|
|
Mark Young posted this in National News on April 4th, 2010
Recently the House and Senate passed a bill that would create a national “Ready Reserve” whose stated purpose is “to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel…” These Ready Reserve Corps will “participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps” and “be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies” (emphasis mine). It was signed into law by President Obama just the other day to much hype and media coverage.
What, you may ask? I’ve heard of no such thing! Yes you have, the bill was the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. Yep, the health care reform bill. Continue reading The new “Ready Reserve”
Recently Vice President Joe Biden gave an interview on Yahoo! Finance Tech Ticker with Aaron Task. Several things were discussed but there are a couple that I would like to address.
First the VP went on about how the average tax refund was up about $250 over last year and his statements made about the new taxes imposed by the health care reform bill. Continue reading Let’s be fair and do the “Right Thing”
Mark Young posted this in Constitution, National News on March 22nd, 2010
Now that the national health care reform bill has passed the House, and will go back to the Senate for final debate, there are several states that are lining up to file suit against the Federal government to stop it from becoming law. As a matter of fact Idaho and Virginia have already passed state laws that will, for all intents and purposes, nullify the new health care reform bill by declaring their citizens do *not* have to purchase health insurance.
The Florida, Texas and South Carolina Attorney’s General are already preparing suits against the Federal government stating that this bill is unconstitutional. As Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum said, “The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives … clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty,”. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster said, “The health care legislation Congress passed tonight is an assault against the Constitution of the United States. It contains various provisions and federal mandates that are clearly unconstitutional and must not be allowed to stand… A legal challenge by the States appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government.” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said, “To protect all Texans’ constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation’s founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation.” (emphasis mine)
Man, I’ve got to tell you, THIS IS SOME EXCITING STUFF! Continue reading States Rights part deux
Mark Young posted this in Constitution, National News on March 17th, 2010
Or put another way, what differentiates Legal Rights and Natural Rights?
Legal (also called Civil or Statutory) rights are rights conveyed, or granted, by a particular political body, like a State or one of it’s subordinate authorities like a county or city, written into law or other legal statutes by a local governance committee, like a legislature or city council. These rights, codified into law or statute by the polity, are usually, but not always, contingent upon local laws, customs and beliefs.
Natural (also called Moral or Unalienable) rights are the exact polar opposite. These rights are the individuals from birth, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “endowed by their Creator” and are not dependent upon any polity for their continuance or codification. These rights are not contingent upon any local customs or beliefs as they are, ultimately, the individuals rights alone and so are some of the few “unchanging truths”. As they are unalienable rights, they can not be bought, sold or transferred. It is, however, entirely up the the individual as to whether or not they exercise these rights. Having said that, even though the individual may choose not to exercise certain of these rights, he or she still retains the right until their death. Continue reading Civil Rights as opposed to Moral Rights
In the past couple of days much has been said about a couple of guns that were sold by the Memphis Police Department that ended up being used in a couple of very high profile crimes. One of the crimes happened on January 4th when a man used a shotgun to kill one officer and wound another at the Las Vegas federal courthouse and another was on March 4th when another person was involved in a shooting at the Pentagon. In each case the MPD followed strict protocols and sold the weapons to legal, federally licensed firearms dealers. Matter of fact one thing that is known is that the weapons were not sold to either of the persons involved in the shootings by any licensed firearms dealers, they were both purchased from private citizens who are not required to do background checks (as the media continually emphasizes). Continue reading It’s all about the guns!
Over the past year, or so, much press has been written about gun ownership since the Supreme Court’s Heller decision and now with the McDonald v. City of Chicago being argued in the Supreme Court, it seems that this obsession over the 2nd Amendment has taken over the opinion pages of most newspapers (at least in my “neck of the woods”) and especially in the “blogosphere”. Now I’m going to add my blog to that ever growing cascade of views and punditry.
Let me address the 2nd Amendment initially (as that’s what all the hoopla is all about). For one thing I guess I just don’t get all the confusion about this one sentence. Our Founders were intelligent men and could read and write perfectly good English. In a time when we tend to look “between the lines” when someone, and particularly politicians, says or writes something I guess it’s understandable that there could be some confusion about what this is saying.
A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Continue reading It’s not just about the 2nd Amendment!
|
