It has taken me over a week to process the latest desecration of the United States Constitution promulgated by no other than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts.
The Roberts Court I predict will go down as the most liberal Court in U.S. history.
And that's saying something.
Much has been made in the media of the decision reached by Justice Roberts on the most contentious provision contained within the 1,300 page "(Un)Affordable Care Act."
His holding in that respect defies any and all Rules of Law and the common law in this country, and wipes out any illusion that the Bill of Rights was written in order to protect individual Americans from federal (OR STATE) overstep.
Upholding this provision was not only overstep, it was crushing the American people under federal jack boots.
Now the "talking heads" on the cable news networks, who make their profits over sensationalized news and cases such as this one they can milk for weeks and years to come, are arguing whether this mandate is a "tax" as Justice Roberts defined it (is this man insane, or what?) or a penalty.
From Websters:
Definition of PENALTY
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
-------------------------------------------------
It is, no question, a penalty and not a "tax," or within Congress or the Supreme Court's taxing authority under our Constitution or those founders intent.
But more importantly, just what was the purpose of Justice Roberts defining it in such a manner, since there did have to be an ulterior motive here with such an outrageous ruling.
Well, the Supreme Court has, for literally decades, refused to hear cases involving taxation due to a decision either it made independently, or after passage of another of those back door bills, that it will not hear any cases involving taxation.
Since, of course, the federal income tax itself and its passage was by no means a popular move by that Congress so very long ago...
As long as the Supreme Court defines it as such, it never, ever again has to re-examine its own ruling on this provision.
By its own edict...
In other words, Roberts both ruled it a tax, and then protected this Court (and any future Court also) from ever having to hear any more cases with respect to that provision in ObamaCare ever again.
I still haven't figured out how the Supreme Court has the power anywhere in the Constitution to refuse to hear any case brought by an American citizen, but it does so rather regularly.
This, in an of itself, is a demonstration of the high regard the Court holds for itself as the Court of last resort.
And it is still unclear to me just who the appealing parties were in this case, since it was announced that it was brought by several of the states (who also stand to gain revenue from this ruling, revenue which they can now use elsewhere in their states for more and more unconstitutional functions when they cut many of their also state funded programs).
From what I read in briefly having a chance to read the Supreme Court opinion in full before it was yanked from the web, it was brought by a "corporate" entity I had never heard of (and additional appellees).
This was not just a wacko ruling, it was a wacko ruling that had a further political purpose as its objective.
Which makes the Roberts Court one of the most liberal and political courts ever in this country.
I wonder just how much stock Justice Roberts has in the insurance and health care sector?
Since it is clear that most of those in Washington who hold all those insurance, hospital and pharma stocks will be making a killing on this ruling - and Mr. Romney is also no exception.
They all should be ashamed...as this provision actually was the most contentious, and yet most important provision within that 1,300 page bill.
Make no mistake about it....
It set a "precedent" like no other ruling before it...that the federal government's power is absolute with respect to using any means necessary to pass any old legislation it wishes...
And the first order of business in this country for any new Congress should be re-examining the law school curriculum in this country, particularly those Ivy League schools on the East Coast...
Since the amount they are charging for tuition for such a legal education as obviously Mr. Roberts must have received seems like highway robbery...or money down the drain.
I hope Mr. Roberts paid for that education, and not his parents...
And if the penalty was upheld as a tax, then it would stand to reason that the mandate to provide health insurance for individual Americans and that cost is also a tax, and all dollars paid by Americans for their own health care should then be fully deductible on their federal and state income taxes.
You can't have it both ways...
Showing posts with label civil law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil law. Show all posts
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Egypt Uprising One Big Commercial For Social Networking?
Is it me or does it seem that the recent unrest and protests in Egypt appear to be one long, very long commercial for social networking and Twitter, Facebook and the rest? I mean, it does appear that after the government in Egypt shut down the internet, all the newscasters talk about is the "news" they are getting through the social networking sites, with now even "experts" in social networking giving their perspective alongside those highly paid political analysts and commentators.
I mean, ever since this uprising began it has dominated our news on ever single station, and it is not like there is not other true, hard news stories regarding the United States and what is happening on our shores.
This global media really has also lost its way, a media that is fed mainly with U.S. dollars yet the concerns of Egyptians, rather than Americans, seems to be now in its second straight week with no real end in sight.
Most Americans are unaware of what is going on in their contiguous states and regions, and even less concerned with Egypt and its problems rather than their own country's. And the fact that the Egyptian government is so very dissimilar to our own, which is based more on the British form of government than that of the U.S., with a Parliament rather than a Congress, and no "states" to speak of.
Now the news that the U.S. would recognize and "deal" with a "representative" government in Egypt? Say what?
There hasn't been a representative government in the good old U.S.A. due to our campaign finance laws which are diametrically opposed to a representative government as intended in our Constitution in literally decades.
And in a country in which there is clearly a "national" religion quite different than the religions primarily practiced in the United States, so how can our country and its leadership even begin to understand all the various complexities of what is now going on in Egypt, not to mention those news readers.
The Middle East certainly is a hotbed of political unrest, that much is for certain. And getting worse, with each passing year since the 1960's at the very least.
I guess that is the only similarity between it and what has been occuring in the United States in our government's attempts to quash dissent, and those with opposing views from the two parties who have remained in charge against the will of more and more Americans and the ever increasing "independents."
Notice too how "Facebook evidence" is factoring in more and more crimes in America. Supposed posts published that who knows who REALLY made them but released as "evidence" then later after-the-fact.
Using civil disobedience and unrest once again to promote instead the tech industry? In 140 characters or less...
Not sound bites. But sound bits.
Twitter that.
I mean, ever since this uprising began it has dominated our news on ever single station, and it is not like there is not other true, hard news stories regarding the United States and what is happening on our shores.
This global media really has also lost its way, a media that is fed mainly with U.S. dollars yet the concerns of Egyptians, rather than Americans, seems to be now in its second straight week with no real end in sight.
Most Americans are unaware of what is going on in their contiguous states and regions, and even less concerned with Egypt and its problems rather than their own country's. And the fact that the Egyptian government is so very dissimilar to our own, which is based more on the British form of government than that of the U.S., with a Parliament rather than a Congress, and no "states" to speak of.
Now the news that the U.S. would recognize and "deal" with a "representative" government in Egypt? Say what?
There hasn't been a representative government in the good old U.S.A. due to our campaign finance laws which are diametrically opposed to a representative government as intended in our Constitution in literally decades.
And in a country in which there is clearly a "national" religion quite different than the religions primarily practiced in the United States, so how can our country and its leadership even begin to understand all the various complexities of what is now going on in Egypt, not to mention those news readers.
The Middle East certainly is a hotbed of political unrest, that much is for certain. And getting worse, with each passing year since the 1960's at the very least.
I guess that is the only similarity between it and what has been occuring in the United States in our government's attempts to quash dissent, and those with opposing views from the two parties who have remained in charge against the will of more and more Americans and the ever increasing "independents."
Notice too how "Facebook evidence" is factoring in more and more crimes in America. Supposed posts published that who knows who REALLY made them but released as "evidence" then later after-the-fact.
Using civil disobedience and unrest once again to promote instead the tech industry? In 140 characters or less...
Not sound bites. But sound bits.
Twitter that.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: California Judiciary Does It Again
After the gay marriage issue and the unconstitutional denial of prisoners' voting rights (even while on parole, after serving jail time for low level criminal offenses) now this...
Apparently, a San Diego judge has placed an injunction on the military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy, again just weeks before an election according to a published AP article.
My question on this issue has always been, just how many in even the gay community serving at this point even care or would actually prefer to keep such a private issue as their sexual preference truly private?
I mean, the military is not supposed to be a dating service anyway, so just what has this particular rather personal issue have to do with serving in the military in this country, other than without such disclosure it does make battlefield housing and living arrangements a bit more complex?
This article also set forth that the American people at this point are less concerned with "social" issues such as these and the war than they are with the economy. Which again goes to prove just how far off the mainstream media are, and wonder just who is conducting and what segment of the population are being used for their polls.
The war has much to do with the economy, and joblessness and homeless in this country. After all, the costs for continuing this war for now nine long years has escalated and added to our deficit far more than even those discretionary expenditures for those bridges to nowhere. And will so for decades in all the veterans benefits and costs that will be needed for the next, oh say, fifty to sixty years.
A decision such as this should not be made by a federal or state judge, but as a policy decision, especially in times of war.
I believe this goes along the lines of all those policies regarding "fraternization" while serving, and also during times of war. I mean, just how much time do most of those serving really have for developing romantic attachments?
Maybe we need to rethink this entire "standing army" concept, or leave those decisions to those who are more aware of the ramifications. And again, just how many gays are actually serving, is what I would like to know, since it would seem that the majority of gay individuals are not exactly also supportive of this ongoing war either at this point to begin with, at least from my experience.
So just how many really are enlisting, and I would not hesitate to guess, not many and many of those that are or have, don't seem to be those which continue to push this agenda, but the civilian activists that somehow perceive that in keeping such a fundamentally personal issue private is denying them their "rights." But "rights" to what, I'd like to know.
Solicit?
The courts do seem to be continuing to accept cases and extending standing to "disinterested" parties more and more, including those now brought on behalf of "foreigner's" rights somehow in this country, under our Constitution and Bill of Rights ("We the People of the United States...for US and OUR posterity"), or using some perceived injustice or disenfranchised individual on behalf of a special interest group in order to feed the legal industry most of all under those federal statutes that provide for the payment of legal fees, at the taxpayer's expense, for any and all actions which can in any way be perceived as a "civil rights" case.
Your sexual preference is a "civil right," but while serving in the military (which is not a "civil" organization, in more ways than one, it would appear as of late) is not.
The military and its members are fighters, after all, not lovers.
Just think of the complications of a totally gay and separate unit with such a policy, and the additional questions that would need to be asked in such an event for at least housing purposes.
For example, "What are your tendencies, "butch" or "queen?"
