If the Almighty God condoned the use of force in order to make people behave a certain way, would He really need governments to do it for Him? When we allow or endorse the taxation (forced procurement of what is owned by a person), for the purpose of what may be considered a, "moral act" such as welfare, health care, prohibition of various goods or dictating the acts in one's bedroom, it is absolutely not a MORAL ACT. No God blessed act can begin with theft (7th Commandment). Secondly, since the Christian version of morality, includes responsibility, benevolence, self control and sexual purity, allowing the government the power to dictate and/or fund these, the government has taken the place of the church and God, therefore the First Commandment has been broken; "Thou shall have no other gods before Me." Jesus said, "Be Holy as I am Holy," what he did not say is, force your neighbor to be Holy. God is looking for you to do good, not for you to force someone else to do what you think is good. Endorsing the use of government force to dictate anything within the realm of God’s direction to us is making government, a god before Him.
Welfare recipients or bailed out corporations, praise those politicians who promise to fill their belly or give them a market advantage. They offer them worship at the ballot box; they bring them tithes (such as union dues) and offerings (such as campaign contributions or other offerings of money or obedience). God is a jealous God, and when He is deprived of praise, those who steal the praise may be judged as His enemies. Beware, you politician who may be reading this, as you hear the chant of the crowd or as the applause tickles your ears, God does not bless the thief of His praise, nor those who promise to “do-good” with stolen money.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Idaho Farm Freedom Act: Hemp Decriminalization
Purpose: By the passing of this Act, the State of Idaho shall rightfully interpose (on behalf of the people who reside on the State and the farms and industries which do business within its borders), and assume A “Power” (10th Amendment reference) which was not delegated to the United States of America(s) general government in the Constitution or its Amendments, NOR prohibited by The Constitution of the State of Idaho. The interposition shall be specifically in regards to the United States of America(s) claim on the power to enforce prohibition on the production, improvement, sale and use of Hemp.
WHERAS- The Constitution of the United States… specifically enumerates the authority given - by the States - to the United States of America(s) general government, AND of those specifically enumerated powers, the power to prohibit a manufacture, sale or use of any product or crop was not included, AND this limitation of power was well understood when the 18th Amendment (Alcohol Prohibition) was passed and later repealed (21st Amendment), AND no such Amendment since has changed the original authority to Federally prohibit any good.
WHERAS- Hemp was a staple crop during colonial times, grown for many uses, including the manufacture of paper, including the paper the Declaration of Independence was written on.
WHEREAS- Hemp, although related to marijuana, does not produce a significant enough amount of THC to be considered and option by those who seek intoxication.
WHERAS- Hemp grows very well in the State of Idaho, AND requires very little fertilizer, AND required very little pesticide, AND offers farmers another option for crop rotation.
WHERAS- A hemp industry will provide many jobs in the State of Idaho in the farming industry, AND in the health industry, AND in the industrial sector, AND in general provide an entirely new economic opportunity(s) to the whole state.
WHERAS- Hemp seeds, very nutritious containing very high ratios of protein, AND contains a near complete Amino Acid profile, AND is high in essential fatty acids such as Omega 3s, AND hemp fats are saturated and undamaged, therefore entirely useable to the human body, AND are a source of many other vitamins and minerals essential to the human body.
WHERAS- Hemp oils, can be ingested by humans as a base of salad dressings (amongst many uses), AND is known to aid in the healing of eczema, AND is an anti-inflammatory, AND has many other beneficial uses.
WHERAS- Hemp fiber has many uses which are not limited to- Building products, paper, clothing, animal bedding, waste water and soil purification, automotive body panels, hemp Crete, hemp plastic, AND etc.
WHERAS- Hemp is the most renewable and sustainable of all industrial farm and food products.
WHEREAS- The production and sale of hemp, and hemp products is legal in most industrial, “first world” countries.
The State of Idaho SHALL, interpose between the US government and the People, to protect and defend the People who reside on the State of Idaho, and the industries and farms which do business within the borders of the State of Idaho against any aggression, whether physical, financial or otherwise, by the United States of America, government’s agents or agencies which attempt to enforce a prohibition on the agricultural production or refinement of hemp based products. State and county agencies which may be called upon to enforce this interposition are (but not limited to)- The State Police, County Sheriffs, City Police, the State Department of Commerce, The State Attorney General’s office, the state Department of Agriculture, and the People. The State of Idaho assumes this “Power,” justly and in accordance with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Further the State of Idaho reserves the right for commerce of hemp based goods, across state lines, as an exercise of “regular commerce.”
