Mr. Chairman, Committee members,
Today you are going to hear a lot about the foundation of our country, the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and their Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, as well as the proper role of the states in a republic. I will spare you the redundancy in advance, but I ask you to listen closely as each of these people speak. Listen and swell with pride or shrink in fear, for what you are about to hear represents the awakening of America; the people of this state are no longer silent nor ignorant to the Constitution, and it is your sworn role and duty to uphold it.
Today, it is also likely you will hear from some self proclaimed experts on the Constitution. They will site obscure case law, and court opinions rather than the very plainly worded Constitution. They will do this because they know you have neither the time nor perhaps the expertise to dig up the relevance of their claims amongst the millions of pages and billions of words, of “legal precedence” handed down by judges most likely appointed by a politician. I remind you that opinion does not equate to Law and does not supersede the Constitution. However, if opinion did carry weight, I would put my money on the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Able Upshur, over those opinions of the Idaho Attorney General’s office, Barrack Obama or a self endowed Constitutional expert.
Today, we consider the nullification of Obamacare, so that the state may be spared the implementation cost of over 228 million dollars we just do not have. Further, the people of this state are overwhelmingly at disfavor with the eventuality of being forced to buy into an insurance pool of socialized medicine. A pool where there money could go to provide abortions, hormone treatment to the transgendered and who knows what else, the administrative authority, (who have great leash in Obamacare) might dream up. The people will be forced to buy into this plan, rather than being free to buy food for their kids, send their kids to non-government schools, give to the needy, or whatever they need or want. The bottom line is the concept of Liberty is that man is not owned by the state; Obamacare kills Liberty by claiming your property; which is a byproduct of your life.
Furthermore, the damage to the state is understated in the 228 million dollars. The compliance costs to business will be huge, as if things are not bad enough as it is with the IRS, State Tax commission, the County revenuers, OSHA, the DOT, DEQ, EPA, and so on. Business is buried in red tape with huge costs of compliance, which inevitably end up in the cost of goods, but in the end do not equate to a higher GDP; it is effort and capital expense with nothing produced.
For these reasons, every member of the Idaho house and senate should do everything within their power to eliminate Obamacare. We the people of Idaho would expect you to take even the wildest chances to do so. However, Jeffersonian Nullification is not a wild chance, it is the rightful remedy to unconstitutional law. If you do not stand and pass H117 on to the full senate with a DO PASS recommendation, you are effectively killing a Republic, in which the representatives are not the rulers of the people but rather the keepers of the law. But instead and installing a representative oligarchy, which is arbitrary law and Liberty is vulnerable to the whim of the elected. If you pass this on with a do pass recommendation, you may someday tell your grandchildren how you saved America. If you don’t you will surely feel shame. The gravity of this day is great.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
"Hang Ten" Obama Respects Nullification
In a startling turn of events today, the Obama Administration has chosen not to defend the Constitutionality of the Federal, “Defense of Marriage Act” (1996). While this might be somewhat unsettling to the morals of many, there is certainly a silver lining to this storm cloud from Washington.
Several states have recently passed either blatant “Gay Marriage” laws or Civil Union Laws, including President Obama’s claimed home state of Hawaii. These states (including The District of Columbia) have done so in direct defiance of the 1996 Federal Law which was overwhelmingly passed, 342-67 and 85-14, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. This outright resistance to Federal Law, by these states, baffles most people who were educated in government schools. We were told the Federal Government is the supreme authority and the states are little more than administrative districts. That line of thought however is not based in logic nor does it have historical standing. One concept that is poorly taught in government schools is that the United States are States; we are not the United Administrative Districts of Columbia. When our Union was re-founded under the Constitution, terms and conditions of the Union were set and clearly described in the Constitution. The several States, which were (and are) as sovereign as France and Spain, came together and created a mutually beneficial general government, wherein they ceded certain and specific powers to that general government, which were clearly defined in the Constitution and the first ten amendments; The Bill of Rights. It was very clear from the beginning of the union that the States had no intention to cede all their powers, since the people in each state were different; they had different ideas on governance and different state religions. They had no intentions of allowing the new government the authority to meddle in social matters. The States were so adamant about this fact that they demanded the Tenth Amendment which states-
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, if it is not written it is not said (the first rule of contract) and the States keep all the powers not mentioned; this goes for the administration of marriage.
Based upon the obvious nature of our Constitution, it should be clear that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is an act outside the powers assigned to the general government in the Constitution; it is unconstitutional. Furthermore, states like Hawaii who ignored the federal law, and made their own Civil Union law, in blatant rebellion to the Federal Government, are fully within their rights as a state to do so. I know that statement is going to ruffle a few feathers on moral lines, and I am certainly not endorsing gay marriage (I don’t think the government has any business in the marriage business but that is a different matter). The principle of the matter is what is important here, who has the right to make a law on marriage? If the Tenth Amendment stands true, it is the “…States or the people.”
