The proposed Upper Lochsa land exchange seems to be the “hot button” subject here in Idaho County at the moment, so… I’ll weigh in on the subject, along with nearly everyone else who lives around here, and a lot of folks that don’t. For starters, and at the risk of getting everybody mad at me, I’ll say that I can sympathize with our County Commissioners on this bucket of worms, as they’re caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place! It looks like whatever they do will be the wrong thing in the eyes of the community, and that’s a bad place for any politician to find himself.
The problem started when WPT (Western Pacific Timber) purchased nearly 40,000 acres of privately owned land on the Lochsa River drainage. The land has been logged in the past, replanted, and is currently growing quite nicely. WPT’s plan was to “trade” these 40,000 acres to the forest service who would love to get their hands on it (probably so that they can take it out of production, decommission the roads and trails, and in general ban public access in the interest of environmentalism). The proposal was to trade for other (timbered) forest lands scattered across northern Idaho. Past that point, WPT’s plans get rather murky.
As required by their own regulations, the Forest Circus… Service, asked for public comment on the proposal, which is what brought the County Commissioners into the discussion. Knowing that they can only make suggestions, their response to the Forest Service quite clearly states that they much prefer “Option A”, which is “take no action”, or in other words “fugid aboudit”. However, being realists, they also recognize that the federal government is going to do whatever they (and the environuts) darn well please, no matter what the local folks wish, or who gets hurt.
But now things start getting sticky. Along with all the usual problems they face, the Commissioners understand that their primary job is to take care of the County as a whole, which means to keep us economically afloat, working, and out of bankruptcy court, unlike what some eastern communities are presently facing. Economically however, the county faces a disaster, in that the Craig/Wyden and SRS funds (handed us as a result of the feds cutting off our timber supply), are about to end, and that could very nearly put us completely out of business! That loss is about 10 million dollars a year into the county coffers, and will no longer be available to an annual budget of roughly 13 million dollars. Adding to that problem, if we loose 40 or so thousand acres of private land and the taxes (about 12% of our property taxes I understand) that go with it, we’re in the position of “now what?” Remember the assorted public services that the majority of our voters demand the county provide? Well, they have to be paid for somehow, so with a major budget shortfall, which ones do you want eliminated? How many school teachers do you want to lay-off? I suppose we could just ignore our roads, but what happens when they go completely to potholes? Our justice system will take a hit I’m sure, and I pity the sheriffs department, trying to “protect and serve” without the wherewithal to do so. Indigent health care, mandated by state law, is going to get hurt, and I suppose parts of energy assistance as well. Just about everything the county does is going to be cut back of necessity! Sure we can buffer the impact somewhat, by increasing local taxes, but where do we draw the line on that?
Anyway, as an alternative, the county commissioners suggested that the entire land swap take place within Idaho County, and thus leaving our local tax base relatively unscathed. Part of that process includes suggesting to WPT and the Forest Service that assorted forest lands within the county could be traded without doing quite as much damage as the original proposal. Most of the county suggested lands were in two fairly large plots, one behind Harpster and the other up near Glenwood. That put everything back into the forest service’s decision making process. The Forest Service, and the Nez Perce tribe, joined forces in looking at the county proposal (which has not yet and may never be accepted) and changed the entire county proposal around, deciding that the majority of those exchangeable lands should be in the vicinity of Grangeville and Riggins. And that brought on a scream of agony from the commissioners… and a whole lot of the county’s citizens!
So now we have the “Stop the Swap” movement on the scene, vehemently protesting the whole idea! Much of this protest objects to the “privatization” (read that as posting “No Trespassing” signs) of prime recreational lands that at present are accessible to hunters, snowmobilers, 4 wheelers, berry pickers, and whomever. Unfortunately, the protests are directed primarily at the county commissioners, instead of where our objections might do some good, which is the US Forest Service… and of course the US Congress! After all, Congress has the exclusive power to manage and dispose of public lands and property (Article IV, Section 3 of the constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"). With that, federal land management agencies have no actual authority over public lands, they have only the authority which Congress has specifically delegated to them. (‘course I don’t recommend that you run off into the woods, and totally ignore whatever regulation you happen to be upset about.)
Part of the “Stop the Swap” anger being directed at the commissioners is based on the precept that constitutionally the County Commissioners are the final authority over everything that happens within the county. While this is quite true, it, and everything else having to do with state or local rights, haven’t been enforceable since General Lee surrendered to the big government people at Appomattox Courthouse! You know who big government is, the bureaucrats who happily ignore the Constitution… and a Congress that lets ‘em get away with it. So, how about a way to handle things right at the top…
According to the census bureau, there are about 16 thousand people presently living in Idaho County. There are also a lot of folks in other areas objecting to the swap… If only half of us wrote a lot of letters and made a flood of phone calls to our congressmen, vehemently objecting to this entire land exchange, and trying very hard to calmly (and intelligently) state our case, I wonder if perhaps we’d finally get some attention from those in Washington that actually make the decisions. Remind them of their constitutional duties, tell them that you’re quite upset with this whole exchange deal… and… you might want to mention that there is an election coming up, and that you are a voter.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Al-Walaqi killing
A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.
-Author Unknown-
As could be expected, the recent killing of Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, and three of his associates has brought about a flood of protest on this side of the pond. The political left, libertarians, and of course the ACLU, are all weeping, wailing, and protesting that al-Awlaki, who just happened to be an American citizen born in New Mexico of Yemeni parents, was “executed” by the US government without benefit of legal “due process”. The Associated Press reported that in a serious blow to al-Qaida, U.S. forces killed two American citizens who played key roles in inspiring several attacks against U.S. targets, cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan, who edited the Jihadi Internet magazine, were killed in the course of a U.S. airstrike on their convoy in Yemen. Al-Awlaki apparently was targeted in the killing, but Khan was a fortunate case of “collateral damage”. Presidential candidate Ron Paul joined the civil liberties parade in protest, saying; "No one likes these kind of people, but I also like the rule of law and I like our Constitution, that you don't just target people, assassinate them, someone who has not been charged and you have no proof of anything."
Well, Okay, I can understand the concern. We are after all, a nation under law, law that considers people to be innocent until proven guilty. With that, it often seems that nearly every week we see headlines about some person or other that was convicted of crimes involving murder and the death penalty, and incarcerated for often very long periods of time before they were suddenly proven innocent and finally released. So we can readily see that even the law does make mistakes. But Al-Awlaki is an entirely different situation. While he was born in the U.S., his family moved back to Yemen where his father was a government official when he was seven years old, which hardly makes him an American in any but name! Secondly, he received a radical Islamic education which imbued him with a deep hatred of everything non-Islamic. Finally, any American citizen who knowingly and willingly attacks the United States is guilty of high treason, which is punishable by death. In this case, Al-Awlaki most certainly did, repeatedly, urge Islamic jihad against American citizens (which included both the Ft. Hood shooting and the somewhat less than brilliant “Underwear bomber”). Ergo Sum, sentence carried out by means of a missile launched from a U.S. drone.
There is another aspect of this incident that does concern me greatly however, in that now our government can order the death of American citizens without benefit of a trial… or even proof that a crime has been committed! Remember not long back when the news came out that the government was spying on Americans? Apparently there is a secret panel with the authority to authorize internal spying by government agencies, in a witch hunt for supposed evildoers. This panel can authorize spying on anyone in the country from a bonafide terrorist, to a suspected drug dealer, to, I imagine, a political opponent! (Sort of a “Watergate done legally” I think.) Done by direction of the president, such spying is in direct violation of our constitutional rights. You might also remember that we were solemnly promised such spying would be limited to catching bad guys, and only used in very few cases at that. Shortly thereafter we found out that numerous federal agencies including the FBI, were spying on us wholesale! Now, Reuters News Agency reports that “American militants” like al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions. There is no public record of the operations or decisions, nor is there any law authorizing the panel, or anything laying out the ground rules by which it operates. The role of the president in the process is kept rather vague, probably in the interest of plausible deniability.
