their only task regarding an Article V. Convention), for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, which would ultimately cut the federal government out of the process. Centralized systems do not like it when individual states and people get involved in a process they think is only their domain.
Despite being a statist, Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist 85 brilliantly, in defense of the Article V. Convention. He argued that if the federal government did become tyrannical, the Article V. Convention was the fail-safe device the States had to reign the out-of-control federal government back in.
Article V. Conventions were offered as a method for the people and the States to stop the rampage of a tyrannical government. An Article V. Convention gives the people and States a way to combat a federal system that ignores the Constitution, treats it as if it does not exist, or invalidates it through judicial means. An Article V. Convention is not only something we need not fear, but one of our primary tools to combat against a tyrannical federal system. An Article V. Convention is our means of changing the Constitution through amendments so that we may give power back to the States, and protect state sovereignty. The Article V. Convention is one of the necessary tools given to us by the Founding Fathers for taking back our nation.
Changing the Constitution by amendment is not an easy process on purpose. Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The federal government does not like that process because they think it limits their power (and they are correct). This is why the federal government is doing as it pleases regardless of the authorities granted by the Constitution. They wish to keep the States out of the picture. Taking power without the benefit of an amendment makes the State legislatures irrelevant. Those that support big government plan to do their worst as they are now, through ignoring the law, and invalidating the original intent of the U.S. Constitution through the judiciary whenever possible.
They fear the Article V. Convention because such a convention is the people's way of forcing the federal government to behave in accordance to the limiting principles of the Constitution. Despite some arguments that these conventions can be dangerous, be advised that an Article V. Convention is not a way for the corrupt politicians and judges to re-write the Constitution. Only amendments can be proposed in such a convention, and those proposed amendments are still required to be retified by the States.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
An "Article V. Convention," can completely shake the foundations of our governmental system, and steer the federal government back into the restraints of the U.S. Constitution.
Article V. is the section of the Constitution that explains the amendment process. The allowance for Congress to propose amendments was actually an after-thought, and only added during the final days of the Constitutional Convention. Originally, only the States were going to be allowed to propose amendments. The anti-federalists feared that by granted the authority to Congress to propose amendments, the federal government world work to completely re-write the Constitution. However, it was argued that the fail-safe to that was the fact that the States would still be needed to ratify the proposed amendment.
The call for an Article V. Convention is nothing new. 49 States have called for an Article V. Convention through the submission of over 750 applications. The convention, however, has never taken place because the Congress will not set a time and place (their only task regarding an Article V. Convention), for fear of the people proposing amendments, and the States ratifying them, which would ultimately cut the federal government out of the process. Centralized systems do not like it when individual states and people get involved in a process they think is only their domain.
Despite being a statist, Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist 85 brilliantly, in defense of the Article V. Convention. He argued that if the federal government did become tyrannical, the Article V. Convention was the fail-safe device the States had to reign the out-of-control federal government back in.
Article V. Conventions were offered as a method for the people and the States to stop the rampage of a tyrannical government. An Article V. Convention gives the people and States a way to combat a federal system that ignores the Constitution, treats it as if it does not exist, or invalidates it through judicial means. An Article V. Convention is not only something we need not fear, but one of our primary tools to combat against a tyrannical federal system. An Article V. Convention is our means of changing the Constitution through amendments so that we may give power back to the States, and protect state sovereignty. The Article V. Convention is one of the necessary tools given to us by the Founding Fathers for taking back our nation.
Changing the Constitution by amendment is not an easy process on purpose. Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The federal government does not like that process because they think it limits their power (and they are correct). This is why the federal government is doing as it pleases regardless of the authorities granted by the Constitution. They wish to keep the States out of the picture. Taking power without the benefit of an amendment makes the State legislatures irrelevant. Those that support big government plan to do their worst as they are now, through ignoring the law, and invalidating the original intent of the U.S. Constitution through the judiciary whenever possible.
They fear the Article V. Convention because such a convention is the people's way of forcing the federal government to behave in accordance to the limiting principles of the Constitution. Despite some arguments that these conventions can be dangerous, be advised that an Article V. Convention is not a way for the corrupt politicians and judges to re-write the Constitution. Only amendments can be proposed in such a convention, and those proposed amendments are still required to be retified by the States.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Alexandria Bay, NY Web Site With Attitude !!
The excitement this weekend in the sleepy Village of Alexandria Bay is the Thunder in the Bay Motorcycle Rally.
A couple of years back the event sparked controversy when the mayor declared the visitors to be of dubious value.
There was a lot of push back...not just from bikers but from business people anxious for the dollars in their town.
Meanwhile the Bay sports one of the best small town websites anywhere.
