A federal judge in Florida recently issued a temporary injunction on a Florida law requiring welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits. Judge Mary Scriven ruled that people's fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure would be violated if this law went into effect.
Lebron, who is the sole caretaker of his 4-year-old son, said he's "happy that the judge stood up for me and my rights and said the state can't act without a reason or suspicion."
I am glad to see this applicant aware of and defending his Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but where in the Constitution do we find his right to someone else's property without just compensation? In the real world, you can only lay claim to someone else's property in exchange for negotiated labor or other property.
If someone broke into your house and, with loaded gun in hand, demanded your property to make a living, they would be arrested, tried and convicted of burglary and theft. Is it any more right to acquire someone's property using the power of the state? While the state government may have that option under our current Constitution, the federal government does not, but it uses its power to force states into one-size-fits-all policies left solely to the states by the same Constitution.
Assume for a moment that public welfare is right since this system has been in place for so long. Do we expect the state to simply redistribute this property without any strings attached? If state governmentss choose to implement such policies, they should be allowed to apply as many or as few restrictions as they see fit and their budgets allow.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Opt-outs
President Obama is yet again by-passing the rule of law and violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution by offering states the opportunity to exempt themselves from certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind law signed by President Bush. He cites the numerous states failing to live up to the provisions of NCLB and a divided Congress unable to reform the law among the reasons to justifiably grant waivers to those states willing to embrace his reforms presumably found in his Race to the Top program.
A course of action respecting the entire Constitution is to repeal NCLB and allow the states to implement their own educational reforms. A course of action respecting at least Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution is to ask Congress to repeal NCLB and propose to Congress for their consideration a new law to replace NCLB. If NCLB is so burdensome, it should be easy to repeal. However, his course of action violates the rule of law and the concept of equal protection under the law.
Suppose in a few years the quality of health care and the timing of health care delivery was much worse and the cost of health care and health insurance were much higher than today. States are already cutting their budgets, a significant portion of which is Medicaid, and Obamacare essentially shifts more people into Medicaid. What would stop the next President from granting waivers not only to well-connected, politically-favorable businesses and unions, such as President Obama has done for more than 1000, but also to the states as GOP Presidential-candidate Romney has proposed in a number of debates? It would be no less of a violation of the rule of law and the equal protection clause.
Who believes that a state politically unfriendly to President Obama, such as Texas, or a state politically unfriendly to a President Perry, such as Illinois, requesting a waiver from any burdensome law or regulation would receive one? Burdensome, unconstitutional laws lead to the idea and legitimacy of waivers which lead to rewarding or punishing political friends or enemies, respectively.
I oppose unconstitutional laws such as NCLB and Obamacare as well as any waivers pertaining to them. The federal government was established by the states and the people and is their servant. It is a shame that those same states and people must now beg for mercy from that same servant which has now become their master.
A course of action respecting the entire Constitution is to repeal NCLB and allow the states to implement their own educational reforms. A course of action respecting at least Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution is to ask Congress to repeal NCLB and propose to Congress for their consideration a new law to replace NCLB. If NCLB is so burdensome, it should be easy to repeal. However, his course of action violates the rule of law and the concept of equal protection under the law.
Suppose in a few years the quality of health care and the timing of health care delivery was much worse and the cost of health care and health insurance were much higher than today. States are already cutting their budgets, a significant portion of which is Medicaid, and Obamacare essentially shifts more people into Medicaid. What would stop the next President from granting waivers not only to well-connected, politically-favorable businesses and unions, such as President Obama has done for more than 1000, but also to the states as GOP Presidential-candidate Romney has proposed in a number of debates? It would be no less of a violation of the rule of law and the equal protection clause.
Who believes that a state politically unfriendly to President Obama, such as Texas, or a state politically unfriendly to a President Perry, such as Illinois, requesting a waiver from any burdensome law or regulation would receive one? Burdensome, unconstitutional laws lead to the idea and legitimacy of waivers which lead to rewarding or punishing political friends or enemies, respectively.
I oppose unconstitutional laws such as NCLB and Obamacare as well as any waivers pertaining to them. The federal government was established by the states and the people and is their servant. It is a shame that those same states and people must now beg for mercy from that same servant which has now become their master.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Bright idea
Whereas the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution leaves to the states and people issues not found within the U.S. Constitution such as light bulbs, CO2 emissions and global warming, and...