Two legal theories have been advanced concerning the legalities; that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the 9-11 attack, and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself. But US District Judge John Bates wrote "Can (the president) order the assassination of a US citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization?" With the Patriot act, government has the power to declare just about any dissenter a potential terrorist. And “anyone” could cover a lot of territory from tax protests, to members of an opposing political party, to actual members of Al-Qaeda! Anyone who disagrees with the fed’s could be labeled a potential terrorist and placed on the hit list! I’m certainly no legal expert or Constitutional scholar, but I have yet to see anywhere in the Constitution where this is allowed, something that Congress can’t seem to understand!
A short lesson from history here… Martin Niemoller was a German pastor and avowed anti-Communist who supported Hitler's rise to power. Later, with Hitler’s insistence on the supremacy of state over religion he became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. In 1937 he was confined in concentration camps until 1945. His crime was "not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement." He issued a public statement shortly the war that's quite well-known and often quoted.
“First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Certainly, Anwar Al-Awlaki, or Achmed the dead terrorist for that matter, should have been blown away, a long time ago, so I’ll offer my congratulations to the shooter for a good hit. But I am also very much afraid that this incident is setting a really bad precedent, as we’re granting the executive branch of our government the power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a threat by our politicians, and that includes you, me, or the guy down the street… and that with no judicial oversight, or any of the rights guaranteed us by our Constitution. If we allow such gross misuse of power to continue, we are driving yet another nail in the coffin of our constitutional republic.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Spendocrats
“Suppose you were an idiot, and then suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself.”
-Mark Twain
The “Spendocrats” are at it again. If it wasn’t so pathetic, the recent “debt deal” between Capitol Hill and the White House (with its aftermath) would be rather funny, or at least according to my somewhat twisted sense of humor. The debt problem arises from the Congressional habit of spending more taxpayer money than the IRS collects each year, and that dates back to FDR’s “New Deal” socialism of the 1930’s. Granted that social welfare programs aren’t the only cause (I expect “cold war” expenses had a lot to do with the national debt as well), but I do believe that the long term federal effort to make the American populace dependant on government largess has just about destroyed this nations economy. In case you’ve been hiding out in the woods for the last seventy or so years, in 1929 the socially approved crap game of the American stock market crashed, it led the United States (with the rest of the world soon following), into the “Great Depression” of the 1930’s. That of course pushed the American public into massive unemployment, bank failures, personal and corporate bankruptcies, the loss of many people’s life savings, and a whole lot of social and political unrest. Enter the do-gooder socialists with a spending program to “end the depression”, a program that nearly eliminated the national treasury with huge “make work” spending programs.
That spending gave us Social Security, the TVA, Hoover Dam, and the Golden Gate Bridge well enough, but contrary to popular belief it did nothing to end the depression, and in fact extended the misery for several additional years. It also gave us a bureaucracy and a welfare state that has been expanding at a logarithmic rate ever since. Under several democratic presidents since then, Congress has been happily handing out tax dollars and borrowed money to state and local governments along with their welfare bureaucracy, in a mad attempt to curry political favor and to “buy” votes ever since. Currently, to keep up that spending spree and pay the interest on those borrowed funds, the US Government as authorized by Congress consumes approximately 20% of our gross national product every year! Now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, our national debt exceeds our ability to pay it off, and the interest alone puts a severe strain on our nation’s finances. This in turn led to the fight in Congress, and the threats of defaulting on our debts unless Congress raised our debt limit.
The congressional battle as I understand it, was essentially a disagreement about raising the debt ceiling which the Democrats preferred so that they could continue borrowing more money and spending our future. The Republicans on the other hand opposed raising the ceiling, and instead preferred to attack the problem by curtailing government spending (I doubt that would have actually happened), which in turn would have made a lot of potential voters who are presently feeding at the government trough quite unhappy. Everything focuses on the debt burden which must be reduced, so that if our taxes are not to be increased yet again, then government spending must go down, and the compromise reached does neither, it merely ignores the problem for another year or two. Now of course, the DNC spin doctors are blaming the Republicans, George Bush, the Tea Party, corporate America, and all those greedy rich people who don’t particularly wish to redistribute the rewards of working hard all their lives.
I receiver the following in an e-mail not long back, and will paraphrase a bit…
Remember the old story about the ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER? Wherein the ant works
hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter, while the grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed, and the grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
The moral of the story is; be responsible for yourself.
Now we have the modern upgraded version of the story…
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter while the grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing “We shall overcome”. Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake while he damns the ants.
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, the Tea Party, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid claim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
(My apologies to the original author of this tale.)
The House of Representatives contains 435 members, while the Senate adds another 100 people to the fumbling committee running the show. Thus we have 535 “Spendocrats” who are solely responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in. They and only they determine the revenue rate, they and only they determine the spending. When things, good or bad, happen to the United States, it is because “they” want it to happen that way.
You might want to remember this story as you prepare to vote in 2012.
That spending gave us Social Security, the TVA, Hoover Dam, and the Golden Gate Bridge well enough, but contrary to popular belief it did nothing to end the depression, and in fact extended the misery for several additional years. It also gave us a bureaucracy and a welfare state that has been expanding at a logarithmic rate ever since. Under several democratic presidents since then, Congress has been happily handing out tax dollars and borrowed money to state and local governments along with their welfare bureaucracy, in a mad attempt to curry political favor and to “buy” votes ever since. Currently, to keep up that spending spree and pay the interest on those borrowed funds, the US Government as authorized by Congress consumes approximately 20% of our gross national product every year! Now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, our national debt exceeds our ability to pay it off, and the interest alone puts a severe strain on our nation’s finances. This in turn led to the fight in Congress, and the threats of defaulting on our debts unless Congress raised our debt limit.
The congressional battle as I understand it, was essentially a disagreement about raising the debt ceiling which the Democrats preferred so that they could continue borrowing more money and spending our future. The Republicans on the other hand opposed raising the ceiling, and instead preferred to attack the problem by curtailing government spending (I doubt that would have actually happened), which in turn would have made a lot of potential voters who are presently feeding at the government trough quite unhappy. Everything focuses on the debt burden which must be reduced, so that if our taxes are not to be increased yet again, then government spending must go down, and the compromise reached does neither, it merely ignores the problem for another year or two. Now of course, the DNC spin doctors are blaming the Republicans, George Bush, the Tea Party, corporate America, and all those greedy rich people who don’t particularly wish to redistribute the rewards of working hard all their lives.
I receiver the following in an e-mail not long back, and will paraphrase a bit…
Remember the old story about the ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER? Wherein the ant works
hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter, while the grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed, and the grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
The moral of the story is; be responsible for yourself.
Now we have the modern upgraded version of the story…
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter while the grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing “We shall overcome”. Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake while he damns the ants.
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, the Tea Party, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid claim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
(My apologies to the original author of this tale.)
The House of Representatives contains 435 members, while the Senate adds another 100 people to the fumbling committee running the show. Thus we have 535 “Spendocrats” who are solely responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in. They and only they determine the revenue rate, they and only they determine the spending. When things, good or bad, happen to the United States, it is because “they” want it to happen that way.
You might want to remember this story as you prepare to vote in 2012.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Osama bin Laden
They who can give up liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
The public reaction to the long overdue death of Osama bin Laden continues to amaze me. Many of us of course cheered the demise of the person responsible for the violent deaths of thousands of Americans, and for our ongoing wars. And naturally there were a good many people who were pretty well “ho-hum” about the whole thing. From the loony left we still hear a good deal of weeping and wailing that our killing of the “Great Sheik” will anger Muslims world-wide and cause them to attack us. I guess that is correct in part, as I understand that radical Muslims are still quite upset over loosing their fearless leader, but consider, with or without Osama, when did they not attack non-Muslims (or anyone else that disagrees with ‘em) at every chance? Then to, there are those folks who immediately suspect yet another government conspiracy, that Osama is well and fine, and probably living the life of Riley in Iran. With only slightly less fanfare we also have those who are constantly arguing the case against the CIA’s use of unconventional interrogation to find out where this nutcase was hiding.
