Michael Alexander

Michael Alexander 6 days, 22 hours ago on Article an eye-opener

Knowing full well that in Ted Paulk's response to Pete Aleshire's article, "Pending Bills Could Undo Local Officials’ Budget Plans" (Apr 4), his question as to how State Senator Chester Crandell and State Representative Brenda Barton keep getting re-elected was rhetorical, I simply cannot ignore his implication that the bills he mentioned, which both the senator and the representative support, do not enjoy enormous public backing.

SB 1227, the Energy Efficient Standards legislation, takes nothing away from anyone. To the contrary, it returns to the home owner / builder the choice of which features to include in the home, without piling on any additional unfunded local government mandates. Decreased construction costs translate into lower purchase prices, and I'll vote for that every time!

HB 2517, the bill clarifying Firearms Preemption Penalties, simply extends the respect and presumption of innocence that all legally-permitted, gun-owning American citizens deserve. If a local elected public official is afraid of an armed citizen for no other reason than the fact that he is armed, that citizen should not be deprived of his rights nor bear any costs whatsoever in deference to that official's fear. And possibly, that official should run from office rather than for it. That's another yes vote in my book!

And lastly, HB 2448, the Property Rights bill, puts local government on notice that if a regulation can be shown to be arbitrary, burdensome, and has negatively impacted the market value of a property, the town can be held liable for the loss. If a lawmaker, like the two mentioned above, approaches his job with the understanding that the actions he takes have real consequences to his constituents, then there, Mr. Paulk, is someone who has my vote!

Michael Alexander

0

Michael Alexander 1 month ago on 699 I quit on this one before I even got started.

We've tried voting. We've tried leaving the box blank. Maybe it's time we tried something else. There is a Solution as big as the Problem - An Article V Convention of States http://conventionofstates.com

Just sayin'...

0

Michael Alexander 1 month ago on 632 The Question Is... Separation of powers.

I think that very nicely sums it up, don't you?

I do, Tom... very nicely. In this instance, Chief Justice Douglas was clearly channeling Solomon. And I REALLY like your bit about "all others pay cash!" Now, THAT oughta be a law! ;)

0

Michael Alexander 1 month ago on 632 The Question Is... Separation of powers.

"Michael, Why does our money have In God we trust printed on it?"

I would have guessed that it's because, since before the dawn of time, experience has shown us that we really can't trust in Man, and modern history has shown that we DAMNED sure can't trust in government, so once you've ruled both of those out... who's left?

Now, I'm just not smart enough to tell the difference... is that an "establishment of religion," or is it just plain old common sense, otherwise known as wisdom.

0

Michael Alexander 1 month ago on 700 How long do you think this marriage will last?

For the sake of its other passengers, airlines should adopt a policy that, upon boarding the aircraft, newlyweds shall be issued a parachute... just one.

0

Michael Alexander 1 month ago on 632 The Question Is... Separation of powers.

If I read you right, Tom, you're saying that the court's reversal had to do only with requiring kids to recite the pledge, not with the claim that adding those two words constituted an "establishment" of religion, right?

0

Michael Alexander 1 month ago on 632 The Question Is... Separation of powers.

Hmmm... somehow, this thread has wandered off-topic, from "Separation of Powers" to same-sex marriage.

But, now that I think about it, maybe that's not off-topic at all, because when a man marries a woman, the powers are no longer separated - they are all hers, clearly. When a man marries another man, or when two women hook up - clarity of supremacy? Not so much.

As to the OP, I'm afraid that I have to agree with Ron. I've seen nothing lately that gives me faith in the constitutionality of any forthcoming decisions. It will be political, and as are all such things, it will depend on the direction and the force of the prevailing winds at the time.

To take it one step further, my opinion, as I've stated before in another thread, is that much of our problems stem not from the laws that are passed by Congress, or even in the way that they are executed by the administration, but from the way those laws, once challenged, are interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Within the movement to amend the Constitution that Tom mentioned is a contingent that would like to see term limits imposed on all federal officials, including Justices of the Supreme Court. Allow them to serve, but with the understanding that they will soon be returning to the real world with the rest of us, to live under the law they interpret, not above it.

0

Michael Alexander 1 month ago on Article V Update II

If I could change but one word, it would be in the second sentence... I would change "tyrannical government" to "tyrannical monarchy." That makes it more analogous to the predicament in which we find ourselves today. - mja

0

Michael Alexander 1 month ago on Article V Update II

History Re-written

Almost 230 years ago, a handful of brave men and women – merchants, soldiers, educators, farmers, clerics, physicians and lawyers – all met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Combining their past struggles against a tyrannical government with their brilliant theories of a new, republican form of government, they produced and signed the document known today as the United States Constitution.

Not two months ago, I attended a meeting here in Payson. It, too, held a diverse crowd – small business owners, veterans, teachers, ranchers and retirees – all assembled to hear a presentation devised around one paragraph, just 143 words, written by those early Framers – Article V, where the states are given the same power and authority as Congress to amend the Constitution. The attendees were encouraged to educate themselves on this issue as old as the very nation it helped to define, and to inform others of its little-known existence, and finally to contact our state legislators and encourage them to do the same.

Yesterday (3/12), with the strong backing of both Representative Brenda Barton and Representative Bob Thorpe, the Arizona House of Representatives passed HCR2027, invoking Article V and applying to Congress for a Convention of States limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

Along with Georgia and Alaska, Arizona has now taken a brave step toward the nation’s future, hopefully one of rational restraint and constitutional decorum. The legislation now moves to the state senate, where the establishment of both political parties has promised overwhelming opposition. The voice of the people can make a difference. The voice of informed people, of passionate people, of constituents and voters determined to hold their elected officials to a higher standard – to demand that they put what’s best for our state and for the nation ahead of what’s best for their life-long political careers.

Visit www.ConventionOfStates.com and become those people.

Michael Alexander (Letter to the Editor)

0

Michael Alexander 1 month, 2 weeks ago on 612 Want to be "Dear Abby" for a few minutes?

Dear Unfairly Resentful: You mentioned that this was your husband's "regular annual trip," which means that you knew it was coming up for, say, about a year, right? If it's not too late, I would recommend using the tried-and true technique known and loved by women around the globe - Get Up, Girl, And Get In His Face! It's called communication, without which you don't have a marriage, or even a real relationship. He can not know your thoughts unless you share them... clearly.

0

Prev