California and its judiciary does it again, and no wonder there continues to be more at least generational Americans leaving that state, than new residents.
I just wonder whether they also just might work, through their political connections, for the AP which more and more does tend to focus on sensationalize, explosive and exploitive politically charged journalism and their "polls" each and every decade, rather than even questioning a military policy being addressed in a civilian court outside any true Constitutional basis or intent of those founders whatsoever.
Who would most likely hold that gays are more than welcome to serve in the military and volunteer army to protect the homeland if it is their desire.
But disclose they would have no time for dating, and if that was their objective than maybe the career military or a foreign engagement during a time of war wouldn't suit their primary or the military's ultimate aims.
Apparently, a San Diego judge has placed an injunction on the military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy, again just weeks before an election according to a published AP article.
My question on this issue has always been, just how many in even the gay community serving at this point even care or would actually prefer to keep such a private issue as their sexual preference truly private?
I mean, the military is not supposed to be a dating service anyway, so just what has this particular rather personal issue have to do with serving in the military in this country, other than without such disclosure it does make battlefield housing and living arrangements a bit more complex?
This article also set forth that the American people at this point are less concerned with "social" issues such as these and the war than they are with the economy. Which again goes to prove just how far off the mainstream media are, and wonder just who is conducting and what segment of the population are being used for their polls.
The war has much to do with the economy, and joblessness and homeless in this country. After all, the costs for continuing this war for now nine long years has escalated and added to our deficit far more than even those discretionary expenditures for those bridges to nowhere. And will so for decades in all the veterans benefits and costs that will be needed for the next, oh say, fifty to sixty years.
A decision such as this should not be made by a federal or state judge, but as a policy decision, especially in times of war.
I believe this goes along the lines of all those policies regarding "fraternization" while serving, and also during times of war. I mean, just how much time do most of those serving really have for developing romantic attachments?
Maybe we need to rethink this entire "standing army" concept, or leave those decisions to those who are more aware of the ramifications. And again, just how many gays are actually serving, is what I would like to know, since it would seem that the majority of gay individuals are not exactly also supportive of this ongoing war either at this point to begin with, at least from my experience.
So just how many really are enlisting, and I would not hesitate to guess, not many and many of those that are or have, don't seem to be those which continue to push this agenda, but the civilian activists that somehow perceive that in keeping such a fundamentally personal issue private is denying them their "rights." But "rights" to what, I'd like to know.
Solicit?
The courts do seem to be continuing to accept cases and extending standing to "disinterested" parties more and more, including those now brought on behalf of "foreigner's" rights somehow in this country, under our Constitution and Bill of Rights ("We the People of the United States...for US and OUR posterity"), or using some perceived injustice or disenfranchised individual on behalf of a special interest group in order to feed the legal industry most of all under those federal statutes that provide for the payment of legal fees, at the taxpayer's expense, for any and all actions which can in any way be perceived as a "civil rights" case.
Your sexual preference is a "civil right," but while serving in the military (which is not a "civil" organization, in more ways than one, it would appear as of late) is not.
The military and its members are fighters, after all, not lovers.
Just think of the complications of a totally gay and separate unit with such a policy, and the additional questions that would need to be asked in such an event for at least housing purposes.
For example, "What are your tendencies, "butch" or "queen?"
California and its judiciary does it again, and no wonder there continues to be more at least generational Americans leaving that state, than new residents.
I just wonder whether they also just might work, through their political connections, for the AP which more and more does tend to focus on sensationalize, explosive and exploitive politically charged journalism and their "polls" each and every decade, rather than even questioning a military policy being addressed in a civilian court outside any true Constitutional basis or intent of those founders whatsoever.
Who would most likely hold that gays are more than welcome to serve in the military and volunteer army to protect the homeland if it is their desire.
But disclose they would have no time for dating, and if that was their objective than maybe the career military or a foreign engagement during a time of war wouldn't suit their primary or the military's ultimate aims.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Ninth Circuit Denies Voting Rights To Prisoners
It was announced in the mainstream media that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a prior panel ruling (?) which had found the State of Washington's prohibition banning voting by felons unconstitutional.
The case apparently was grounded and brought as a "racial discrimination" case, however, and the basis for the decision appears politics also just may have been a factor in this recent ruling.
After all, with the exception of two states in the nation all have some provisions barring convicted felons from the election process. Some more stringent than others, and even a few that actually prohibit felons from voting for life (forget "letting the punishment fit the crime," or after the punishment has been handed down and fulfilled "records" being then wiped clean upon petition for felons, and automatically for misdemeanor offenses).
Seems to me maybe the lawyers for the case might have missed using that other Constitutional provision, the "privileges and immunities clause," that also might have been another legal avenue to travel. I mean, two states do not remove voting rights for felons, so aren't those prisoners getting a "privilege" that those prisoners in other states do not, since the buzz words also being used by the spin doctors on this one is that voting is a "privilege" in this country, and not a "right?"
Huh?
In a government of the people, by the people, for the people it most certainly is a "right" in this writer's view, but then we have also quite clearly lost any measure of having a representative government due to just such wacko court decisions as these, as of late, all the way to the top branch in that last Citizens United "corporate" case brought by a somewhat "commercial" entity, or perhaps dare I say, federally funded through its "educational" focus?
I mean, foreigners now are exerting their influence in the hallowed halls of Washington more and more, both through their lobbying efforts and also through their campaign donations to those "bundlers."
The court also cited a "precedence" from an 1886 case, and strange that this "progressively liberal" court would hold with a case while bypassing the intent of the founders and their reverence for just what type of government they were creating, and which actually had to do more so with capital offenses in which jury trials actually were given in those days, and cases were not plea bargained, or those jailhouse appeals denied as regularly as they appear to be more and more then thereafter.
Many times, for budgetary reasons.
I wonder if Washington State has privatized its state jails as Arizona has?
I mean, the fewer inmates, the less those Wall Street penal conglomerates get for their budgets and shareholders, and the less the states also get from the federal government in order to also run some of those state prisons. This is, after all, another emerging industry creating all those jobs for those homeland security graduates and ex-military primarily.
Is it any wonder that more and more of those pro se jailhouse appeals are getting either denied, or "lost," as was the case in Louisiana several years ago in a published article which was written after a Clerk of the Court committed suicide presumably due to his guilt over having been a participant in such a court process for at least a decade.
And while Arizona's prisons have been privatized right and left supposedly due to "budgetary" constraints, I just wonder where all those monies also are coming from in order to upgrade and build all those new jails especially with the budget being of such major concerns to a great many states these past five years, while the most monies that went in that stimulus actually did go to the states for such purposes. I guess this is another "outsourcing" of governmental powers and duties to private industry in these now "commercial" prisons once again that will have their bottom line profits most in mind in running them, and with little state oversight whatsoever as was recently in the headlines.
I mean in this "ends justifies the means" style governing now on every level, the more and more that minor offenses are criminalized which don't involve loss of property or injury, the more "jobs" it creates, and dividends for those shareholders who are invested in those commercial ventures at this point.
This is the mentality that seems to be running rampant at the city, county, state and federal levels more and more.
Just think how much crime stimulates the economy, and creates jobs. Construction jobs, security and prison guards for the returning military and homeland security grads, the "tech" industry for all those cameras and surveillance devices, identity theft protection companies and jobs, insurance company profits for expanded coverages then needed on homeowners and auto insurance due to the rising auto theft rates in most state throughout the nation - why it does appear that it is a major stimulus for quite a few sectors of Wall Street.
In fact, if there wasn't crime at all, just think how many more would be lining up at the social service offices right now.
Maybe that is also a factor in this economic depression.
The need for more criminals in order to stimulute also the global economy, Wall Street, and the U.S. economy - after a theft, you have to go out and buy something to replace what was taken, after satsifying that deductible, that is. After your car is stolen or broken into, you need to satsify that deductible when making those repairs, or buying tha new (or used) car to replace it.
Maybe this is why more and more in local communities there are no neighborhood patrols really much anymore in residential communities, since that would affect and impact the economy and jobs of those private security companies too, although they have no real legal authority to do anything really other than place a call to the local police force if the worst should happen and there should be a property crime in their jurisdiction.
It just might not be the budget at all If there were regular neighborhood patrols once again there just might be less crime, maybe, and thus less jobs and profits for those on the "crime does pay" gravy train. Or if the economy actually did improve significantly.
But with lesser offenses, this country IS supposed to be the "land of the free" - so just why has there been such a progressive move to criminalize more and more petty offenses, offenses in which there is no direct victim such as many of those minor "possession" charges on marijuana use, not sale, and others. You can spend jail time even for misdemeanor offenses at this point in most states throughout the nation.
Many of the even public misdemeanor jails are charging inmates for their own meals, or confiscating their wages then from any work they do for the "privatized" jailhouse general stores upon their return. I mean being in jail itself, deprived of your freedom and separated from society for your crime, was SUPPOSED to be THE punishment for major offenses.
Those incarcerated, especially those felonies not involving harm or injury to another, are or were taxpayers - but it appears when handing down their double, triple and even quadruple penalties for even minor felony offenses, the states are forgetting the common law provisions on civil and criminal crimes in this country. And most aren't even "convicted" but are plea bargained also for "budgetary" needs by those public defenders.
Letting the punishment fit the crime has been lost in the process. And even giving those juries the instructions that they also have not only the duty to hand down their verdict on the evidence presented, but also the duty to examine the law and punishments attached by statute also as to legality in their view as representatives of "the people," and not "the state."
Although even obtaining a jury of your peers is almost impossible, since juries are now profiled by the lawyers involved, or are comprised of citizens that truly are not "peers" of the defendant at all - many of whom are themselves city, state, county or federal workers who are paid from some of those fines and fees attached to those crimes - especially the minor offenses.
And yet, there is a concerted move also progressively to continue to attempt to remove trials by jury for more and more offenses even. With the state acting as both the charging party, and jury in more and more "bench" trials for misdemeanor criminal offenses, and with even traffic fines at all time highs requiring most to enter into "payment plans" at added costs even over and above those fines, which should be a clue right there as to the levels at which they are now set. The very definition of fascism, actually.