At any rate, if bin Laden isn’t dead, I’m sure that he’ll appear on worldwide TV one of these days, and like Mark Twain once did, announce that “the reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated”. But for now, even Al-Qaeda has publicly admitted that he’s gone and they have appointed his successor. The proof of his death will probably be when the UN complains about fish in the Arabian Sea suffering from food poisoning! Personally, no I don’t think he should have been buried at sea… his mangy carcass should have been slathered with lard, sewn into a pig skin, and hung on public display in New York City’s Times Square, Muslim idealism and sensitivity be dammed! But still, the good thing about the sea burial is that there’s no body and no martyr for the radicals to declare a holy shrine or whatever they do when their leader runs off to paradise. But barring a body to display, I would like to see the famed pictures that Mr. O has decided to keep secret.
Just goes to show ‘ya though, attitudes do change! In 1941 the Empire of Japan attacked the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor killing 2,400 people (mostly military personnel), and sinking a bunch of ships. Once the shock had died down a bit, the American people reared back on their hind legs, bared their fangs, and in four years had extracted a most terrible revenge on the Japanese Empire. Sixty years later the 9/11 attack killed almost 3,000 people (nearly all unarmed civilians), knocked down the pride of New York City, and brought about a completely different response. In a fit of panic, the American people blamed themselves for the death and destruction, doing the “sackcloth and ashes” thing while weeping piteously, and allowed Congress to pass the ill named “Patriot Act” which stripped us of many freedoms guaranteed us by our Constitution, as well as creating the Department of Homeland Security which effectively makes us a police state! Keeping the armed forces in the game (despite having military veterans declared “potential terrorists”), we have the US Northern Command tasked with all sorts of specialized jobs in direct support of the DHS. Additionally we have the Transportation Safety Administration (those “hero’s” who draw a fat government paycheck for groping children and strip searching elderly ladies at the airport) cluttering up the scene and costing us billions of dollars every year. Huh… if all this had happened to the Americans of 1941, the government would have two major fights on their hands, one overseas against our attackers, and the other with the highly irate American people who were demanding their freedom back! Well, I for one have a hard time believing that modern day Americans are so terrified of another Islamic attack that they literally give up their freedom and beg the government to “protect” them from a few wild-eyed radical nuts. The folks I grew up with were quite capable of handling a few terrorists all by themselves! We really don’t need the DHS though, a few million pistol packing Americans with a bad case of mad would, I’m sure, convince the terrorists that it would be much safer to stay home and blow each other up! And on that note, heaven help the miserable soul that tries to terrorize my wife! He will, in short order, find himself flayed alive and hung out to dry! (She tends to get a bit difficult when someone disturbs her peace and quiet.)
Certainly we live in interesting times, but you can bet your bippy we're not going to make things any less interesting by apologizing to the world for every perceived wrong, and running about in a completely mindless pursuit of “Safety and Security at any cost”. I also find it strange that the home of a people who once challenged (and beat) the worlds premier colonial power in a war over individual liberty and freedom is so rapidly giving up that liberty today in a mad search for security, while at the same time the young people of the Middle East are rising up in protest, and demanding their freedom from totalitarian rule!
Other that a possible spasmodic attack or two, Al Qaeda's day is done and gone. Mr. O apparently figures that the war is more or less over, and wants to bring nearly 30,000 troops home, while Leon Panetta, our new defense secretary tells us that al-Qaeda is defeated. Yet Congress, in its infinite wisdom, extends the insidious Patriot Act for another four years and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says "Even as we mark this milestone, we should not forget that the battle to stop al Qaeda and its syndicate of terror will not end with the death of bin Laden", both inferring that only government can save us from continued attack by Islamic fundamentalism. Well Ms. Clinton, I notice that the Islamic world has not risen up in yet more anger and rage at the US, but rather they are angry and raging well enough, rebelling against the very same totalitarian fundamentalism that created bin Laden, and from which he drew his strength!
As for Osama himself, I can only hope that the last thing he saw in this world was an irate US Navy SEAL, and the last thing that went through his mind was an American 9mm bullet. I would also have liked to see the look on his face when he found out that paradise ran out of nubile virgins a few hundred suicide bombers ago!
At any rate, if bin Laden isn’t dead, I’m sure that he’ll appear on worldwide TV one of these days, and like Mark Twain once did, announce that “the reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated”. But for now, even Al-Qaeda has publicly admitted that he’s gone and they have appointed his successor. The proof of his death will probably be when the UN complains about fish in the Arabian Sea suffering from food poisoning! Personally, no I don’t think he should have been buried at sea… his mangy carcass should have been slathered with lard, sewn into a pig skin, and hung on public display in New York City’s Times Square, Muslim idealism and sensitivity be dammed! But still, the good thing about the sea burial is that there’s no body and no martyr for the radicals to declare a holy shrine or whatever they do when their leader runs off to paradise. But barring a body to display, I would like to see the famed pictures that Mr. O has decided to keep secret.
Just goes to show ‘ya though, attitudes do change! In 1941 the Empire of Japan attacked the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor killing 2,400 people (mostly military personnel), and sinking a bunch of ships. Once the shock had died down a bit, the American people reared back on their hind legs, bared their fangs, and in four years had extracted a most terrible revenge on the Japanese Empire. Sixty years later the 9/11 attack killed almost 3,000 people (nearly all unarmed civilians), knocked down the pride of New York City, and brought about a completely different response. In a fit of panic, the American people blamed themselves for the death and destruction, doing the “sackcloth and ashes” thing while weeping piteously, and allowed Congress to pass the ill named “Patriot Act” which stripped us of many freedoms guaranteed us by our Constitution, as well as creating the Department of Homeland Security which effectively makes us a police state! Keeping the armed forces in the game (despite having military veterans declared “potential terrorists”), we have the US Northern Command tasked with all sorts of specialized jobs in direct support of the DHS. Additionally we have the Transportation Safety Administration (those “hero’s” who draw a fat government paycheck for groping children and strip searching elderly ladies at the airport) cluttering up the scene and costing us billions of dollars every year. Huh… if all this had happened to the Americans of 1941, the government would have two major fights on their hands, one overseas against our attackers, and the other with the highly irate American people who were demanding their freedom back! Well, I for one have a hard time believing that modern day Americans are so terrified of another Islamic attack that they literally give up their freedom and beg the government to “protect” them from a few wild-eyed radical nuts. The folks I grew up with were quite capable of handling a few terrorists all by themselves! We really don’t need the DHS though, a few million pistol packing Americans with a bad case of mad would, I’m sure, convince the terrorists that it would be much safer to stay home and blow each other up! And on that note, heaven help the miserable soul that tries to terrorize my wife! He will, in short order, find himself flayed alive and hung out to dry! (She tends to get a bit difficult when someone disturbs her peace and quiet.)
Certainly we live in interesting times, but you can bet your bippy we're not going to make things any less interesting by apologizing to the world for every perceived wrong, and running about in a completely mindless pursuit of “Safety and Security at any cost”. I also find it strange that the home of a people who once challenged (and beat) the worlds premier colonial power in a war over individual liberty and freedom is so rapidly giving up that liberty today in a mad search for security, while at the same time the young people of the Middle East are rising up in protest, and demanding their freedom from totalitarian rule!
Other that a possible spasmodic attack or two, Al Qaeda's day is done and gone. Mr. O apparently figures that the war is more or less over, and wants to bring nearly 30,000 troops home, while Leon Panetta, our new defense secretary tells us that al-Qaeda is defeated. Yet Congress, in its infinite wisdom, extends the insidious Patriot Act for another four years and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says "Even as we mark this milestone, we should not forget that the battle to stop al Qaeda and its syndicate of terror will not end with the death of bin Laden", both inferring that only government can save us from continued attack by Islamic fundamentalism. Well Ms. Clinton, I notice that the Islamic world has not risen up in yet more anger and rage at the US, but rather they are angry and raging well enough, rebelling against the very same totalitarian fundamentalism that created bin Laden, and from which he drew his strength!
As for Osama himself, I can only hope that the last thing he saw in this world was an irate US Navy SEAL, and the last thing that went through his mind was an American 9mm bullet. I would also have liked to see the look on his face when he found out that paradise ran out of nubile virgins a few hundred suicide bombers ago!
Friday, May 6, 2011
Articles of Confederation
Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
Tom Paine
I’ve been pretty well out of circulation of late, for reasons involving my somewhat shaky health and the resulting extended “vacation”. But I have used much of that time doing some in-depth research into our Constitution… how it came into existence, why we have it, and just what it all means. No easy task I assure you, particularly for someone who has never been noted for brillant scholarly aptitude! In this case I’m using four particular items, the text of old Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers. There are also quite a number of essays on various aspects of the subject that make quite interesting reading. (All of this is available on-line if you’re so inclined.)
First a bit of history. The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft a constitution for a union of the states in June 1776 (one day after they appointed a committee to draft the Declaration of Independence), and sent the draft to the states for ratification in November 1777. This early constitution became the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” in March 1781, although they were more or less in effect long before they were fully ratified. (Remember that communications were rather slow in 1777.) Under the Articles, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically handed over to the central “national” government. The Articles were created out of a perceived need to have "a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States." The unicameral Central Government was empowered to make war, negotiate diplomatic agreements, set weights and measures, operate the Post Office, regulate foreign commerce, collect customs duties, serve as the final court for disputes between states, and resolve the many issues regarding the western territories. (It also established term limits for Congressmen.) Under the articles, Congress could make decisions, but had no power over the states to enforce them. Any changes to the articles required the unanimous approval of the states. The majority of lawmaking also rested with the states, leaving the central government extremely weak, which posed a major problem when dealing with foreign powers. Passing any national laws required the approval of nine of the thirteen states as well. Congress was denied the power of taxation, and denied the power to run up a national debt. It could request money from the states, but was powerless to enforce such a request. Nor was the central government allowed a standing army, being limited to only enough troops to garrison various forts and arsenals. Congress was also denied the power to regulate interstate commerce, which left a lot of state tariffs and imposts creating havoc with the economy of the day.
No federal taxes… Humm, interesting. So if Congress wanted to spend some money on a pet project they could A.. try to talk the states into paying for it, or B.. pay for it out of their own pockets. And no Executive branch to hand out “stimulus packages”, “health care plans”, or to plague us with an army of bureaucrats! No Federal Judges… equally interesting… no activist judges to legislate from the bench! No standing army either (the state militias filled that role), which would make starting a “preemptive war” rather difficult. While many of us today would consider such stringent governmental limitations to be advantageous, at the time those limits came to be considered severe weaknesses, as without some central control the states were usually squabbling amongst themselves. (Picture the Congress of the era as a sort of mini UN, and equally ineffective.)
As the weaknesses of the Articles became more and more apparent, people began asking for changes which would create a stronger national government. As more states became interested, Congress approved (in 1787) a convention of delegates from each state "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation" to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union." All well and fine, except those delegates got carried away with their commission, and using the Articles as a template, wrote an entire new Constitution, the one we live under today.
The new Constitution was adopted by Congress and ratified by the individual states because it did solve the problems of the time. It also, perhaps unwittingly, laid the groundwork for many of the problems we face in our own age. As one pundit recently wrote, “it seems like the US Constitution was written by lawyers and financiers, to enhance the power and authority of lawyers and financiers.” He’s definitely got a point there! And Congress, in its infinite wisdom, seems unable (or at least unwilling) to do anything about those legal and economic problem that plague us today. From its inception our Constitution has been used by our politicians as an instrument to enhance Federal power, generally to the detriment of the individual states. Unfortunately it’s also been the weak link in every attempt to slow that Federal expansion, and so far has proven incapable of rolling back Federal power in every attempt made. So… what can be done, legally and properly, to correct this situation?
Stay tuned for my next exciting installment of the continued saga of the US Government, the Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution.
First a bit of history. The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft a constitution for a union of the states in June 1776 (one day after they appointed a committee to draft the Declaration of Independence), and sent the draft to the states for ratification in November 1777. This early constitution became the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” in March 1781, although they were more or less in effect long before they were fully ratified. (Remember that communications were rather slow in 1777.) Under the Articles, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically handed over to the central “national” government. The Articles were created out of a perceived need to have "a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States." The unicameral Central Government was empowered to make war, negotiate diplomatic agreements, set weights and measures, operate the Post Office, regulate foreign commerce, collect customs duties, serve as the final court for disputes between states, and resolve the many issues regarding the western territories. (It also established term limits for Congressmen.) Under the articles, Congress could make decisions, but had no power over the states to enforce them. Any changes to the articles required the unanimous approval of the states. The majority of lawmaking also rested with the states, leaving the central government extremely weak, which posed a major problem when dealing with foreign powers. Passing any national laws required the approval of nine of the thirteen states as well. Congress was denied the power of taxation, and denied the power to run up a national debt. It could request money from the states, but was powerless to enforce such a request. Nor was the central government allowed a standing army, being limited to only enough troops to garrison various forts and arsenals. Congress was also denied the power to regulate interstate commerce, which left a lot of state tariffs and imposts creating havoc with the economy of the day.
No federal taxes… Humm, interesting. So if Congress wanted to spend some money on a pet project they could A.. try to talk the states into paying for it, or B.. pay for it out of their own pockets. And no Executive branch to hand out “stimulus packages”, “health care plans”, or to plague us with an army of bureaucrats! No Federal Judges… equally interesting… no activist judges to legislate from the bench! No standing army either (the state militias filled that role), which would make starting a “preemptive war” rather difficult. While many of us today would consider such stringent governmental limitations to be advantageous, at the time those limits came to be considered severe weaknesses, as without some central control the states were usually squabbling amongst themselves. (Picture the Congress of the era as a sort of mini UN, and equally ineffective.)
As the weaknesses of the Articles became more and more apparent, people began asking for changes which would create a stronger national government. As more states became interested, Congress approved (in 1787) a convention of delegates from each state "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation" to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union." All well and fine, except those delegates got carried away with their commission, and using the Articles as a template, wrote an entire new Constitution, the one we live under today.
The new Constitution was adopted by Congress and ratified by the individual states because it did solve the problems of the time. It also, perhaps unwittingly, laid the groundwork for many of the problems we face in our own age. As one pundit recently wrote, “it seems like the US Constitution was written by lawyers and financiers, to enhance the power and authority of lawyers and financiers.” He’s definitely got a point there! And Congress, in its infinite wisdom, seems unable (or at least unwilling) to do anything about those legal and economic problem that plague us today. From its inception our Constitution has been used by our politicians as an instrument to enhance Federal power, generally to the detriment of the individual states. Unfortunately it’s also been the weak link in every attempt to slow that Federal expansion, and so far has proven incapable of rolling back Federal power in every attempt made. So… what can be done, legally and properly, to correct this situation?
Stay tuned for my next exciting installment of the continued saga of the US Government, the Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
More Nullification
The debate over nullification rages on, with the Idaho House having passed a nullification resolution (HB 59), despite the statement of Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s office that the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is constitutionally legal, and thus cannot be nullified. Mr. Wasden is our state’s chief lawyer after all, and in holding that office I would hope he’s properly qualified even if I do completely disagree with his legal opinion. However, as I understand the Constitution, the US Congress does not have the authority to order state legislatures to do its bidding, but they can compel the states to do as they are told, in that Congress can place conditions on any federal funding it offers the state. For example, in the 1980s, all states had to raise their drinking age to 21 or the federal government would hold back 5% of the dissenting state's highway funds. In a similar manner, all states must follow federal education guidelines, or risk loosing their federal educational funding. This sorry situation has developed over the last seventy-five years, beginning with FDR’s New Deal and the dispersal of federal funding in response to the great depression. Since that time, the several states have become more or less dependant on federal largess to keep their assorted “entitlement” programs alive, and a lot of politicians in office.
A Federal Union is a good way to do business, as long as the member states willingly retain their membership. When however, they are forced to remain part of the union against their will, or to “do things” that the citizenry opposes, it becomes a repressive political system. (This observation also applies to just about every field of human endeavor, from sports teams to marriage to political relationships.) Objecting to federal force, the effort by Idaho lawmakers (sponsored by Representatives Vito Barbieri and Judy Boyle, along with Senators Monty Pearce, Steve Vick and Sheryl Nuxoll) to nullify Obamacare suffered some temporary setbacks, but was passed and declares the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’ (Obamacare) to be "not authorized by the Constitution of the United States," and therefore is, "null, void and of no effect regarding any Idaho citizen." Cheers to the Idaho House for at least trying, and jeers to the Senate for letting the bill die. (Or, as County Commissioner Skip Brandt said: “There’s to many lawyers in the Senate”.) The loony left, the mainstream media, and of course the Feds all object to nullification, claiming that the individual states do not have the authority to nullify anything, citing the “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution. However, one should never assume that a politician at the national level would support the idea of nullification, as one seldom mentioned function of government (and any bureaucracy) is to keep itself in power, while expanding that power by any means possible.