The silver lining within this turn of events; States rights are alive and well! Hawaii nullified federal law by passing one of their own, obtuse to DMA-1996. Although Hawaii did not follow the exact Jeffersonian principles described clearly in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the outcomes are the same; the states interposed lawfully. Furthermore, with the Obama administration’s cease order, in regards to enforcement of the gay marriage laws, the principle of nullification in the modern day is strengthened (perhaps by accident). Although the modern precedence is kind of neat, the “Principles of ’98,” stand on their own as their Constitutional orthodoxy is as firmly moored to the history of our country as the men that wrote them; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Father of the Constitution. Today “Hang Ten” has a new meaning to me; the Tenth Amendment is Alive and well. I look forward to the day when the Federal government gives up hopes of defending the very unconstitutional Obamacare.
Several states have recently passed either blatant “Gay Marriage” laws or Civil Union Laws, including President Obama’s claimed home state of Hawaii. These states (including The District of Columbia) have done so in direct defiance of the 1996 Federal Law which was overwhelmingly passed, 342-67 and 85-14, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. This outright resistance to Federal Law, by these states, baffles most people who were educated in government schools. We were told the Federal Government is the supreme authority and the states are little more than administrative districts. That line of thought however is not based in logic nor does it have historical standing. One concept that is poorly taught in government schools is that the United States are States; we are not the United Administrative Districts of Columbia. When our Union was re-founded under the Constitution, terms and conditions of the Union were set and clearly described in the Constitution. The several States, which were (and are) as sovereign as France and Spain, came together and created a mutually beneficial general government, wherein they ceded certain and specific powers to that general government, which were clearly defined in the Constitution and the first ten amendments; The Bill of Rights. It was very clear from the beginning of the union that the States had no intention to cede all their powers, since the people in each state were different; they had different ideas on governance and different state religions. They had no intentions of allowing the new government the authority to meddle in social matters. The States were so adamant about this fact that they demanded the Tenth Amendment which states-
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, if it is not written it is not said (the first rule of contract) and the States keep all the powers not mentioned; this goes for the administration of marriage.
Based upon the obvious nature of our Constitution, it should be clear that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is an act outside the powers assigned to the general government in the Constitution; it is unconstitutional. Furthermore, states like Hawaii who ignored the federal law, and made their own Civil Union law, in blatant rebellion to the Federal Government, are fully within their rights as a state to do so. I know that statement is going to ruffle a few feathers on moral lines, and I am certainly not endorsing gay marriage (I don’t think the government has any business in the marriage business but that is a different matter). The principle of the matter is what is important here, who has the right to make a law on marriage? If the Tenth Amendment stands true, it is the “…States or the people.”
The silver lining within this turn of events; States rights are alive and well! Hawaii nullified federal law by passing one of their own, obtuse to DMA-1996. Although Hawaii did not follow the exact Jeffersonian principles described clearly in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the outcomes are the same; the states interposed lawfully. Furthermore, with the Obama administration’s cease order, in regards to enforcement of the gay marriage laws, the principle of nullification in the modern day is strengthened (perhaps by accident). Although the modern precedence is kind of neat, the “Principles of ’98,” stand on their own as their Constitutional orthodoxy is as firmly moored to the history of our country as the men that wrote them; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Father of the Constitution. Today “Hang Ten” has a new meaning to me; the Tenth Amendment is Alive and well. I look forward to the day when the Federal government gives up hopes of defending the very unconstitutional Obamacare.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
My Testimony FOR HB-117 (Obamacare Nullification)
Mr. Speaker, committee members.
The Constitution of the United States is a document that outlines the function of the Federal government and assigns specific powers to that government. The branches, are specifically limited in jurisdiction to these enumerated powers. The Tenth Amendment further amplifies the limitations of the Federal government when it says,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This Amendment is often referred to as the, “States Rights Amendment”, it is much more than that; it is also the peoples rights Amendment. The phrase “or to the people,” must not be ignored!
When a law is made by the Federal government, in an area that is in conflict with the Constitution or in an area where Constitution is silent, the states must not remain silent. So often are they silent, a term was spawned to describe it; “Implied consent.” Implied consent is often a result of, implied or specific threats, by the Federal Government. However, even if a state is silent there is still the matter of “the people”, and their right to “The powers not delegated”. In this case if Idaho does not nullify this law and chooses to remain silent, according to the Tenth, “the people” can grasp the power. Alas this Constitutional power of the people is unlikely to stand in the face of the most powerful National government in the history of mankind; the US government. Alone a person acting in full accordance with The Constitution may be forced to conform.
Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolution, “The states are duty bound to resist.” However, I would say the states are duty bound not to remain silent. The state of Idaho must either nullify this law or formally accept it, for silence serves only to place the people, that may act fully within their rights, according to the Tenth Amendment, in harms way.
Walt Holton
The Constitution of the United States is a document that outlines the function of the Federal government and assigns specific powers to that government. The branches, are specifically limited in jurisdiction to these enumerated powers. The Tenth Amendment further amplifies the limitations of the Federal government when it says,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This Amendment is often referred to as the, “States Rights Amendment”, it is much more than that; it is also the peoples rights Amendment. The phrase “or to the people,” must not be ignored!
