Tag Archives: republic

Anchor Babies and Foreign Laws

In her column of 8/18/2010, Ann coulter makes yet another obzervation regarding liberal hypocrisy.

Liberals/progressives/leftists in this country constantly try to get U.S. courts to make decisions based not on U.S. law, but on foreign law. There is, however, one notable exception: anchor babies.

But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see “Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.”)

Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.

The article goes on to cite the immigration policies of Sweden (usually a leftist’s dream), Britain, and Canada. Looks like we are the only ones to allow anchor babies. Of course, the left would argue that the 14th Amendment causes that, but the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not require that interpretation.

Anyway, the idea of using foreign laws to influence American court decisions has always been repulsive to me. Foreign laws are made by foreign leaders using foreign methods to meet foreign needs. While there are certainly elements common to all humanity, there are also regional variations based on geography, culture, and other factors that cannot allow a cookie-cutter mentality toward shaping laws. This applies within the 50 United States. What works in Maine might not necessarily work in Arizona. It applies even more so from one country to another. Foreign laws are also made by foreign legislatures whose methods might be illegal in the U.S. We are bound by our constitution, not foreign constitutions.

Foreign law might work for foreign countries, but it often goes against our laws, our traditions, our culture, our Constitution, and our liberty. If people want to adopt an idea from another country, let them put it before the Congress, or the state legislatures. Let our legislators study them, debate them, and modify them as necessary to meet our needs. Using foreign ideas to influence American court decisions thus bypassing the people’s elected representatives is a subversion of the sovereignty of the people and is (in my mind) close to treason.

Besides, it just doesn’t fit. The culture, economies, people, traditions, and constitutions of other countries are sufficiently different from ours to render them functionally incompatible. Trying to use foreign law to render court decisions in the U.S. is like trying to play Monopoly using the rules from Risk.

2 Comments

Filed under politics

What is “historic”?

I’m sick and tired of hearing people blather on and on about how “historic” the health care takeover is. Historic doesn’t mean good.

9/11 was historic.
Pearl Harbor was historic.
Kristallnacht was historic.
the Alamo was historic.

That doesn’t mean they were good.

Passing something this blatantly unconstitutional and tyrannical against incredible public opposition is certainly historic. That doesn’t mean that this is a good thing.

1 Comment

Filed under politics, Uncategorized

My Political Philosophy in a Nutshell

Here’s my political philosophy in a nutshell. Naturally, it’s a work in progress.

 

Our freedoms are a gift from God. Anyone who unjustly deprives another of liberty is guilty of sinning against that person and against God. The fact that someone isn’t living the way you want them to does not constitute just cause.

Law and government exist to protect the rights of the individual.

There should be enough government to stop or catch the bad guys and prevent foreign invation, but not so much as to burden the people with unnecessary taxes and regulations.

Government is best done as close to the local level as possible.

Government must be limited to prevent the damage that power-hungry people can do if they attain office.

The government is not our nanny to wipe our noses and kiss our boo-boos. Nanny state laws are like heroin to tyrants and tyrant wannabes.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Questions We Should Ask About a Constitutional Convention

Updated 3/30/2010, 4/22/2010, 4/24/2010

Article V of the U.S. Constitution states that an amendment to the US Constitution may be proposed by the Congress or by a Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. Such a convention is called by Congress after two-thirds of the states petition them to call it. A Convention has never been called, as the threat of calling for one is often sufficient to force Congress to propose the desired amendment.

There have been some who have said that we need to call a Constitutional Convention to bring forth term limits, protect some right, or pursue some other worthy cause via Constitutional amendment. Of course, others have wondered if such a convention would choose to disregard our current Constitution and forge a new one, as the first Constitutional Convention did.  One then has to wonder what such a new Constitution would say.  However, all the speculation that I have heard ended there. 

Let us ask a few further questions:

Would the proceedings be open to public viewing or scrutiny?

Would the proceedings be in secret?

If such a new Constitution were produced, what means would be set to ratify it?

Would the drafting of a new Constitution nullify the old one, even if the new one were rejected?

Would the drafting of a new Constitution dissolve the union?

What about a new Constitution that was not ratified:
     How long would the possibility of ratification remain?
     Again, would the old Constitution be nullified or the union dissolved?

What about a new Constitution that was ratified:
     Would a state that refused to ratify be bound by the new Constitution?
     Would they be out of the union?
     Would they be forced to obey a Constitution that they rejected?

Before dismissing any of this as idle speculation or stupid questions, let’s remember that we are in uncharted territory here. Anything could happen at a Constitutional Convention.

These questions and others need to be considered before an action as drastic as a Constitutional Convention is considered.

Personally, I hope it never comes to that.


3/30/2010
I am not opposed to the idea of calling a convention in theory.
However. I am still not completely sold on the necessity of the idea. Also, I am still not sure that the outcome would be beneficial to the cause of limited government.

Satellite radio talker Mike Church is a major proponent of the Article V Convention and has planned a conference to discuss the issue on April 9, 2010. Linked article includes a summary of proposed amendments.


4/22/2010
Mike Church has made available the audio from the town hall conference on April 9, 2010.

Here it is.

I have listened to the audio. They have answered some of the questions that I have asked above.

I am not completely sold yet, but am more in favor of the idea than I was.


4/24/2010
I do believe that we need to amend the Constitution to safeguard our liberties, though. If things keep going the way they are, I should reach 100% support of this idea soon.


Other relevant posts of mine:

Term Limits Amendment


For more info:
Article 5 of the Constitution
Convention to propose amendments
State ratifying conventions
Forbes.com A Bill Of Federalism by Randy E. Barnett – proposed amendments

4 Comments

Filed under constitutional amendment, politics

Some Tidbits from CS Lewis

Here are some tidbits from CS Lewis:

“And I say also this. I do not think the forest would be so bright, nor the water so warm, nor love so sweet, if there were no danger in the lakes.” – Hyoi in Out of the Silent Planet

“Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself.” – The Problem of Pain

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.  God in the Dock

 
Without risk, there is no reward; without the possibility of true failure, there is no possibility of true success. This is the danger of modern liberal and progressive thought. Schools give awards to everyone to preserve self-esteem and by doing so, remove the incentive for the gifted to excel and the average to beat expectations. The nanny state seeks to cushion us from the bumps and bruises, never realizing that they are discouraging excellence and breeding mediocrity. Through it all, they are eroding our liberty.

I am not the first to say it, and I sure won’t be the last.

 

Here are a couple more about evil:

“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin.” The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.” The Screwtape Letters

“The safest road to Hell is the gradual one — the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” The Screwtape Letters

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, theology

gun control quotes

“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”
Sammy “the Bull” Gravano, mafia hit man and informant, in Vanity Fair, August 1999.

Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschichte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten.
[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler’s Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

“The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

“The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Here’s my credo: There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people.
Charlton Heston, actor and President of the NRA

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson Founding Father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and Third President of the United States

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

H.R. 3200 (the healthcare bill) Is Unconstitutional Ex Post Facto Law.

 “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.”    – excerpt from H.R. 3200 (the healthcare bill)

Correct me if I’m reading this wrong, but doesn’t that back date the law’s effectiveness to January 1, 2009?  Let’s say I took out a policy on February 1, 2009. If this bill becomes law, would it render my policy illegal?

“No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” – U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 9.  An ex post facto law is a retroactive law, that is, one that makes something illegal before the law was passed.

Could someone explain to me how this is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law? If my reading of the bill is correct, it would render any policy made on or after January 1, 2009 null and void after the fact.

2 Comments

Filed under politics