The supremacy clause can be found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, stating: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Does this mean that any and every law passed by Congress and signed by the President becomes the "supreme law of the land," even if it violates expressed provisions of the Constitution itself? Apparently so according to many judges, members of Congress, and "legal scholars" who hold such a view of federal absolutism. And that’s the position taken by Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) at a town hall meeting last year. Responding to a question about Obamacare, Rep. Stark replied that the rulers in Washington "can do most anything in this country," followed by "I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from [making] rules that could affect your private life." The questioner then asked: "If they can do this, what can't they do?" Rep. Stark replied "The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country...." So far, the Supreme Court seems to take a similar view, and would make nullification unconstitutional. Today’s politicians have no difficulty in finding those legal scholars who will support that interpretation, although personally I’d rather take the word of the folks who wrote the constitution. Since the start of the administrative state with FDR’s new deal, there have been plenty of folks in the federal courts and academia pushing for unlimited federal power.
Now, I’ll ask a question: Are civil laws meant for citizens but not the police? Are moral laws meant for laymen but not clergy? Are constitutional limitations meant for states but not the feds? (It’s certainly looking that way in Sodom-on-the-Potomac!) Our federal government has a long history of violating Constitutional limits, but several of these recently passed laws may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, as pointed out by lawmakers in nearly a dozen states who have been talking quite seriously about nullification… of Obamacare, the Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and gun control. The Loony Left of course has been weeping and wailing about the potential loss of their pet programs, and of late have begun telling us that such action might start another Civil War… despite the fact that the American people don’t have a history of throwing a rebellion every time they get mad at the folks on Capitol Hill. And quite unlike some of our more excitable neighbors around the world, Americans do have a habit of voting with a ballot rather than a bullet.
But, like the patience of the American people, the authority of Congress to impose conditions upon the states is not limitless, and the states do have a few teeth of their own.
The Jeffersonian doctrine that recognizes states’ right to reject unconstitutional federal law is not a new concept, and has been used of late. In 2008, our state lawmakers rejected the federal government’s REAL ID Act, which would have required everyone to carry a national ID card. At the time, the Legislature declared the federal law to be “a violation of the principles of federalism contained in the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States”, decreeing that “the state of Idaho shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005.” As I remember things, this didn’t cause the state to secede from the national government, nor were we invaded by federal forces. In fact, the bill was passed unanimously, signed by the governor here (and similarly in 21 other states), and today we don’t carry a national ID card. When California voters approved Proposition 215 to allow the use of medical marijuana, the word "nullification" was brought up. Opponents of the proposition cited the supremacy clause as usual, claiming the state had no authority to violate federal marijuana laws. But millions of Californians voted to violate those laws anyway. And, when the Supreme Court ruled that state-level medical marijuana laws were illegal, the dispensaries didn't start closing up shop. By 2005, nine other states that had joined California in passing those medical marijuana laws. After the Supremes told the nine states that such laws were a no-no, how many of them were repealed? None, and since that time yet another five states have joined up. Think about it, there are now 15 states actively defying Congress and the Supreme Court on that one issue, and they’re getting away with it. That, more than anything else, is what nullification is all about… state action which results in ill considered federal laws being rendered unenforceable. The idea is popping up in legislatures all across the nation, as irate conservative citizens push their anti-spending, anti-imperial government agenda.
Let all your state and federal representatives know your opinion about these onerous laws they’ve been cramming down our throats, and remind them that if they’d like to keep their cushy jobs, they might want to remember that you do vote.
A Federal Union is a good way to do business, as long as the member states willingly retain their membership. When however, they are forced to remain part of the union against their will, or to “do things” that the citizenry opposes, it becomes a repressive political system. (This observation also applies to just about every field of human endeavor, from sports teams to marriage to political relationships.) Objecting to federal force, the effort by Idaho lawmakers (sponsored by Representatives Vito Barbieri and Judy Boyle, along with Senators Monty Pearce, Steve Vick and Sheryl Nuxoll) to nullify Obamacare suffered some temporary setbacks, but was passed and declares the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’ (Obamacare) to be "not authorized by the Constitution of the United States," and therefore is, "null, void and of no effect regarding any Idaho citizen." Cheers to the Idaho House for at least trying, and jeers to the Senate for letting the bill die. (Or, as County Commissioner Skip Brandt said: “There’s to many lawyers in the Senate”.) The loony left, the mainstream media, and of course the Feds all object to nullification, claiming that the individual states do not have the authority to nullify anything, citing the “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution. However, one should never assume that a politician at the national level would support the idea of nullification, as one seldom mentioned function of government (and any bureaucracy) is to keep itself in power, while expanding that power by any means possible.
The supremacy clause can be found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, stating: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Does this mean that any and every law passed by Congress and signed by the President becomes the "supreme law of the land," even if it violates expressed provisions of the Constitution itself? Apparently so according to many judges, members of Congress, and "legal scholars" who hold such a view of federal absolutism. And that’s the position taken by Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) at a town hall meeting last year. Responding to a question about Obamacare, Rep. Stark replied that the rulers in Washington "can do most anything in this country," followed by "I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from [making] rules that could affect your private life." The questioner then asked: "If they can do this, what can't they do?" Rep. Stark replied "The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country...." So far, the Supreme Court seems to take a similar view, and would make nullification unconstitutional. Today’s politicians have no difficulty in finding those legal scholars who will support that interpretation, although personally I’d rather take the word of the folks who wrote the constitution. Since the start of the administrative state with FDR’s new deal, there have been plenty of folks in the federal courts and academia pushing for unlimited federal power.
Now, I’ll ask a question: Are civil laws meant for citizens but not the police? Are moral laws meant for laymen but not clergy? Are constitutional limitations meant for states but not the feds? (It’s certainly looking that way in Sodom-on-the-Potomac!) Our federal government has a long history of violating Constitutional limits, but several of these recently passed laws may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, as pointed out by lawmakers in nearly a dozen states who have been talking quite seriously about nullification… of Obamacare, the Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and gun control. The Loony Left of course has been weeping and wailing about the potential loss of their pet programs, and of late have begun telling us that such action might start another Civil War… despite the fact that the American people don’t have a history of throwing a rebellion every time they get mad at the folks on Capitol Hill. And quite unlike some of our more excitable neighbors around the world, Americans do have a habit of voting with a ballot rather than a bullet.
But, like the patience of the American people, the authority of Congress to impose conditions upon the states is not limitless, and the states do have a few teeth of their own.
The Jeffersonian doctrine that recognizes states’ right to reject unconstitutional federal law is not a new concept, and has been used of late. In 2008, our state lawmakers rejected the federal government’s REAL ID Act, which would have required everyone to carry a national ID card. At the time, the Legislature declared the federal law to be “a violation of the principles of federalism contained in the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States”, decreeing that “the state of Idaho shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005.” As I remember things, this didn’t cause the state to secede from the national government, nor were we invaded by federal forces. In fact, the bill was passed unanimously, signed by the governor here (and similarly in 21 other states), and today we don’t carry a national ID card. When California voters approved Proposition 215 to allow the use of medical marijuana, the word "nullification" was brought up. Opponents of the proposition cited the supremacy clause as usual, claiming the state had no authority to violate federal marijuana laws. But millions of Californians voted to violate those laws anyway. And, when the Supreme Court ruled that state-level medical marijuana laws were illegal, the dispensaries didn't start closing up shop. By 2005, nine other states that had joined California in passing those medical marijuana laws. After the Supremes told the nine states that such laws were a no-no, how many of them were repealed? None, and since that time yet another five states have joined up. Think about it, there are now 15 states actively defying Congress and the Supreme Court on that one issue, and they’re getting away with it. That, more than anything else, is what nullification is all about… state action which results in ill considered federal laws being rendered unenforceable. The idea is popping up in legislatures all across the nation, as irate conservative citizens push their anti-spending, anti-imperial government agenda.
