I have spoken out about Coach Joe Pa's and Mike McQueary's lack of morality by not contacting the police themselves about Coach Sandusky's depravity towards children. I feel that it should be felony to not report someone you witness abusing a child. Apparently in most states it is a misdemeanor, including in Pennsylvania. That is something that is tragic. People should be writing letters to the state legislators and pushing them to make the laws against this stronger. So in walks Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He is introducing legislation in the U.S. Senate to require all states to beef up their laws and make the failure to report a felony. One may say that is a good thing. But it isn't.
This is yet one more example of the federal government usurping the rights of states. Child abuse is not a federal issue. This is an issue that is better dealt with on the local and state levels. No where in the constitution does the federal government have the right to dictate to states what type of punishments they should be doling out for criminal acts. The law will be forced on the states. How do they get around the lack of jurisdiction? They do it with money. The legislation will hold back social services money that is granted to the states by the federal government. Another words Medicaid and schip payments. All the little things that the federal government pass laws and force the states to give it's citizens without any regards to the budgets of the states. In order to help states pay for these little goodies that they force upon them, they give them federal tax dollars to help offset the costs.
The federal government forced the drinking age to be raised in this same fashion. They had no constitutional ability to mandate a federal drinking age, but they forced the states to raise the age by holding back money if they didn't comply. In the mid 80's every state across the country raised their legal drinking age to 21. It didn't matter that states may have felt that 18, 19, or 20 was something that was good for their citizens.
It does not matter that the law may be a good thing. It is the way that the federal government is bribing states with large amounts of money to force their will upon them. Write a letter to your Senators and explain to them being against this bill doesn't make you pro child abuse. It makes you pro tenth amendment.
Stand up to the likes of Senator Menedez and his belief that the federal government has the right to bribe states into following their will. This isn't about child abuse or drunk driving. This is about rights of the states. The federal government has no place in state laws. If you feel that your state should make the failure to report a felony, contact your governor and state senator.
Showing posts with label states rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label states rights. Show all posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Monday, June 1, 2009
17th Amendment: Friend or Foe?
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
In April of 1913 the 17th amendment was ratified. It may be time that we take a fresh look at this again. After the Civil War there was an understandable mistrust that swept across the nation. Corruption was rampant, and the First World War was looming. So the seeds had been sowed to make this change and have the Senators elected by popular vote of the people. On the face of it, this seems like the fairest and most reasonable way of handling the election of the Senators. What it has actually accomplished is taken away the rights and the protections of the states. The people, us, would actually be better served by the election through the legislator.
The stimulus bill is a perfect example of how the American People would have been better served by repealing the 17th amendment. Many of the provisions in the stimulus package added additional costs to the states that they simply cannot afford. By accepting money for additional unemployment benefits the states are now forced into continuing this program on a permanent basis. This provision is what many Governors were objecting to. Another provision in the stimulus package was a clause that allowed the legislators to override the objection of the Governor of any of the stimulus money. These provisions forced the states to accept the strings that the federal government placed on the funds regardless of the needs of the individual states. If our senators are appointed by the legislators that is where the loyalty will lie. Each state will have two strong advocates instead of two individuals watching out for themselves.
If the senators are elected by the state legislators the rights of that state are more closely protected. This will also take away the need for all 100 senators to be constantly raising campaign funds. Just imagine all the corruption that will be removed. Many of the corruption scandals that senators are involved in are campaign fundraising related.
The Constitution was set up to have checks and balances at all levels of the system, and to be the most powerful at the local levels. Just imagine how much more work will actually be accomplished in Washington DC if our Senators were not trying to keep the special interest groups and their checkbooks happy and got back to the doing the work of We The People.
In April of 1913 the 17th amendment was ratified. It may be time that we take a fresh look at this again. After the Civil War there was an understandable mistrust that swept across the nation. Corruption was rampant, and the First World War was looming. So the seeds had been sowed to make this change and have the Senators elected by popular vote of the people. On the face of it, this seems like the fairest and most reasonable way of handling the election of the Senators. What it has actually accomplished is taken away the rights and the protections of the states. The people, us, would actually be better served by the election through the legislator.
The stimulus bill is a perfect example of how the American People would have been better served by repealing the 17th amendment. Many of the provisions in the stimulus package added additional costs to the states that they simply cannot afford. By accepting money for additional unemployment benefits the states are now forced into continuing this program on a permanent basis. This provision is what many Governors were objecting to. Another provision in the stimulus package was a clause that allowed the legislators to override the objection of the Governor of any of the stimulus money. These provisions forced the states to accept the strings that the federal government placed on the funds regardless of the needs of the individual states. If our senators are appointed by the legislators that is where the loyalty will lie. Each state will have two strong advocates instead of two individuals watching out for themselves.
If the senators are elected by the state legislators the rights of that state are more closely protected. This will also take away the need for all 100 senators to be constantly raising campaign funds. Just imagine all the corruption that will be removed. Many of the corruption scandals that senators are involved in are campaign fundraising related.
The Constitution was set up to have checks and balances at all levels of the system, and to be the most powerful at the local levels. Just imagine how much more work will actually be accomplished in Washington DC if our Senators were not trying to keep the special interest groups and their checkbooks happy and got back to the doing the work of We The People.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Change we can believe in?
This is an article from The Los Angeles Times. Not exactly a bastion of right wing thinking.
And Guess What? The union SEIU that is referred to in the article, is closely related to guess who? ACORN.
U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts
The Obama administration threatens to rescind billions in stimulus money if Gov. Schwarzenegger and lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers.
By Evan Halper May 8, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento -- The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.