So how is removal of voting privileges in any manner letting the punishment fit the crime, unless it truly is the highest offense within our Constitution.
High treason.
I mean spies, and those in high political office should not be afforded that "right" when by their actions they have shown that it is not this country or its Constitution which guides their actions, or to whom they owe their fealty.
I wonder, just how many in Washington that are highly publicized casting their votes even while running for office, should have their ballots challenged?
Maybe what we need at this point is a recount ever decade, rather than a census.
I just wonder how many "foreigners" and "party politicians, including those "mavericks" of both mainstream political parties whose political leanings have nothing to do with Constitutional government, votes would then be thrown out.
Another ruling by the Ninth that appears to be following British law at the time of the American Revolution contrary to those Bill of Rights primarily and fundamentally, and not U.S. true law at all, as this ruling to this writer flies in the face of the entire intent of America's founders in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Weighed against the increasing access to the U.S. Courts by foreign individuals for even prosecution matters not to mention their appeals paid for through Americans taxes for those numerous appeals before deportation for true capital offenses, who are not even American citizens, speaks volumes in just how far off this recent decision is as by this court especially, as opposed to Constitutional intent in the entire foundation of America's intended form of government.
Whose "prisoner" voices should be heard most of all really, as those who have been many times "politically" convicted due to "budgetary" restraints, or whose crimes have been criminalized which under the common law are merely civil crimes without a clear "victim" to begin with.
While those pardons are given to high level Wall Street officials whose "direct victims" were literally hundreds or thousands of individuals in property theft, rather than banning them from any further employment in the financial sector for at least a good many years, the pot smokers and low level DUI offenders under those three strike rules are banned from the political and voting process, or those plea bargained lower felony "civil" victimless offenders "for life" in a few states?
Or how about those foreign drug dealers and auto thieves who are peddling their wares to America's youth most of all or stealing cars cross borders, who then are afforded to gain "standing" somehow in the U.S. courts and turn around and sue for "emotional distress," as what occurred by at least one foreigner after having been shot in the rear by the American border patrol, to then profit from their crime?
San Francisco, your "heart" seems to be misplaced, along with this Court's fundamental understanding of Constitutional government.
The case apparently was grounded and brought as a "racial discrimination" case, however, and the basis for the decision appears politics also just may have been a factor in this recent ruling.
After all, with the exception of two states in the nation all have some provisions barring convicted felons from the election process. Some more stringent than others, and even a few that actually prohibit felons from voting for life (forget "letting the punishment fit the crime," or after the punishment has been handed down and fulfilled "records" being then wiped clean upon petition for felons, and automatically for misdemeanor offenses).
Seems to me maybe the lawyers for the case might have missed using that other Constitutional provision, the "privileges and immunities clause," that also might have been another legal avenue to travel. I mean, two states do not remove voting rights for felons, so aren't those prisoners getting a "privilege" that those prisoners in other states do not, since the buzz words also being used by the spin doctors on this one is that voting is a "privilege" in this country, and not a "right?"
Huh?
In a government of the people, by the people, for the people it most certainly is a "right" in this writer's view, but then we have also quite clearly lost any measure of having a representative government due to just such wacko court decisions as these, as of late, all the way to the top branch in that last Citizens United "corporate" case brought by a somewhat "commercial" entity, or perhaps dare I say, federally funded through its "educational" focus?
I mean, foreigners now are exerting their influence in the hallowed halls of Washington more and more, both through their lobbying efforts and also through their campaign donations to those "bundlers."
The court also cited a "precedence" from an 1886 case, and strange that this "progressively liberal" court would hold with a case while bypassing the intent of the founders and their reverence for just what type of government they were creating, and which actually had to do more so with capital offenses in which jury trials actually were given in those days, and cases were not plea bargained, or those jailhouse appeals denied as regularly as they appear to be more and more then thereafter.
Many times, for budgetary reasons.
I wonder if Washington State has privatized its state jails as Arizona has?
I mean, the fewer inmates, the less those Wall Street penal conglomerates get for their budgets and shareholders, and the less the states also get from the federal government in order to also run some of those state prisons. This is, after all, another emerging industry creating all those jobs for those homeland security graduates and ex-military primarily.
Is it any wonder that more and more of those pro se jailhouse appeals are getting either denied, or "lost," as was the case in Louisiana several years ago in a published article which was written after a Clerk of the Court committed suicide presumably due to his guilt over having been a participant in such a court process for at least a decade.
And while Arizona's prisons have been privatized right and left supposedly due to "budgetary" constraints, I just wonder where all those monies also are coming from in order to upgrade and build all those new jails especially with the budget being of such major concerns to a great many states these past five years, while the most monies that went in that stimulus actually did go to the states for such purposes. I guess this is another "outsourcing" of governmental powers and duties to private industry in these now "commercial" prisons once again that will have their bottom line profits most in mind in running them, and with little state oversight whatsoever as was recently in the headlines.
I mean in this "ends justifies the means" style governing now on every level, the more and more that minor offenses are criminalized which don't involve loss of property or injury, the more "jobs" it creates, and dividends for those shareholders who are invested in those commercial ventures at this point.
This is the mentality that seems to be running rampant at the city, county, state and federal levels more and more.
Just think how much crime stimulates the economy, and creates jobs. Construction jobs, security and prison guards for the returning military and homeland security grads, the "tech" industry for all those cameras and surveillance devices, identity theft protection companies and jobs, insurance company profits for expanded coverages then needed on homeowners and auto insurance due to the rising auto theft rates in most state throughout the nation - why it does appear that it is a major stimulus for quite a few sectors of Wall Street.
In fact, if there wasn't crime at all, just think how many more would be lining up at the social service offices right now.
Maybe that is also a factor in this economic depression.
The need for more criminals in order to stimulute also the global economy, Wall Street, and the U.S. economy - after a theft, you have to go out and buy something to replace what was taken, after satsifying that deductible, that is. After your car is stolen or broken into, you need to satsify that deductible when making those repairs, or buying tha new (or used) car to replace it.
Maybe this is why more and more in local communities there are no neighborhood patrols really much anymore in residential communities, since that would affect and impact the economy and jobs of those private security companies too, although they have no real legal authority to do anything really other than place a call to the local police force if the worst should happen and there should be a property crime in their jurisdiction.
It just might not be the budget at all If there were regular neighborhood patrols once again there just might be less crime, maybe, and thus less jobs and profits for those on the "crime does pay" gravy train. Or if the economy actually did improve significantly.
But with lesser offenses, this country IS supposed to be the "land of the free" - so just why has there been such a progressive move to criminalize more and more petty offenses, offenses in which there is no direct victim such as many of those minor "possession" charges on marijuana use, not sale, and others. You can spend jail time even for misdemeanor offenses at this point in most states throughout the nation.
Many of the even public misdemeanor jails are charging inmates for their own meals, or confiscating their wages then from any work they do for the "privatized" jailhouse general stores upon their return. I mean being in jail itself, deprived of your freedom and separated from society for your crime, was SUPPOSED to be THE punishment for major offenses.
Those incarcerated, especially those felonies not involving harm or injury to another, are or were taxpayers - but it appears when handing down their double, triple and even quadruple penalties for even minor felony offenses, the states are forgetting the common law provisions on civil and criminal crimes in this country. And most aren't even "convicted" but are plea bargained also for "budgetary" needs by those public defenders.
Letting the punishment fit the crime has been lost in the process. And even giving those juries the instructions that they also have not only the duty to hand down their verdict on the evidence presented, but also the duty to examine the law and punishments attached by statute also as to legality in their view as representatives of "the people," and not "the state."
Although even obtaining a jury of your peers is almost impossible, since juries are now profiled by the lawyers involved, or are comprised of citizens that truly are not "peers" of the defendant at all - many of whom are themselves city, state, county or federal workers who are paid from some of those fines and fees attached to those crimes - especially the minor offenses.
And yet, there is a concerted move also progressively to continue to attempt to remove trials by jury for more and more offenses even. With the state acting as both the charging party, and jury in more and more "bench" trials for misdemeanor criminal offenses, and with even traffic fines at all time highs requiring most to enter into "payment plans" at added costs even over and above those fines, which should be a clue right there as to the levels at which they are now set. The very definition of fascism, actually.
So how is removal of voting privileges in any manner letting the punishment fit the crime, unless it truly is the highest offense within our Constitution.
High treason.
I mean spies, and those in high political office should not be afforded that "right" when by their actions they have shown that it is not this country or its Constitution which guides their actions, or to whom they owe their fealty.
I wonder, just how many in Washington that are highly publicized casting their votes even while running for office, should have their ballots challenged?
Maybe what we need at this point is a recount ever decade, rather than a census.
I just wonder how many "foreigners" and "party politicians, including those "mavericks" of both mainstream political parties whose political leanings have nothing to do with Constitutional government, votes would then be thrown out.
Another ruling by the Ninth that appears to be following British law at the time of the American Revolution contrary to those Bill of Rights primarily and fundamentally, and not U.S. true law at all, as this ruling to this writer flies in the face of the entire intent of America's founders in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Weighed against the increasing access to the U.S. Courts by foreign individuals for even prosecution matters not to mention their appeals paid for through Americans taxes for those numerous appeals before deportation for true capital offenses, who are not even American citizens, speaks volumes in just how far off this recent decision is as by this court especially, as opposed to Constitutional intent in the entire foundation of America's intended form of government.
Whose "prisoner" voices should be heard most of all really, as those who have been many times "politically" convicted due to "budgetary" restraints, or whose crimes have been criminalized which under the common law are merely civil crimes without a clear "victim" to begin with.
While those pardons are given to high level Wall Street officials whose "direct victims" were literally hundreds or thousands of individuals in property theft, rather than banning them from any further employment in the financial sector for at least a good many years, the pot smokers and low level DUI offenders under those three strike rules are banned from the political and voting process, or those plea bargained lower felony "civil" victimless offenders "for life" in a few states?
