Michael Alexander

Michael Alexander 9 months, 3 weeks ago on Article V Convention of States - Update 2014 (1)

(3 of 4)

I am further advised that Biggs just barely won the Senate presidency this last term by one vote. It appears hopeful that his alliance with the anti-Fivers against the will of the majority of the people of Arizona – as evidenced by the legislation’s passage in the House – will at the very least make him less competitive against a more constitutionally devoted opponent if he vies for the presidency again in the next legislative session.

Many of us are taking the position that any leader whose reasoning on this particular issue has been clouded by fear should not be allowed to continue preventing Arizona from taking her rightful place in the fight to return this nation to the ideals envisioned by our Founders.

So, in the short term, we've decided that we must strive to remind those who have adopted that decades-old "runaway" paranoia that many great conservative thinkers and leaders have recently re-examined the issue and joined us in support of one or both of these popular conservative movements for an Article V Convention... people like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, George Will, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mike Church, David Barton, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and Alan West, among others.

0

Michael Alexander 9 months, 3 weeks ago on Article V Convention of States - Update 2014 (1)

(2 of 4)

Most are quietly licking their wounds, trying to rationalize the irrational. And some are asking some pretty hard questions. Unfortunately, right now, today, there are few answers. There are, however, some undeniable truths that do help us understand some of the underlying dynamics at work behind the defeat, and those discoveries will inform us in the run-up to and during the next legislative session.

We’ve decided that we have to adopt a new attitude. As cynical as it may sound, the fact of the matter is that politics, to those who live it day-in and day-out, is a game. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Then you suit up and get ready to play again.

Among other disclosures and revelations, I have been advised that Andy Biggs objects to any and all A5 movements out of fear of a “runaway convention,” that same time-worn and thoroughly debunked argument that has been advanced by the Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society for at least the last two decades. Despite substantial and comprehensive safeguards built into the new legislation, Biggs remained intractable. We've learned that fear, and not wanting to abandon a long-held posiition, can do terrible things to otherwise competent people.

0

Michael Alexander 9 months, 3 weeks ago on Article V Convention of States - Update 2014 (1)

(1 of 4)

Hi Tom,

I rec'd your inquiry, and really appreciate your interest. I'm sorry for the delayed response... we had to take a run up to Colorado, plus we needed a bit of a break. Here’s a brief update on Arizona’s effort to pass Article V legislation this session:

There were two bills up for consideration - HB2305 was the Goldwater Institute’s Balanced Budget Amendment, and SCR1016 was the broader Convention of States application by Citizens for Self-Governance. Both bills passed through all their respective committee hurdles and passed floor votes in the House, the latter doing so twice.

Unfortunately, they both died an inglorious procedural death in the Senate because Andy Biggs (R), the President of the Senate, exercised his pocket veto power and refused to allow either bill to come to the floor for a final vote before the legislature adjourned for the year, despite considerable pressure brought by sponsors and supporters.

So, we lost.

0

Michael Alexander 10 months, 3 weeks 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 11 months, 2 weeks 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 11 months, 2 weeks 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 11 months, 2 weeks 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 11 months, 2 weeks 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 11 months, 2 weeks 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 11 months, 3 weeks 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