An editorial in the May 29, 2009 Saginaw News supported the idea of exploring transfering detainees from Guantanimo Bay, Cuba to a newly built super max prison in Michigan's Upper Pennisula. Under President Obama, as he promised during his campaign for President, he plans to close the facility in Cuba and transfer it's detainees to other places. Since most countries don't want the detainees, and there is not a solid idea in place, Congress is refusing to release funds until a better idea comes up. So that brings us to here, the News opinion today. This editorial is in response to calls from such politically diverse voices such as Senator Carl Levin (D) and former Governor John Engler (R) to consider the idea. The News said that the reasons it should be considered are the income from the Federal Government to house them there, the jobs it could create, and the vast openness of the U.P. In response to the editorial, and the idea in general, I say
NOT A CHANCE IN HELL SHOULD THIS COME TO BE!
Our Upper Pennisula is a beautiful, natural place that attracts thousands of visitors yearly. It's pristine scenery, and wonderful wildlife, are among the best things Michigan has to offer. So why would anyone want to possibly screw it up with this idea?
Has anyone considered the negatives of this idea? As soon as the transfer was made, the MediaMachine would be all over up there. Imagine the folks from CNN, ABC, FNC, or CBS running around up there. They would be all over harassing people, needlessly stoking little things into major events, and destroying the peace and calm of the area. Why would we want to have this happen? No one would be able to vacation without seeing the trucks and crews from the MediaMachine. Talk about screwing everything up!
How about we add in potential protesters. Imagine these people wandering around, unchecked, disturbing the quiet for the locals in an area. I think it would affect the wildlife in a harmful way. They would just add to the cluster that the U.P. doesn't need.
And then, what about potential sympathizers? What happens when these people descend on our U.P.? Could some be armed? Could someone try and commit a small scale terrorist attack? What would this do to it?
Pure and simple, this is a STUPID idea! It's one thing to be stuck on a Naval Base on a distant island, quite another to have them landlocked here in Michigan. Things that are not happening on Cuba because of it's being a unfriendly island, and being a U.S. Naval Base, might happen here. There is just too much at risk. We cannot afford to have one of the nicest areas in the Lower 48 states possibily destoryed, or even messed with, by bringing these detainees here. It's time to drop this hair-brained, ill-concieved idea.
It's Yooperland, Not Gitmo North
Friday, May 29, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
New Justice, N. Korea, California, and a Follow Up
Today, Tuesday May 26, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayer for the vacancy on the U.S. Surpreme Court. If confirmed, she will become the 1st hispanic, and 3rd woman, to serve on our nation's highest court. I personally don't know much about her. I've read how she affected the Major League Baseball lock-out in 1995, but other than that, she's a unknown to me. It will be interesting to see how this hearing process plays out over the next few months. It will also be interesting to see how the Republicans handle this. Let's the games begin.
Why does North Korea think that what they are doing is helping their cause any? So far, most of the civilized world is alarmed by the stupid things they are doing with their nuclear program. Even now, their greatest ally, China, is even starting to become concerned. What are they thinking? Do they think they can hold the world hostage? Do they think they can spread whatever form of communism they operate under? What do they want? What is their aim? It really makes you wonder if their leader is insane? This is a problem for the whole world, not just the U.S. This needs to be dealt with!
The Surpreme Court in California today said that they cannot overturn the vote of the people in the Proposition 8 vote. They said the vote changed the Constitution of the state of California, and therefore it was Constitutional to ban gay marriage. Basically, they were saying that since the people voted for Prop. 8, under the state's laws it became a Constitutional Ammendment for California, and that the Court of California could not find it to be un-constitutional under California state law. This sounds a lot like the Pledge case we studied today in Government class whereas the court wouldn't change the law. Ironic, huh? Obviously, the next step will be the U.S. Surpreme Court to decide it there.