Or how about those foreign drug dealers and auto thieves who are peddling their wares to America's youth most of all or stealing cars cross borders, who then are afforded to gain "standing" somehow in the U.S. courts and turn around and sue for "emotional distress," as what occurred by at least one foreigner after having been shot in the rear by the American border patrol, to then profit from their crime?
San Francisco, your "heart" seems to be misplaced, along with this Court's fundamental understanding of Constitutional government.
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Mexican Civil Liberties Union Strikes Again
The MCLU (Mexican Civil Liberties Union) has taken to the newsprint media in order to attempt to blast a small, mostly rural town in Nebraska for having the gaul to attempt to pass city ordinances (similar to those attempted in Pennsylvania) banning both the hiring, and affording housing rentals to illegal immigrants.
It appears, however, the town of Fremont which is involved is getting prepared for the onslaught of "foreigner" rights groups that they foresee will challenge the ordinance if it is passed into "law" after today's voting.
How so?
By advertising that they will institute additional taxes, and cutting city services in order to fund the lawsuit challenges, without of course disclosing that if the municipal governments are like those in Arizona (and county), they have used much of that tax revenue they collect in order to purchase insurance policies indemnifying any and all municipal employees from liability in the event of such lawsuits. Whose, of course, premiums then will go up accordingly and for which the city and state will plead the need for more revenue from the citizens in order to cover their then budget shortfalls.
Which also then provides them with an impetus to continue to pass more and more unconstitutional legislation for individual politicians benefits no matter which side of the aisle they claim to hail from. Both use politics and political maneuvering and backbiting in order to remain in power, while the citizenry then continues to be adversely affected both monetarily, and in quality of life issues - and whose children will also be burdened then with such clear treason in not carrying out their Constitutional, or even charter functions.
The municipal government are in the same positions the state's are, beholding and accountable not to the people but to their "feeder" big brother dictators.
Unbelieveable, actually, and just goes to show what is really going on here - since the municipal governments are, after all, state actors of the state government and it is the state government that continues to increase those requests in most states throughout the country for foreign workers in order to feed their corporate backers and sponsors and for them to save money on those taxes inflicted on Americans so they can continue to contribute to their future campaign coffers - and now potentially in unrestricted sums.
The criminal activity in our political systems seems to be getting worse by the month now.
These proposed ordinances are being compared to the steps Arizona has undertaken, and truthfully most of these measures simply seem to be frivolous and rather transparent actions taken by vulnerable politicians in order to use for future campaign purposes, and to feed those civil rights lawyers, many of whom are writing these laws for their own benefit, it appears and also who are receiving federal and state taxpayer dollars for the defenses or prosecutions of the laws they are writing using their legislative lackeys to actually undermine the Constitution and its provisions also by the month or legislative session.
The ACLU has become one of the biggest drains on the taxpayers ever, and is using a federal statute which was passed years ago which was meant simply to provide for their legal fees for true AMERICAN civil rights actions in order to mask most of these lawsuits they are initiating on behalf of foreigners as somehow within that statute's provisions or its intent.
The ACLU, of course, is promoting this as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which was actually meant in order to protect American citizen's rights in this country, not "corporate" entities in any manner whatsoever.
And since foreigners actually have no inherent civil rights in this country under America's Constitution unless and until they go through the naturalization process (the Preamble does state We The People of the United States....for US and OUR posterity), it can only be the corporate and the ACLU's own self serving interests that is behind all the blustering.
I wonder why the ACLU isn't actually bringing the needed lawsuit on behalf of American civil liberties in this country in upholding the Constitution's provisions in reinstituting the tax on foreign labor, and removing the tax on domestic labor, which just might turn this country's economy around and bring more jobs to Americans in this country than any "jobs bill" of Congress, which will simply provide for more government or taxpayer paid jobs at the American public's expense, and thus create more and more homeless and a widening gap between the poor and the rich and facilitate the agenda here truly of wiping out America's middle class.
So that we can then be more like Great Britain, Mexico, and a host of those other "socialized" countries with "sovereign" governments, instead of as ours is supposed to be - of the people, by the people, for the people - the American PEOPLE, not the corporate special interests such as the ACLU and their corporate backers.
The fact that the Supreme Court overturned the Pennsylvania municipal law does not surprise this writer. It has been clear that those justices on the Supreme Court have not been able to read the Constitution for literally decades.
The ACLU also stated that it is "immigration reform" that is needed, not these segregated attempts by the states and their "state actor" municipal corporations to institute such measures. Although since there is already a process for immigration on the books, can't see where the ACLU also is taking such a stance.
But what they truly really want and mean is nothing more than "amnesty" in order to again feed the legal profession who, of course, will be needed and necessary in order for these individuals to eventually gain that coveted prize - citizenship. And in which most of those truly seasonal and migrant workers will not apply for in any such instance anyway as they didn't for the Reagan amnesty.
Since most of them couldn't afford the fees, and the rest were merely here in order to feed their families back home and dollars brought their families remaining in Mexico a higher standard of living than their remaining and working in Mexico would.
If you wish to work here, apply for a green card before entering, and wait your turn.
Temporary work visas are available in abundance, but you do need to leave after that seasonal work is done and if you migrate to another area than for that which the original work visa was granted, you do need to visit INS to get it extended from my understanding.
And it is the large corporate agribusinesses in Nebraska and meatpackers that hire the most of them to cut their labor costs, since the small farmers as in decades past usually shared seasonal workers, and also provided for housing, meals and medical care for those workers for which the small towns and community as a whole shared during planting and harvesting season - as one who knows who due to marriage, had grandparents who owned land and a farm in the Midwest at one time and used migrant or seasonal workers to plant and harvest their crops. And whose grandmother took them out their lunches, or prepared full course breakfasts, suppers and dinner for them during the season and also arranged for housing if necessary in the old "bunk" house.
If you overstay your "visa" longer than the proscribed period, and are not granted an extension by the State Department or by INS (now ICE), then you are suppose to go "home," not be working here illegally, or renting an apartment.
And these laws, I'm sure, are much less stringent than those you will find in Mexico, Canada, India, or any other of the number of countries in which the U.S. has taken in literally thousands upon thousands of those who wished to immigrate legally.
If it is the expense that is the problem, then that is a simple matter of reducing the fees and original costs to that which those in some of the poorer nations can afford, such as in the "olden" day, and the original application process one in which it doesn't take a lawyer charging $300-$400 per hour to complete.
The immigration process was not intended to be one which fed the lawyers in this country, civil rights, immigration, criminal or otherwise. But that is exactly what has occurred due to the illegal extension of civil rights to even these civil rights groups that are not at all representing Americans, but foreigners.
Although with the amount of jobless and homeless in this country during the biggest recession/depression since the Great Depression, this country still in an ongoing war due to an attack on it by foreigners from within, and the shear number of immigrants this country has taken in progressively due to unconstitutional wars of the past, at this point in America's history the federal government is once again negligent in not exercising that other provision in the Constitution and not only restricting immigration, but banning it altogether at this point.
Until this "war" is over, and there are few Americans in this country without gainful employment and these corporate entities start using America's labor pools and fighting for removal of that 16th Amendment also which has circumvented and placed this country's government in a lopsided and unaccountable position across the board with the feds now reining "Supreme" over the citizens, and the states, progressively.
With even now funding this MCLU, MALDEFF and a host of other "educational" for profit non profits headed by mostly "civil rights," immigration, corporate or criminal lawyers with American taxpayer dollars illegally.
And with the Obama Administration threatening Arizona's new law, I simply hope that the Governor of Arizona files a countersuit under the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act in order to get the funding for that fence the feds promised forthwith - instead of once again feeding the industry in which the majority, it appears, now come in all three branches of government illegally representing their own self interests more and more by the decade.
That other offshoot from the Brits, and a country which more and more of these Supreme Court justices are actually educated and hail, the American Barrister's Association which has progressively returned its educational focus, it is quite clear, to not American jurisprudence but foreign jurisprudence - mostly Britain's or the UN's "accords" (created inially by Britain post World War II) and the country we fought that original war over to establish this sovereign nation and to protect its citizens from "foreigners" abuse or influence in our country's government or political matters.
So in essence in all of these ACLU, MALDEF, and other foreigner focused groups, it is the American people actually who are paying for their own abuse in most of these court actions - and in which these groups are contributing to our out of control deficits more and more for their own "welfare."
And the only true Constitutional funds that the federal government has within their powers over foreigners are:
1. To provide a naturalization process (which we have)
2. To provide the federal courts for any prosecutions against foreigners for "crimes committed against the nation" before naturalization;
3. To regulate commerce insofar as the hiring of those foreign workers in monitoring the impact that foreign outsourced labor and products affect domestic labor and production;
4. To tax the states for any and all "foreign" labor which is needed and for which those green cards are issued at their request, since it is the states that request and petition for those "guest worker" visas and work visas annually, and then forward those requests to the federal government. These taxes were meant to both protect domestic labor and commerce from foreign competition detrimental to the U.S. economy and workforce, and also provide for the needed revenue for their needs while working or visiting this country, such as the increases in "use" taxes for roads, state provided benefits for community services, etc.
So other than the costs which are now involved, and re-evaluating the process in order to make it similar to that which was in force and effect at the turn of the century, in which there wasn't this influx of illegal foreigners in any manner whatsoever (since at that time there were even restricted ports of entry for any and all of these permanent or temporary foreigners through Ellis Island primarily), just what type of "reform" is actually needed?
Perhaps enforcing the existing law on the books insofar as letting the punishment fit the crime, and not providing "immigration hearings" for those which have not immigrated legally and returning them forthwith back across those borders when proof of citizenship cannot be provided or legal guest worker status verified such as the laws in Arizona are attempting to do in codifying that federal law at the state level?
Or turning over those that commit felonies while in this country to the U.S. Marshall, and the state attorney generals actually doing their jobs and prosecuting them through the federal courts in order to get the true criminal element off the street which have been progressively victimizing the Arizonans and American people in other states in greater and greater numbers by the decade?
