Archive

Archive for the ‘US Constitution’ Category

There They (SCOTUS) Go Again!

Today marks another bleak day in America in terms of the decisions coming out of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)! Now My assertion in this blog  has little to do with the out-come of the court’s completely partisan ruling, but it has more to do with the SCOTUS operating outside of the Constitutionally granted powers given to the SCOTUS. The power in question is the made up term “Judicial Review”!

I would be doing you all an injustice if were to leave the impression that I agree with the decision of SCOTUS today because I DO NOT  AGREE WITH THIS DECISION!! I assert without the slightest ambiguity that the case before the court today should not have been heard at any judicial level. The case of Burewell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. does not warrant a case in court seeing that is attempting to conflate the religious views of the David Green family with the business practices of a for-profit corporation (Hobby Lobby).

The twist of logic of this conflation will be covered in another blog later. But just to be clear, corporations are a separate and distinct legal entity from its owners and a corporation’s primary legal purpose is to separate the owners from the institution making them exempt from financial and legal liabilities. In other words a corporation can make a product that kills you and you are only allowed to get financial restitution from said corporation, but owners are free of all liabilities even if they knew it would kill you. And thus, how do you anyone justify the idea that a corporation has the religious views of the owner, but the owner does not inherit anything from the corporations? It is a one-sided highway that leads to nowhere!

I digress, back to the topic of judicial review! Judicial Review was first coined back in 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison. In the case of Marbury v. Madison the SCOTUS declared, for the first time in American history, that the SCOTUS has the  ability to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional. This is a power that is not declared by the Constitution, was never utilized until this case, and in my opinion was pulled out of the backside of the Chief Justice John Marshall court. Read more…

Advertisements

Uber-Second Amendment Clarification: Argument One/Two/Three!

2ndA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Is the Second Amendment hard to understand? Can those who support unregulated gun rights and/or an armed citizenry for the purpose of fighting the United States government be right that the Founding Fathers feared the possibility that this American government (the government in which they created with checks and balances) would become tyrannical and the only way to preserve freedom from our government is to have an armed citizenry?

Can those that want gun regulations be correct in stating that it was a means to establish a militia approach to the need for defense of the US instead of a peacetime army? Let’s take a peak at this to get an understanding or not! Can they both be wrong in their assertions? Can the true history of the arguments that lead to the writing of the Second Amendment be found?

Americans and pundits have been twisting themselves into pretzels in order to pull their pre-determined definition out of the Second Amendment text. There are a myriad of sites that will purport that this well-crafted amendment clearly states that Americans should have unfettered rights to gun ownership; and they would be wrong. The syntax itself clearly establishes a condition to this particular amendment and the rights it grants. With this assertion, what are arguments for or against unfettered gun rights?

The Second Amendment, of the Bill of Rights, is indeed a well-crafted sentence. By that, I mean its syntax permits only one reasonable interpretation of the authors’ meaning “In order to establish a well regulated militia, for the defense and security of a free state, the rights to of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed”. The meaning is clear when a sensible person reads the Second Amendment on its face and even more clarity is obtained via a reading of the arguments behind its adoption. A look at the arguments of those that support the idea that the Second Amendment is about an unfettered personal  right to own and bear arms is in order to point out the fallacy within. Read more…

American Debt and Who got Us Here!

Prior to 1980 America had never reached a debt of one Trillion dollars, but with the election of  Ronald Reagan we passed that mark and then some.  When Ronald Reagan took office our national debt was a mere 900 billion dollars; give or take a few hundred million dollars. Reagan ushered in the theory called “Reaganomics” which would be later referred to as “Trickle Down Economics” (see; http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SupplySideEconomics.html) but by either name it set in motion an approach to monetary policies that would devastate America, but I digress.