Let all your state and federal representatives know your opinion about these onerous laws they’ve been cramming down our throats, and remind them that if they’d like to keep their cushy jobs, they might want to remember that you do vote.
Nullification again
As I’ve previously commented, Nullification is the legal argument that the Sovereign States have the right to invalidate (nullify) any federal law which the state has deemed unconstitutional. This is based on the fact that that the sovereign states created the Union, after they formed the Continental Congress and fought (and won) a revolution, after they tried the unwieldy Articles of Confederation, and after they wrote and adopted the compact called the Constitution of the United States. As such, the separate states are the ultimate authority on deciding the limits of federal power. Nowhere in the Constitution do I find anything that says the states ever surrendered that authority! Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both authors of our Constitution, argued that the states are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution and can "interpose" to protect state citizens from the operation of unconstitutional national laws. Under this legal concept, the States and not the Federal Bench, are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the national Government's power. A somewhat more extreme step towards enforcing state sovereignty is the related action of secession, by which a state ends its affiliation with the Union.
In a unanimous 1958 ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that states were bound by the Constitution's Article VI, mandating that U.S. laws, when vetted by justices, "shall be the supreme law of the land." While I’m certainly not a legal authority, I seriously question the right of the Federal Bench to proclaim their authority over an inferred right of the soverign states! While the concept of nulification is a little used tool in our nations legal system, it has, over the last couple of centuries, been brought to the forefront in various legal arguments, most notably in 1828 by John C. Calhoun, then vice-President of the United States, in arguing against the tarriff bill of that year. Calhoun argued that the individual states had retained the right to veto any act of the federal government that violated the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison argued that if the federal government had the right to judge the extent of its powers it will continue to grow, regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other limits on government power. In an effort to retain their power, the Supreme Court rejected the idea of nullification, determining that state governments had no power to nullify federal law, either openly by state legislators, state executive, or judicial officers, nor can federal law be nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes.
We commonly speak of keeping our federal government strictly limited. To that end, the United States has a written Constitution which specifies the rather short list of those powers entrusted to the federal government. Additionally the Tenth Amendment makes it quite clear that any power not specifically granted to the federal government resides in the states, period, end of sentence. That is all well and good, but how do we restrain a government that is (following what seems to be a law of nature) always trying to expand its powers? The framers of the Constitution were well aware of the tendency for power to concentrate and expand, leaving Jefferson to often speak of the calamity that would result if all power were vested in the federal government.
The Constitution is a barrier to such tendencies, but no constitution can enforce itself. Checks and balances also provide little guarantee of limited government, since the three federal branches can simply unite against the independence of the separate states and the rights of the people, which is precisely what Jefferson warned was already happening in 1825: “[I]t is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic.”
Therefore we need a mechanism to keep the federal government limited and unconstitutional measures out of the law books, and that is the constitutional remedy known as nullification.
Examples of direct nullification attempts are rare, with one being the recent Virginia Health Care Freedom Act to prevent the federal government from requiring mandatory insurance coverage. In 2009, a state sovereignty resolution passed both chambers of the Tennessee legislature, and while relatively toothless, it was the first time such a resolution had been signed by a state governor. Since then, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, and Oklahoma have passed similar resolutions, and several other states are taking a long look at the possibility. I, like many others, have high hopes for nullification, but remember, its one thing to pass a symbolic resolution, but it’s going to be quite another to make it stick.
In a unanimous 1958 ruling, the Supreme Court wrote that states were bound by the Constitution's Article VI, mandating that U.S. laws, when vetted by justices, "shall be the supreme law of the land." While I’m certainly not a legal authority, I seriously question the right of the Federal Bench to proclaim their authority over an inferred right of the soverign states! While the concept of nulification is a little used tool in our nations legal system, it has, over the last couple of centuries, been brought to the forefront in various legal arguments, most notably in 1828 by John C. Calhoun, then vice-President of the United States, in arguing against the tarriff bill of that year. Calhoun argued that the individual states had retained the right to veto any act of the federal government that violated the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison argued that if the federal government had the right to judge the extent of its powers it will continue to grow, regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other limits on government power. In an effort to retain their power, the Supreme Court rejected the idea of nullification, determining that state governments had no power to nullify federal law, either openly by state legislators, state executive, or judicial officers, nor can federal law be nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes.
We commonly speak of keeping our federal government strictly limited. To that end, the United States has a written Constitution which specifies the rather short list of those powers entrusted to the federal government. Additionally the Tenth Amendment makes it quite clear that any power not specifically granted to the federal government resides in the states, period, end of sentence. That is all well and good, but how do we restrain a government that is (following what seems to be a law of nature) always trying to expand its powers? The framers of the Constitution were well aware of the tendency for power to concentrate and expand, leaving Jefferson to often speak of the calamity that would result if all power were vested in the federal government.
The Constitution is a barrier to such tendencies, but no constitution can enforce itself. Checks and balances also provide little guarantee of limited government, since the three federal branches can simply unite against the independence of the separate states and the rights of the people, which is precisely what Jefferson warned was already happening in 1825: “[I]t is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic.”
Therefore we need a mechanism to keep the federal government limited and unconstitutional measures out of the law books, and that is the constitutional remedy known as nullification.
Examples of direct nullification attempts are rare, with one being the recent Virginia Health Care Freedom Act to prevent the federal government from requiring mandatory insurance coverage. In 2009, a state sovereignty resolution passed both chambers of the Tennessee legislature, and while relatively toothless, it was the first time such a resolution had been signed by a state governor. Since then, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, and Oklahoma have passed similar resolutions, and several other states are taking a long look at the possibility. I, like many others, have high hopes for nullification, but remember, its one thing to pass a symbolic resolution, but it’s going to be quite another to make it stick.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
New Years Resolutions
Once again the calendar has rolled over, and we’re now beginning the year of our lord 2011. It’s dating me I guess, as I can remember having trouble remembering the date when 1950 rolled around. Where does the time go!? Among other things, it’s traditional for us to make New Years Resolutions, and then promptly break ‘em. (With that, I don’t even bother making resolutions anymore.) In some ways, the "hope," "change," and "yes we can" shenanigans of the ‘08 presidential election seem like yesterday, with “hope” having shifted to despair, “change” has become a disaster, and “yes we can” appears to be stalled somewhere between “no we can’t” and “Why bother”. Still, we’re only a few days into the New Year, and a new Congress will shortly be sitting in the puzzle palace on the hill. Might there be a few New Years Resolutions we can think of that our legislators should make, and hopefully remember to abide with?
It often seems like every political news article I read manages to get in the one liner “It’s the Economy Stupid!”, and yes, nearly all our current set of national problems stem from the unpleasant economic situation we face. The national debt has most of us quite concerned, as we realize that the bottomless well is rapidly going dry. According to CNS News, "The federal government has accumulated more new debt -- $3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29) -- during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined." (Huh… So much for Nancy Pelosi's promise of "no new deficit spending".) Rep. John Boehner, the new House Majority Leader, has promised to roll back spending to 2008 levels. I’ve got a better idea, let’s roll it back even further, like say to about 1960 or so levels… Rand Paul (R-Ky.) recently declared, "I think that every piece of major legislation that goes forward from now on needs to have attached to it spending cuts." That’s one of the best ideas I’ve seen recently, but I have serious doubts about its viability. Politicians at all levels seem to be of a mind that they should constantly raise taxes, so they’ll have more money to spend on “services”, and whenever someone mentions cutting back on those services, we promptly hear the lament “which school teacher do you want us to fire?” Well, at the local level many of those services are a necessity I suppose, but by the time we reach the federal level about all that’s a dire necessity is the military and probably the Post Office! I will strenuously suggest that congress cut spending (and borrowing), before they bankrupt the country, and I’ll bet that’s not a long way into the future either!