Alexandria Bay, NY Web Site With Attitude !!
A couple of years back the event sparked controversy when the mayor declared the visitors to be of dubious value.
There was a lot of push back...not just from bikers but from business people anxious for the dollars in their town.
Meanwhile the Bay sports one of the best small town websites anywhere.
Alexandria Bay, NY Web Site With Attitude !!
"American Intellectuals"
Most of us who know how America really works, and how the political parties function, understand that it doesn't matter who is in the White House or who controls the halls of congress. We know that real power in America comes from lobbyist and the people who can afford to pay them. Politicians who go to Washington need money to get elected and John Q. Public cannot afford to write a big enough check.
The sad truth of the matter is that most of our fellow citizens are extremely naive and are not in the least intellectually curious. As a result, what we get are dimwitted sound bite politicians who are elected every year by dim witted intellectually lazy citizens. (The republican Governor of Louisiana says that he will ignore a federal law and not implement Obamacare in his state.)
Just think, playmates are now getting "Genius visas" to come to our country. Nothing against playmates, I am sure that some of them are really smart people, but think about that for a minute.
The right keeps screaming that if Obama wins November it will be the end of the world as we all know it. But with all due respect to Sarah Palin, Rush Limpboy and the FOX NEWS crowd, nothing will change. America will pretty much be the same sound bite celebrity driven place with a few wealthy people controlling our lives, and the rest of us wishing that we were them.
The beautiful thing about this American experiment is that every one of those folks in the 99% believes that with just a little hard work they too will be in that 1% some day. And they believe that only if certain people are in power will they have a chance of getting there. "Mitt Romney has a better chance of making me rich because he is rich."
"On his radio show Thursday, conservative talk radio firebrand Michael Savage wondered whether Roberts’ epilepsy medication affected the chief justice’s cognition. “I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to,” Savage said. “It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying,”
In a closed door meeting with House Republicans, Rep. Mike Pence likened the health care ruling to Sept. 11, Politico reported
Geraldo Rivera didn’t criticize Roberts as much as call him a mad genius. On Fox and Friends Friday morning, Geraldo said: “(Roberts) has gifted President Obama a poison pill. Republicans now can remember, unless something is done, that the Bush tax cuts also lapse at the end of the year. So here you have the largest tax increase and the increase coming from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts - he taxed us, he said he wouldn’t tax us, he taxed us. I think the Obama presidency hangs by a thread right now.”
Saying the Supreme Court decision “destroys Bush’s legacy,” dimmed conservative star Glenn Beck put his rhetoric where his online store is. He is selling screen-printed Roberts “coward” t-shirts for $30 a pop." [Source]
What's amazing is that our republic has managed to survive this long.
Sssailing Away On Crystal Shipsss...
Jacob Faurholt is the man behind the warped lo-fi meanderings of Crystal Shipsss, and his first longplayer under the moniker Yay is one that buries under your skin effortlessly. With most tracks under two minutes, it would be fair to think that these songs are a little undercooked or throwaway - au contraire, it has me wondering why three minutes is the quintessential length for a successful pop song. The Danish producer is based in Berlin and has supported the likes of Efterklang, Grizzly Bear, and The Black Heart Procession in Europe, so his talent is recognised, yet on Yay I get a sense that Faurholt is taking things up a notch. There is something fragile and passionate in these songs - the haunting lilt of 'My Dark Slimy Soul', the misty-eyed nostalgia of 'Smile', the slowburning tension of 'Crystal Lipsss' - that makes them relatable, and inherently infectious. Faurholt states that his friends in Montreal were making music as their living, which changed his outlook on the medium, and in 2010 began writing these songs only when motivated and without over-thinking things - just letting it happen when the need arose. Such aspersions are eveident throughout and have helped to inform some beautiful compositions. Faurholt's high-pitched wavering vocals may take some people out of the frame at first, but persevere for there are some incredible tracks here. In the same vein of Beach Fossils and Hanoi Janes as far as lo-fi aspirations, albeit in a quirkier vein, Crystal Shipsss is a project that we all should keep an eye on.
Yay is out now (on sweet mint-green 10" vinyl too) through Raw Onion Records and Three Ring Records. Grab it here.
Crystal Shipsss - Uh Huh
Crystal Shipsss - Crystal Lipsss
Crystal Shipsss - Burning Kingdom
Nullification: A State's Right to Enforce the Constitution
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Nullification is the States' ability to ignore unconstitutional federal law. Despite the misnomer that all federal law trumps all state laws, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is very clear that only federal laws that are within the authorities of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.