When a law is made by the Federal government, in an area that is in conflict with the Constitution or in an area where Constitution is silent, the states must not remain silent. So often are they silent, a term was spawned to describe it; “Implied consent.” Implied consent is often a result of, implied or specific threats, by the Federal Government. However, even if a state is silent there is still the matter of “the people”, and their right to “The powers not delegated”. In this case if Idaho does not nullify this law and chooses to remain silent, according to the Tenth, “the people” can grasp the power. Alas this Constitutional power of the people is unlikely to stand in the face of the most powerful National government in the history of mankind; the US government. Alone a person acting in full accordance with The Constitution may be forced to conform.
Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolution, “The states are duty bound to resist.” However, I would say the states are duty bound not to remain silent. The state of Idaho must either nullify this law or formally accept it, for silence serves only to place the people, that may act fully within their rights, according to the Tenth Amendment, in harms way.
Walt Holton
Monday, October 4, 2010
Idaho Nullification Resolution
It is regretful, and too often at the expense of the Blessings of Liberty, the States fail to rightfully act and throw off laws and judicial rulings handed down by the National government; those laws and rulings which clearly lie outside the boundaries of the General Government described in The Constitution of the United States of America. Such inaction by the States and People may find its genesis in many accounts; be they unfamiliarity with the specific meaning of The Constitution in full orthodoxy; be they desirous of the temporary general felicity, inaction brings the perception thereof; be they fear of unconstitutional economic sanction by the General government; or be they agents of Nationalism which The Constitution of the United States of America specifically and purposefully rejects. Regardless the purpose, the very Liberty of the People, for which its securing was the specific purpose of the Constitution, is the casualty either by gradual erosion or sweeping claims of undue power over the People or the States by the General Government.
It is pure folly for one to think the perpetual union of the States and the fate of our Republic, as built by our founders should be entrusted to one man or a mere nine, knowing the corruptibility and the lust for power men are known to have. Would it be part of our Founders design to leave the Supreme Law, The Constitution, vulnerable to reinterpretation and revision by a few men posing as sages or the papacy of the Law? Indeed such assumed power to smelt and re-forge the law to suit the desires of a group, is the death of a Republic and the birth of an Oligarchy. For in a Republic, government is the keeper and enforcer of The Law. The Law is King, not the men within government, nor the ballot box. Would it be logical for one to think that a man or men may be so desirous of power that they sponsor confusion on the Law, with the truth of the original intent of the law so distorted that they declare for themselves, (perhaps with the endorsement of others) the Sage of the Law, thereby holding all the real power? The answer seems obvious, as we view the account of history. Concentrated supreme power in men ends in tyranny.
It is with sincere desire to preserve the Republic and the perpetual Union of the States; we do claim our Lawful, Righteous and reasonable rights as a state.
RESOLVED- We the Legislature of the State of Idaho, shall demand all pertinent claims of National supremacy in law, shall be derived from The Constitution of the United States of America interpreted by the most orthodox means only. These orthodox means shall include The Declaration of Independence (provides the Spirit of the Law and an outline of what conditions existed to warrant a revolution), The Constitution, viewed through the Preamble (its executive summary and mission statement), the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers (the argument for and against provisions within the Constitution, with clarity), and period dictionaries (to provide the meaning of the words in the day they were written).
Case law and prior rulings by perhaps corruptible men of the courts shall carry no weight, unless the ruling is based upon full orthodoxy as described above.
RESOLVED- In the case of the Idaho Fire Arms Freedom Act, and the recent ruling against it in a Federal court by Judge Malloy, on the grounds of Federal Supremacy through the “Commerce Clause”, we do hereby claim his ruling, and any higher court ruling with the same justification, NULLIFIED based upon the improper usage of this clause. Additionally, the State of Idaho will only cede power to the National government under the “Commerce Clause”, when the National Government uses the law as it was intended, which was “to make regular” (period definition of the word regulate) “the commerce between the several states...” Any assumed power by the National government under the misinterpretation of this clause, will only be honored at the pleasure of the State. Furthermore, to strengthen our claim of specific NULLIFICATION against Judge Malloy’s ruling and any other higher court ruling in regards to the Idaho Fire Arms Freedom Act, it is worthy of note that the contradictory Federal laws are specifically and blatantly an usurpation of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is inexcusable that the Second Amendment, which is so strongly worded and clearly focused on firearms, can be overruled by a completely unrelated clause that has been intentionally misused for political gain. For such illogic to stand as the rule of law, regardless of the Highness of the judge, is suicide for the Republic and would constitute malpractice of the legislature.
