Ground Zero Mosque

The story that just won't die, and actually impacts those outside of the 5 boroughs very little (if at all).

Why is everyone still talking about this? Is it because it's that vital to our everyday life? Is it because if people can keep the average citizen talking about it, we'll focus more on what divides us, and less on all the things that unite us?

I do actually believe this story does merit some discussion, but nowhere near as much as is going on. I also think the things that have been discussed are focusing on it from the wrong angles.

Let's first take a look at who is discussing it and why? Then we'll take a look at what people should be discussing and why.

Who and Why:

Democrats and Liberals: What better way to paint your adversaries as bigots and racists than to scream that they're targeting a religion where most of the people are non-white? Thanks to the pollsters, they also have the added advantage of calling out that some ridiculously large percentage of Republicans believe Obama is Muslim and/or non-Christian. Does anyone truly believe that the intent behind all of their rhetoric is civil rights and the protection of those civil rights?

Republicans and to some extent Conservatives: Where did the money come from? What country is this mosque in bed with? Damn NY Liberals! Wait, it's not a Christian Church! One of my personal favorites from Newt Gingrich, "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust museum in Washington". Shouldn't a group of people who publicly hold the Constitution in such high regard actually follow the principles in it? Shouldn't principles take a front seat to trying to latch onto 9/11 families' legitimate grief for political purposes?

Now it's time to get back to reality. You know, that place where people or groups actually express honest opinions and beliefs. That place where people work together, sit down like big boys and girls to achieve a resolution, or at least a mutual understanding.

I will share what I truly believe on this topic. I'd like to think that it's probably how the average person feels, but I could quite possibly be wrong. Personally, I don't think the mosque should be built at the proposed location. I do feel that it does dredge up some real and honest grief for the families who lost loved ones. I think all of the TV cameras, microphones, and especially the politicians need to go away. The folks from the mosque and the 9/11 families should be sitting down, in private, and discussing options. Again working through it like big boys and big girls. Two people (or groups) sitting down in GOOD FAITH can negotiate, and come to an agreement/understanding on 99% of issues.

Here's the other part of what I truly believe on this topic. If an agreement can't be reached, we MUST err on the side of individual liberty and freedom. If group A is allowed to decide what group B can/cannot do, where does it stop? Can I as group C now decide what A and B may/may not do? It becomes a slippery slope. Who becomes the final arbiter on what peoples' individual liberties and freedoms are?

This concept of the common good, or the idea that what is good for many should be pursued even if it takes some freedoms/liberties from others, is an absolute crock of shit. All have to be responsible in the exercise of their freedoms and liberties, and that includes standing accountable for the impact that each person's actions may have on others' liberties and freedoms.

The folks behind the Ground Zero Mosque have the right to build their house of worship wherever (assuming they can afford to buy the land, etc) they want. It is the same for every American. I suggest that EVERYONE re-read the First Amendment, it covers it pretty clearly.

The above is just my opinion, and hey, I barely graduated high school, so I could be wrong.

Feel free to comment

Active attempt to violate the US Constitution

Does anyone besides me remember HR 1586 and S 651, also known as "The Compensation Fairness Act of 2009" from last year? This was Congress's attempt to recoup the bonuses paid to the evil Wall Street folks via taxation. The House version passed, the Senate version never made it to a vote.

Evidently, that wasn't the outcome the folks in Congress were looking for. The Senate is currently working its way through HR 4213 the "Tax Extenders Act of 2009". This bill extends certain types of tax cuts, credits, relief, incentives, etc. Senators Baucus, Webb, and Boxer decided the best way to achieve what they couldn't last year was to slip language into a bill that no one was actually crazy enough to read. They have jointly proposed and sponsored Amendment 3342 to HR 4213. Side note, how in the hell can one bill have three thousand three hundred forty-two freakin amendments?! Anyway, Amendment 3342 seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on excessive 2009 bonuses received from certain major recipients of Federal emergency economic assistance, to limit the deduction allowable for such bonuses.

Is this not a Bill of Attainder as defined by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution? They're not even saying the want to go after all major recipients of Federal emergency economic assistance. They only want to go after certain major recipients. Who defines which recipients are the certain ones? Does no one understand why the Constitution forbids Bills of Attainder?

I know I'm going to start a lot of hate and discontent with this one, but for the sake of illustration, let me define the "certain major recipients" for a moment. What would happen if I defined the "certain major recipients" as being only those recipients who are Black, Hispanic, or Asian that received bonuses? I would be labeled a racist, every news outlet in America would have my picture and home address plastered everywhere, I'd be (rightfully) forced to resign, and this Amendment wouldn't even make it to a vote, let alone becoming law. Why wouldn't it make it to a vote? Because it's freakin unconstitutional!!!

Do most people feel that if it doesn't directly apply to or effect them, it doesn't really matter? EVERY AMERICAN DESERVES AND IS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

I welcome your comments.

McDonald v City of Chicago 2nd Amendment Case

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the case of McDonald v Chicago to determine if it's constitutional for state and/or local governments to place restrictions on the ownership of guns.

This is a somewhat interesting case due to the fact that 3 different amendments will/should come into play in this decision.