If the federal government is the only arbiter of the Constitution, then the limits of the growth of the federal government are non-existent. The federal government could do anything it wanted by declaring it Constitutional, regardless of what the people, or the States, proclaimed.
In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison stated is was the duty of the State to interpose between and federal government and the citizens of the state.
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99 were triggered by Kentucky's need to nullify unconstitutional federal laws, and in those resolutions Jefferson pointed out, “… that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”
Thomas Jefferson also wrote, ”whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
Madison's Report of 1800 reaffirms The Virginia Resolutions of 1798; wherein the states must Interpose themselves between the citizens of the states and the federal government.
The establishment sees it otherwise, believing as Joe Klein wrote in Time Magazine in February of 2012, that the "Constitution was a stitching device, written to unify and control the States." The continued concept that the federal government rules over the States has forced the States to reconsider asserting their sovereignty. However, because of two hundred years of conditioning, the willingness to act has been met with reluctance, and the failure to understand the rights of the States.
One wonders if the day comes that a State does act upon its right of nullification, will it fold like a chair when the federal government sues the State through their own federal court system?
State sovereignty, and the right for a State to nullify an unconstitutional law, serves as an impediment to the growth of an oppressive national central government. The separation of powers were not just among the branches of the federal government, but between the States and Washington, as well. James Madison stated that the most ardent opponents of a central government considered the state legislatures the “sure guardians of the people’s liberties” against violations from the federal government.
Our system of a divided government only functions properly when each part of that system works in line with the authorities afforded to that part of government. By the States refusing to stand up for themselves, and challenge the rapidly growing federal government, the States have relinquished their Constitutionally protected powers of restraining the federal government's quest for more power. The people, through their States, are allowing Washington to silence the States. Without the States being willing to stand up to the federal government, Washington will continue to grow unchecked, and the States will eventually become no more than powerless provinces subject to the powerful ruling authority of a central, all powerful, and tyrannical federal government.
We are not powerless. A free people who fear an ever growing centralized government has the ability to stop it through their States. Nullification is the key. Without it, we become nothing more than subjects submitting to the dictates of a powerful central government. Without nullification, we will become enslaved by the federal government, squandering away the rights and freedoms of the future citizens of this nation.
In line with the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence, are we willing to mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Nullification is the States' ability to ignore unconstitutional federal law. Despite the misnomer that all federal law trumps all state laws, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is very clear that only federal laws that are within the authorities of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.
If the federal government is the only arbiter of the Constitution, then the limits of the growth of the federal government are non-existent. The federal government could do anything it wanted by declaring it Constitutional, regardless of what the people, or the States, proclaimed.
In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison stated is was the duty of the State to interpose between and federal government and the citizens of the state.
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99 were triggered by Kentucky's need to nullify unconstitutional federal laws, and in those resolutions Jefferson pointed out, “… that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”
Thomas Jefferson also wrote, ”whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
Madison's Report of 1800 reaffirms The Virginia Resolutions of 1798; wherein the states must Interpose themselves between the citizens of the states and the federal government.
The establishment sees it otherwise, believing as Joe Klein wrote in Time Magazine in February of 2012, that the "Constitution was a stitching device, written to unify and control the States." The continued concept that the federal government rules over the States has forced the States to reconsider asserting their sovereignty. However, because of two hundred years of conditioning, the willingness to act has been met with reluctance, and the failure to understand the rights of the States.
One wonders if the day comes that a State does act upon its right of nullification, will it fold like a chair when the federal government sues the State through their own federal court system?
State sovereignty, and the right for a State to nullify an unconstitutional law, serves as an impediment to the growth of an oppressive national central government. The separation of powers were not just among the branches of the federal government, but between the States and Washington, as well. James Madison stated that the most ardent opponents of a central government considered the state legislatures the “sure guardians of the people’s liberties” against violations from the federal government.
Our system of a divided government only functions properly when each part of that system works in line with the authorities afforded to that part of government. By the States refusing to stand up for themselves, and challenge the rapidly growing federal government, the States have relinquished their Constitutionally protected powers of restraining the federal government's quest for more power. The people, through their States, are allowing Washington to silence the States. Without the States being willing to stand up to the federal government, Washington will continue to grow unchecked, and the States will eventually become no more than powerless provinces subject to the powerful ruling authority of a central, all powerful, and tyrannical federal government.
We are not powerless. A free people who fear an ever growing centralized government has the ability to stop it through their States. Nullification is the key. Without it, we become nothing more than subjects submitting to the dictates of a powerful central government. Without nullification, we will become enslaved by the federal government, squandering away the rights and freedoms of the future citizens of this nation.
In line with the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence, are we willing to mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Fresh Face for Possible Vacant County Seat ?