Enforcement and a rewind to the procedures which were instituted while I as growing up in Arizona in the 1960's and 1970's is what is needed here, in my educated opinion as both a victim and one who is familiar of the long history of this issue from personal experience, appears is what is needed, not "comprehensive" reform at all.
With the federal government actually doing their primary job - providing for the common defense, and protecting the lives and livelihoods of the American people first and foremost.
It appears, however, the town of Fremont which is involved is getting prepared for the onslaught of "foreigner" rights groups that they foresee will challenge the ordinance if it is passed into "law" after today's voting.
How so?
By advertising that they will institute additional taxes, and cutting city services in order to fund the lawsuit challenges, without of course disclosing that if the municipal governments are like those in Arizona (and county), they have used much of that tax revenue they collect in order to purchase insurance policies indemnifying any and all municipal employees from liability in the event of such lawsuits. Whose, of course, premiums then will go up accordingly and for which the city and state will plead the need for more revenue from the citizens in order to cover their then budget shortfalls.
Which also then provides them with an impetus to continue to pass more and more unconstitutional legislation for individual politicians benefits no matter which side of the aisle they claim to hail from. Both use politics and political maneuvering and backbiting in order to remain in power, while the citizenry then continues to be adversely affected both monetarily, and in quality of life issues - and whose children will also be burdened then with such clear treason in not carrying out their Constitutional, or even charter functions.
The municipal government are in the same positions the state's are, beholding and accountable not to the people but to their "feeder" big brother dictators.
Unbelieveable, actually, and just goes to show what is really going on here - since the municipal governments are, after all, state actors of the state government and it is the state government that continues to increase those requests in most states throughout the country for foreign workers in order to feed their corporate backers and sponsors and for them to save money on those taxes inflicted on Americans so they can continue to contribute to their future campaign coffers - and now potentially in unrestricted sums.
The criminal activity in our political systems seems to be getting worse by the month now.
These proposed ordinances are being compared to the steps Arizona has undertaken, and truthfully most of these measures simply seem to be frivolous and rather transparent actions taken by vulnerable politicians in order to use for future campaign purposes, and to feed those civil rights lawyers, many of whom are writing these laws for their own benefit, it appears and also who are receiving federal and state taxpayer dollars for the defenses or prosecutions of the laws they are writing using their legislative lackeys to actually undermine the Constitution and its provisions also by the month or legislative session.
The ACLU has become one of the biggest drains on the taxpayers ever, and is using a federal statute which was passed years ago which was meant simply to provide for their legal fees for true AMERICAN civil rights actions in order to mask most of these lawsuits they are initiating on behalf of foreigners as somehow within that statute's provisions or its intent.
The ACLU, of course, is promoting this as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which was actually meant in order to protect American citizen's rights in this country, not "corporate" entities in any manner whatsoever.
And since foreigners actually have no inherent civil rights in this country under America's Constitution unless and until they go through the naturalization process (the Preamble does state We The People of the United States....for US and OUR posterity), it can only be the corporate and the ACLU's own self serving interests that is behind all the blustering.
I wonder why the ACLU isn't actually bringing the needed lawsuit on behalf of American civil liberties in this country in upholding the Constitution's provisions in reinstituting the tax on foreign labor, and removing the tax on domestic labor, which just might turn this country's economy around and bring more jobs to Americans in this country than any "jobs bill" of Congress, which will simply provide for more government or taxpayer paid jobs at the American public's expense, and thus create more and more homeless and a widening gap between the poor and the rich and facilitate the agenda here truly of wiping out America's middle class.
So that we can then be more like Great Britain, Mexico, and a host of those other "socialized" countries with "sovereign" governments, instead of as ours is supposed to be - of the people, by the people, for the people - the American PEOPLE, not the corporate special interests such as the ACLU and their corporate backers.
The fact that the Supreme Court overturned the Pennsylvania municipal law does not surprise this writer. It has been clear that those justices on the Supreme Court have not been able to read the Constitution for literally decades.
The ACLU also stated that it is "immigration reform" that is needed, not these segregated attempts by the states and their "state actor" municipal corporations to institute such measures. Although since there is already a process for immigration on the books, can't see where the ACLU also is taking such a stance.
But what they truly really want and mean is nothing more than "amnesty" in order to again feed the legal profession who, of course, will be needed and necessary in order for these individuals to eventually gain that coveted prize - citizenship. And in which most of those truly seasonal and migrant workers will not apply for in any such instance anyway as they didn't for the Reagan amnesty.
Since most of them couldn't afford the fees, and the rest were merely here in order to feed their families back home and dollars brought their families remaining in Mexico a higher standard of living than their remaining and working in Mexico would.
If you wish to work here, apply for a green card before entering, and wait your turn.
Temporary work visas are available in abundance, but you do need to leave after that seasonal work is done and if you migrate to another area than for that which the original work visa was granted, you do need to visit INS to get it extended from my understanding.
And it is the large corporate agribusinesses in Nebraska and meatpackers that hire the most of them to cut their labor costs, since the small farmers as in decades past usually shared seasonal workers, and also provided for housing, meals and medical care for those workers for which the small towns and community as a whole shared during planting and harvesting season - as one who knows who due to marriage, had grandparents who owned land and a farm in the Midwest at one time and used migrant or seasonal workers to plant and harvest their crops. And whose grandmother took them out their lunches, or prepared full course breakfasts, suppers and dinner for them during the season and also arranged for housing if necessary in the old "bunk" house.
If you overstay your "visa" longer than the proscribed period, and are not granted an extension by the State Department or by INS (now ICE), then you are suppose to go "home," not be working here illegally, or renting an apartment.
And these laws, I'm sure, are much less stringent than those you will find in Mexico, Canada, India, or any other of the number of countries in which the U.S. has taken in literally thousands upon thousands of those who wished to immigrate legally.
If it is the expense that is the problem, then that is a simple matter of reducing the fees and original costs to that which those in some of the poorer nations can afford, such as in the "olden" day, and the original application process one in which it doesn't take a lawyer charging $300-$400 per hour to complete.
The immigration process was not intended to be one which fed the lawyers in this country, civil rights, immigration, criminal or otherwise. But that is exactly what has occurred due to the illegal extension of civil rights to even these civil rights groups that are not at all representing Americans, but foreigners.
Although with the amount of jobless and homeless in this country during the biggest recession/depression since the Great Depression, this country still in an ongoing war due to an attack on it by foreigners from within, and the shear number of immigrants this country has taken in progressively due to unconstitutional wars of the past, at this point in America's history the federal government is once again negligent in not exercising that other provision in the Constitution and not only restricting immigration, but banning it altogether at this point.
Until this "war" is over, and there are few Americans in this country without gainful employment and these corporate entities start using America's labor pools and fighting for removal of that 16th Amendment also which has circumvented and placed this country's government in a lopsided and unaccountable position across the board with the feds now reining "Supreme" over the citizens, and the states, progressively.
With even now funding this MCLU, MALDEFF and a host of other "educational" for profit non profits headed by mostly "civil rights," immigration, corporate or criminal lawyers with American taxpayer dollars illegally.
And with the Obama Administration threatening Arizona's new law, I simply hope that the Governor of Arizona files a countersuit under the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act in order to get the funding for that fence the feds promised forthwith - instead of once again feeding the industry in which the majority, it appears, now come in all three branches of government illegally representing their own self interests more and more by the decade.
That other offshoot from the Brits, and a country which more and more of these Supreme Court justices are actually educated and hail, the American Barrister's Association which has progressively returned its educational focus, it is quite clear, to not American jurisprudence but foreign jurisprudence - mostly Britain's or the UN's "accords" (created inially by Britain post World War II) and the country we fought that original war over to establish this sovereign nation and to protect its citizens from "foreigners" abuse or influence in our country's government or political matters.
So in essence in all of these ACLU, MALDEF, and other foreigner focused groups, it is the American people actually who are paying for their own abuse in most of these court actions - and in which these groups are contributing to our out of control deficits more and more for their own "welfare."
And the only true Constitutional funds that the federal government has within their powers over foreigners are:
1. To provide a naturalization process (which we have)
2. To provide the federal courts for any prosecutions against foreigners for "crimes committed against the nation" before naturalization;
3. To regulate commerce insofar as the hiring of those foreign workers in monitoring the impact that foreign outsourced labor and products affect domestic labor and production;
4. To tax the states for any and all "foreign" labor which is needed and for which those green cards are issued at their request, since it is the states that request and petition for those "guest worker" visas and work visas annually, and then forward those requests to the federal government. These taxes were meant to both protect domestic labor and commerce from foreign competition detrimental to the U.S. economy and workforce, and also provide for the needed revenue for their needs while working or visiting this country, such as the increases in "use" taxes for roads, state provided benefits for community services, etc.
So other than the costs which are now involved, and re-evaluating the process in order to make it similar to that which was in force and effect at the turn of the century, in which there wasn't this influx of illegal foreigners in any manner whatsoever (since at that time there were even restricted ports of entry for any and all of these permanent or temporary foreigners through Ellis Island primarily), just what type of "reform" is actually needed?
Perhaps enforcing the existing law on the books insofar as letting the punishment fit the crime, and not providing "immigration hearings" for those which have not immigrated legally and returning them forthwith back across those borders when proof of citizenship cannot be provided or legal guest worker status verified such as the laws in Arizona are attempting to do in codifying that federal law at the state level?
Or turning over those that commit felonies while in this country to the U.S. Marshall, and the state attorney generals actually doing their jobs and prosecuting them through the federal courts in order to get the true criminal element off the street which have been progressively victimizing the Arizonans and American people in other states in greater and greater numbers by the decade?
Enforcement and a rewind to the procedures which were instituted while I as growing up in Arizona in the 1960's and 1970's is what is needed here, in my educated opinion as both a victim and one who is familiar of the long history of this issue from personal experience, appears is what is needed, not "comprehensive" reform at all.