It is pure folly for one to think the perpetual union of the States and the fate of our Republic, as built by our founders should be entrusted to one man or a mere nine, knowing the corruptibility and the lust for power men are known to have. Would it be part of our Founders design to leave the Supreme Law, The Constitution, vulnerable to reinterpretation and revision by a few men posing as sages or the papacy of the Law? Indeed such assumed power to smelt and re-forge the law to suit the desires of a group, is the death of a Republic and the birth of an Oligarchy. For in a Republic, government is the keeper and enforcer of The Law. The Law is King, not the men within government, nor the ballot box. Would it be logical for one to think that a man or men may be so desirous of power that they sponsor confusion on the Law, with the truth of the original intent of the law so distorted that they declare for themselves, (perhaps with the endorsement of others) the Sage of the Law, thereby holding all the real power? The answer seems obvious, as we view the account of history. Concentrated supreme power in men ends in tyranny.
It is with sincere desire to preserve the Republic and the perpetual Union of the States; we do claim our Lawful, Righteous and reasonable rights as a state.
RESOLVED- We the Legislature of the State of Idaho, shall demand all pertinent claims of National supremacy in law, shall be derived from The Constitution of the United States of America interpreted by the most orthodox means only. These orthodox means shall include The Declaration of Independence (provides the Spirit of the Law and an outline of what conditions existed to warrant a revolution), The Constitution, viewed through the Preamble (its executive summary and mission statement), the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers (the argument for and against provisions within the Constitution, with clarity), and period dictionaries (to provide the meaning of the words in the day they were written).
Case law and prior rulings by perhaps corruptible men of the courts shall carry no weight, unless the ruling is based upon full orthodoxy as described above.
RESOLVED- In the case of the Idaho Fire Arms Freedom Act, and the recent ruling against it in a Federal court by Judge Malloy, on the grounds of Federal Supremacy through the “Commerce Clause”, we do hereby claim his ruling, and any higher court ruling with the same justification, NULLIFIED based upon the improper usage of this clause. Additionally, the State of Idaho will only cede power to the National government under the “Commerce Clause”, when the National Government uses the law as it was intended, which was “to make regular” (period definition of the word regulate) “the commerce between the several states...” Any assumed power by the National government under the misinterpretation of this clause, will only be honored at the pleasure of the State. Furthermore, to strengthen our claim of specific NULLIFICATION against Judge Malloy’s ruling and any other higher court ruling in regards to the Idaho Fire Arms Freedom Act, it is worthy of note that the contradictory Federal laws are specifically and blatantly an usurpation of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is inexcusable that the Second Amendment, which is so strongly worded and clearly focused on firearms, can be overruled by a completely unrelated clause that has been intentionally misused for political gain. For such illogic to stand as the rule of law, regardless of the Highness of the judge, is suicide for the Republic and would constitute malpractice of the legislature.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Choice in Education
Purpose-
The restoration of a parental sovereignty, so that they may direct the education of their child, without monetary penalty or political prejudice.
This can be partially accomplished by returning the fullness of choice in education to all parents and children. As it currently stands in the State of Idaho, parents can choose to home school or they can send their children to a private or charter school. However, opting out of the State sponsored education system currently brings with it a huge financial penalty in tuitions and additional fees. Accordingly, only the children of the more wealthy families or families that choose to sacrifice other personal luxury have the ability to teach their children at home or attend institutions that offer a higher level of educational opportunities or better suits the needs of the child (as determined by the person who can best judge a child individually; the parent). This class prejudice certainly limits the educational opportunities of lower income households, single parents and minorities to name a few. This apparent imbalance can be remedied two ways.
The Statist solution- Outlaw private schools, charter schools and home schooling. This solution would demand an equal opportunity to mediocrity. Obviously this would guarantee an equal state sponsored means of education but not guarantee an equal ends or outcome. This solution, although “fair” is not in line with the principals of freedom, upon which our nation or state was founded.
The second option (the favorable option) would be to allow each parent the discretion to spend the education dollars allocated for their child in the way they think best suits the needs of the child individually. This method would ensure each parent and child an equal footing on their quest of education and ultimately their “Pursuit of Happiness.”
Proposal outline
Funding- The source of the funding for education for the time being shall remain as it is; a disproportionate levy from the citizens placed into the fund for the collective, and sales of state owned natural resources, such as timber. Additional funding is received from the National Government. The Constitutionality and efficiency of National funding are not addressed in this proposal.
Distribution- Each parent (if they choose to exercise the their Liberty) will receive a check or automatic deposit in account (in the amount of the state median education allocation for the child at appropriate grade level), bimonthly to use as a medium of exchange that the parent may use to fulfill the State’s stated educational objective standards for a student of the appropriate grade level, either solely (claimed as regular income in the case of a home school parent) or by sub-contract (Private School). The State’s only concern is that of, “Investment=Objective.” If a parent or private school (in cooperation with the student) perform in an efficient enough manor to achieve the standard educational objective in less hours or days than customary, the State remains dis-interested in the students/private institutions use of the “surplus time.”
Qualifications- (home school) Each parent that actively participates in home schooling and receives state dollars, must have a minimum GED qualification, and may only teach their child, natural or legally adopted. Parents may join in groups and teach in groups, with minimum requirements but one parent without teaching credentials may not teach groups of kids without the other parents present. Each parent must yield to random drug testing; positive test will result in discontinuation of funding.
