Thursday September 18, 2014
Jump to content
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
(Letter to the Editor)
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.
In my opinion, the disgraceful way these agents treated those mentally challenged individuals is rivaled only by that of the ill-advised bureaucrats who would impose a no-hug policy on our teachers. Just two more reasons to get the long arm of the federal government out of our states' business.
Once again, I thank you for your indulgence, Tom, but even more for the thoughtful exchange. As others here have said more eloquently than I ever could, you are indeed an invaluable asset... to this newspaper, and to the community.
(3 of 3)
We keep sending good people to Washington, only to see them disappear into the meat-grinder that is Congress, and come out the other side just so much baloney! If they go in knowing that their term is limited by constitutional edict, they will think twice before casting a vote on legislation that could have a severe impact on the very communities to which they themselves will soon be returning… to live among the rest of us, to work at a job like a normal person again, outside of the Beltway Bubble, forced to bear the burden of whatever damned-fool laws that body might pass with little or no concern for the unintended consequences they might have on the daily lives of real people throughout this country.
And before anyone says that removing the “perks” of congressional service will cause a brain drain, and that no one of any consequence will want to run for an office that they can only hold for such a short amount of time, I would submit that if the folks up there running things right now are the best and the brightest that money, power and prestige can buy, then I think it’s time to give some of us poor, stupid people a chance… we couldn’t possibly screw it up any worse!
So, it would seem that we agree, Tom, that this may be our best and last chance… a convention of states. I hate to say it, but I’m afraid it’s finally come to the point where it really doesn’t matter who we elect anymore, because sooner or later, once they become a member of an elite class that exists above the very laws they impose upon the rest of us, coupled with the realization that they can stay there forever if they just play by the rules, there’s no longer any incentive for them to exercise any discretion whatsoever. Eventually, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between any of them, and frankly… I’ve run out of dimes.
(2 of 3)
Frankly, term limits is the primary reason that I support this movement, Tom. Since the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom ruled that the voters of a sovereign state don’t have the right to impose term limits on their own locally-elected federal delegation, I can see no other way for us ever to bring an end to the modern-day phenomenon of the “Career Politician.”
Resolving that one issue, I believe, would go a very long way toward eliminating many of the most pressing issues that we face. Washington, DC, without a doubt, has become the most powerful city in the world, and no one who enters its enormous sphere of influence can help but be changed by it... and usually not for the better.
It’s almost become trite to say, but it bears repeating anyway: With very few exceptions, virtually every politician’s top priority, regardless of party, platform or principles, is to get re-elected. As soon as they arrive, they are surrounded by and steeped in the “Career Mentality” that pervades Washington, D.C. It is imposed on them, particularly by the old dogs, the veterans, the party leaders, and soon the urgency of remaining a part of that culture of power supersedes anything and everything they may have promised or aspired to during their campaign. The wants and needs of the people who sent them there – the folks back home – all take a back seat to the new imperative – raise money for re-election.
And as we all know, huge amounts of re-election money come from the major political parties, so in order to maintain the party’s financial support come election time, deals are made that have nothing to do with what’s in the best interest of the voters back in the home state. Legislation is passed at the direction of the party leadership, for instance, without a single legislator having read it. Does any of this sound anywhere near like what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they coined the term, “Citizen Legislator”?
Last login: Wednesday, September 10, 2014