WHERAS- The Constitution of the United States… specifically enumerates the authority given - by the States - to the United States of America(s) general government, AND of those specifically enumerated powers, the power to prohibit a manufacture, sale or use of any product or crop was not included, AND this limitation of power was well understood when the 18th Amendment (Alcohol Prohibition) was passed and later repealed (21st Amendment), AND no such Amendment since has changed the original authority to Federally prohibit any good.
WHERAS- Hemp was a staple crop during colonial times, grown for many uses, including the manufacture of paper, including the paper the Declaration of Independence was written on.
WHEREAS- Hemp, although related to marijuana, does not produce a significant enough amount of THC to be considered and option by those who seek intoxication.
WHERAS- Hemp grows very well in the State of Idaho, AND requires very little fertilizer, AND required very little pesticide, AND offers farmers another option for crop rotation.
WHERAS- A hemp industry will provide many jobs in the State of Idaho in the farming industry, AND in the health industry, AND in the industrial sector, AND in general provide an entirely new economic opportunity(s) to the whole state.
WHERAS- Hemp seeds, very nutritious containing very high ratios of protein, AND contains a near complete Amino Acid profile, AND is high in essential fatty acids such as Omega 3s, AND hemp fats are saturated and undamaged, therefore entirely useable to the human body, AND are a source of many other vitamins and minerals essential to the human body.
WHERAS- Hemp oils, can be ingested by humans as a base of salad dressings (amongst many uses), AND is known to aid in the healing of eczema, AND is an anti-inflammatory, AND has many other beneficial uses.
WHERAS- Hemp fiber has many uses which are not limited to- Building products, paper, clothing, animal bedding, waste water and soil purification, automotive body panels, hemp Crete, hemp plastic, AND etc.
WHERAS- Hemp is the most renewable and sustainable of all industrial farm and food products.
WHEREAS- The production and sale of hemp, and hemp products is legal in most industrial, “first world” countries.
The State of Idaho SHALL, interpose between the US government and the People, to protect and defend the People who reside on the State of Idaho, and the industries and farms which do business within the borders of the State of Idaho against any aggression, whether physical, financial or otherwise, by the United States of America, government’s agents or agencies which attempt to enforce a prohibition on the agricultural production or refinement of hemp based products. State and county agencies which may be called upon to enforce this interposition are (but not limited to)- The State Police, County Sheriffs, City Police, the State Department of Commerce, The State Attorney General’s office, the state Department of Agriculture, and the People. The State of Idaho assumes this “Power,” justly and in accordance with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Further the State of Idaho reserves the right for commerce of hemp based goods, across state lines, as an exercise of “regular commerce.”
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
The Wars and Rumors of Wars GOP Debate
In last night's debate, there was a lot of talk of war, no fly zones and sanctions. Sanctions appealed to most of the candidates as a reasonable solution, so let us reason.
Sanctions are just an early stage of war. They are a political barricade, intended to starve out an enemy. In simple theory, playing Age of Empires (a computer game), it makes a lot of sense; but in the real world, it is just fuel for the propagandist. If we want to lose any good will toward the west that remains in Iran, by all means, starve them ...or should I say, try to starve them, because China and Russia will not play ball. They will not oppose the sanctions, but they will profit from them as they will buy goods at a lower price based upon the politically imposed demand reduction, and sell at a higher price as they are the only ones big enough to cross our sanction lines without the threat of being invaded. Sanctions sound all peaceful and such but you have got to look at the whole food chain, and the unintended consequences. Newt's, Perry’s, Mitt’s and Herman’s plans to sanction will not harm Iran, but will grow their hate for us deep into the fabric of their culture. We face the very real probability of alienating their people who are still sympathetic to the west right now. Their plan will also make China and Russia richer and strengthen the alliance between the three nations through trade. Trade always makes people friends. If we force them to trade with Russia and China we strengthen their friendship, and reliance upon each other. With reliance comes the desire to defend. Bottom line, sanctions do nothing positive for the US, but they do make Iran a lot stronger through new and stronger friendships with powerful buddies. We are about ready to step in it again.
Sanctions are just an early stage of war. They are a political barricade, intended to starve out an enemy. In simple theory, playing Age of Empires (a computer game), it makes a lot of sense; but in the real world, it is just fuel for the propagandist. If we want to lose any good will toward the west that remains in Iran, by all means, starve them ...or should I say, try to starve them, because China and Russia will not play ball. They will not oppose the sanctions, but they will profit from them as they will buy goods at a lower price based upon the politically imposed demand reduction, and sell at a higher price as they are the only ones big enough to cross our sanction lines without the threat of being invaded. Sanctions sound all peaceful and such but you have got to look at the whole food chain, and the unintended consequences. Newt's, Perry’s, Mitt’s and Herman’s plans to sanction will not harm Iran, but will grow their hate for us deep into the fabric of their culture. We face the very real probability of alienating their people who are still sympathetic to the west right now. Their plan will also make China and Russia richer and strengthen the alliance between the three nations through trade. Trade always makes people friends. If we force them to trade with Russia and China we strengthen their friendship, and reliance upon each other. With reliance comes the desire to defend. Bottom line, sanctions do nothing positive for the US, but they do make Iran a lot stronger through new and stronger friendships with powerful buddies. We are about ready to step in it again.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Just Don't Skin the Cat!