With the federal government actually doing their primary job - providing for the common defense, and protecting the lives and livelihoods of the American people first and foremost.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tis the Season: Beware of Parking Lot Predators
With the holiday season upon us with everyone rushing to and fro from one retail outlet to another, and especially with the insurance focus of this latest disaster of a bill feeding the health care industry and lobbyists (mostly lawyers) once again due to the length of the bill, and actually no real accountability measures in it for those supposed "regulatory" measures included in it, maybe some reminders of what "mandatory" insurance has wrecked (pun intended) since it was enacted also over heavy objections of the public years ago in creating a "job stimulus" for lawyers.
Recently, someone related a story to me of an incident that happened to them regarding a rear end collusion, and I had a similar situation occur to me also.
Apparently, what is going on is that there are many "employees" of the scores of personal injury lawyers in this country who set up victims of parking lot mishaps (on private property), and then use the "hit and run" laws in order to then make claims on the "victims" of their scams through their employer lawyers for accident claims - especially during the holiday season when so many are pre-occupied.
As one who worked in the legal profession, I do know that most insurance companies will not litigate claims such as these due to the expense involved and time and staff constraints, and usually will offer a settlement on the accident as a "nuisance" claim, no matter how many prior accidents the claimed "victim" has been involved in even in one year with almost identical circumstances prior to that time.
Now this does happen to the best of drivers really a great deal due to our hurried lifestyles now, and also especially during the holidays (and especially due to the many distractions now of cell phones, kids, the shear number of errands most of us run now in the course of a week, etc).
These are a little different though as most occur in retail parking lots with an abundance of cars anyway, and the claim goes on the record of the stooge, and their insurance then goes up, creating additional profits then for the insurance company for the next three years. Times that times the amount of accidents, and that is quite a profit for both the disreputable personal injury lawyers, their "employees," and also the insurance company - all at the true victims expense.
Usually picking an older vehicle maybe with a few dings on it to begin with, in order to bulk up their "case,"
And since so many are distracted and in a hurry now, few or absolutely no witnesses to what actually occurred.
So as a safety and budgetary precaution from two such victims (and this occurs much more in large or midsize metro areas), look twice before you back out in this holiday rush these last two days.
Because the next "victim" of one of the "job stimuluses" created by the mandatory insurance laws could be you.
Most insurance industry experts will tell you that accidents such as these go up during the holidays. In fact, due to distraction and rushing, this week is by far the greatest job stimulus for the health care and insurance industries - which is maybe why those "economic" forecasts are up for this upcoming quarter also.
And have those laws truly reduced the amount of local expenditures needed for judges, juries and the like?
Absolutely not, because at least with jury trials on those property damage claims, even for minor damages, formerly in small claims courts the costs were low, and then appeals for the major accidents or bodily injury claims were also reduced since no judge can re-examine any fact matter placed before a jury.
Interestingly enough also, these same personal injury lawyers in quite a few states now are allowed and do also own several "corporate" chiropractic clinics then, where they send their "clients" and then inflate those bills also which are billed for those claims from their "employee" doctors.
Or use their employee doctors then as expert witnesses then on personal injury cases at lowered rates without that "fact matter" being placed before juries - that many of those experts are actually employees of the lawyers involved in some of these cases now and not "independent" medical witnesses at all as also had been the case year ago in selection of experts for personal injury civil trials.
And due to most court rules in most states throughout the country, those predatory lawyers and their employees also know (as does the insurance industry lawyer also) that in any court proceeding, serial fender bender histories over the course of even a year with paid out damage awards granted and determined by the insurers, not by juries, are not allowed to be used as an evidence against these individuals.
Of course, the "stooge's" lawyers then can bring in their witnesses for rebuttal, but of course then the costs of those claims go up for that stooge and his insurance company, while the costs of the employee client's doctors are really no skin off the noses of those disreputable personal injury lawyers at all, as also actual employees of the "corporate" lawyers due to their practices true "ownership."
I suffered an injury upon a move up north, and had a flare up of the injury and went to seek a chiropractor in order to treat it, and was denied treatment at one of such clinics since I hadn't been referred to it by one of their "partner" personal injury lawyers, and did not treat the public, but only upon those referrals.
So this is also why your auto insurance rates are off the charts, and the same obviously will occur with a 2,000 page bill full of legalese, with no "teeth" on the industries whatsoever in accountability - while the IRS is busy collecting those fines on the small business owners, those denied insurance and self-employed mainly for which this bill does absolutely nothing to address in any truly accountable fashion.
Of course, actually this is a mere drop in the bucket really for the insurers after all, although no less of a "crime" and why there are more insurance lawyers also now than all of the European nations combined - just look at how many and how expensive all those lobbyists were for this new health care deform, and the campaigning that went on - and all with your premium dollars.
Using your dollars then in order to lobby for legislation to get even more is what is occurring, and selling their policies now not through marketing but through legislation in addition to lobbying to also reduce their risks and losses at both the state and federal levels such as the now "criminal" victimless low level DUIs at the level they are at this point in time - cough medicine or a puff on an inhaler will brand you as "under the influence."
What a racket.
So when Obama uses the mandatory insurance laws (which actually are not at all similar in any respect to this travesty of health care legislation and its "mandatory" unconstitutional also focus on the citizens, rather than the industry), just think now at 2,000 pages how bogged up our courts will become once again - and how this will in the end raise, not lower, both the taxes, and personal expenses and budgets of all Americans.
And quite possibly, create another job stimulus for the criminal element.
Recently, someone related a story to me of an incident that happened to them regarding a rear end collusion, and I had a similar situation occur to me also.
Apparently, what is going on is that there are many "employees" of the scores of personal injury lawyers in this country who set up victims of parking lot mishaps (on private property), and then use the "hit and run" laws in order to then make claims on the "victims" of their scams through their employer lawyers for accident claims - especially during the holiday season when so many are pre-occupied.
As one who worked in the legal profession, I do know that most insurance companies will not litigate claims such as these due to the expense involved and time and staff constraints, and usually will offer a settlement on the accident as a "nuisance" claim, no matter how many prior accidents the claimed "victim" has been involved in even in one year with almost identical circumstances prior to that time.
Now this does happen to the best of drivers really a great deal due to our hurried lifestyles now, and also especially during the holidays (and especially due to the many distractions now of cell phones, kids, the shear number of errands most of us run now in the course of a week, etc).
These are a little different though as most occur in retail parking lots with an abundance of cars anyway, and the claim goes on the record of the stooge, and their insurance then goes up, creating additional profits then for the insurance company for the next three years. Times that times the amount of accidents, and that is quite a profit for both the disreputable personal injury lawyers, their "employees," and also the insurance company - all at the true victims expense.
Usually picking an older vehicle maybe with a few dings on it to begin with, in order to bulk up their "case,"
And since so many are distracted and in a hurry now, few or absolutely no witnesses to what actually occurred.
So as a safety and budgetary precaution from two such victims (and this occurs much more in large or midsize metro areas), look twice before you back out in this holiday rush these last two days.
Because the next "victim" of one of the "job stimuluses" created by the mandatory insurance laws could be you.
Most insurance industry experts will tell you that accidents such as these go up during the holidays. In fact, due to distraction and rushing, this week is by far the greatest job stimulus for the health care and insurance industries - which is maybe why those "economic" forecasts are up for this upcoming quarter also.
And have those laws truly reduced the amount of local expenditures needed for judges, juries and the like?
Absolutely not, because at least with jury trials on those property damage claims, even for minor damages, formerly in small claims courts the costs were low, and then appeals for the major accidents or bodily injury claims were also reduced since no judge can re-examine any fact matter placed before a jury.
Interestingly enough also, these same personal injury lawyers in quite a few states now are allowed and do also own several "corporate" chiropractic clinics then, where they send their "clients" and then inflate those bills also which are billed for those claims from their "employee" doctors.
Or use their employee doctors then as expert witnesses then on personal injury cases at lowered rates without that "fact matter" being placed before juries - that many of those experts are actually employees of the lawyers involved in some of these cases now and not "independent" medical witnesses at all as also had been the case year ago in selection of experts for personal injury civil trials.
And due to most court rules in most states throughout the country, those predatory lawyers and their employees also know (as does the insurance industry lawyer also) that in any court proceeding, serial fender bender histories over the course of even a year with paid out damage awards granted and determined by the insurers, not by juries, are not allowed to be used as an evidence against these individuals.
Of course, the "stooge's" lawyers then can bring in their witnesses for rebuttal, but of course then the costs of those claims go up for that stooge and his insurance company, while the costs of the employee client's doctors are really no skin off the noses of those disreputable personal injury lawyers at all, as also actual employees of the "corporate" lawyers due to their practices true "ownership."
I suffered an injury upon a move up north, and had a flare up of the injury and went to seek a chiropractor in order to treat it, and was denied treatment at one of such clinics since I hadn't been referred to it by one of their "partner" personal injury lawyers, and did not treat the public, but only upon those referrals.
So this is also why your auto insurance rates are off the charts, and the same obviously will occur with a 2,000 page bill full of legalese, with no "teeth" on the industries whatsoever in accountability - while the IRS is busy collecting those fines on the small business owners, those denied insurance and self-employed mainly for which this bill does absolutely nothing to address in any truly accountable fashion.
Of course, actually this is a mere drop in the bucket really for the insurers after all, although no less of a "crime" and why there are more insurance lawyers also now than all of the European nations combined - just look at how many and how expensive all those lobbyists were for this new health care deform, and the campaigning that went on - and all with your premium dollars.
Using your dollars then in order to lobby for legislation to get even more is what is occurring, and selling their policies now not through marketing but through legislation in addition to lobbying to also reduce their risks and losses at both the state and federal levels such as the now "criminal" victimless low level DUIs at the level they are at this point in time - cough medicine or a puff on an inhaler will brand you as "under the influence."
What a racket.
So when Obama uses the mandatory insurance laws (which actually are not at all similar in any respect to this travesty of health care legislation and its "mandatory" unconstitutional also focus on the citizens, rather than the industry), just think now at 2,000 pages how bogged up our courts will become once again - and how this will in the end raise, not lower, both the taxes, and personal expenses and budgets of all Americans.