The news comes as state lawmakers are already facing a severe cash crisis, with the state at risk of running out of money in July. The wages at issue involve workers who care for some 440,000 low-income disabled and elderly Californians. The workers, who collectively contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to the influential Service Employees International Union and the United Domestic Workers, will see the state's contribution to their wages cut from a maximum of $12.10 per hour to a maximum of $10.10. The SEIU said in a statement that it had asked the Obama administration for the ruling.
The cut was highly contentious during last winter's budget talks. Republican lawmakers insisted that the rapidly growing, multibillion-dollar state program, In Home Supportive Services, be scaled back significantly.Democrats fought major reductions in the program, which they say is a cost-effective alternative to nursing-home care, but ultimately compromised.Reversing the wage cut would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, meaning Republican support would be needed. Schwarzenegger on Wednesday sent U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius a letter urging the federal government to reconsider. "Neither the Legislature nor I make decisions to reduce wages or benefits lightly, but only as a last resort in response to an unprecedented fiscal crisis," Schwarzenegger wrote
And Guess What? The union SEIU that is referred to in the article, is closely related to guess who? ACORN.
U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts
The Obama administration threatens to rescind billions in stimulus money if Gov. Schwarzenegger and lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers.
By Evan Halper May 8, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento -- The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.
The news comes as state lawmakers are already facing a severe cash crisis, with the state at risk of running out of money in July. The wages at issue involve workers who care for some 440,000 low-income disabled and elderly Californians. The workers, who collectively contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to the influential Service Employees International Union and the United Domestic Workers, will see the state's contribution to their wages cut from a maximum of $12.10 per hour to a maximum of $10.10. The SEIU said in a statement that it had asked the Obama administration for the ruling.
The cut was highly contentious during last winter's budget talks. Republican lawmakers insisted that the rapidly growing, multibillion-dollar state program, In Home Supportive Services, be scaled back significantly.Democrats fought major reductions in the program, which they say is a cost-effective alternative to nursing-home care, but ultimately compromised.Reversing the wage cut would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, meaning Republican support would be needed. Schwarzenegger on Wednesday sent U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius a letter urging the federal government to reconsider. "Neither the Legislature nor I make decisions to reduce wages or benefits lightly, but only as a last resort in response to an unprecedented fiscal crisis," Schwarzenegger wrote
Friday, May 8, 2009
States Rights and the 10th Amendment
The debate is starting to heat up in regards to the rights to the individual states. The 10th amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
These issues are becoming front and center for a variety of reasons. The stimulus package provisions being one example of this. The stimulus package states that payment for the work done on the projects must be done on scale union wages. The State of California is on the brink of insolvency, so this provision is problematic to them. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has written a letter to President Obama in regards to this provision and requesting an exemption.
Montana has passed a law exempting the state from federal laws restricting guns. All guns and ammunition made in the state that is sold within the state will be stamped Made in Montana, and will fall under only the jurisdiction of the state. This law is due to take effect on October 10, 2009. The basis of the law is that the 10th Amendment is for inter-state commerce, not intra-state commerce.
Leo Berman, Texas State Representative, is introducing a bill that will clarify that Texas is a Sovereign state and that they’re not required to follow any federal law that is not mandated under the U.S. Constitution. He believes that the bill will pass.
In Utah, the Patrick Henry Caucus has been formed. Patrick Henry famously said “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death.” The caucus has been formed to ensure the sovereignty of states rights. They are hoping to set up the same type of organization in all 50 states.
The federal government may find that they are over-playing their hand. The legislators and governors across the country are starting to question the control the federal government is trying to exert, and how they are using money to do it.
This is nothing new; the feds have been doing this for quite sometime. The drinking age being one very good example of this. Under the constitution, the federal government has no right to set a minimum drinking age. In order to get all 50 states to raise the age to 21 they were withholding money for road projects. All 50 states capitulated and raised the age to 21. While I feel that this is a good law, it is how it came about that is disturbing. The federal government keeps usurping on the rights of the states that was given to them by the constitution.
This is an issue that we will be hearing more of as time goes by. The chances of the gun control lobby not bringing the Montana law to court is next to nil. I would venture to say this will be falling to the Supreme Court to decide within the next five years.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
These issues are becoming front and center for a variety of reasons. The stimulus package provisions being one example of this. The stimulus package states that payment for the work done on the projects must be done on scale union wages. The State of California is on the brink of insolvency, so this provision is problematic to them. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has written a letter to President Obama in regards to this provision and requesting an exemption.
Montana has passed a law exempting the state from federal laws restricting guns. All guns and ammunition made in the state that is sold within the state will be stamped Made in Montana, and will fall under only the jurisdiction of the state. This law is due to take effect on October 10, 2009. The basis of the law is that the 10th Amendment is for inter-state commerce, not intra-state commerce.
Leo Berman, Texas State Representative, is introducing a bill that will clarify that Texas is a Sovereign state and that they’re not required to follow any federal law that is not mandated under the U.S. Constitution. He believes that the bill will pass.
In Utah, the Patrick Henry Caucus has been formed. Patrick Henry famously said “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death.” The caucus has been formed to ensure the sovereignty of states rights. They are hoping to set up the same type of organization in all 50 states.
The federal government may find that they are over-playing their hand. The legislators and governors across the country are starting to question the control the federal government is trying to exert, and how they are using money to do it.
This is nothing new; the feds have been doing this for quite sometime. The drinking age being one very good example of this. Under the constitution, the federal government has no right to set a minimum drinking age. In order to get all 50 states to raise the age to 21 they were withholding money for road projects. All 50 states capitulated and raised the age to 21. While I feel that this is a good law, it is how it came about that is disturbing. The federal government keeps usurping on the rights of the states that was given to them by the constitution.
This is an issue that we will be hearing more of as time goes by. The chances of the gun control lobby not bringing the Montana law to court is next to nil. I would venture to say this will be falling to the Supreme Court to decide within the next five years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