A rebel GOP lawmaker who fought a sweetheart PILOT deal in the Town of LeRay may be in the hunt for a County Legislature seat soon to be vacated by the likely move of lawmaker Steve Harter from District 5.
It will be an insider choice by appointment as it is too late to get the race on this year's ballot.
.JPG)
Town Council Member Jennifer Dindl-Neff says she is happy where she is but her spunky fight against the PILOT in favor of a better deal for town residents may elevate her over other choices preferred by party bosses.
Dindl-Neff also works for Senator Patty Ritchie.
At age 30, she would be a fresh face on the board. She was also recently featured on the cover of NNY Business.
It will be an insider choice by appointment as it is too late to get the race on this year's ballot.
.JPG)
Dindl-Neff also works for Senator Patty Ritchie.
At age 30, she would be a fresh face on the board. She was also recently featured on the cover of NNY Business.
Oops...I Set Off an Alarm
Sometimes one last bit of business you could have done without. After reviewing with the Comptroller the list of properties the City is in line to take over for taxes, I decided to check out one curious parcel on the list.
A West Main Street warehouse used for car storage had seen the two year redemption period lapse and that seemed strange. I went over to see if it was still in use and if anyone was there. I knocked and pulled open an unlocked door to see who was there...Of course the alarm started beeping.
I called 911 to let 'em know it was the 'mayor who's there'. The police came and I told them what happened. I guess the good news is I discovered an unsecured building.
As for the building, City Council will review the list of eight properties, which includes the warehouse, a tattoo parlor and six houses.
After a review by City staff, Council usually sends them to public auction, although I think the warehouse is full of cars, so I don't know what happens.
A West Main Street warehouse used for car storage had seen the two year redemption period lapse and that seemed strange. I went over to see if it was still in use and if anyone was there. I knocked and pulled open an unlocked door to see who was there...Of course the alarm started beeping.
I called 911 to let 'em know it was the 'mayor who's there'. The police came and I told them what happened. I guess the good news is I discovered an unsecured building.
As for the building, City Council will review the list of eight properties, which includes the warehouse, a tattoo parlor and six houses.
After a review by City staff, Council usually sends them to public auction, although I think the warehouse is full of cars, so I don't know what happens.
Great Day to Visit Zoo
Today, I spent some time riding around town including a trip to the Zoo to take a look at the former Aviary. Director John Wright ask me to stop by to review the proposed floor plan. Yesterday potential bidders had a pre bid meeting there. About 15 contractors showed up.
There is concern the actual square footage is not as large as thought once you add the bathrooms, kitchenette and other things related to today's codes.
However I do like a plan for high tech distance learning equipment, which will cost a bit more ($48,000) but will allow programs to be braodcast to area schools, a useful tool as field trips are being cut.
I am still enthused at the prospects and await the bids.
Other than the Zoo trip, I also stopped in at a retirement party for Judy Fiorentino who is wrapping up in the Assessment Department.
There is concern the actual square footage is not as large as thought once you add the bathrooms, kitchenette and other things related to today's codes.
However I do like a plan for high tech distance learning equipment, which will cost a bit more ($48,000) but will allow programs to be braodcast to area schools, a useful tool as field trips are being cut.
I am still enthused at the prospects and await the bids.
Other than the Zoo trip, I also stopped in at a retirement party for Judy Fiorentino who is wrapping up in the Assessment Department.
Unconstitutionality of Judicial Review
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Judicial Review is the power of the federal courts to determine if a law is Constitutional or not. This power was seized by the courts in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case. The federal courts were not granted this authority by the States, or the people. It is not a constitutional authority.
The Constitution established the federal government to be a limited one, with its authorities expressly enumerated. Any authority not granted to the federal government on the pages of the U.S. Constitution, or prohibited to the States, is a State authority.
The Supreme Court's ability through judicial review to determine if a law is constitutional or not is the power to decide if the federal government has an authority. Since the Supreme Court is a part of the federal government, anytime the High Court determines the constitutionality of a federal law, it is literally a case of the federal government deciding for itself its own authorities.
The judicial branch was not established to be a check against Congress. The two Houses of Congress were originally designed to be checks against each other. The House of Representatives was the voice of the people, the Senate was the voice of the States, and they checked each other, while working together to check the executive and judicial branches. As for the party or parties responsible for determining the constitutionality of federal law, that task falls upon the States, and the people. As the final arbiters of the Constitution, the States have the authority to ignore, or nullify, unconstitutional laws. If the law is unconstitutional, then it is illegal, and therefore the States cannot be compelled to follow those laws.