ObamaCare seems to be a real hot button subject with most folks, including me. The United States has about the best medical care available in the world… if you can afford it, which is giving a lot of people economic and political heartburn. ObamaCare does little more that present us with a European style, government controlled, socialized medicine program, and drag our showpiece medical system down to a third world level. Yes, the system needs an overhaul, or at least the economic side of it does, and I’d hazard a bet that the medical industry could do a much better job of straightening things out than could congress. It's time to completely cut the funding for ObamaCare right now, and get hot on a long-term commitment to repeal this bucket of worms. If it's not funded, it won't happen.
It's time to stop worrying about what may or may not make us popular around the world, and start doing what will promote our economic and national security. That means tackling the problems of Social Security and Medicare. According to a recent CNN poll, 40 percent of us have the most confidence in congressional Republicans on major issues facing the country today, compared to 35 percent who have more confidence in President Obama. A lone 15 percent have more confidence in the Democrats. So, to the members of the 112th Congress, we're counting on you to pull our national chestnuts out of the fire. Put an end to business as usual and wishy-washy “feel good” nonsense. Give us back our states rights and stop spending money we don't have. Cut the vague promises along with the empty rhetoric, and reject “compromise” that will only hasten the destruction of our country.
Remember Mr. Congressman, the Republic will be nothing more than a chapter in the history books if you fail… and your names will be in those history books as well… accused of leading that destruction.
It often seems like every political news article I read manages to get in the one liner “It’s the Economy Stupid!”, and yes, nearly all our current set of national problems stem from the unpleasant economic situation we face. The national debt has most of us quite concerned, as we realize that the bottomless well is rapidly going dry. According to CNS News, "The federal government has accumulated more new debt -- $3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29) -- during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined." (Huh… So much for Nancy Pelosi's promise of "no new deficit spending".) Rep. John Boehner, the new House Majority Leader, has promised to roll back spending to 2008 levels. I’ve got a better idea, let’s roll it back even further, like say to about 1960 or so levels… Rand Paul (R-Ky.) recently declared, "I think that every piece of major legislation that goes forward from now on needs to have attached to it spending cuts." That’s one of the best ideas I’ve seen recently, but I have serious doubts about its viability. Politicians at all levels seem to be of a mind that they should constantly raise taxes, so they’ll have more money to spend on “services”, and whenever someone mentions cutting back on those services, we promptly hear the lament “which school teacher do you want us to fire?” Well, at the local level many of those services are a necessity I suppose, but by the time we reach the federal level about all that’s a dire necessity is the military and probably the Post Office! I will strenuously suggest that congress cut spending (and borrowing), before they bankrupt the country, and I’ll bet that’s not a long way into the future either!
ObamaCare seems to be a real hot button subject with most folks, including me. The United States has about the best medical care available in the world… if you can afford it, which is giving a lot of people economic and political heartburn. ObamaCare does little more that present us with a European style, government controlled, socialized medicine program, and drag our showpiece medical system down to a third world level. Yes, the system needs an overhaul, or at least the economic side of it does, and I’d hazard a bet that the medical industry could do a much better job of straightening things out than could congress. It's time to completely cut the funding for ObamaCare right now, and get hot on a long-term commitment to repeal this bucket of worms. If it's not funded, it won't happen.
It's time to stop worrying about what may or may not make us popular around the world, and start doing what will promote our economic and national security. That means tackling the problems of Social Security and Medicare. According to a recent CNN poll, 40 percent of us have the most confidence in congressional Republicans on major issues facing the country today, compared to 35 percent who have more confidence in President Obama. A lone 15 percent have more confidence in the Democrats. So, to the members of the 112th Congress, we're counting on you to pull our national chestnuts out of the fire. Put an end to business as usual and wishy-washy “feel good” nonsense. Give us back our states rights and stop spending money we don't have. Cut the vague promises along with the empty rhetoric, and reject “compromise” that will only hasten the destruction of our country.
Remember Mr. Congressman, the Republic will be nothing more than a chapter in the history books if you fail… and your names will be in those history books as well… accused of leading that destruction.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Holidays
Do You Say “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas” as your seasons greeting? That was the subject of a recent impromptu poll on the internet. We’re all aware of the ‘politically correct’ push to remove religion from our lives, based on the common excuse that we wouldn’t want to offend anybody. Considering that the politically correctness “movement” seems to be gaining popularity in our increasingly progressive world, the poll results were interesting, and quite revealing as well. The response was:
Merry Christmas – 88.54% (148,369 votes)
Happy Holidays -- 1.81% (3,027 votes)
Season's Greetings -- 0.21% (346 votes)
Any or all of the above -- 7.57% (12,684 votes)
Undecided -- 1.07% (1,788 votes)
Other. 0.81% (1,352 votes)
So, of the hundred and sixty-seven thousand respondents, 88% say Merry Christmas, and 11% may or may not use some other term…
If we look back at our country of fifty or so years ago, we would see a much more conservative nation that knew its values, and knew where to draw the line. But nowadays it appears we’ve become so sensitive to almost everything that no one can walk even a few inches without stepping on somebody's tender toes. So, I’ll pose the question: Has political correctness gone TOO far? Or, if it hasn't, will it soon? Where do we draw the line between basic rights and unfair advantages? Or has the fog of political correctness twisted our national character into something that would make our forefathers weep? Nor is political correctness just a matter of terminology either, its tentacles reach into every aspect of our lives. Nowdays, if your son gets an F on a school test, he hasn’t failed, he gets a “passing grade” despite not having absorbed the required knowledge. We certainly can’t have his feelings hurt. (But he still failed.) If Humpty Dumpty falls off the wall, somehow we must put him back together again so little children will not be upset. I could go on but there’s really no point, and I may offend someone by doing so.
Political correctness = thought control. Its goal is to remove individualism and homogenize society into a one-size-fits-all world, to remake us all in a common image. The question here is, why are we letting it happen? Since when did the feelings and the supposed needs of the few offended outweigh that of the many? I, along with millions of other Americans, am totally fed-up with all the tip-toeing around, trying not to "offend" anyone's tender sensibilities. We are in America after all, a Christian nation founded on the Freedom of Religion. That means, or at least is supposed to mean, that I have the right to worship in whatever manner I see fit. Or I have the right to not worship if that strikes my fancy. I don’t mind if you choose not to celebrate Christmas, as that is your right. If you prefer a "holiday" tree and you choose not to display a nativity scene, be my guest. BUT… December 25th is Christmas .. and established as a Christian celebration for quite some years now. If anyone doesn’t wish to celebrate Christmas then simply don’t participate. But on December 25th… It’s my right to celebrate Christmas in my own manner, complete with nativity scene, and wishing everyone else a Merry Christmas! I'm a Christian so I always say Merry Christmas to others. I have no problem with others saying happy holidays their own way, BUT nobody should tell me that I can not say…
Ón teaghlach Fogarty, Nollaig Shona agus Athbhliain faoi Mhaise! (From the Fogarty household, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year) to each and every one of you.
Merry Christmas – 88.54% (148,369 votes)
Happy Holidays -- 1.81% (3,027 votes)
Season's Greetings -- 0.21% (346 votes)
Any or all of the above -- 7.57% (12,684 votes)
Undecided -- 1.07% (1,788 votes)
Other. 0.81% (1,352 votes)
So, of the hundred and sixty-seven thousand respondents, 88% say Merry Christmas, and 11% may or may not use some other term…
If we look back at our country of fifty or so years ago, we would see a much more conservative nation that knew its values, and knew where to draw the line. But nowadays it appears we’ve become so sensitive to almost everything that no one can walk even a few inches without stepping on somebody's tender toes. So, I’ll pose the question: Has political correctness gone TOO far? Or, if it hasn't, will it soon? Where do we draw the line between basic rights and unfair advantages? Or has the fog of political correctness twisted our national character into something that would make our forefathers weep? Nor is political correctness just a matter of terminology either, its tentacles reach into every aspect of our lives. Nowdays, if your son gets an F on a school test, he hasn’t failed, he gets a “passing grade” despite not having absorbed the required knowledge. We certainly can’t have his feelings hurt. (But he still failed.) If Humpty Dumpty falls off the wall, somehow we must put him back together again so little children will not be upset. I could go on but there’s really no point, and I may offend someone by doing so.