1. The Second Amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A recent Supreme Court decision ruled that this is an individual right for every citizens, not the narrow interpretation that some have believing that it is only for police etc. The question is, does the Second Amendment only apply to the federal government? The court throughout most of the 20th century has ruled inconsistently at best on whether or not individual Amendments apply only to the federal government, or do they also apply to state governments. This brings us to our next Amendment, one of my favorites.

2. The Tenth Amendment 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.

This Amendment was put in place for the express purpose of preventing the federal government from becoming too over-reaching and authoritarian. Unfortunately over the last century, with great examples such as: The New Deal, Bail-outs, Stimulus, Social Security, etc; we have lost sight of the fact that Article 1 and the Tenth Amendment were put in place to protect a bottom-up style of government. You know, a democratic republic. For those who don't know, that is our form of government, we are NOT a democracy. What's odd is that the same folks who advocate a top down style of government are trying to play the Tenth Amendment card. Another case of utilizing parts of the Constitution to their benefit and discarding the rest. The only problem with that is the final Amendment that plays into this whole scenario.

3. The Fourteenth Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Long and short, the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from making any law that takes away people's rights to keep and bear arms, or any other constitutionally protected right or freedom for that matter.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of McDonald, and state and local gun laws are repealed, it will be completely CONSTITUTIONAL.

Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Is the proposal to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Constitutional?

Where to start on this one? There are so many things wrong with this that it may take a little while to pull it all apart, so please bear with me.

First things first: Don't Ask, Don't Tell/Pursue is unconstitutional. Now, I know the Republicans out there are going to blow a gasket on this one, but if you want to rally around the Constitution when it suits your purpose (hello second amendment, with which I also agree), you have to show the same respect for the things you might not personally agree with. As odd as this may sound, my reasoning for this is the same as why I was against the attempt to recoup the bonuses paid to AIG employees. For those of you who don't understand why I didn't want to "get my money back from those evil capitalists who nearly flattened our banking system", it's called Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 specifically places limits on Congress. Within Section 9, it states "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or specific group of people. So, it is for this reason Don't Ask, Don't Tell is unconstitutional.

Now for those of us that have served in the military, there is also the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to take into account. There are various articles within the UCMJ that one could utilize to make the argument that gays in the military would be in violation of. I have one simple question to those people. Would a straight man or woman ever be prosecuted under those articles? If you're honest with yourself, you know the answer is no. The last time I checked, the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law for all citizens of the United States.

To hopefully tie it up in a neat little bow for everyone, my final point. If a straight service member were to take advantage of their 1st Amendment rights and proclaim their love for their spouse, would they be discharged from the military? No. Forbidding a gay service member to exercise their 1st Amendment rights would amount to a violation of their 14th Amendment rights, would it not?

The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is COMPLETELY Constitutional.

The above is not a commentary on society or people's personal choices. The above is an item currently in the news. It also serves to show the hypocrisy that exists within our society. The above also illustrates that my belief and respect for our Constitution does not pander to any one political party, religion, person, or group. My belief lies in our founding documents and principles. If there are people within a political party that embody those beliefs, they will have my support. No party ever will.

Reconciliation

Well, it looks as if the poll has been answered by the president and the majority leaders in the House and Senate. On this issue, they don't really seem to care about the Constitution. I guess it's just an archaic useless document that they really don't need to abide by.

Health Care Reform

Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?

I've gone through Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and here are the powers granted to Congress, as I understand them:

1. Lay and collect taxes, duties, etc. (They do GREAT with this)
2. Pay the debts of the United States.
3. Provide for the common defense.
4. Borrow money on the credit of the United States. (Another one they are GREAT at)
5. Regulate commerce with foreign nations and between the states.
6. Establish uniform rules for naturalization and bankruptcies throughout the United States.
7. Coin money and regulate its value.
8. Provide for punishment of counterfeiting.
9. Establish Post Offices.
10. Copyright/Patent protection.
11. Declare war.
12. Raise and support armed forces.

I have not listed items dealing with Piracy, Tribunals lesser than the Supreme Court, and the calling forth of the militia because for the most part, they're pretty arcane. If you're interested in learning about those items, look them up.

Nowhere in the above items did I see anything about reforming healthcare, providing healthcare, mandating that every person have healthcare, to tax or not tax certain types of healthcare (forbidden by the way, Article 1, Section 9 see Bill of Attainder), or deciding what should be included or omitted from healthcare plans.

It seems to me that today's Summit is based on a faulty argument. That being that they are actually granted the authority to do it. They're not. Just because people have talked for over a year about: what it will look like, how it will be paid for, who will run it, whether or not it covers abortions, whether or not it will pull the plug on Grandma via Death Panels, whether it's all about tax and spend Liberals or the party of no Conservatives doesn't mean it is Constitutional or allowed.

Are they trying to pass this and hopes no one realizes that it's unconstitutional? Are they completely ignorant to the fact that they aren't allowed to do this? Do they just not care, because we're not smart enough to know what's best for us?

Not that a challenge from little old me is going to impact their thinking, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

If this is truly what we should be doing, then do it in the full light of day. Do it the right way. Propose an Amendment to the Constitution. Make it a Constitutional right and/or guarantee that every American has health insurance and that the Federal Government is on the hook for it. Get that Amendment passed and ratified, and then you can start figuring out how to do it.

OR

If so many people want healthcare, let the states handle it on their own. After all, the 10th Amendment does state that all 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 seems to be the easiest, most Constitutional way to get it done, but what do I know?