The U.S. Constitution is written in a manner that grants express powers to the federal government. If a need for an issue to be taken care of by the federal government arises that is not authorized by the Constitution, then the appropriate procedure would be for the federal government to request that authority by proposing an amendment, and then the States would choose whether or not to grant that authority by whether or not they ratify the amendment. That makes sense when one considers that the creation of the federal government by the Constitution was orchestrated by the States, and the States giving the federal government a few of their powers for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union. Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the States held all powers - which means the States have original authority over all governmental powers.
The very idea that the federal courts even have the authority of judicial review where the courts can strike down laws based on its interpretation on whether or not the law is constitutional is ridiculous. The very idea of judicial review is at complete odds with the idea of limiting principles as provided by the U.S. Constitution. The courts may have an opinion on the matter of the constitutionality of a law, but they hold no legislative power. On the federal level only the Congress, as per Article I, Section 1, has legislative powers, which is the ability to create law, modify law, repeal law, et cetera. Therefore, the courts have no authority to strike down a federal law. In the case of a State law, or state amendment, that was passed under the authority of the State as per the 10th Amendment, the federal courts not only have no authority to strike down the State law, but they are not even supposed to hear the case in the first place.
The liberal left has continuously shown disdain for the Law of the Land, and often try to use the courts to usurp the Constitution.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Judicial Review is the power of the federal courts to determine if a law is Constitutional or not. This power was seized by the courts in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case. The federal courts were not granted this authority by the States, or the people. It is not a constitutional authority.
The Constitution established the federal government to be a limited one, with its authorities expressly enumerated. Any authority not granted to the federal government on the pages of the U.S. Constitution, or prohibited to the States, is a State authority.
The Supreme Court's ability through judicial review to determine if a law is constitutional or not is the power to decide if the federal government has an authority. Since the Supreme Court is a part of the federal government, anytime the High Court determines the constitutionality of a federal law, it is literally a case of the federal government deciding for itself its own authorities.
The judicial branch was not established to be a check against Congress. The two Houses of Congress were originally designed to be checks against each other. The House of Representatives was the voice of the people, the Senate was the voice of the States, and they checked each other, while working together to check the executive and judicial branches. As for the party or parties responsible for determining the constitutionality of federal law, that task falls upon the States, and the people. As the final arbiters of the Constitution, the States have the authority to ignore, or nullify, unconstitutional laws. If the law is unconstitutional, then it is illegal, and therefore the States cannot be compelled to follow those laws.
The U.S. Constitution is written in a manner that grants express powers to the federal government. If a need for an issue to be taken care of by the federal government arises that is not authorized by the Constitution, then the appropriate procedure would be for the federal government to request that authority by proposing an amendment, and then the States would choose whether or not to grant that authority by whether or not they ratify the amendment. That makes sense when one considers that the creation of the federal government by the Constitution was orchestrated by the States, and the States giving the federal government a few of their powers for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union. Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the States held all powers - which means the States have original authority over all governmental powers.
The very idea that the federal courts even have the authority of judicial review where the courts can strike down laws based on its interpretation on whether or not the law is constitutional is ridiculous. The very idea of judicial review is at complete odds with the idea of limiting principles as provided by the U.S. Constitution. The courts may have an opinion on the matter of the constitutionality of a law, but they hold no legislative power. On the federal level only the Congress, as per Article I, Section 1, has legislative powers, which is the ability to create law, modify law, repeal law, et cetera. Therefore, the courts have no authority to strike down a federal law. In the case of a State law, or state amendment, that was passed under the authority of the State as per the 10th Amendment, the federal courts not only have no authority to strike down the State law, but they are not even supposed to hear the case in the first place.
The liberal left has continuously shown disdain for the Law of the Land, and often try to use the courts to usurp the Constitution.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Ilkley's olympic torch relay from the van of www.jimrobinsondecorators.com
Here's the video from the man himself ! Jim Robinson, official sponsor of the London 2012 Olympics !
I'm just out of shot to the right at 7.13
Tour de France Rules
The Stakes
Whether leaders of a team or merely a team-mate, the riders on the Tour de France try to excel, either individually or as a team. According to the stage profiles, changes in the general standings or some unexpected circumstance during the race, each rider adapts his objectives to the situation. The winners of the various prizes eventually share the honours and the money at stake with their team-mates. Enough to make (almost!) everybody happy.
Stage victory
Les 20 stages and 1 prologue Tour de France 20120are divided up as follows: 9 flat stages, 4 hilly stages with 1 summit finish, 5 mountain stages with 2 high-altitude finishes and 2 individual time-trial stages.
Prize money: € 8,000 to the winner of each stage (€ 475,000 in total).
The Yellow Jersey
It is worn by the leader of the general individual time classification.