Now, a follow up to a previous post. It was brought to my attention that one of the reasons that the Dixie Chicks could've recieved so much flack was because of their gender. The comparison was made between what the Chicks did and what Don Imus did. Was gender a part of it? Maybe. But, I also think this is a case where we are talikng about a racist comment vs. a idealogical one. In Don Imus' case, it was a racial comment. Once he made peace within the African-American community, as did another famous racial crap spewer, Dog Chapman, they were allowed back on the air. They made the effort to ammend themselves for what they said. And, many in the African-American community forgave them and decided they deserved another chance and allowed them to come back without protest. But, in the case of the Chicks, it was a huge group of mostly President Bush supporting, military loving, country music lovin, middle of America, salt of the Earth people that were insulted. It wasn't a race, it was a idealogy. There's the difference. These same people don't have much of a use for other liberals such as Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, or George Soros either. They decided that they didn't want the Chicks back. Without their blessing, it would be professional suicide to try to force them down people's throats. If no one listened to your station, and bought from your advertisers, then where would you be? Without a job I imagine. Anyway, in the case of the Chicks, they also had said some nasty stuff about Toby Keith, Reba McEntire, and others that hurt them within the country music community. I think that that is the primary difference and why I can't really say how much gender played in it. Was there? Maybe. But, I think it was a lot more idealogical than anything.
Why does North Korea think that what they are doing is helping their cause any? So far, most of the civilized world is alarmed by the stupid things they are doing with their nuclear program. Even now, their greatest ally, China, is even starting to become concerned. What are they thinking? Do they think they can hold the world hostage? Do they think they can spread whatever form of communism they operate under? What do they want? What is their aim? It really makes you wonder if their leader is insane? This is a problem for the whole world, not just the U.S. This needs to be dealt with!
The Surpreme Court in California today said that they cannot overturn the vote of the people in the Proposition 8 vote. They said the vote changed the Constitution of the state of California, and therefore it was Constitutional to ban gay marriage. Basically, they were saying that since the people voted for Prop. 8, under the state's laws it became a Constitutional Ammendment for California, and that the Court of California could not find it to be un-constitutional under California state law. This sounds a lot like the Pledge case we studied today in Government class whereas the court wouldn't change the law. Ironic, huh? Obviously, the next step will be the U.S. Surpreme Court to decide it there.
Now, a follow up to a previous post. It was brought to my attention that one of the reasons that the Dixie Chicks could've recieved so much flack was because of their gender. The comparison was made between what the Chicks did and what Don Imus did. Was gender a part of it? Maybe. But, I also think this is a case where we are talikng about a racist comment vs. a idealogical one. In Don Imus' case, it was a racial comment. Once he made peace within the African-American community, as did another famous racial crap spewer, Dog Chapman, they were allowed back on the air. They made the effort to ammend themselves for what they said. And, many in the African-American community forgave them and decided they deserved another chance and allowed them to come back without protest. But, in the case of the Chicks, it was a huge group of mostly President Bush supporting, military loving, country music lovin, middle of America, salt of the Earth people that were insulted. It wasn't a race, it was a idealogy. There's the difference. These same people don't have much of a use for other liberals such as Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, or George Soros either. They decided that they didn't want the Chicks back. Without their blessing, it would be professional suicide to try to force them down people's throats. If no one listened to your station, and bought from your advertisers, then where would you be? Without a job I imagine. Anyway, in the case of the Chicks, they also had said some nasty stuff about Toby Keith, Reba McEntire, and others that hurt them within the country music community. I think that that is the primary difference and why I can't really say how much gender played in it. Was there? Maybe. But, I think it was a lot more idealogical than anything.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Is That A Whif Of Social Engineering I Smell?
Today, May 19, 2009, President Barack Obama announced that there would be a new federal fuel mileage regulation in place for year 2016. These new regulations were also coupled with a new emission standard for vehicles. In recent years, there were states trying to their make their own independent standards. This new federal statute will now allow those states to just follow the federal regulations instead. This is where the Federal Government has decided to go above potential state standards. The Federal Government is making the rules for the whole land on this one, instead of the states making their own seperate ones. Also, President Obama is trying to sell this as a fuel savings measure and a enviromental issue. Well, that may be a part of it, but I think there is also some social engineering involved too.
The American consumer is not buying these little cars that are currently on the market. At least not in the droves that the left wing element of the Democratic Party would like. These are the extremists that are bound to change the means and ways we live despite any cost to us. These tree huggers hide behind science that is questioned (Good Luck finding that in the MediaMachine, go online), try to appeal to the people's emotions, not their intelligence, and want everybody to live like we are in Bedrock or Walnut Grove. These people are using their influence in the new administration to push the Green Nazi movement on us. This is trouble.
In order to achieve the goals laid out today, the auto companies will have to go back to super small cars that were dangerous, poorly built, and didn't sell. In the early 1980's there was this huge effort to downsize cars to save fuel then. The automakers responded by unleashing really, really bad cars such as the Chevy Citation, the Pontiac J2000, Dodge Omni, and the ultimate shitbuckets, Chrysler's entire K-Car lineup. This is known as one of the worst times in U.S. auto history. Are we heading for this again? I hope not!!
But, why are we being forcefed small cars? To save a little gas? To help save a few trees? Think about it, there has been gas sippers such as the Prius, the Civic, the Corolla, and the Focus on the market for years now. In the next couple of years, more hybrids will hit the market, the electric Chevy Volt will go on sale, and the development of Honda's hydrogen car will probably be complete. These are all options that are available, or will be soon. So what's wrong with just letting the people go for these cars?
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT!!!!!!! Most people are not buying these small cars. People want room for their expanding families. People like comfort. People want storage and luggage space. And, people want looks to their cars. These are all things that most small cars cannot offer. So people are not buying them. Peple are buying bigger cars, SUV's, and still, trucks. People are exercising their right to purchase a safe, legal, for sale car, or truck, on the market. This is an advantage to our American way, the right to freely purchase what we need. This is great!
But, since we are not buying these cars, the Government, and the GreenNazi supporters, feel they have to do something to force the populace to do so. Hence, the new fuel and emissions rules. The majority of the new cars that will be built will be small, underpowered, ugly little things. Then, what about trucks? A huge segment of the population use these in their workplaces, and others just like the room and flexibilty that they offer. This market will suffer a huge blow! These new regulations will completely change the way our lives are. We will have less freedom of choice. We will have less say in this matter of our lives. We will spend more. All because our Government thinks we need these new rules. They think we should be forced to buy small cars. They are hoping that the only cars the automakers can sell will be small ones. That is forcing us to only be able to buy what THEY want. We haven't changed our ways, so they will change them for us.
Sounds like social engineering to me. The simple concept of the Government saying we know what is better for you, and we will make sure you only buy, or do, what we want you to . They can regulate us into submission in ways that we are not doing. It kinda reminds me of Ceacescu in Romania. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, he ordered all people to have a certain style in their dress, men and women to wear their hair at a certain length, live in apartments, and only read and see what he wanted them to. Social engineering! The same concept behind the Amish all being the same in look, in ways, in actions, except theirs is more based on religion instead of a political factor. Social Engineering!
Now, this isn't quite as extreme, but it does have a whif of it. Since we aren't buying the small cars, or the right decision as they'd call it, the Government feels it needs to force us to change for our own good. The "We'll make them do it despite what they may want" mentality. This is a slippery slope that I am not happy with. What's next? How about adding some nasty flavoring to ground beef because we won't stop eating it. Mandating music changes because we can't choose the right stuff. All, of course, under some other, made up guise Slippery slope indeed.
I'd say it's a whif if you ask me. And, I'd rather smell a pig farm next door than that whif!!!
The American consumer is not buying these little cars that are currently on the market. At least not in the droves that the left wing element of the Democratic Party would like. These are the extremists that are bound to change the means and ways we live despite any cost to us. These tree huggers hide behind science that is questioned (Good Luck finding that in the MediaMachine, go online), try to appeal to the people's emotions, not their intelligence, and want everybody to live like we are in Bedrock or Walnut Grove. These people are using their influence in the new administration to push the Green Nazi movement on us. This is trouble.
In order to achieve the goals laid out today, the auto companies will have to go back to super small cars that were dangerous, poorly built, and didn't sell. In the early 1980's there was this huge effort to downsize cars to save fuel then. The automakers responded by unleashing really, really bad cars such as the Chevy Citation, the Pontiac J2000, Dodge Omni, and the ultimate shitbuckets, Chrysler's entire K-Car lineup. This is known as one of the worst times in U.S. auto history. Are we heading for this again? I hope not!!
But, why are we being forcefed small cars? To save a little gas? To help save a few trees? Think about it, there has been gas sippers such as the Prius, the Civic, the Corolla, and the Focus on the market for years now. In the next couple of years, more hybrids will hit the market, the electric Chevy Volt will go on sale, and the development of Honda's hydrogen car will probably be complete. These are all options that are available, or will be soon. So what's wrong with just letting the people go for these cars?
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT!!!!!!! Most people are not buying these small cars. People want room for their expanding families. People like comfort. People want storage and luggage space. And, people want looks to their cars. These are all things that most small cars cannot offer. So people are not buying them. Peple are buying bigger cars, SUV's, and still, trucks. People are exercising their right to purchase a safe, legal, for sale car, or truck, on the market. This is an advantage to our American way, the right to freely purchase what we need. This is great!
But, since we are not buying these cars, the Government, and the GreenNazi supporters, feel they have to do something to force the populace to do so. Hence, the new fuel and emissions rules. The majority of the new cars that will be built will be small, underpowered, ugly little things. Then, what about trucks? A huge segment of the population use these in their workplaces, and others just like the room and flexibilty that they offer. This market will suffer a huge blow! These new regulations will completely change the way our lives are. We will have less freedom of choice. We will have less say in this matter of our lives. We will spend more. All because our Government thinks we need these new rules. They think we should be forced to buy small cars. They are hoping that the only cars the automakers can sell will be small ones. That is forcing us to only be able to buy what THEY want. We haven't changed our ways, so they will change them for us.
Sounds like social engineering to me. The simple concept of the Government saying we know what is better for you, and we will make sure you only buy, or do, what we want you to . They can regulate us into submission in ways that we are not doing. It kinda reminds me of Ceacescu in Romania. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, he ordered all people to have a certain style in their dress, men and women to wear their hair at a certain length, live in apartments, and only read and see what he wanted them to. Social engineering! The same concept behind the Amish all being the same in look, in ways, in actions, except theirs is more based on religion instead of a political factor. Social Engineering!
Now, this isn't quite as extreme, but it does have a whif of it. Since we aren't buying the small cars, or the right decision as they'd call it, the Government feels it needs to force us to change for our own good. The "We'll make them do it despite what they may want" mentality. This is a slippery slope that I am not happy with. What's next? How about adding some nasty flavoring to ground beef because we won't stop eating it. Mandating music changes because we can't choose the right stuff. All, of course, under some other, made up guise Slippery slope indeed.
I'd say it's a whif if you ask me. And, I'd rather smell a pig farm next door than that whif!!!
Monday, May 18, 2009
A Personal Happiness
This may be a little off politics, but it is so very relevent to today's world.
Back during the Vietnam War, this country treated those returning from SouthEast Asia very poorly. A lot of the population turned on these men returning home in sometimes vile ways. I know they were using their 1st Ammendment rights to protest, but the matter in which they did it was wrong. So many soldiers were drafted, went and did what they had to do, and when they came home, they were treated like crap! This was so wrong! It's one thing to protest the leaders that engaged us in Vietnam, it was a whole other thing to treat the soldiers like that. The stories I have heard and read make me sick! What were people thinking? A sad period if you ask me.
Now flash forward to today. When our troops return home from Iraq or Afghanistan, they are welcomed with cheers, respect, and a appreciation for their effort. People today understand the difference between D.C. getting us involved in these actions, and the soldiers that actually go there. The media has helped portray soldiers in more positive light that they did in Vietnam and that has helped. Also more people thought we were justified in the actions of this last decade than in the 60's. Even after people started to tire and turn against Iraq, and in some ways now, Afghanistan, the troops have been held in high regard. This is a great development! We do such a good job now thanking our soldiers for their service and sacrifices. I have been as proud of our current actions as I am sickened by the actions of the Vietnam era. We finally got it right!!
This affects me because I am a U.S. Veteran. I was not the greatest soldier ever, but I did serve. I have a lot of respect for those that have gone off to fight for this country no matter what the situation was. It's a deep belief of mine that we should respect these men and women to the highest degree. Thankfully, today we are. This makes me happy.
Back during the Vietnam War, this country treated those returning from SouthEast Asia very poorly. A lot of the population turned on these men returning home in sometimes vile ways. I know they were using their 1st Ammendment rights to protest, but the matter in which they did it was wrong. So many soldiers were drafted, went and did what they had to do, and when they came home, they were treated like crap! This was so wrong! It's one thing to protest the leaders that engaged us in Vietnam, it was a whole other thing to treat the soldiers like that. The stories I have heard and read make me sick! What were people thinking? A sad period if you ask me.
Now flash forward to today. When our troops return home from Iraq or Afghanistan, they are welcomed with cheers, respect, and a appreciation for their effort. People today understand the difference between D.C. getting us involved in these actions, and the soldiers that actually go there. The media has helped portray soldiers in more positive light that they did in Vietnam and that has helped. Also more people thought we were justified in the actions of this last decade than in the 60's. Even after people started to tire and turn against Iraq, and in some ways now, Afghanistan, the troops have been held in high regard. This is a great development! We do such a good job now thanking our soldiers for their service and sacrifices. I have been as proud of our current actions as I am sickened by the actions of the Vietnam era. We finally got it right!!
This affects me because I am a U.S. Veteran. I was not the greatest soldier ever, but I did serve. I have a lot of respect for those that have gone off to fight for this country no matter what the situation was. It's a deep belief of mine that we should respect these men and women to the highest degree. Thankfully, today we are. This makes me happy.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Is Speech Free?
Is speech free? Can you really say almost anything you want? Obviously you can't yell "Fire" in a theater, or incite a riot, but other than that, can you say anything you want?
The answer is pretty much Yes. If you can handle the public response.
How many times have we heard people cut down President Bush or President Obama? I've heard it almost everyday. Not just their policies, but actually them. There has been some very vile things said about our leaders over the years. But, in no instance has the Government came after those for their comments. When Liberal talking heads like Keith Olbermann cut down President Bush, or now, when Conservative talking heads like Rush Limbaugh cut down President Obama, the Government does not go after them. They have a 1st Ammendment guarantee that their rants are protected from Government crack-down. Since they are not inciting illegal activities, just trying to change people's voting patterns, there is no need to crack down. That is exactly what the Founders intended, civil disagreement and freedom from Government repression for such.
But, sadly, there is a attempt to use this to shield people from other people not agreeing with them. A few years ago, the Dixie Chicks said that "they were ashamed that the President was from Texas". Holy hell broke loose at that point! They suffered a lot of backlash for the comments from ordinary Americans. Their career took a nosedive immediately. Once they realized what was happening, and the fact that a lot of people just didn't want to hear it, they fought back by screaming "we have freedom of speech". They played themselves as victims that were trying to be denied their freedom of speech. Far from it! No Government agency attempted to crack down on them. No action from the Justice Department was taken. No Government even tried to interfere with them saying what they wanted. They did have their rights to freedom of speech as defined by the Constitution.
But, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about being immune from backlash from the public. In the case of the Chicks, the backlash was huge. Sales dropped, radio play dried up, concert attendance plummeted, and generally people turned away from them. That is a right that the people have. They didn't agree with what they said, and reacted by turning their backs on them.
But, the Chicks reaction was outraegous. They started screaming about their "freedom of speech" right. They tried to play themselves as victims of a oppressive system, that they were trying to be silenced, and people were trying to denie them rights. Hardly! They said what they said, and were not punished by a Govt. Ordinary citizens turned on them. There is a difference.
The 1st Ammendment protects you from Government oppression for what you say, not public opinion against what you say. This misguided argument from the Chicks only damaged them more. They just didn't get it! They figured they could say what they wanted without anyone being mad. Wrong! The 1st Ammendment worked perfect here. No Government crackdown, but the people had the right to decide how they felt about what was said, and in the case of the Chicks, they didn't like it! Both rights worked perfect in this case.
So yes, speech is free. But, so is public reaction.
The answer is pretty much Yes. If you can handle the public response.
How many times have we heard people cut down President Bush or President Obama? I've heard it almost everyday. Not just their policies, but actually them. There has been some very vile things said about our leaders over the years. But, in no instance has the Government came after those for their comments. When Liberal talking heads like Keith Olbermann cut down President Bush, or now, when Conservative talking heads like Rush Limbaugh cut down President Obama, the Government does not go after them. They have a 1st Ammendment guarantee that their rants are protected from Government crack-down. Since they are not inciting illegal activities, just trying to change people's voting patterns, there is no need to crack down. That is exactly what the Founders intended, civil disagreement and freedom from Government repression for such.