And quite possibly, create another job stimulus for the criminal element.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Governmental Overkill: Woman Fined 1.9 Million For "Pirated" Works
CNN reported another incidence of corporate/governmental overkill now going on in our nation with respect to the recording industry's pursuit of any and all Americans that download songs or sounds without paying for them from the internet.
Now I admit there is quite a problem with this for writers and other artists, especially due to the fact that there is a clear lack of regulation over the commercial websites that market to the public for writers and artists in order to make the ad revenues and also for other nefarious purposes.
And there are citizens who abuse the Internet also as a free source of material which is, under U.S. laws and those of most countries which are under "common law" civil provisions (including Canada, Britain and most of the European nations in the EU) with respect to copyright protection for artistic works.
Many citizens also have been misled to believe that since the Internet is a public communications tool, that any and all material on it are covered under public domain provisions.
That is not the case anymore than you can copy text out of a library book simply because it is in the library.
The problem with this particular case was not so much the infraction, but the costs of the trial and the award involved for going after a woman who illegally downloaded five songs, which due to judicial error and technicalities with respect to jury instructions given ended up resulting in two different jury trials in a federal court. It didn't even meet the CIVIL threshhold for an afforded trial by jury, since those limits are $20.00 under the Constitution.
And while U.S. citizens throughout the nation now under the new criminal DUI "social drinking" levels and laws are denied jury trials in many states throughout the nation due to another redefinition and unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling in effect attempting to eliminate the right to trial by jury for "ALL criminal matters," by inserting the words "unless the term of incarceration is six months or more," this trial was initiated over a civil infraction actually due to the financial "loss" involved for five downloaded single songs.
There is an has been a move to criminalize such activities which has been in the works for years and this may be the case, but if so would appear the criminal fines and penalties are still out of whack for the actual infraction and loss involved here, in my and most rational citizens opinion. This would clearly have been a criminal misdemeanor, since the amounts involved don't even meet the civil jury trial minimum of $20 under the Constitution.
Apparently, the jury found her guilty, and the amount of the "fine" imposed was 1.9 million, over the amount of the original award in the first trial of $220,000. "Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't even begin to describe how ludicrous the actual award was, and also the lengths that the federal courts went to in order to prosecute this woman and mother of four.
There was absolutely no report or evidence, apparently, that she had redistributed the works, or made any profit off of her illicit activity. So the loss involved to the recording company as the "injured" party under both civil and criminal common law according to the "proof" of damages required in such a case as this would have simply been the amount of the cost of the retail price for the music, which was less than $5.00.
Of course, now there will be another appeal, and the legal fees at this point must also be off the charts, and wonder just exactly why the judge didn't simply throw this case out the window due to the amount of the proveable damages involved as less than even the provisions for civil minimums for jury trials.
It did not state also whether or not the jury actually did determine the award, or whether these "fines" were determined under federal statute and levied by the federal judge which has become the case with many a "political" case meant to set a precedent or as a tyrannical power move by the federal government, and if that was the case, we do have a bunch of governmental officials that are off their rockers in again their lack of even giving any cursory value to the Constitution. Fines in that amount are beyond what any "average" American could pay and nothing more than again tyrannizing the public for the record executives, apparently.
I wonder if the jury instruction was given that the jury had the power to actually also examine the law and the penalties for applicability in this case based upon the actual facts and losses involved.
True bootleggers would have redistributed the work, and then there would have been certainly more to gain in going after those that are profiting off of pirated works, not simply for their own enjoyment.
You can make a tape off a radio station, for heaven's sakes, or a CD from your friends purchase which carries no penalties at all unless it is also "resold" for commercial purposes and meets the damage threshhold.
If this was a jury determined award, I wonder if the lawyers voir dire in the jury selection determined whether or not any of these jurors were record executives, or federal employees.
And with awards such as these, it would appear our federal government is flush with cash due to their tyranny and are truly bankrupting the citizenry with such abusive practices, so perhaps had more than enough in the kitty rather than borrowing from the Fed at the public's expense, in order to bail out at least one of those automakers without also placing the debt on the public - since this poor woman is going to be paying this off for the rest of her life, in addition to funding the Big Three.
More importantly, it appears due to the publishing by CNN of this case it is simply another example of governmental tyranny on the public more than anything.
This mother was simply made an example, so I truly wonder how "impartial" that jury was, or whether it actually was one of her "peers," or a loaded jury with public federal or state employee "professional" jurors which is becoming more and more the case when there is a governmental agenda involved, or when there is federal grant monies tied in with some of the convictions (as in the low level DUI laws now), since there are strings attached to most of those pork sums sent "back home" by the feds in order to keep the states in line with the federal agendas, and the funding rolling in.
Unbelievable.
Maybe going after the Chinese and Taiwanese designer rip-off artists who import to their buddies living in the U.S. through the mail and ports of entry would be a much better use of our courts, and those internet scam artists now luring writers and artists making ad revenues of their designs and work for advertising purposes, and then attempting to shelter themselves from any and all liability if such work is redistributed either intentionally or accidentally within their non-negotiable "terms of service" agreements written also by their "corporate" lawyer scam artists.
We don't need free speech regulation of the internet unless harassment and stalking websites and engaging in repeated and profane personal attacks are involved, we need "corporate commercial" regulation of the scammers preying on the public, and paid governmental "grant money" bloggers promoting their propaganda for governmental purposes, both political and for their "corporate" personal gain, such as the Republican, Democratic and other mainstream extra-Constitutional fringe "party" members, marketers and spin doctors spewing party platforms and their agendas as "Constitutional" positions.
That, too, is civil fraud, and actually worse, criminal treason ala Benedict Arnold, the highest criminal "public" offense "against the state" and people in this country under the governing law, the U.S. Constitution and intent of the founders. And neither private citizens, nor especially public servants or individuals have any inherent immunity in that respect, especially for intentional negligence or intent in their public servant positions, since their oath is to the Constitution and not "public opinion" or "state or personal interests."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Now I admit there is quite a problem with this for writers and other artists, especially due to the fact that there is a clear lack of regulation over the commercial websites that market to the public for writers and artists in order to make the ad revenues and also for other nefarious purposes.
And there are citizens who abuse the Internet also as a free source of material which is, under U.S. laws and those of most countries which are under "common law" civil provisions (including Canada, Britain and most of the European nations in the EU) with respect to copyright protection for artistic works.
Many citizens also have been misled to believe that since the Internet is a public communications tool, that any and all material on it are covered under public domain provisions.
That is not the case anymore than you can copy text out of a library book simply because it is in the library.
The problem with this particular case was not so much the infraction, but the costs of the trial and the award involved for going after a woman who illegally downloaded five songs, which due to judicial error and technicalities with respect to jury instructions given ended up resulting in two different jury trials in a federal court. It didn't even meet the CIVIL threshhold for an afforded trial by jury, since those limits are $20.00 under the Constitution.
And while U.S. citizens throughout the nation now under the new criminal DUI "social drinking" levels and laws are denied jury trials in many states throughout the nation due to another redefinition and unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling in effect attempting to eliminate the right to trial by jury for "ALL criminal matters," by inserting the words "unless the term of incarceration is six months or more," this trial was initiated over a civil infraction actually due to the financial "loss" involved for five downloaded single songs.
There is an has been a move to criminalize such activities which has been in the works for years and this may be the case, but if so would appear the criminal fines and penalties are still out of whack for the actual infraction and loss involved here, in my and most rational citizens opinion. This would clearly have been a criminal misdemeanor, since the amounts involved don't even meet the civil jury trial minimum of $20 under the Constitution.
Apparently, the jury found her guilty, and the amount of the "fine" imposed was 1.9 million, over the amount of the original award in the first trial of $220,000. "Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't even begin to describe how ludicrous the actual award was, and also the lengths that the federal courts went to in order to prosecute this woman and mother of four.
There was absolutely no report or evidence, apparently, that she had redistributed the works, or made any profit off of her illicit activity. So the loss involved to the recording company as the "injured" party under both civil and criminal common law according to the "proof" of damages required in such a case as this would have simply been the amount of the cost of the retail price for the music, which was less than $5.00.
Of course, now there will be another appeal, and the legal fees at this point must also be off the charts, and wonder just exactly why the judge didn't simply throw this case out the window due to the amount of the proveable damages involved as less than even the provisions for civil minimums for jury trials.
It did not state also whether or not the jury actually did determine the award, or whether these "fines" were determined under federal statute and levied by the federal judge which has become the case with many a "political" case meant to set a precedent or as a tyrannical power move by the federal government, and if that was the case, we do have a bunch of governmental officials that are off their rockers in again their lack of even giving any cursory value to the Constitution. Fines in that amount are beyond what any "average" American could pay and nothing more than again tyrannizing the public for the record executives, apparently.
I wonder if the jury instruction was given that the jury had the power to actually also examine the law and the penalties for applicability in this case based upon the actual facts and losses involved.
True bootleggers would have redistributed the work, and then there would have been certainly more to gain in going after those that are profiting off of pirated works, not simply for their own enjoyment.
You can make a tape off a radio station, for heaven's sakes, or a CD from your friends purchase which carries no penalties at all unless it is also "resold" for commercial purposes and meets the damage threshhold.
If this was a jury determined award, I wonder if the lawyers voir dire in the jury selection determined whether or not any of these jurors were record executives, or federal employees.
And with awards such as these, it would appear our federal government is flush with cash due to their tyranny and are truly bankrupting the citizenry with such abusive practices, so perhaps had more than enough in the kitty rather than borrowing from the Fed at the public's expense, in order to bail out at least one of those automakers without also placing the debt on the public - since this poor woman is going to be paying this off for the rest of her life, in addition to funding the Big Three.
More importantly, it appears due to the publishing by CNN of this case it is simply another example of governmental tyranny on the public more than anything.