Prize money: € 450,000 for the outright winner (€ 1,000,000 in total).
The Green Jersey
It is worn by the leader of the points classification. The points can be won on intermediate sprints and at stage finishes.
Prize money: € 25,000 for the outright winner (€ 125,000 in total).
The Red Polka Dot Jersey
It is worn by the best climber. Points for best climber classification are awarded at the top of any classified slope.
Prize money: € 25,000 for the outright winner (€ 107,000 in total).
The White Jersey
It is worn by the best young rider aged 25 years or less in the general individual time classification.
Prize money: € 20,000 for the outright winner (€ 65,000 in total).
Most aggressive rider
This distinction is awarded at the end of each stage by a jury made up of eight cycling specialists. An outright winner is designated after the last stage of the Tour.
Prize money: € 20,000 for the outright winner (€ 56,000 in total).
The team classification
This classification is determined by adding the times of the best three riders of each squad in each stage.
Prize money: € 50 000 € for the winning team (€ 178,000 in total).
Best climber classification: double points for the final climb
Since the 2004 edition of the Tour de France, the competition for the Red Polka Dot Jersey includes a detail that adds a certain amount of spice to the race: for the final climb on a stage's profile, the points are doubled for Category 1, Category 2 and Top Category climbs. So the riders who lead this classification are undoubtedly the most courageous ones and the prize goes to those who remain out in front in this classification for the longest period of time.
Helmets must be worn at all times
All riders must wear a helmet for the entire duration of each stage and on each stage.
Falls in the last three kilometres
As has been the case since 2005, riders involved in a fall in the last three kilometres of a stage are given the same finishing time as the group which they belonged to. This rule is not applicable in time-trial stages and stages that finish at the summit of a climb.
(taken from the official Le Tour site)
Friday Cover Up - Double Lives Crumble In One Fell Swoop
Because I missed last week, here are two excellent covers to round out a full on week. First we have this dark and morose cover of The Cars' 'Double Life' by typically dark and morose LA heathens Cold Showers. It features the Vivian Girls' Katy Goodman lurking in the background, and can be found on the Decay 7" out now through Art Fag - buy it here.
Cold Showers - Double Life (The Cars cover)
Sarah Chadwick has stepped away from Batrider for a bit to do some solo work - you can hear some other tracks on her Bandcamp - and this cover of Chris Knox's 'One Fell Swoop' is bloody ace. She can do no wrong in my eyes. She is bringing out a release called Eating For Two in August on Brisbane's fine Bedroom Suck label - I'll keep an eye out for that one, as should you.
Have a good weekend folks!
NNY's It Girl Skipping Wedding
Sounds like my style advisor Keri Plumpton and her hubby will not be attending the premier social event on the River tomorrow....Setting up their summer cottage is on the agenda instead, although Glenn Curry and I have been urging her to attend the Doheny wedding in Alexandria Bay.
There are electeds, media types, friends, family, business associates among the guests. Given the density of people for the day, the Island may briefly qualify for its own zip code.
There are Uncle Sam's boats ferrying revelers to the island downriver from the Bay.
Tonight there is a pre wedding dinner at the Clayton Opera House.
Hopefully it will be a weekend away from talking about Obama Care and Nancy Pelosi. All of that resumes next week and will go on non stop until November.
Missing Out on Much Talked About Event
The rumor mill is that upwards of 800 guests will crowd Caprice Island for the reception, and then there's the security, caterers, entertainers , operatives and others..There are electeds, media types, friends, family, business associates among the guests. Given the density of people for the day, the Island may briefly qualify for its own zip code.
There are Uncle Sam's boats ferrying revelers to the island downriver from the Bay.
Tonight there is a pre wedding dinner at the Clayton Opera House.
Hopefully it will be a weekend away from talking about Obama Care and Nancy Pelosi. All of that resumes next week and will go on non stop until November.
All Legislative Powers are Granted to Congress
By Douglas V. Gibbs
All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article I establishes the Legislative Branch of the federal government.
Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the two parts of Congress, and grants all legislative powers to the two houses of Congress.
When studying the language used in Article I, Section 1, the original intent by the Founding Fathers becomes obvious.
The first word in the first section of Article I is the word “all.” The fascinating thing about the word “all” is that it means, as shocking as it may seem, “all.”
The following words are “legislative powers.” Legislative powers are the ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.
The next word is “herein,” which strangely enough means “here in,” as in “here in this constitution.”
The word “granted” follows “herein.” “Granted” is defined as “to give,” or “to allow,” or more specifically “to legally transfer.” If powers are granted, then there must be a “grantor,” as well. As we learned in our discussion regarding The Preamble, the “grantor” in this case is the States.
