I’m against gambling on the whole, and changing the constitution to allow gambling, and inviting casino gambling interests to Ohio in particular.
They just have the “Ohio jobs” carrot to pull the wool over people’s eyes.
Don’t buy what they have to sell… don’t sell out Ohio.
Today’s world is trying to walk a fine balance. We are trying to keep our civilized noses above water in the inundations of clashes between cultures, religions, and races. What is at stake is the hard won tolerance, true tolerance of diverse heritages and backgrounds, as well as appreciation of the human race as a whole. Evil takes its advantages wherever it can find them, however.
Once we came to a place in society where racial bigotry was seen as the insidious thing that it was, we entered a very short period of greater opportunity and equality… but as clamps came down to methodologize and legislate increasingly tight terms of behavior it has led to today’s hodgepodge world of trashed justice. We might be trying our best, but we are failing miserably. LaShawn Barber is well known for her posts pointing this out. But as politicking goes, the problem with trying to approach these problems of racial acceptance with mostly pressure tactics is leaving us in a situation of vulnerability to losing all the good and a freefall into gang mentality. If not actual gangs.
Our compassion without structured restraints of a society’s adherence to strong moral standards is leaving us in a vise grip of increased authority to corral increased advantages taken by the immoral. Without a core of strong moral standards in between it propels society into either chaos or tyrannical laws and leaders.
A free society has a lot to lose in this scenario.
While the Health care debate has been coalescing into something along the lines of a question of our patriotism, our compassion as humans, our survival as a nation even…. it bears some thought as to whether our ideals of morality ought always to be our guiding light as to our consensus on what is legal.
For a long time we have devolved into a morality and legality ruled by majority. We intervene in the law process by majority pressure as the rudder of the mainstream media has propelled it. It is not our system, but has become a competition to our system I think.
So this essay in the “Sense of Events” blog raised what I think are some questions worth pondering in our health care debate.
My question is this: Do the limits of the US Constitution actually mean anything here? Where in the text does it grant the Congress the power to take from you and me and give it, as charity, to others?
This is not a question about Congress’s power to tax. It is about its authority to use taxation for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution.
We already know Democrat Sen. Mark Warner’s answer: the Constitution doesn’t grant Congress the authority to pass the healthcare bill before it, but it doesn’t matter because Congress has trampled on the Constitution so long that there’s no reason to stop now.
I am confident that some persons would answer that the Constitution is a “living document.” As best as I can determine, what that means in practice is that its text and enumeration of powers can be ignored in order for the Congress to do what it wants. Occasionally the federal courts, including SCOTUS, hold this tendency in check, but not very well or often. And at least as often, the courts themselves have taken the “living document” approach rather liberally.
My answer is that the Congress has no such authority granted it. If indeed the state of health care is so dire that public monies must be used to pay directly for medical care of some people (and eventually everyone), then let Congress introduce a proposed amendment to the Constitution so the people and states may grant that authority. That Congress has already been paying for such care for decades doesn’t change the question or the principle at stake.
I might even support such an amendment provided there were appropriate checks and balances built into it. Neither the power granted to Congress nor its authority to tax for this or any other purpose can be unlimited.
Like it not, there is no authority in the Constitution giving Congress the power to spend public monies for charitable purpose
–Does Morality Trump Legality?
It is ironic that the right now questions the left on this… albeit with different issues.
Mostly we center on the economy anymore (in the news, personal conversations, blogs, etc)…. I know that gets the lion’s share of my own interest in reading news, etc. But what about the rumblings on States rights, what about the tea parties protesting our taxes and national debt? Are they hot air, just letting off pressure, or genuine attempts by informed citizens… or something else?
What do you think?
Sometimes I honestly don’t know what to make of some of these activities and I’d like to get a bead on what the real issues are.
For instance, this move to consolidate states rights. Is it too little, too late? Is the state the last bastion in a check on runaway federal spending? Or is it a way for citizens to have more say on issues? Are the courts and the federal delivering a one-two punch to the concept of states rights?
Those are things I question when looking at what is going on today.
You may or may not be aware of these developments:
“A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, reports the Washington Times today.
“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the report states.”
” The report, entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (PDF link) was leaked to the Internet a few days ago. It also equates gun owners with violent terrorists and states that radical extremists are “stockpiling” weapons in fear of an Obama administration gun ban.
The document characterizes concerns about the economy, unemployment, the loss of U.S. sovereignty and the move towards global government as “rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet” which itself is defined as a potential tool for terrorists to network, build bombs, and send encrypted messages to each other.”