Qualifications (private school) - All core curriculums must be taught by a properly documented teacher; no such requirements are considered on non-core classes or electives. Since the state is paying the parents directly rather than the state all classes, religious or otherwise are exempt from state oversight. Each teacher must yield to a background check and random drug testing.
Standardized testing-Each child must take a standardized test at the beginning and end of each school year, as a means to judge performance and as a comparison to other children of equal age and grade level. Comparative performance evaluation will determine individually, the continued funding each child’s non-state education (performance based). Private schools performance evaluation will be judged on the same scale as public schools and any probationary action will not exceed that of a public school. Home school parents that do not receive funding are not bound to this arrangement.
Diploma- The State will issue a standardized diploma to all students that complete the required objective curriculum, without implied discrimination or special document designation such as GED.
The Case for Choice
Anytime money is taken from the public whether proportionately or disproportional their must be a purpose for the seizure of the funds. We have taken for granted that education is a worthy cause, however the word education itself is subjective to the point of being liquid. What I mean by liquid is that whoever is in charge of the administration of education can determine what is of value, and what is not, based upon their individual values; money flows like liquid to serve their wants. What we are in dire need of is an objective, Objective. We must define what education is exactly, in order to “justify” the seizure of money from those who would otherwise be free to give or spend what they have earned in other ways that perhaps meet their values more closely. An objective is essential in any governmental affair whether it be war or education…what does victory look like? Of course each state has the right to design its objective; either minimalist or extravagant. Whatever the objective is it must not have vague statements like “instill values” and “social preparation” for those objectives are ones of the family and not the state.
Benefits of Education Choice
Monetary- It is proven in every case, the free market drives innovation progression and reduces costs; traits governmental monopolies invert as proven. As better methods are discovered and as the wheat is separated from the chaff only the best and most efficient will be teaching.
Economic- With many parents of elementary students choosing to stay home and educate their kids, many jobs would open up, driving the unemployment rate down and likely wages up (shortage of supply means prices go up). Additionally this wide spread distribution of earned money will move through the economy unfettered by governmental and union cronyism. Choice in education means jobs.
Family Values- It is quite normal in this day and age for both parents to work, leaving only a few hours of interaction in the evenings. This has broken the family apart. Many working moms bring home a mere pittance after the cost of child care and transportation is accounted for. With an allowance of $7000 per child a mother of three might just stay home to teach her own kids for a few years; years that will never come again.
Less legal drugs (ADD) - Almost everyone agrees Ritalin if the most over prescribed drug in the world. It is often prescribed as an alternative to discipline, to control an unruly child (mostly boys).
Less Illegal drugs – Children are largely a blank slate. Humans in general have very few natural instincts; therefore there behavior is determined by observing the behavior and interaction of other humans. One instinct humans have however is the desire to love and be loved. An assumed prerequisite to love is acceptance, therefore children crave the acceptance of other children, but they must learn how to be accepted. Children gain the understanding of how to be accepted from their parents their peers and popular culture. This is where quantity of impression often over rides the quality of advice. In other words inexperienced kids learn more from other inexperienced kids and popular culture, then they do from the wisdom of their parents; they spend so much more time observing the former than the latter. Behavior is developed by monkey see monkey do. Drug use alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, bullying are all unquestionably detrimental to the physical and psychological well being of a child, and not a result of parental advice. The monopoly of state controlled education forces, particularly the lower class children into this self perpetuating sociological disaster.
Reduce “hard” curriculum- Hard or physical curriculum such as text books are expensive to produce and become quickly out dated. Alternative education, free of state mandates may use online curriculum to achieve the educational objectives.
Reduce Capital expenses and maintenance- Public schools have massive overhead. Buildings, maintenance, lighting, heating cooling, busses, other vehicles, insurance of all kinds, are just a few examples. Any government program once inception takes upon a life of its own. Almost human, it has two desires, protection and growth. Naturally the larger it grows the less manageable it becomes. Lacking competition it casts off the shackles of accountability in times of plenty and expands far beyond the ability to maintain itself in times of shortage. The free market manages growth decisions by forecasting, perhaps influencing, human choice, and reacting to human action.
Improve the outcome- Free market education consistently and significantly out performs its public counterpart. In this case the ends should mandate the means.
More educated parents- Home school parent particularly find great value and enrichment while preparing a lesson plan or teaching a child. Both parent and child win in this arrangement.
Population Growth (the right kind) – Any legislation effects economic growth positively or negatively; but all growth is not good. For instance, several states are in the process of using their legal prerogative to nullify unconstitutional federal drug laws, by legalizing marijuana. This will have two effects: people who want to use marijuana without threat of legal action will move in and those who do not wish to live in a “high society” will move out. Perhaps the exchange in numerical population will be equal but will the economic effect be equal? Will the net production of the state be improved by this exchange? Logic gives us an answer that will most certainly be disputed by the “social engineers”; I’ll choose logic. Likewise will the Choice in Education option affect the demographics of our state. As I have experienced over the years, the quality of schools is one of the top factors when a person makes a real estate buying decision. In turn I believe, the freedom for a parent to choose the environment and ultimately influence the destiny of their child will also play a strong role when deciding which state to call home. One who makes a decision with these factors in mind and opts for freedom, is more likely to bring with them an industrious nature and moral convictions.