“Shall be” is definitive. In other words, the word “shall” does not mean “ought to,” or “maybe.” “Shall” means that “it is,” or “it will be.”
“Vested” is much like “granted.” Vested is a legal transfer of something, or in this case, an allowance to have legislative powers at the federal level.
The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government, and this clause indicates that not only will the Congress be granted all legislative powers given to the federal government, but that the branch of government consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives.
So let’s review. All legislative powers, according to this clause, are granted to the Congress by the States for the purpose of making law, modifying law, or repealing law. The powers are herein granted, which means that the laws must fall within the authorities granted by the text of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, laws made must remain consistent with the “powers herein granted.”
When one considers this clause, it becomes clear that when members of the judiciary legislates from the bench, or the President issues an executive order to modify a law, such action is unconstitutional. After all, “all legislative powers” were granted to the Congress, not to the judicial branch, or the Executive branch.
Since all legislative powers belong to the Congress, it would also then be reasonable to consider any regulations by federal departments that are not in line with laws made by the Congress that are in line with the authorities granted by the Constitution to be unconstitutional as well. Once again, all legislative powers belong to the Congress, therefore any “legislative actions” by regulatory agencies are not in line with the original intent.
Once again, we must be reminded of who gave the federal government those powers herein the Constitution in the first place? Those powers that the federal government has were “granted” by someone. The authorities the federal government enjoys were granted by the States. “We The People of the United States” granted those powers to the federal government. Therefore, if the federal government acts in a manner that is not consistent with the contract between the States and the U.S. Government, the States have the option to ignore those unconstitutional actions by the federal government. This action of ignoring unconstitutional law is the States’ way of being the final arbiters of the Constitution. The term for this kind of action by a State is “nullification.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Prediksi Skor Spanyol vs Italia Final Piala Eropa 2012
Prediksi Skor Spanyol vs Italia Final Piala Eropa 2012, Tips Prediksi Skor Spanyol vs Italia
Senin, 2 Juli 2012, NSK Olimpijs’kyj, Kiev
Prediksi Susunan pemain:Spanyol (4-3-3): 1. Iker Casillas; 17. Alvaro Arbeloa, 15. Sergio Ramos, 3. Gerard Pique, 18. Jordi Alba; 16. Sergio Busquets, 14. Xabi Alonso, 8. Xavi Hernandez; 6. Andres Iniesta, 21. David Silva, 10. Cesc Fabregas. Pelatih: Vicente
Treason? Sedition?
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare, former GOP spokesperson Matt Davis calls for an armed uprising against the government of the United States. His language is explicit.
Davis may, however, be guilty of sedition, as defined by this chapter of the U.S. Code. To be specific, 18 USC § 2385 address the question of advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Since so much Republican rhetoric has slipped into this dangerous territory, I will inflict the full wording on my readers:
Davis did. Or at least, he came that close to doing so.
If government can mandate that I pay for something I don’t want, then what is beyond its power? If the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified?When asked for clarification, Davis responded:
God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired.
“You can’t have people walking with lattes and signs and think the object of your opposition is going to take you seriously. Armed rebellion is the end point of that physical confrontation.”Does this language qualify as treasonous? No, though I think it ought to. Article 3 of the Constitution reads thus:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.The Supreme Court ruled early on that charges of treason can be brought only if there is an actual "assembling of men."
Davis may, however, be guilty of sedition, as defined by this chapter of the U.S. Code. To be specific, 18 USC § 2385 address the question of advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Since so much Republican rhetoric has slipped into this dangerous territory, I will inflict the full wording on my readers:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; orAs near as I can tell, the last person convicted of sedition in the United States was "the Blind Sheik," Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was involved with the first World Trade Center conspiracy in 1993. But did the above-quoted statute apply to him? Even though Rahman certainly deserves to spend his life in prison, I don't think he ever advocated the overthrow of the United States government.
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
Davis did. Or at least, he came that close to doing so.
Krol's Last Week in the Office Coming Up
Monday brings the last meeting attended by City Manager John Krol and next Thursday is his last formal day in the office, although he remains as manager until midnight on July 15th when incoming manager Sharon Addison takes over.
Ms. Addison will be getting a series of transition meetings on July 5 when she visits City Hall, meeting department heads and getting the lay of the land from Mr. Krol on current issues and personalities.
There are not a lot of burning current issues, but there are a few things the new manager will have to tackle fairly soon.
As for manager Krol, his successful new career as a recruiter behind him, he will return to his Waddington home and spend the rest of the summer enjoying his retirement, after a brief and very able sojourn to Watertown.