Reagan’s presidency ushered in Reaganomics which was an approach that relied on 3 key policy/fiscal foundations; tax cuts which reduced the operational capital of government, deregulation which opened up corporate welfare and corruption, and the role of government to that of noninterference (which is how Republicons referred to government protections from corporations and money’ed interests). America believed that Reaganomics would increase investments by the wealthy in the job market and in turn would stimulate prosperity for all. I refer to this as “trickle on economics” but again I digress. Reagan would  go on to deregulate savings and loans markets; he reduced taxes, increased military spending which directly led the stock market crash in 1987. The start of deregulation of banking and investment markets by Reagan,  and the administrations that would continue this approach, would come to roost later in American history but I will cove that later. This approach would take  the debt from 930 billion to 2.6 trillion in a mere 8 years or $10,058.90 per capita for a population of 258,709,873. I would again note that this had not happened since the start of America until Reagan’s presidency. The Reagan administration increased debt by roughly 2 trillion over an 8 year period which is an increase of 189% of the debt he inherent-ed; just WOW!

Reagan set the table for economic policies that would be adopted in large parts and small from this point forward. Bush Sr. (Reagan’s vice-president) would be elected in 1989 and continue the “trickle down economic policies of Reagan and would fare no better than his predecessor  Bush Sr. would lead the country to an economic collapse and end his one term presidency with the nation in debt for a staggering 4 trillion dollars or $4,064,620,655,521.66 to be exact. This result was in spite of him raising taxes in 1992 in order to curtail the disastrous fiscal policies he continued from Reagan. You would think that Bush would have learned from Reagan’s fiscal FAIL, but Republicons (I refuse to call them “conservatives”; there is nothing conservative about them) did not learn and America was fooled by slogans and propaganda that still exists today; and again I digress. I think that you are starting to see that I digress a lot, but what can I say I have a lot of un-expressed political history in my head. So now we are at the 4 Trillion debt mark. The Bush Sr. administration increased debt by roughly 2 trillion over an 4 year period. Supply Side Economics and Republicon governance quadrupled the national debt to over $4 trillion in twelve years (1980-1992) and they call themselves “conservatives”! Bush Sr’s administration governed over an increase of the U.S. debt of what would equal an 55% increase in just one term; I dare to speculate that with another term he would have nearly equaled Reagan’s debt disaster! That’s right I said it.

Read more…

Taking a real look at the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Second Amendment

The right to bear arms?

As passed by the Congress: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State.

When looking at the Second Amendment, in its totality, one can get only one understanding from it; that is if one has an understanding of constitutional history. It has essentially has two parts that make up its whole. I find it amazing that most people, especially those I call the “gun-stupid”, only choose to read and adopt the second part of the Second Amendment. Its intent is utterly clear when one reads the entirety of the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are the written text explaining the arguments for and against the constitution thereby seeking to persuade the states to ratify the Constitution. See; http://tinyw.in/y3IV. The contention that surrounded the Second Amendment was not based on an argument over the rights of people to have arms; it had/has its roots in a disagreement over whether or not this nation would have a standing army or not.

Based on my interpretation of the Second Amendment and the Federalist Papers (29), I get the following meaning from it “In order to have a well regulated militia in the defense of the United States (or states at that time) the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.  Now this understanding of the 2nd Amendment is a far cry from what the gun-stupid would argue today. If you really want to get a better understanding of what the Founding Fathers meant you will really have to read the Federalist papers, but if you just want a quick rundown here it goes.

The Founding Fathers argued heavily about the whether America should establish of an army during times of peace and at the end of their debate it was settled, that America would not have a standing army during times of peace. This decision would remain as policy until the early 20th century when Congress broke from the original intent of the Founding Fathers and established a standing army. The original Constitution allowed for a standing army for a period of TWO years (which is why today, military appropriations happen every two years; it is a means to circumvent the Constitution) and that was how it was until the early 20th century. It has long been established that the Fathers feared a standing army. They were well versed historians which had seen that countries with standing armies were often times over-thrown by its military, which soon oppressed its people. This has happened  time and time again throughout history, and thus the Founders agreed that America would not have a standing army. Of course this approach to the military would not last, but this was the agreement at the time. Read more…

%d bloggers like this: