Both sides too often consider that they have the corner on the for good ideas. They don't see their own holes in their arguments and plans and when they get the opportunity they try to cram weak, foolish, and near tyrannical legislation. Is this the way that things should be?
The answer to the above question is a resounding no! Yet who is to blame for so low a state that we are in? The answer us the American people we are the ones to blame for so poor a job we have done in governing ourselves. For too long we have been content with what was. We became complacent and we failed to examine out lives and ourselves. We took material goods as a sign that we are a favored people. However once those goods were taken from us we became a straw man.
It is time for the American people to wake up and ask the big questions on government. They should ask what they can do for this country not what this country can do for them.
America rise up and shake of the chains that bind you. Today my readers look back on the history of America. Look back to our patriots and remember there sacrifice. Consecrate this day to that sacrifice. Dedicate your lives today to changing the political sphere in your community and your nation. It is only through active and engaged citizenry that a nation can be changed. Today is our time middle of the road Americans. Today is the only time we have for tomorrow is as yet unknown and yesterday has passed us by. The coming storm can be abated if we act united in our purpose.
We are the nation!
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
On Leadership part II
Salus populi suprema lex. I first came across this term when I was reading John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. The phrase is Latin and translated it means the good of the people is the supreme law. About ten minutes before I started writing this post I read an interesting article. The article I read was concerning an illformed pact to protect marriage. Now I want to clarify that I think that marriage is between one man and one woman. That is not the issue nor is it the point. The point is that this pact was so poorly made that it forced law makers into a corner that they could not get out for fear of breaking this contract. This and another pact made to never raise taxes seem to be an indication of a terrible direction. That direction is supporting causes so wholeheartedly that the good of the people is sacrificed for the good of the cause.
The good of the people must be taken into consideration. Now when I say the people I do not mean the voters nor your supporters. I mean the entire population for which you as an elected leader are responsible for. This would, of necessity, require the elected official to forgo his agenda or his party's agenda to bolster the general populace of the United States. Sometimes a program or theory doesn't work the way it is expected to. So rather helping it harms. The only thing to be done then is to change opinion and action for the good of the people! This is not flip-floppery neither is it conviction flim-flammery. No, this is a reasoned and well thought out approach. This is the course that a leader must take in order to help his or her nation.
To illustrate let's look at a basic everday life problem. Say your TV is broken and won't turn on. You've checked the plugs and all the other cords and all are connected yet there is still no picture. How many times would you go through the process before you say, "Stupid pos is broken guess I better go buy a new one." For me it takes like three times before I realize that yes the TV is broken and yes I need a new one. However if we acted like our politicians do we would sit stubbornly in front of the TV pretending that blank screen was playing the Super Bowl...in July.
Why do they do this? To win political points with the delegates. This is insanity at its finest and such a practice needs to be halted. The question is how?
The good of the people must be taken into consideration. Now when I say the people I do not mean the voters nor your supporters. I mean the entire population for which you as an elected leader are responsible for. This would, of necessity, require the elected official to forgo his agenda or his party's agenda to bolster the general populace of the United States. Sometimes a program or theory doesn't work the way it is expected to. So rather helping it harms. The only thing to be done then is to change opinion and action for the good of the people! This is not flip-floppery neither is it conviction flim-flammery. No, this is a reasoned and well thought out approach. This is the course that a leader must take in order to help his or her nation.
To illustrate let's look at a basic everday life problem. Say your TV is broken and won't turn on. You've checked the plugs and all the other cords and all are connected yet there is still no picture. How many times would you go through the process before you say, "Stupid pos is broken guess I better go buy a new one." For me it takes like three times before I realize that yes the TV is broken and yes I need a new one. However if we acted like our politicians do we would sit stubbornly in front of the TV pretending that blank screen was playing the Super Bowl...in July.
Why do they do this? To win political points with the delegates. This is insanity at its finest and such a practice needs to be halted. The question is how?
Monday, June 20, 2011
Utah Tea Party...I mean Republican convention.
It's official the Tea Party in Utah is nuts. they have gone completely insane and now deserve the title of Tea Baggers. End of story. Normally I try to refrain from childish name calling but the Tea Baggers of well earned their name. Now you may ask, "Scott what is causing you to be so pissed?" For that I answer the Utah Republican State Convention, which has a slim majority of Tea Baggers as delegates. In a resounding show of both stupidity and insanity they decided to repeal HB 116 which was a wise and well thought out piece of legislation to allow for a guest worker program. This program according to a Dan Jones/KSL (local Utah polling and news station respectively) was supported by over 61% of Utah! That is borderline super majority. Yet the Tea Baggers and their xenophobia seemed to rule the day at the Republican convention. What made this worse was that HB 116 was supported by the Legislature, the Governor, the Attorney General, various religious institutions, businesses, cities, and towns. Yet somehow the tools in the Tea Party seemed to disregard all sanity and voted for the immediate repeal of the law. Fortunately they have no power do this from convention but it puts pressure on the politicians; who for the most part are spineless and will probably cave to the pressure.
HB116 is a wise and pragmatic approach to immigration. It allowed for workers who were here illegally (which BTW is s civil penalty with less punishment that a speeding ticket) to become registered legal and more supportive of the general society. The arguments that the Tea Baggers use is nothing more than insanity incarnate. There same arguments could be found within in the texts of Nazi propaganda.
Although if this is what the Tea Baggers want I hear that there are trains from Auschwitz available for lease.
HB116 is a wise and pragmatic approach to immigration. It allowed for workers who were here illegally (which BTW is s civil penalty with less punishment that a speeding ticket) to become registered legal and more supportive of the general society. The arguments that the Tea Baggers use is nothing more than insanity incarnate. There same arguments could be found within in the texts of Nazi propaganda.
Although if this is what the Tea Baggers want I hear that there are trains from Auschwitz available for lease.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Constituional Originalism
For those of you don't follow politics, which if you're reading this is probably about 3% of the group, what I term Constitutional Originalism is the idea that we as a nation must "return to the original meaning of the Constitution." Which sounds great as a slogan but what about in practice? As I have thought about it I don't think that it works out quite as well as one could hope. For what does that phrase mean? Should we not allow women to vote, or only property holding men can vote. Does going back to the original Constitution mean the reinstitution slavery. Perhaps what this phrase means is that we should throw out over two hundred years of jurisprudence. As one can see there is an issue.
However what I have found associated with this term is the phrase "liberal judges" or "judicial activists." These two phrases are used to deride judges that supposedly overstep their bounds as judges. So I think that what the Originalists are really trying to say is they do not like judges who interpret the language and meaning of the Constitution to apply those principles to the modern era. The Originalists want to stop this practice because they disagree with the Supreme Courts decisions. Such disagreement is all well and good but I am here to say that their argument fails to hold water. To illustrate this let's go and look at the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now I ask you to at this time take an Originalists position and use strictly the words found in this amendment and apply this to wire taps. A phone communication is not a paper, nor an effect. Executing a wiretap is also not an invasion of the person's home seeing that such can be executed via other means. So using an Originalist position I ask should the government be able place a wiretap on your home without a search warrant? If you take only the words found in this amendment then the answer has to be yes. Yet I ask why is this not the case. For that we have to turn and thank an activist Supreme Court.
The Court case that decided this issue was Katz v US (1967). The Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant must be granted where a person should expect a reasonable amount of privacy. Where does this phrase show up in the Constitution? That's right it doesn't. Now I think that we all can agree that a phone conversation should be kept private and therefore subject to a search warrant. So here is a case where we see Originalism fail.
I conclude by saying that we need to remember the principles behind the amendments more so than the actual words. Once we remember those timeless treasures then we can have an opportunity to make correct decisions. I urge all Originalists to study Constitutional case law and discover just how much judges protect your vaunted rights.
However what I have found associated with this term is the phrase "liberal judges" or "judicial activists." These two phrases are used to deride judges that supposedly overstep their bounds as judges. So I think that what the Originalists are really trying to say is they do not like judges who interpret the language and meaning of the Constitution to apply those principles to the modern era. The Originalists want to stop this practice because they disagree with the Supreme Courts decisions. Such disagreement is all well and good but I am here to say that their argument fails to hold water. To illustrate this let's go and look at the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now I ask you to at this time take an Originalists position and use strictly the words found in this amendment and apply this to wire taps. A phone communication is not a paper, nor an effect. Executing a wiretap is also not an invasion of the person's home seeing that such can be executed via other means. So using an Originalist position I ask should the government be able place a wiretap on your home without a search warrant? If you take only the words found in this amendment then the answer has to be yes. Yet I ask why is this not the case. For that we have to turn and thank an activist Supreme Court.