But, sadly, there is a attempt to use this to shield people from other people not agreeing with them. A few years ago, the Dixie Chicks said that "they were ashamed that the President was from Texas". Holy hell broke loose at that point! They suffered a lot of backlash for the comments from ordinary Americans. Their career took a nosedive immediately. Once they realized what was happening, and the fact that a lot of people just didn't want to hear it, they fought back by screaming "we have freedom of speech". They played themselves as victims that were trying to be denied their freedom of speech. Far from it! No Government agency attempted to crack down on them. No action from the Justice Department was taken. No Government even tried to interfere with them saying what they wanted. They did have their rights to freedom of speech as defined by the Constitution.
But, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about being immune from backlash from the public. In the case of the Chicks, the backlash was huge. Sales dropped, radio play dried up, concert attendance plummeted, and generally people turned away from them. That is a right that the people have. They didn't agree with what they said, and reacted by turning their backs on them.
But, the Chicks reaction was outraegous. They started screaming about their "freedom of speech" right. They tried to play themselves as victims of a oppressive system, that they were trying to be silenced, and people were trying to denie them rights. Hardly! They said what they said, and were not punished by a Govt. Ordinary citizens turned on them. There is a difference.
The 1st Ammendment protects you from Government oppression for what you say, not public opinion against what you say. This misguided argument from the Chicks only damaged them more. They just didn't get it! They figured they could say what they wanted without anyone being mad. Wrong! The 1st Ammendment worked perfect here. No Government crackdown, but the people had the right to decide how they felt about what was said, and in the case of the Chicks, they didn't like it! Both rights worked perfect in this case.
So yes, speech is free. But, so is public reaction.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Black, White, or Gray?
How can different people look at the same law and find it to say something different? You would think that if it says something, that's all it says. Cut and dry right? If it says yes, then it's yes, if not, then it's no. Black and white, right?
Nope!
Under our Constitution, the President gets to appoint Supreme Court Justices. What this does is make it so that the Court has become partisan. If a Conservative picks a Judge, more than likely it will offer a more conservative ruling. The same goes for a Liberal pick, whose appointees will judge more liberally. What this does is leave open the possibility of 1 single law being changed every 15 to 20 years or so. Take for instance the 2nd Amendment. This is a highly contensious thing for a lot of Americans. Last year, the Court, on a 5 to 4 ruling, upheld the individual right to bear arms. The 5 who wrote for the majority were the Conservative appointees, the 4 against were the Liberal appointees. Now, if someone wanted to take another 2nd Amendment case to court starting this year, by the time it reaches the Surpreme Court, the court could have 2 or 3 appointees of President Obama, which could make the swing 5-4, or even 6-3 for the liberal viewpoint. That could mean that the Court could strike down the 2nd Amendment. So, it was O.K. in 2008, but not 2021! This is a problem!
When a new case goes before the Court and needs judging, that's one thing. But, the ability for a Court to overturn a ruling of a previous Court, is wrong! Once a decision is made, no future Courts should be allowed to overturn a previous Court's ruling. Period!
I think if the Founder's had ever imagined that this could happen, they would have added more things to the Constitution. I think they envisioned that everything would always be cut and dried, black and white. But, it's not! It's actually, unfortunetly, gray!
Nope!
Under our Constitution, the President gets to appoint Supreme Court Justices. What this does is make it so that the Court has become partisan. If a Conservative picks a Judge, more than likely it will offer a more conservative ruling. The same goes for a Liberal pick, whose appointees will judge more liberally. What this does is leave open the possibility of 1 single law being changed every 15 to 20 years or so. Take for instance the 2nd Amendment. This is a highly contensious thing for a lot of Americans. Last year, the Court, on a 5 to 4 ruling, upheld the individual right to bear arms. The 5 who wrote for the majority were the Conservative appointees, the 4 against were the Liberal appointees. Now, if someone wanted to take another 2nd Amendment case to court starting this year, by the time it reaches the Surpreme Court, the court could have 2 or 3 appointees of President Obama, which could make the swing 5-4, or even 6-3 for the liberal viewpoint. That could mean that the Court could strike down the 2nd Amendment. So, it was O.K. in 2008, but not 2021! This is a problem!
When a new case goes before the Court and needs judging, that's one thing. But, the ability for a Court to overturn a ruling of a previous Court, is wrong! Once a decision is made, no future Courts should be allowed to overturn a previous Court's ruling. Period!