One question I ask people who are beating the war drum on Iran is: Has our policy regarding the Middle East since 1954 (subversive overthrowing of leaders, diluting Israel's sovereignty via the UN and US demands for multi-lateral negotiations, outright invasion, occupation of lands and trade sanctions) improved the situation or made it worse? I think just about everyone will acknowledge we have made a mess of things, but a lot of people think if we only micromanaged the affairs of others differently, things would be better. I scoff, as the unintended consequences abound. We installed Saddam and he turned on us or we on him (depending on the congressional testimony you choose to listen to); we funded Osama, the fruit soured, and we killed Kadaffi and now the Al Qaeda flag flies over some of the buildings. We have used a mink glove at times and an Iron Boot at others. We have offered lobster tail under some leaders and made them eat dirt under others; alas the song remains the same.
Not only have none of these methods worked, but they have changed us, the America of today is not the one of our Founders. We have lost our compassion and justified those we kill as acceptable collateral damage because our intentions, we are told, are noble. We can justify our actions or ignore the brutal reality that the TV screen does not sanitize death. We sing the Battle Hymn or God Bless America, and turn it into a patriotic affair, all while the fear merchants (useful idiots for the terrorists) play their theme song, "We'll stick a boot up your ass it's the American way." Really? Is that the American way? Whether one claims to be a Christian or not, only a fool rejects the fact that our country is based upon Christian morality. Would Jesus sing that theme song? Is that the country God would bless? Do the fundamental ethics of man change with the times? NO. It is time to return to the prime ethos of kindergarten, keep your hands to yourself.
Not only have none of these methods worked, but they have changed us, the America of today is not the one of our Founders. We have lost our compassion and justified those we kill as acceptable collateral damage because our intentions, we are told, are noble. We can justify our actions or ignore the brutal reality that the TV screen does not sanitize death. We sing the Battle Hymn or God Bless America, and turn it into a patriotic affair, all while the fear merchants (useful idiots for the terrorists) play their theme song, "We'll stick a boot up your ass it's the American way." Really? Is that the American way? Whether one claims to be a Christian or not, only a fool rejects the fact that our country is based upon Christian morality. Would Jesus sing that theme song? Is that the country God would bless? Do the fundamental ethics of man change with the times? NO. It is time to return to the prime ethos of kindergarten, keep your hands to yourself.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Snapshot: Fox, Republican Presidential Debate South Carolina
From 10,000 feet-Any time a “debate” is held, wherein the questions asked of the candidates are not the same question, the observer must look closely at the questions asked and consider the possibility of an engineered or staged outcome. Last night’s “debate”, was the epitome of that concept. Some questions were hard balls and some were quite soft, but the equity and quality of the questions certainly begged.
Another consideration, an observer must account for is, some of the candidates have a record and others speak out of idealism. In this day of the drive by media, a candidate’s record - even if it is sound – can be most often cleverly demagoged; but alas this is the nature of politics in a nation where the people are delinquent in the pursuit of the truth. Further, being without a record provides a candidate the opportunity to speak not from experience but draw from the abstract; nothing to defend and a hypothetical world of idealistic utopia. This sort of dynamic handed Barrack Obama the Presidency in ’08.