The Court case that decided this issue was Katz v US (1967). The Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant must be granted where a person should expect a reasonable amount of privacy. Where does this phrase show up in the Constitution? That's right it doesn't. Now I think that we all can agree that a phone conversation should be kept private and therefore subject to a search warrant. So here is a case where we see Originalism fail.
I conclude by saying that we need to remember the principles behind the amendments more so than the actual words. Once we remember those timeless treasures then we can have an opportunity to make correct decisions. I urge all Originalists to study Constitutional case law and discover just how much judges protect your vaunted rights.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Does the Tea Party have power?
I have had a hard time as of late to pick a topic to write on. There are so many to choose from. I think that now I have officially narrowed it down andhave finally found something worth writing about. That is the Tea Party. As I consider the 2010 elections I am convinced that the Tea Party has very little power. I will take as my example the Nevada senate election where Harry Reid could have been ousted and the Alaska senate election where the Tea Party candidate lost to another Republican.
Earlier in the year Republicans were poised to oust the sitting Senate President of the United States of America. Obviously they failed. The question that should be considered is why? It is because the candidate that the Republicans put up was a bit far to the right on the political spectrum. This candidate was in fact the Tea Party favorite, which a was a major reason that she got out of convention. She won over the more moderate candidates who in early were double digits ahead of Reid.To me this is a very clear indication that the people of the United States of America do not want the Tea Party. Their politics are too right wing and do not reflect American values of compromise and moderation. Rather their politics are unyielding and crazed in their approach. That said the Tea Party and their candidate lost what could have been a major victory and could have turned the tide in their favor. They didn't and the senate remains the same.
The second person I would like to point out is the war in Alaska that was fought between the Tea Party candidate, as supported by former Governor Palin, and his Republican contender. After a recount it was found that the non-Tea Partier had won the election, as previous counts made clear. This single even shows that the Tea Party and their quasi-leaders don't have the kind of clout they proclaim to have. How can they if their candidates cannot beat a hated Senator or win within a state that a major Tea Partier was a Governor.
Now the counter is that they did infact gain some seats for candidates that were "Tea Partiers" but if one were to take a closer look at this claim many of these candidates were viable candidates before aligning themselves with this new found populist movement. So it seems that the Tea Party had relatively little incluence in those regards as well. I think that the race with Rand Paul is the most telling instance for this point.
With all that said I think that this is the time for a major shake up but not one that leads to a widening political gap between left and right. No now is the time for a central party to emerge and take control of the political arena.
Earlier in the year Republicans were poised to oust the sitting Senate President of the United States of America. Obviously they failed. The question that should be considered is why? It is because the candidate that the Republicans put up was a bit far to the right on the political spectrum. This candidate was in fact the Tea Party favorite, which a was a major reason that she got out of convention. She won over the more moderate candidates who in early were double digits ahead of Reid.To me this is a very clear indication that the people of the United States of America do not want the Tea Party. Their politics are too right wing and do not reflect American values of compromise and moderation. Rather their politics are unyielding and crazed in their approach. That said the Tea Party and their candidate lost what could have been a major victory and could have turned the tide in their favor. They didn't and the senate remains the same.
The second person I would like to point out is the war in Alaska that was fought between the Tea Party candidate, as supported by former Governor Palin, and his Republican contender. After a recount it was found that the non-Tea Partier had won the election, as previous counts made clear. This single even shows that the Tea Party and their quasi-leaders don't have the kind of clout they proclaim to have. How can they if their candidates cannot beat a hated Senator or win within a state that a major Tea Partier was a Governor.
Now the counter is that they did infact gain some seats for candidates that were "Tea Partiers" but if one were to take a closer look at this claim many of these candidates were viable candidates before aligning themselves with this new found populist movement. So it seems that the Tea Party had relatively little incluence in those regards as well. I think that the race with Rand Paul is the most telling instance for this point.
With all that said I think that this is the time for a major shake up but not one that leads to a widening political gap between left and right. No now is the time for a central party to emerge and take control of the political arena.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)