The restoration of a parental sovereignty, so that they may direct the education of their child, without monetary penalty or political prejudice.
This can be partially accomplished by returning the fullness of choice in education to all parents and children. As it currently stands in the State of Idaho, parents can choose to home school or they can send their children to a private or charter school. However, opting out of the State sponsored education system currently brings with it a huge financial penalty in tuitions and additional fees. Accordingly, only the children of the more wealthy families or families that choose to sacrifice other personal luxury have the ability to teach their children at home or attend institutions that offer a higher level of educational opportunities or better suits the needs of the child (as determined by the person who can best judge a child individually; the parent). This class prejudice certainly limits the educational opportunities of lower income households, single parents and minorities to name a few. This apparent imbalance can be remedied two ways.
The Statist solution- Outlaw private schools, charter schools and home schooling. This solution would demand an equal opportunity to mediocrity. Obviously this would guarantee an equal state sponsored means of education but not guarantee an equal ends or outcome. This solution, although “fair” is not in line with the principals of freedom, upon which our nation or state was founded.
The second option (the favorable option) would be to allow each parent the discretion to spend the education dollars allocated for their child in the way they think best suits the needs of the child individually. This method would ensure each parent and child an equal footing on their quest of education and ultimately their “Pursuit of Happiness.”
Proposal outline
Funding- The source of the funding for education for the time being shall remain as it is; a disproportionate levy from the citizens placed into the fund for the collective, and sales of state owned natural resources, such as timber. Additional funding is received from the National Government. The Constitutionality and efficiency of National funding are not addressed in this proposal.
Distribution- Each parent (if they choose to exercise the their Liberty) will receive a check or automatic deposit in account (in the amount of the state median education allocation for the child at appropriate grade level), bimonthly to use as a medium of exchange that the parent may use to fulfill the State’s stated educational objective standards for a student of the appropriate grade level, either solely (claimed as regular income in the case of a home school parent) or by sub-contract (Private School). The State’s only concern is that of, “Investment=Objective.” If a parent or private school (in cooperation with the student) perform in an efficient enough manor to achieve the standard educational objective in less hours or days than customary, the State remains dis-interested in the students/private institutions use of the “surplus time.”
Qualifications- (home school) Each parent that actively participates in home schooling and receives state dollars, must have a minimum GED qualification, and may only teach their child, natural or legally adopted. Parents may join in groups and teach in groups, with minimum requirements but one parent without teaching credentials may not teach groups of kids without the other parents present. Each parent must yield to random drug testing; positive test will result in discontinuation of funding.
Qualifications (private school) - All core curriculums must be taught by a properly documented teacher; no such requirements are considered on non-core classes or electives. Since the state is paying the parents directly rather than the state all classes, religious or otherwise are exempt from state oversight. Each teacher must yield to a background check and random drug testing.
Standardized testing-Each child must take a standardized test at the beginning and end of each school year, as a means to judge performance and as a comparison to other children of equal age and grade level. Comparative performance evaluation will determine individually, the continued funding each child’s non-state education (performance based). Private schools performance evaluation will be judged on the same scale as public schools and any probationary action will not exceed that of a public school. Home school parents that do not receive funding are not bound to this arrangement.
Diploma- The State will issue a standardized diploma to all students that complete the required objective curriculum, without implied discrimination or special document designation such as GED.
The Case for Choice
Anytime money is taken from the public whether proportionately or disproportional their must be a purpose for the seizure of the funds. We have taken for granted that education is a worthy cause, however the word education itself is subjective to the point of being liquid. What I mean by liquid is that whoever is in charge of the administration of education can determine what is of value, and what is not, based upon their individual values; money flows like liquid to serve their wants. What we are in dire need of is an objective, Objective. We must define what education is exactly, in order to “justify” the seizure of money from those who would otherwise be free to give or spend what they have earned in other ways that perhaps meet their values more closely. An objective is essential in any governmental affair whether it be war or education…what does victory look like? Of course each state has the right to design its objective; either minimalist or extravagant. Whatever the objective is it must not have vague statements like “instill values” and “social preparation” for those objectives are ones of the family and not the state.
Benefits of Education Choice
Monetary- It is proven in every case, the free market drives innovation progression and reduces costs; traits governmental monopolies invert as proven. As better methods are discovered and as the wheat is separated from the chaff only the best and most efficient will be teaching.
Economic- With many parents of elementary students choosing to stay home and educate their kids, many jobs would open up, driving the unemployment rate down and likely wages up (shortage of supply means prices go up). Additionally this wide spread distribution of earned money will move through the economy unfettered by governmental and union cronyism. Choice in education means jobs.
Family Values- It is quite normal in this day and age for both parents to work, leaving only a few hours of interaction in the evenings. This has broken the family apart. Many working moms bring home a mere pittance after the cost of child care and transportation is accounted for. With an allowance of $7000 per child a mother of three might just stay home to teach her own kids for a few years; years that will never come again.