Political correctness = thought control. Its goal is to remove individualism and homogenize society into a one-size-fits-all world, to remake us all in a common image. The question here is, why are we letting it happen? Since when did the feelings and the supposed needs of the few offended outweigh that of the many? I, along with millions of other Americans, am totally fed-up with all the tip-toeing around, trying not to "offend" anyone's tender sensibilities. We are in America after all, a Christian nation founded on the Freedom of Religion. That means, or at least is supposed to mean, that I have the right to worship in whatever manner I see fit. Or I have the right to not worship if that strikes my fancy. I don’t mind if you choose not to celebrate Christmas, as that is your right. If you prefer a "holiday" tree and you choose not to display a nativity scene, be my guest. BUT… December 25th is Christmas .. and established as a Christian celebration for quite some years now. If anyone doesn’t wish to celebrate Christmas then simply don’t participate. But on December 25th… It’s my right to celebrate Christmas in my own manner, complete with nativity scene, and wishing everyone else a Merry Christmas! I'm a Christian so I always say Merry Christmas to others. I have no problem with others saying happy holidays their own way, BUT nobody should tell me that I can not say…
Ón teaghlach Fogarty, Nollaig Shona agus Athbhliain faoi Mhaise! (From the Fogarty household, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year) to each and every one of you.
Wolf Wars IV
The latest episode of the Wolf War is heating up in Boise, and locally as well. The state legislature is reportedly working on a “Nullification Resolution” that essentially tells the Feds to take their wolves and stuff it. Nullification is the legal theory that a state has the right to nullify (invalidate) any federal law which that state has deemed to be unconstitutional, and is based on the viewpoint that the Sovereign States formed the Union, and as such have the final authority regarding the power of the Federal government. With this, the states can, and must, refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws. Or at least so said Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and even Patrick Henry among others. I can see where this could become a long and drawn out legal process however. If it can be brought about, it does open the door to eventually dumping the entire endangered species act, and if we’re really lucky we can get rid of the EPA while we’re at it! But… I’m sure that the enviro’s will fight that tooth and nail, with every dollar and shyster lawyer they can drum up. A lot of folks will tell you that attempts at nullification have never been successful, but two dozen American states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005, and more than a dozen states have successfully defied the federal government over medical marijuana. Nullification initiatives of all kinds, involving ObamaCare legislation, Cap and Trade, and even Second Amendment issues, are popping up in several states including Idaho. We’ve tried just everything else that’s legal, and nothing seems to stop the relentless march of big government, so, we need the mechanism of defense that Jefferson left us, not just the odds and ends that doesn’t offend Katie Couric or the New York Times. (Which I think is even more proof that it’s a good idea.) But… it is a legal means to get something accomplished to control our wolf infestation… which will probably take several years… and I question if our wildlife or even domestic animal populations could survive that long!
On the local front, and of questionable legality, we have the proposal from “The Committee for a Safe and Wolf Free Idaho”, in that we just shoot the darn things and be done with ‘em. Personally I think that’s the best idea to come down the pike in many a year, but I have very serious doubts that we’d get away with it for long. Face it, such action would have the fairly small population of Idaho County (the possibility of Clearwater County joining in was mentioned) going head to head with the federal government. And the feds do have far greater resources that we do, which not only includes the Fish and Wildlife Service, but also the FBI, and if things got bad enough probably the US Army as well! Does anyone really believe that the feds would even hesitate to use every weapon in their arsenal against us “anti-government rednecks” if we were to seriously challenge their authority? I wouldn’t be too concerned about “Black Helicopters”, but we might see a few missile armed reconnaissance drones flying over the Nez Perce! ‘Course if everybody were to agree, we could become the modern version of Ft. Sumter I guess…
Rex Rammell, who unsuccessfully ran for governor last spring, is pushing a plan to take wolf management policy away from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and give it to the county. Rammell wants the county commission to pass an emergency ordinance giving Sheriff Doug Giddings authority to kill wolves. "The legal vehicle for removing wolves is an emergency ordinance. We already have an emergency declaration, now we need an emergency ordinance to give us the authority to actually start killing them," he said. "We think that is a legal avenue and trumps the Endangered Species Act because it's a county emergency." The Idaho Attorney General's office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have declined to comment on Rammell's idea (probably too busy sharpening their legal knives), while County Prosecutor Kirk MacGregor said he would give the commission his legal opinion on the matter if (when) asked. County Commission Chairman Skip Brandt said the commission can not pass an ordinance that will give a citizen the ability to go against federal or state law. “Any such action would be misleading to the folks we represent. Outside the 10J rule, if a citizen shoots a wolf, ordinance or not, the shooter is on their own with the federal legal system. The constitution is very clear that there are states’ rights but it doesn’t give county rights. The counties operate under the state, period.” Skip’s quite right I’m afraid, and I certainly don’t advocate anyone’s breaking the law, nor could I afford the long and gory court case were I to do so. (A hundred thousand dollar fine, and five years of making license plates in a federal slammer doesn’t sound like a real good way to spend my remaining years!) With the federal courts in their current shape I certainly couldn’t expect any more justice than the person caught shooting a wolf, and that’s “little to none”. I do ‘spect we’d all be guilty of conspiracy or something. However, if the State of Idaho were to get fed up with the status quo, and adopt Wyoming’s wolf management plan…
But for the moment, the wolf is at the door, and the region is beginning a new and ugly chapter in the reintroduction fight. We just might see a whole new round of civil disobedience where "shoot, shovel and shut-up" is no longer a local joke, but has become the battle cry. Well, I still have my ‘ol musket and a “bad attitude”…
On the local front, and of questionable legality, we have the proposal from “The Committee for a Safe and Wolf Free Idaho”, in that we just shoot the darn things and be done with ‘em. Personally I think that’s the best idea to come down the pike in many a year, but I have very serious doubts that we’d get away with it for long. Face it, such action would have the fairly small population of Idaho County (the possibility of Clearwater County joining in was mentioned) going head to head with the federal government. And the feds do have far greater resources that we do, which not only includes the Fish and Wildlife Service, but also the FBI, and if things got bad enough probably the US Army as well! Does anyone really believe that the feds would even hesitate to use every weapon in their arsenal against us “anti-government rednecks” if we were to seriously challenge their authority? I wouldn’t be too concerned about “Black Helicopters”, but we might see a few missile armed reconnaissance drones flying over the Nez Perce! ‘Course if everybody were to agree, we could become the modern version of Ft. Sumter I guess…
Rex Rammell, who unsuccessfully ran for governor last spring, is pushing a plan to take wolf management policy away from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and give it to the county. Rammell wants the county commission to pass an emergency ordinance giving Sheriff Doug Giddings authority to kill wolves. "The legal vehicle for removing wolves is an emergency ordinance. We already have an emergency declaration, now we need an emergency ordinance to give us the authority to actually start killing them," he said. "We think that is a legal avenue and trumps the Endangered Species Act because it's a county emergency." The Idaho Attorney General's office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have declined to comment on Rammell's idea (probably too busy sharpening their legal knives), while County Prosecutor Kirk MacGregor said he would give the commission his legal opinion on the matter if (when) asked. County Commission Chairman Skip Brandt said the commission can not pass an ordinance that will give a citizen the ability to go against federal or state law. “Any such action would be misleading to the folks we represent. Outside the 10J rule, if a citizen shoots a wolf, ordinance or not, the shooter is on their own with the federal legal system. The constitution is very clear that there are states’ rights but it doesn’t give county rights. The counties operate under the state, period.” Skip’s quite right I’m afraid, and I certainly don’t advocate anyone’s breaking the law, nor could I afford the long and gory court case were I to do so. (A hundred thousand dollar fine, and five years of making license plates in a federal slammer doesn’t sound like a real good way to spend my remaining years!) With the federal courts in their current shape I certainly couldn’t expect any more justice than the person caught shooting a wolf, and that’s “little to none”. I do ‘spect we’d all be guilty of conspiracy or something. However, if the State of Idaho were to get fed up with the status quo, and adopt Wyoming’s wolf management plan…
But for the moment, the wolf is at the door, and the region is beginning a new and ugly chapter in the reintroduction fight. We just might see a whole new round of civil disobedience where "shoot, shovel and shut-up" is no longer a local joke, but has become the battle cry. Well, I still have my ‘ol musket and a “bad attitude”…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)