Tuesday May 24, 2016
Jump to content
Frankly, I don't think he went far enough. We don't have the advantages that President Wilson had when he halted immigration from Germany during WWI, or that FDR had after Pearl Harbor when he closed the borders to all Japanese, German and Italian immigrants. Or those of Jimmy Carter when he stopped all immigration from Iran.
Because we cannot point to a single nation as the source of this evil, we should close the borders entirely until this scourge is defeated. If that upsets the immigration quotas of other "allied" nations, then they need to get on the flippin' bandwagon and help rid the earth of this pestilence.
Then we'll re-open the borders... when WE decide to.
Thanks, as always, for the thoughtful reply, Tom, and I apologize for the delayed response… it’s that time of the year!
I’m no lawyer, but I did sleep in a Motel 6 once… maybe twice. So, with the clear head one enjoys after a good night’s sleep, to address federal meddling in educational affairs (among MANY others), I’d suggest an amendment that would mandate the doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction. Under such a rule, only one level of government – either state or federal, but not both - would have exclusive “subject matter jurisdiction” over an issue, a program or a policy, eliminating overlapping, redundant and conflicting regulations, many of which run counter to the sensitivities of the local constituency.
Our republican form of self-governance is based on the premise that unless the Constitution specifically says otherwise, and unless the states are incompetent to decide an issue for themselves, the federal government should have no say in any matter over which the states would have natural jurisdiction.
I’m not sure, either, how such an amendment should be worded, but I’m certain that once the general concept were accepted by the legislator / delegates to an amendments convention, the words would just naturally follow.
Isn't it funny how, for some, the metric for education is measured in dollars?
'Tis the nature of the beast, Tom... it was 12 years between revolution and ratification, and those gentlemen were relatively single-minded! Although expediency would be nice, no one is in a hurry... this needs to be done right. As for the seeming disinterest of the average Joe, remember Niemöller's "First they came..."
I read an article this weekend in the online edition of the Washington Examiner entitled, "National debt spikes $578 billion in three weeks." It describes how Congress has colluded with the Executive Branch to give the president virtually unlimited spending authority through and beyond this election cycle. It's brief, to the point and well-sourced. It's also maddening to see the extremes that our federal government will embrace to avoid acting responsibly.
The solution to our billowing national debt is simple... the states, not Congress, can propose, debate and ratify an amendment to the Constitution that mandates a formula for balancing the federal budget, but that still allows and sets strict guidelines for emergency expenditures ONLY if approved by 2/3 of the STATE legislatures, since we are the poor slobs who will eventually have to pay down the debt.
And because our current crop of career politicians has a dim record when it comes to adhering to the spirit AND the letter of the law, the amendment should end with some very explicit language in the form of an "or else" clause, so to speak, prescribing immediate, broad, mandatory and nonjusticiable penalties for any official refusing or failing to comply!
Jail-time for breaking federal law should be universal... like health care.
The states have the authority to do this without interference from Congress - it’s in Article V of our Constitution. It's legal, it's peaceful, and it returns power back to the people and the States.
See online at ConventionOfStates.com
What happened to the separation of religious values and governmental policies, Pete...? I guess that only matters when it's conservative values imposing on liberal policies. For future reference, you should know that there are more than a few Catholics who feel that not only this pope, but any pope, should be less concerned with how warm the earth is and pay more attention to how hot it is in Hell.
Gotta love these illogical strawman arguments from the "My Way or the Highway" types... like there's only one solution to a problem... theirs... just like the Obama drones running around the country saying "It's this Iran Deal or WAR!" These are the exact same drones who support Common Core... "Let's keep 'em stupid and they'll believe anything we tell them... they're already so stupid that we'll have to tell them when we're being sarcastic and when we're not."
Talk about delusional... in the face of this environmental disaster of epic proportion that may yet have negative impacts for uncounted decades to come, here are the Big Government GimmeDat Zombies who STILL want poor old decrepit, bloated and incompetent Uncle Sam to do everything for them. And what a weak strawman argument it is to use the struggle for civil rights as justification for a federal Uber-government... yeah... like they've done such a GREAT job with race relations these last six or seven years. Look, buddy... if it weren't for us local yokels out here in the states, there would even BE a federal government. To paraphrase Bill Cosby (back when he used to be respectable), the states brought the federal government into this world, and we can damn sure take it out.
A solution as big as the problem: http://www.conventionofstates.com/
We said it at the meeting two years ago, and we say it again now... if the feds can't manage Fossil Creek (and they obviously can't), then they should pull out and let the State Park Service take over. This is Arizona, after all, and one has to look no further than Tonto Natural Bridge to see an example of this state's efficiency in the management of its natural resources. With 100,000 visitors, it shouldn't take long at $5 a pop to pave the road to Fossil Creek with gold!
Last login: today