Another key part of the fight to keep our civil liberties.

Comments

Tom Garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

An odd fact that we sometimes overlook about the gun-control issue we have been discussing is that it is a civil rights liberties, a question of individual rights, a matter of freedom and liberty. That's why the issue is so emotional. When anyone tries to strip away any of our fundamental rights we get emotional about it, and that's a good thing. If we don't fight hard to keep our rights we will surely lose them.

This string is not about gun-control, but no matter where you may fall on that issue you will see that the matter we are about to discuss means a LOT to you because it concerns a way in which your fundamental rights are being eroded every day, and suggests a way we can join together to fight back.

The greatest protection we have against the erosion of our civil liberties is the Supreme Court. It may not be perfect, but by and large it works. For example, when the Supreme Court said once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one it created a fundamental baseline upon which we can at last resolve our differences.

What you are about to read here is original thinking. For what it may be worth, this comes from nowhere except my head. Don't bother to look for references; you won't find any.

Here's the problem: This is a republic. We elect people to represent us. They meet together and make laws. We may not like all those laws, but that's the system.

Federal, state, and local authorities sometimes create bureaus to implement the laws. That too, makes good sense.

However, if you look at what is going on you will see something very disturbing. Instead of implementing the laws, many bureaus create a body of "regulations" that are actually new law. Instead of staying within the law as written, they make decisions that may only legally be made by elected representatives.

Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to hand over its authority to make law to non-elected officials. It may allow them to implement law, yes, but to make law, no!

What we need is a test case. One that looks at a particularly flagrant example of what is occurring, files a suit, and words that case correctly. What must be argued is not that the regulation in question is unconstitutional. That is not the issue. The case must contend that Congress and other elected bodies do not have the power to abrogate their law-making responsibility by allowing non-elected officials to make law.

To see how much danger we are in, you have only to look at what any federal bureau is doing. If we don't like the rules some of those bureaus are making there is only one way to stop them from making them. Create a test case and have the Supreme Court lay down guidelines concerning how bureaus may function.

The outcome is predictable. The Constitution is clear regarding who may make laws--only Congress and the state legislatures--not some batch of bureaucrats.

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 2 months ago

Good stuff Tom. Simply too bad so many have become part of that class of citizens that Ben Franklin was referring to when he made the statement " Those that would give up liberties for the sake of security, deserve neither". It's not like the whole evolution from our "founding" to today's over-reaching government situation has not been obvious and transparent, it has. We as citizens simply set on our collective behinds and let it happen for whatever reasons. Now we find ourselves in the situation similar to a person who has contracted the "flesh eating bacteria" malady. We will have to surgically remove the affected part to save the whole of the body.

0

Pat Randall 1 year, 2 months ago

Why not send all the information that has been put on here about gun control to Washington? And tell them we will vote all the people out of office that want gun control. We aren't doing any good posting all this on a small town newspaper forum.

                                                  RIGHT ?
0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 2 months ago

Pat, You are so right. Nothing discussed here on the Roundup Blog is going to have the slightest impact on whats going on in Washington or Phoenix. I hope others are in touch with their respective representatives regarding their positions on some of these national issues. Most often you get an aide and they simply summarize the feedback from the constituents and then make it available to the politician, who will act accordingly or not. In a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons, we at the "mainstreet level" have very little power to influence what the pols do, other than at the ballot box. And even then, we simply cannot make changes to the degree that we actually see the effects of our votes on the intransigence of power in Washington.

0

Tom Garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

Ron,

This may surprise you. It certainly surprised me when it first happened. It's amazing how far the effects of some of the things we say here on the forum seem to go. I sure was amazed when I found out. I've been contacted by people from as far away as Chicago and New York about some of our strings, and by others whose location was a mystery because I had no idea where they were (they didn't say and I didn't ask).

I do know this, though. When I first hired on to do this job, Autumn Phillips, the then editor, told me that we were getting 100,000 distinct "hits" each month, and the last time I checked that had gone above 300,000 hits (one "hit" is one log-on to the site).

What I think happens is that people do the same thing I so often do. I range all over the internet looking for things I'm interested in. When I find them I read them, but I rarely if ever comment. I have a feeling that's what is happening here. Did you know that we have 54 pages of registered Roundup posters? That's 2,700 people.

I sometimes hear from someone who has been a registered user, but who has never posted a word. It was obvious--from was said--that the person must have been reading for a long time. I guess that makes sense.

And what floored me the first time it happened was this: I wanted to find a past stiong where we had talked about something. It takes along time to dig back through the strings on the forum, so on a hunch I went out on Google and put in my name and something I thought I had said on the string. Bingo! There it was, the exact string I was looking for. That's what I do now when I want to go back to an old string. It's faster to go through Google with their immense search engine than to go any other way.

Want a shock? (I'll be this will surprise anyone who tries it!!) Just Google this:

Ron Hamric Payson Roundup

There you are, pages and pages of you. And you can get pretty much the same result by just putting in something you've said, so if someone is browsing around on that subject, no matter where he may be in the world, he's just as likely to read what you have to say as what anyone else has to say.

Try it, folks. Just enter your name and Payson Roundup. See? You're famous.

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 2 months ago

Tom, Wasn't aware of the stats you posted. Pretty amazing for such a rural newspaper. As to the "forever etched in stone" aspect of our prior postings, I was acutely aware of that. That reality is one of the reasons I made the comment about ever running for political office in another thread. Everthing one has ever posted is stored somewhere and fairly easy to access for those interested. I try to be more careful about how passionate I can get when involved in a discussion that touches one of my "hot button" issues. We often say things in the heat of the moment that afterwords we regret having ever said. One of those old sayings I used to have on my desk plus on the refrigerator at home was "I am the master of my unspoken words, but a slave to those words that should have remained unsaid." Darn if I can remember that in the heat of the moment sometimes.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.