– from a post about Texas Governor Rick Perry
I don’t know about you… but this strikes me as ominous. Aren’t all those conversation “flags” simply topics that need discussion and part of what an alert citizen should concern themselves with, in debates, protests, and political action?
People all over the US are feeling pretty insecure and gun ownership is one response. Visit any Walmart and you know that ammunition is disappearing off the shelves quickly. This is more than “extremists” – this is a serious disconnect between the present congress and administration and the American People reasonable concerns. It ought to be handled that way and not drummed into a “Homeland alert” status.
I didn’t vote for Obama- I’m going to be upfront on that, but this trend:“The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama” is not just politics. It is about preservation of the USA. All of us. Our economic health is not partisan and it isn’t even a divide between immigrant and citizen. We ought to hold the fire under those who are the problem. We ought to all be part of the solution. Pressure AIG, surely bring pressure to bear on the executives who ought to go be pariahs until they are ashamed enough to do what is right: return their obscene bonuses. Or something.
But don’t turn this into a political circus… and don’t get on the wrong side of it.
You know there was an old story in one of the Laura Ingalls Wilder books, it took place during a time of deep winter and blinding blizzards, when two young men risked their lives to get grain for their starving community. They understood the risk to be for their neighbors and family’s survival. The grocer who sponsored their undertaking decided that he was going to grasp this as his own personal windfall and hiked the price unconscionably high to the starving townsfolk. Just because he could. They risked their lives, he reaped the profits…for himself.
The irate reaction included the promised threat that for those who survived, there would be no patronizing this unethical man’s business. He was forced to back down -at least in the story. There is a certain strength in the voice and the power of the people so long as they keep their focus right. And it is this focus on the greedy individuals who have slaughtered our economy and its pensions and benefits for themselves… and continue to eat well off the carcass. Not President Obama.
Conservatives, don’t play the fool, stop making partisan hay while the barns burn down.
Things that my husband and I are talking about:
Just a token article about a growing phenomenon, Growing gun buying, widening ammo shortage, there is huge backlog of demand for ammunition right now. This is another one of those background areas that thinking people need to pay attention to. I don’t believe this is just a ‘fringe’ or fly-by-night situation. There seems to be a growing number of people who are concerned enough about the direction of society and the government to take definitive action in arming themselves.
Several reasons I see:
Those are a few inter-related dynamics that are simmering.
IF our economy turns around, IF we develop a workable policy to deal with Mexican drug imports and their drug cartels, IF there is a convincing show of the government taking the interests of citizens to heart in things like privacy, property ownership (and help Americans feel fully represented by their government), I think there is hope. But that is a big order in today’s climate.
There are some very important issues arising these days besides those in that list. Not all have to do with the economy, which draws all attention at this time to itself (the Dow dropping below 7000 just today, and threatening to drop further). There are ethical issues, some of which waited in the background until just the opportunity they have today. One I am watching:Economic stimulus? Feds want your medical records
What about you? what is the topic of concern for your family and friends? what wshould we place in priority when we want our government to hear our voice?
Ok, I’m not going to say a lot here, mainly because I tend to a moderate view on some of the proposed fiscal policy. That said, though, I do think we are hearing the voice of many people in our nation, when hearing the opinions voiced here. What it means to me is that if there are bailouts and buyouts and stimulus packages, they need to be wisely and carefully implemented. And because of it being government… especially Democrat managed government, I just don’t have lots of confidence that this is how it will go. At least the ranters are foreshadowing the umbrage that is simmering right now. It remains to be seen how seriously that is taken into consideration in the coming years.
New Hampshire and a few other states are resolving to draw a line for states rights. Telling the Federal government:
“It states that New Hampshire people “have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America…”
That means, the resolution states, any “Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of American or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government … and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.”
It lists as actions that the federal government would be prohibited from doing:
* Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
* Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
* Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
* Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation
or foreign government.* Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
* Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.
New Hampshire Rep. Dan Itse, a sponsor of the resolution, said he wants New Hampshire to be among the states “standing up to the federal government, enforcing the Constitution.” – as explained in the article by Bob Unruh
“Missouri, Washington and Arizona also have moved in the direction of reasserting states’ rights. ”
Unfortunately for Ohio, our state is known for its lackluster support of freedom. We still don’t have any legislation limiting the inroads made by Kelo. [The Wolves, The Kelo Decision, One More]. Don’t look for it to get better without a concerted effort. WAKE UP PEOPLE!