Ms. Addison will be getting a series of transition meetings on July 5 when she visits City Hall, meeting department heads and getting the lay of the land from Mr. Krol on current issues and personalities.
There are not a lot of burning current issues, but there are a few things the new manager will have to tackle fairly soon.
As for manager Krol, his successful new career as a recruiter behind him, he will return to his Waddington home and spend the rest of the summer enjoying his retirement, after a brief and very able sojourn to Watertown.
Hockey Working With Licensee on Getting Beer Available at Games
With a full schedule of hockey games coming to the Fairgrounds Arena, selling beer will require an individual licensing the facility for a period of time as securing individual catering permits for 30 to 40 separate dates is not practicle. The Privateers are working with a vendor, but City Council will have to grant any such franchise.
On a licensed premise, only the licensee can sell and other groups cannot come in for a day using a one day permit secured by a "not for profit."
The matter is being reviewed by the City as the Privateers have been working with a local restaurateur and caterer on the matter.
I will ask the City Attorney to outline the issue to Council on Monday.
The matter is being reviewed by the City as the Privateers have been working with a local restaurateur and caterer on the matter.
I will ask the City Attorney to outline the issue to Council on Monday.
Understanding the Commerce Clause
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Commerce Clause is found in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The clause indicates that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
The word "regulate" is the key basis for disagreement, often times. The word "regulate" in the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary is defined as:
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
You will notice that the definition to restrict is the final definition.
When one regulates with the intention to put something in good order, the term used was "To make regular."
The States, during the early years of this nation, fought over commerce, charging tariffs against each other, and they limited the movement of goods across State lines. Under the Articles of Confederation the government had no authority to be involved in commerce in any way, shape, or form. During the debate in 1787 over the creation of a new government through the writing of a new constitution, this problem was addressed, and it was determined that Congress should have the power to "regulate" commerce. It was understood the value of the federal government taking action to negate the commercial advantages of other countries and to take steps for pushing American commerce was paramount. But what about the States? What about the squabbling between the States?
In order to pay the Revolutionary War debts, the United States were* in desperate need of revenue, and so first the tariffs needed to be nationalized. The power to tax for the purpose of militarily defending the union of States was one of the main purposes of the creation of the Constitution. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention also recognized that removing tariffs between the States would assist in quelling the disagreements between them.
Another purpose of the Commerce Clause was to guard against mercantilist schemes, which were prevalent during that time period. Favoritism by the British Government towards particular merchants was one of many sparks that sent America towards revolution. Mercantilism also discouraged imports, playing a protectionist role that ultimately stifled trade. By eliminating tariffs between the States, and nationalizing tariffs so that they were applied to international trade, the early Americans actually kept some elements of mercantilism in play. Free trade was a concept that had not yet taken hold.
Even with the elimination of tariffs between the States, the tendency of the States to undercut each other remained a concern that needed to be further addressed. The anti-federalists feared an over intrusive government, and a need to restrict the trade between the States was not a pressing issue. However, a method to open up trade between the States to ensure commerce flowed was necessary, when one considered the sibling-like fighting among the States. The federal role agreed upon to put in good order the trade between the States was for the federal government to act as a mediator between the States whenever trade was obstructed.
This is not to say that the federal government has no authority to restrict, or prohibit, trade between the States, but the definition used by the progressives is broader than originally intended, as expected. Impeding or prohibiting the trade of certain items was to be used in a limited manner, and any regulatory actions by the federal government that would limit trade or control trade between the States required an agreement to do so by the States through their appointed representatives in the United States Senate**. Without the States approving of such an action in the Senate, the federal government's ability to regulate in a manner similar to the definition of the Commerce Clause held by today's liberal progressives was quashed.
* Note in Paragraph 7 I wrote "the United States were in desperate need of revenue," - this was not a typo. The term "United States" had a few meanings, based on the context of the conversation. "The United States" could be a reference to the new federal government, a reference to the union of States in a nationalistic manner, or as a reference to the union of individual states that are united. The latter was the more common usage of the term, and it is the latter I use in that sentence, making the "United States" a plural, which makes the word "were" appropriate.
** The voice of the States in the federal government through their appointed representatives in the United States Senate was eliminated in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. As a result, the dynamics of the federal government was damaged, and the continued rise of progressivism was eminent. One step in halting the increased stranglehold progressives have on our American System as originally intended would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. Repealing the 17th Amendment can only be achieved by Congressional Amendment. Repealing the 17th Amendment would return to the State legislatures their voice in the legislative branch of the federal government, so that they may properly act as a check against the House of Representatives, a check against the executive branch, and so that the advise and consent powers may be properly applied.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Note: This article is a reference article that will be applied to my upcoming article on the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)