Less legal drugs (ADD) - Almost everyone agrees Ritalin if the most over prescribed drug in the world. It is often prescribed as an alternative to discipline, to control an unruly child (mostly boys).
Less Illegal drugs – Children are largely a blank slate. Humans in general have very few natural instincts; therefore there behavior is determined by observing the behavior and interaction of other humans. One instinct humans have however is the desire to love and be loved. An assumed prerequisite to love is acceptance, therefore children crave the acceptance of other children, but they must learn how to be accepted. Children gain the understanding of how to be accepted from their parents their peers and popular culture. This is where quantity of impression often over rides the quality of advice. In other words inexperienced kids learn more from other inexperienced kids and popular culture, then they do from the wisdom of their parents; they spend so much more time observing the former than the latter. Behavior is developed by monkey see monkey do. Drug use alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, bullying are all unquestionably detrimental to the physical and psychological well being of a child, and not a result of parental advice. The monopoly of state controlled education forces, particularly the lower class children into this self perpetuating sociological disaster.
Reduce “hard” curriculum- Hard or physical curriculum such as text books are expensive to produce and become quickly out dated. Alternative education, free of state mandates may use online curriculum to achieve the educational objectives.
Reduce Capital expenses and maintenance- Public schools have massive overhead. Buildings, maintenance, lighting, heating cooling, busses, other vehicles, insurance of all kinds, are just a few examples. Any government program once inception takes upon a life of its own. Almost human, it has two desires, protection and growth. Naturally the larger it grows the less manageable it becomes. Lacking competition it casts off the shackles of accountability in times of plenty and expands far beyond the ability to maintain itself in times of shortage. The free market manages growth decisions by forecasting, perhaps influencing, human choice, and reacting to human action.
Improve the outcome- Free market education consistently and significantly out performs its public counterpart. In this case the ends should mandate the means.
More educated parents- Home school parent particularly find great value and enrichment while preparing a lesson plan or teaching a child. Both parent and child win in this arrangement.
Population Growth (the right kind) – Any legislation effects economic growth positively or negatively; but all growth is not good. For instance, several states are in the process of using their legal prerogative to nullify unconstitutional federal drug laws, by legalizing marijuana. This will have two effects: people who want to use marijuana without threat of legal action will move in and those who do not wish to live in a “high society” will move out. Perhaps the exchange in numerical population will be equal but will the economic effect be equal? Will the net production of the state be improved by this exchange? Logic gives us an answer that will most certainly be disputed by the “social engineers”; I’ll choose logic. Likewise will the Choice in Education option affect the demographics of our state. As I have experienced over the years, the quality of schools is one of the top factors when a person makes a real estate buying decision. In turn I believe, the freedom for a parent to choose the environment and ultimately influence the destiny of their child will also play a strong role when deciding which state to call home. One who makes a decision with these factors in mind and opts for freedom, is more likely to bring with them an industrious nature and moral convictions.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Sentinels of the Republic Foundations
We the Sentinels of the Republic, recognize two primary documents as the foundation for our beliefs in matters pertaining to government and the People. Those two documents are, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (including the first ten amendments; The Bill of Rights).
The Declaration of Independence serves as witness and record to posterity, that man is born with “certain Unalienable Rights” granted by God, not by man or by government, and that any infringements upon these rights are not just to be frowned upon but a cause for a fight to the death. Furthermore we recognize The Declaration enumerates specific grievances against the King. These specific grievances were laid out in an orderly fashion, not only for the King and for the sovereign People of the several States, but for the generations to come, that we may know exactly what a tyranny looks like and weigh all laws, taxes and governmental actions against this picture of a tyranny. We also believe that, the signers of The Declaration by its strength of its words and their mark of signature and endorsement, left no doubt that the principles and charges within, were so important, their very lives were worth forfeiting in the purpose of the advancement of its principles. The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the United States of America, the spirit of its people and the most orthodox document on record when the “spirit” or intent of The Constitution is in question.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation of our Republic. In a Republic the “Law is King” and not government officers or representatives. In the US, The Constitution is King and the only supreme authority in matters between man, the States and the national government. It is imperative to understand that The Constitution is a compact between the States by the People. It’s a written understanding of how they (the states and the People) will relate to their created being, their servant; the national government. It is also very important to understand that the States created the national government not the inverse and that it was only created, after each state agreed.
In a case such as ours, where the power is held in an inanimate object, those who lust for power find refuge in word-smithing, revisionism and legal jargon as a means to confuse the people and seize power. They wish for you to believe that the document is “living” and will change with the times or they would like you to believe it is too complicated fro the common man to grasp; neither is true. As evidenced by the historical record, The Constitution was written for the common man to understand, and each word was chosen painstakingly as not to be misunderstood or convoluted to serve the desires of a tyrant. Understanding this, we must specify quite simply how The Constitution must be interpreted in full orthodoxy.