I think if the Founder's had ever imagined that this could happen, they would have added more things to the Constitution. I think they envisioned that everything would always be cut and dried, black and white. But, it's not! It's actually, unfortunetly, gray!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Great Idea, Bad Execution
When the Founders wrote the Constitution, there is no way they could have ever imagined that things would be as they are today. If they had, I think the Constitution would have had another 50 pages or more easily to deal with the stuff that has happened over the last 100 years.
They clearly didn't want any group of people to have too much power. That's why they wrote the checks and balances into it. But, as we've seen over the last while, they don't always work.
With the way our system is now, one party, and their power players, financial backers, and almost millitant supporters, can control the system almost without interference. All it takes is to elect the President, win the House, and get 60 or more Senators from your party. The 60 represents the amount that will not let the other party filibuster your plans. In the current case with the recent defection of Arlen Spector, Pa., from the Republican to the Democrat Party, and with the ongoing court case involving the disputed Minnesota Senate election between incumbent Norm Coleman (R) and challenger Al Franken (D), the Democrats could have a filibuster proof 60 senate seats. This, along with the majority that the House has in Democrats, would allow for much easier passage of President Obama's plans. No other party, primarily the Republicans, would have the ability to stop it. With all the power controlled by one party, the posibility of a Democratic/Liberal agenda being placed on the American people is high. That shows that at this time, as it also was from Jan. 20, 2001 until Jan 20, 2006 for the Republicans, that one party control can lead to people feeling left out, ostracized, and dis-enfranchised. Then it was the Democrats, now, potentially, the Republicans.
I don't think the Founders could have ever imagined a day when all there was was a two-party system. I think if they had, they might have put more safeguards in place to prevent this almost one-party rule.
The key problem is the only two-parties to choose from formula that we are stuck with right now. Party solidarity at times trumps common sense, constituite voice, and doing things that are right for the people. Add in the influence of lobbyists, and the money they bring to the table, and the population does not get fully represented by the system in place. More parties, with enough differences between them, would address this problem. As would lessening the influence of money directly to the persons involved. So I am a advocate of more parties than what we have right now.
So even though our Founders did not want a almost one-party rule, that is what we can be stuck with today. When the situation is right, that party could almost swing every law in the books towards the position that they have towards it. So, we could end up with a one-party rule system under our current Constituion.
I think this is wrong! One party control is very Un-American!!
They clearly didn't want any group of people to have too much power. That's why they wrote the checks and balances into it. But, as we've seen over the last while, they don't always work.
With the way our system is now, one party, and their power players, financial backers, and almost millitant supporters, can control the system almost without interference. All it takes is to elect the President, win the House, and get 60 or more Senators from your party. The 60 represents the amount that will not let the other party filibuster your plans. In the current case with the recent defection of Arlen Spector, Pa., from the Republican to the Democrat Party, and with the ongoing court case involving the disputed Minnesota Senate election between incumbent Norm Coleman (R) and challenger Al Franken (D), the Democrats could have a filibuster proof 60 senate seats. This, along with the majority that the House has in Democrats, would allow for much easier passage of President Obama's plans. No other party, primarily the Republicans, would have the ability to stop it. With all the power controlled by one party, the posibility of a Democratic/Liberal agenda being placed on the American people is high. That shows that at this time, as it also was from Jan. 20, 2001 until Jan 20, 2006 for the Republicans, that one party control can lead to people feeling left out, ostracized, and dis-enfranchised. Then it was the Democrats, now, potentially, the Republicans.
I don't think the Founders could have ever imagined a day when all there was was a two-party system. I think if they had, they might have put more safeguards in place to prevent this almost one-party rule.
The key problem is the only two-parties to choose from formula that we are stuck with right now. Party solidarity at times trumps common sense, constituite voice, and doing things that are right for the people. Add in the influence of lobbyists, and the money they bring to the table, and the population does not get fully represented by the system in place. More parties, with enough differences between them, would address this problem. As would lessening the influence of money directly to the persons involved. So I am a advocate of more parties than what we have right now.
So even though our Founders did not want a almost one-party rule, that is what we can be stuck with today. When the situation is right, that party could almost swing every law in the books towards the position that they have towards it. So, we could end up with a one-party rule system under our current Constituion.
I think this is wrong! One party control is very Un-American!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