Based upon those considerations my first grade goes to Fox News, they earn a D-
The Candidates-
Ron Paul- The questions aimed at Ron Paul were certainly tactically designed to damage. They were loaded with far more content than could be addressed properly in the allotted one minute response time. Although, Dr. Paul answered the questions and did not hurt himself, if anything his gain was small. It is no secret Dr. Paul is not the greatest orator of our time, and I think this may hurt him in the long run, considering the importance of superficial polish and charisma in this age of national politics. In a split field this may prove to be an asset in the long run however, as a certain group of people might find commonality with a real person, rather than a Ken Doll. Dr. Paul’s score B
Herman Cain- The questions asked of Cain were the softest in the field. The hardest question asked of him was the one on the flat tax. The question was phrased, in a manner as to sound tough, but this area is Herman’s specialty, and he nailed it for the republican crowd. Consider however, since the flat tax/fair tax is one of the most favorable topics amongst republicans, and since the IRS is the most hated institution on the face of the earth, is there any way Cain could bomb that question? In my opinion at times Cain got a little “evangelical” in his presentation, but in this day and age style and substance are interchangeable. To honestly score Cain in this debate, we must handicap his performance with the difficulty of the questions asked. Cain’s score B
Tim Pawlenty- The questions asked of Tim were amongst the hardest of the field. I really don’t know why Fox decided to smash him like they did, perhaps he was the sacrifice to the gods of journalistic equity; you know to make it all look fair. Either way, Pawlenty flamed out. Although I listened closely to every thing he said, I found myself hitting the “skip back” button on the DVR because his body language distracted me. To sum it up, Tim Pawlenty reminded me of a poor attempt at an impression of Will Farrell impersonating George W. Bush. Stick a fork in Pawlenty. Even though the questions were bangers I can not handicap him to a higher score; a snowman is a snowman. F
Rick Santorum- Rick’s questions were pretty soft, and his answers were typical; no gain or loss based upon content. I hate to draw two comparisons to past figures in one article, but Santorum reminded me of a young John McCain. He was stiff in the neck, shoulders and arms; his hand gestures were abbreviated. I know this is superficial but I think unless he changes that and loosens up people will record the commonality subconsciously and look poorly upon him. His score C-
Gary Johnson- Gary got a bad shake in this debate. They ignored him and phrased questions in a no win way. It is quite obvious Fox wants Gary out of there. He did a nice job being forthright and no-nonsense with his answers (even his abortion stance), which people appreciate, but on the flipside of that an impression of dryness came through. Gary is going to have a rough time, especially in this type of a forum. Considering the handicap Gary gets a C-
Another consideration, an observer must account for is, some of the candidates have a record and others speak out of idealism. In this day of the drive by media, a candidate’s record - even if it is sound – can be most often cleverly demagoged; but alas this is the nature of politics in a nation where the people are delinquent in the pursuit of the truth. Further, being without a record provides a candidate the opportunity to speak not from experience but draw from the abstract; nothing to defend and a hypothetical world of idealistic utopia. This sort of dynamic handed Barrack Obama the Presidency in ’08.
Based upon those considerations my first grade goes to Fox News, they earn a D-
The Candidates-
Ron Paul- The questions aimed at Ron Paul were certainly tactically designed to damage. They were loaded with far more content than could be addressed properly in the allotted one minute response time. Although, Dr. Paul answered the questions and did not hurt himself, if anything his gain was small. It is no secret Dr. Paul is not the greatest orator of our time, and I think this may hurt him in the long run, considering the importance of superficial polish and charisma in this age of national politics. In a split field this may prove to be an asset in the long run however, as a certain group of people might find commonality with a real person, rather than a Ken Doll. Dr. Paul’s score B
Herman Cain- The questions asked of Cain were the softest in the field. The hardest question asked of him was the one on the flat tax. The question was phrased, in a manner as to sound tough, but this area is Herman’s specialty, and he nailed it for the republican crowd. Consider however, since the flat tax/fair tax is one of the most favorable topics amongst republicans, and since the IRS is the most hated institution on the face of the earth, is there any way Cain could bomb that question? In my opinion at times Cain got a little “evangelical” in his presentation, but in this day and age style and substance are interchangeable. To honestly score Cain in this debate, we must handicap his performance with the difficulty of the questions asked. Cain’s score B
Tim Pawlenty- The questions asked of Tim were amongst the hardest of the field. I really don’t know why Fox decided to smash him like they did, perhaps he was the sacrifice to the gods of journalistic equity; you know to make it all look fair. Either way, Pawlenty flamed out. Although I listened closely to every thing he said, I found myself hitting the “skip back” button on the DVR because his body language distracted me. To sum it up, Tim Pawlenty reminded me of a poor attempt at an impression of Will Farrell impersonating George W. Bush. Stick a fork in Pawlenty. Even though the questions were bangers I can not handicap him to a higher score; a snowman is a snowman. F
Rick Santorum- Rick’s questions were pretty soft, and his answers were typical; no gain or loss based upon content. I hate to draw two comparisons to past figures in one article, but Santorum reminded me of a young John McCain. He was stiff in the neck, shoulders and arms; his hand gestures were abbreviated. I know this is superficial but I think unless he changes that and loosens up people will record the commonality subconsciously and look poorly upon him. His score C-
Gary Johnson- Gary got a bad shake in this debate. They ignored him and phrased questions in a no win way. It is quite obvious Fox wants Gary out of there. He did a nice job being forthright and no-nonsense with his answers (even his abortion stance), which people appreciate, but on the flipside of that an impression of dryness came through. Gary is going to have a rough time, especially in this type of a forum. Considering the handicap Gary gets a C-
Friday, February 25, 2011
My Senate Committie Testimony for HB-117 (Obamacare Nullification)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)