This mother was simply made an example, so I truly wonder how "impartial" that jury was, or whether it actually was one of her "peers," or a loaded jury with public federal or state employee "professional" jurors which is becoming more and more the case when there is a governmental agenda involved, or when there is federal grant monies tied in with some of the convictions (as in the low level DUI laws now), since there are strings attached to most of those pork sums sent "back home" by the feds in order to keep the states in line with the federal agendas, and the funding rolling in.
Unbelievable.
Maybe going after the Chinese and Taiwanese designer rip-off artists who import to their buddies living in the U.S. through the mail and ports of entry would be a much better use of our courts, and those internet scam artists now luring writers and artists making ad revenues of their designs and work for advertising purposes, and then attempting to shelter themselves from any and all liability if such work is redistributed either intentionally or accidentally within their non-negotiable "terms of service" agreements written also by their "corporate" lawyer scam artists.
We don't need free speech regulation of the internet unless harassment and stalking websites and engaging in repeated and profane personal attacks are involved, we need "corporate commercial" regulation of the scammers preying on the public, and paid governmental "grant money" bloggers promoting their propaganda for governmental purposes, both political and for their "corporate" personal gain, such as the Republican, Democratic and other mainstream extra-Constitutional fringe "party" members, marketers and spin doctors spewing party platforms and their agendas as "Constitutional" positions.
That, too, is civil fraud, and actually worse, criminal treason ala Benedict Arnold, the highest criminal "public" offense "against the state" and people in this country under the governing law, the U.S. Constitution and intent of the founders. And neither private citizens, nor especially public servants or individuals have any inherent immunity in that respect, especially for intentional negligence or intent in their public servant positions, since their oath is to the Constitution and not "public opinion" or "state or personal interests."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Thursday, June 4, 2009
New Hampshire Goes Green: Passes Gay Marriage For Bucks
It appears now the sixth state in the nation has "gone green," in passing legislation with respect to gay marriage in the United States with New Hampshire now joining the pack in the "liberal" and blue New England states.
New Hampshire's Governor has cowtowed apparently to the lawyers and Bar Association lobby (largest lobbying group by far at both the federal and state levels in some capacity or another), Chamber of Comerce, gay rights activists and New Hampshire, Inc.'s desire for more state revenue by passing into "law" several bills now affording gay couples the supposed "rights" that are guaranteed under the New Hampshire Constitution to traditional two sex couples.
No matter that the institution of marriage is actual governed under the common civil law as set forth in the Magna Carta and under the "natural" law in which the founders created this great nation over 200 years ago. It appears the U.S. Constitution also is not one in which the New Hampshire state government gives any credence, in addition to the federal government at this point in any manner whatsoever.
An article written by a writer with the the Baptist Press announcing the new legislation indicated that the citizens of New Hampshire have really no recourse to this action other than voting those members of the legislature and the governor out of office next election, rather than as the citizens of California had in initiating a state constitutional amendment after an off the wall California Supreme Court ruling also affording such "rights" in California.
The writer stated that the New Hampshire Constitution has no such provisions.
This writer would disagree. In a government of the people, and since this really is a federal matter and "institution" that is involved here there are several courses the citizens of New Hampshire can take with respect to this legislation - either filing a lawsuit in the federal courts with respect to the common law upon which marriage is based and the founders intent with respect to those "natural law" provisions, or initiate their own Constitutional amendment as California did, since there is no need to provide in codified law a "right" for such an undertaking within any states constitution.
It is an "assumed right," and also common law right in any government specifically declared "of the people, by the people, for the people," as the U.S. Constitutuion and founding documents so state. And also volumes of writings of the founders on just what "unalienable" rights were (as contained in the Bill of Rights), as "endowed by the Creator."
I think the Creator's views are also pretty well documented on such an issue.
And those new "laws" have yet to also be placed before a jury for evaluation as to also their applicability, since juries also in this nation have the right to not only review the facts in any case before them, but also whether or not the "law" is Constitutional, or applicable in the matter placed before them. This is what is known as "jury nullification."
So don't lose hope, citizens of New Hampshire that support traditional marriage and "natural law."
It appears this was more of a "job stimulus" for the legal profession and Chamber of Commerce members in the wedding industries and resorts in New Hampshire as has been the "jobs and the economy other the Constitution" provisions of this legislation and these judicial "opinions" as with most of the other states. Think of all that tax revenue the states will also gain now in violating the Constitution and the sums for all those "license" fees.
And the hefty sums that will be paid to those New Hampshire domestic relations attorneys for some of those divorces.
And how much more taxes the state citizens will be required to pay to give even more jobs to the legal industry in the form of the judges that will be needed for some of those "divorces."
At a time when the economy in most states throughout the nation is now in the toilet, the state legislators and governors really are getting on the "gay marriage bandwagon" in order to help pay their future salaries and their future campaign coffers most of all, it appears, and in times such as these apparently the true Rule of Law can be suspended at will in the interests of "state benefits and interests."
Look for that excuse to be brought up if this ever gets to the Supreme Court, along with the "equal protection under the law" garbage - since there is absolutely no "protection" in marriage for either party anymore in traditional marriage due to community property laws, and no fault divorce, and prior to state involvement on any level, simply recording such "contracts" in the country recorder's office or courthouse records was the "common law" procedure, especially since now there are even laws that have to do with people who die intestate.
And in Louisiana and quite a few other states, it isn't the spouse who automatically inherits all separately owned property at all due to the availability of "joint ownership" designations now within most contracts for home, auto and other purchases, it is actually the "legal" children of any marriage. And adoption papers secure those rights for gay domestic unions involving children since they cannot "procreate" naturally without medical intervention in some form or another, outside adoption.
Most other civil "rights" in marriage now can be satisfied with simple powers of attorneys, wills and joint ownership contracts which cost nothing to prepare and the forms for which can be obtained at your local bookstore.
"Natural law" is one which is not recognized now in New Hampshire, one of those thirteen original colonies.
And Madison is spinning right about now.
http://townhall.com/news/religion/2009/06/03/nh_6th_state_to_legalize_gay_marriage
New Hampshire's Governor has cowtowed apparently to the lawyers and Bar Association lobby (largest lobbying group by far at both the federal and state levels in some capacity or another), Chamber of Comerce, gay rights activists and New Hampshire, Inc.'s desire for more state revenue by passing into "law" several bills now affording gay couples the supposed "rights" that are guaranteed under the New Hampshire Constitution to traditional two sex couples.
No matter that the institution of marriage is actual governed under the common civil law as set forth in the Magna Carta and under the "natural" law in which the founders created this great nation over 200 years ago. It appears the U.S. Constitution also is not one in which the New Hampshire state government gives any credence, in addition to the federal government at this point in any manner whatsoever.
An article written by a writer with the the Baptist Press announcing the new legislation indicated that the citizens of New Hampshire have really no recourse to this action other than voting those members of the legislature and the governor out of office next election, rather than as the citizens of California had in initiating a state constitutional amendment after an off the wall California Supreme Court ruling also affording such "rights" in California.
The writer stated that the New Hampshire Constitution has no such provisions.
This writer would disagree. In a government of the people, and since this really is a federal matter and "institution" that is involved here there are several courses the citizens of New Hampshire can take with respect to this legislation - either filing a lawsuit in the federal courts with respect to the common law upon which marriage is based and the founders intent with respect to those "natural law" provisions, or initiate their own Constitutional amendment as California did, since there is no need to provide in codified law a "right" for such an undertaking within any states constitution.
It is an "assumed right," and also common law right in any government specifically declared "of the people, by the people, for the people," as the U.S. Constitutuion and founding documents so state. And also volumes of writings of the founders on just what "unalienable" rights were (as contained in the Bill of Rights), as "endowed by the Creator."
I think the Creator's views are also pretty well documented on such an issue.
And those new "laws" have yet to also be placed before a jury for evaluation as to also their applicability, since juries also in this nation have the right to not only review the facts in any case before them, but also whether or not the "law" is Constitutional, or applicable in the matter placed before them. This is what is known as "jury nullification."
So don't lose hope, citizens of New Hampshire that support traditional marriage and "natural law."
It appears this was more of a "job stimulus" for the legal profession and Chamber of Commerce members in the wedding industries and resorts in New Hampshire as has been the "jobs and the economy other the Constitution" provisions of this legislation and these judicial "opinions" as with most of the other states. Think of all that tax revenue the states will also gain now in violating the Constitution and the sums for all those "license" fees.
And the hefty sums that will be paid to those New Hampshire domestic relations attorneys for some of those divorces.
And how much more taxes the state citizens will be required to pay to give even more jobs to the legal industry in the form of the judges that will be needed for some of those "divorces."
At a time when the economy in most states throughout the nation is now in the toilet, the state legislators and governors really are getting on the "gay marriage bandwagon" in order to help pay their future salaries and their future campaign coffers most of all, it appears, and in times such as these apparently the true Rule of Law can be suspended at will in the interests of "state benefits and interests."
Look for that excuse to be brought up if this ever gets to the Supreme Court, along with the "equal protection under the law" garbage - since there is absolutely no "protection" in marriage for either party anymore in traditional marriage due to community property laws, and no fault divorce, and prior to state involvement on any level, simply recording such "contracts" in the country recorder's office or courthouse records was the "common law" procedure, especially since now there are even laws that have to do with people who die intestate.
And in Louisiana and quite a few other states, it isn't the spouse who automatically inherits all separately owned property at all due to the availability of "joint ownership" designations now within most contracts for home, auto and other purchases, it is actually the "legal" children of any marriage. And adoption papers secure those rights for gay domestic unions involving children since they cannot "procreate" naturally without medical intervention in some form or another, outside adoption.
Most other civil "rights" in marriage now can be satisfied with simple powers of attorneys, wills and joint ownership contracts which cost nothing to prepare and the forms for which can be obtained at your local bookstore.
"Natural law" is one which is not recognized now in New Hampshire, one of those thirteen original colonies.
And Madison is spinning right about now.
http://townhall.com/news/religion/2009/06/03/nh_6th_state_to_legalize_gay_marriage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