The most primary sources for Constitutional interpretation
1) The Declaration of Independence (see prior)
2) The Preamble to The Constitution. This often ignored segment of the Constitution is probably the most important. The Preamble is the Executive Summary. Any interpretation of the Constitution that conflicts with the Preamble is quite suspect. For instance, the excerpt, “…secure the Blessings of Liberty”, tell us three things…Blessings are from God, hence the capitalization, Liberty is a gift from God, and first and foremost the Constitution is set apart to SECURE the Blessings of Liberty. Secure is a strong word indeed and notably chosen over the word “promote” which is also used in The Preamble.
3) Documents, letters and meeting minutes of discussions on The Constitution, recorded BEFORE its ratification, ONLY. These documents include, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Articles of Confederation and such. It is important that we exclude writings from any of the founders after the date of ratification, no matter how artfully written. Revisionism started the day after ratification.
4) Period dictionaries- Our language changes with each generation. Strong words become weak and visa-versa. As mentioned before, every word was carefully chosen in the Constitution and the Declaration, therefore we must not assume modern day meanings are accurate. One such instance is in what is known as the “Commerce Clause.” In that clause the word regulate was used. Today regulate is synonymous with control or overlord, however in the day of the Constitution it meant, “to make regular; the meaning is astonishingly different.
Finally, it is important to grasp that The Constitution involves three parties: The Sovereign People of the States, The States and the created being, the United States National government. The Constitution enumerates certain powers that the National government must carry out, and strictly forbids any activity beyond those prescribed limits. Furthermore the Constitution also reserves any other imaginable power, to the States or the People. As an amplification to the intent of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights was added to protect the People and the States from the National government, and the People from injustice from the States as well.
The Declaration of Independence serves as witness and record to posterity, that man is born with “certain Unalienable Rights” granted by God, not by man or by government, and that any infringements upon these rights are not just to be frowned upon but a cause for a fight to the death. Furthermore we recognize The Declaration enumerates specific grievances against the King. These specific grievances were laid out in an orderly fashion, not only for the King and for the sovereign People of the several States, but for the generations to come, that we may know exactly what a tyranny looks like and weigh all laws, taxes and governmental actions against this picture of a tyranny. We also believe that, the signers of The Declaration by its strength of its words and their mark of signature and endorsement, left no doubt that the principles and charges within, were so important, their very lives were worth forfeiting in the purpose of the advancement of its principles. The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the United States of America, the spirit of its people and the most orthodox document on record when the “spirit” or intent of The Constitution is in question.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation of our Republic. In a Republic the “Law is King” and not government officers or representatives. In the US, The Constitution is King and the only supreme authority in matters between man, the States and the national government. It is imperative to understand that The Constitution is a compact between the States by the People. It’s a written understanding of how they (the states and the People) will relate to their created being, their servant; the national government. It is also very important to understand that the States created the national government not the inverse and that it was only created, after each state agreed.
In a case such as ours, where the power is held in an inanimate object, those who lust for power find refuge in word-smithing, revisionism and legal jargon as a means to confuse the people and seize power. They wish for you to believe that the document is “living” and will change with the times or they would like you to believe it is too complicated fro the common man to grasp; neither is true. As evidenced by the historical record, The Constitution was written for the common man to understand, and each word was chosen painstakingly as not to be misunderstood or convoluted to serve the desires of a tyrant. Understanding this, we must specify quite simply how The Constitution must be interpreted in full orthodoxy.
The most primary sources for Constitutional interpretation
1) The Declaration of Independence (see prior)
2) The Preamble to The Constitution. This often ignored segment of the Constitution is probably the most important. The Preamble is the Executive Summary. Any interpretation of the Constitution that conflicts with the Preamble is quite suspect. For instance, the excerpt, “…secure the Blessings of Liberty”, tell us three things…Blessings are from God, hence the capitalization, Liberty is a gift from God, and first and foremost the Constitution is set apart to SECURE the Blessings of Liberty. Secure is a strong word indeed and notably chosen over the word “promote” which is also used in The Preamble.
3) Documents, letters and meeting minutes of discussions on The Constitution, recorded BEFORE its ratification, ONLY. These documents include, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Articles of Confederation and such. It is important that we exclude writings from any of the founders after the date of ratification, no matter how artfully written. Revisionism started the day after ratification.
4) Period dictionaries- Our language changes with each generation. Strong words become weak and visa-versa. As mentioned before, every word was carefully chosen in the Constitution and the Declaration, therefore we must not assume modern day meanings are accurate. One such instance is in what is known as the “Commerce Clause.” In that clause the word regulate was used. Today regulate is synonymous with control or overlord, however in the day of the Constitution it meant, “to make regular; the meaning is astonishingly different.
Finally, it is important to grasp that The Constitution involves three parties: The Sovereign People of the States, The States and the created being, the United States National government. The Constitution enumerates certain powers that the National government must carry out, and strictly forbids any activity beyond those prescribed limits. Furthermore the Constitution also reserves any other imaginable power, to the States or the People. As an amplification to the intent of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights was added to protect the People and the States from the National government, and the People from injustice from the States as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)