Whereas the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from regulating commerce within their own borders, and...
Whereas the light from fluorescent light bulbs causes eye strain, headaches and frustration for adolescents and self-conscious women, and...
Whereas fluorescent light bulbs, while using less energy, cost more to produce and dispose of, then...
Be it resolved that Texas House Bill 2510, which would allow the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs within the state of Texas and exempt them from efficiency standards as mandated in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act signed by President Bush, should be signed by Governor Rick Perry.
Whereas the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from regulating commerce within their own borders, and...
Whereas the "supreme law of the land" clause of the U.S. Constitution only applies to laws made in pursuance thereof, and...
Whereas the incandescent light bulb has served the world well since its invention by Edison in 1879 as a safe, cheap and reliable source of light and heat, and...
Whereas the fluorescent light bulb contains mercury which is harmful to human health and would be released if broken, and...
Whereas the fluorescent light bulb when used in traffic lights will ice over in snow and ice storms, and...Whereas the light from fluorescent light bulbs causes eye strain, headaches and frustration for adolescents and self-conscious women, and...
Whereas fluorescent light bulbs, while using less energy, cost more to produce and dispose of, then...
Be it resolved that Texas House Bill 2510, which would allow the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs within the state of Texas and exempt them from efficiency standards as mandated in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act signed by President Bush, should be signed by Governor Rick Perry.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Real Social Security
Have you ever wondered how much money is sitting in your Social Security retirement account within the SS trust fund in West Virginia? You get monthly, quarterly or annual balance statements from your other private retirement accounts as required by law although sometimes I would rather not see them. When was the last time you got a statement from the SSA other than the one showing how much your monthly benefit will be when you retire?
Citing a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research of 1,000 likely voters, The Hill online newspaper posted today the following:
"Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe diverting payroll taxes to personal accounts should not be permitted at all, while 37 percent backed being able to invest either 25 percent or 50 percent. Sixteen percent supported the ability to invest three-fourths or all of one's Social Security taxes."
While 36% oppose any privatization of SS, 53% favor partial to full privatization. Privatization appears to have the green light. Even if the undecided 11% eventually oppose it, there is still a slim majority in favor of it. While women more than men, old more than young, black more than white and Dem more than GOP oppose privatization, the overall group favors it and each sub-group admits the program is in dire straits. More people favor restructuring our broken retirement system than our broken healthcare system which recently realized a major overhaul.
I would actually like to thank the President for floating the idea and signing into law the partial privatization of the program. He essentially did as much by reducing the historical 6.2% payroll tax to 4.2%. I will set aside that extra 2% in my personal retirement account, and I highly recommend everyone do so for two reasons. First, this tax cut is slated to expire at the end of the year, so if you are spending it, you will have to readjust your lifestyle. Second, depending on your age, it may be the only portion of that "tax" you ever get to spend in your retirement because all trust fund "profits", when there were any, were spent in the general budget in exchange for I.O.U.'s, and, as the same article noted, that same trust fund was in the red last year for the first time. By the way, those I.O.U.'s, or unfunded liabilities, amount to $17.5 trillion as of 2009 according to its trustees.
Yes. Private accounts do run the risk of losing money; many people were reminded of that 2-3 years ago in the crash of 2008. If you were less than 5 years from retirement, that was financially devastating. However, all ideas put forth so far plan to privatize accounts, even partially, only for those 55 or younger.
Private account balances may rise and fall, but at least that money really exists and will belong to you, not to your children and grandchildren who have yet to earn it.
Citing a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research of 1,000 likely voters, The Hill online newspaper posted today the following:
"Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe diverting payroll taxes to personal accounts should not be permitted at all, while 37 percent backed being able to invest either 25 percent or 50 percent. Sixteen percent supported the ability to invest three-fourths or all of one's Social Security taxes."
While 36% oppose any privatization of SS, 53% favor partial to full privatization. Privatization appears to have the green light. Even if the undecided 11% eventually oppose it, there is still a slim majority in favor of it. While women more than men, old more than young, black more than white and Dem more than GOP oppose privatization, the overall group favors it and each sub-group admits the program is in dire straits. More people favor restructuring our broken retirement system than our broken healthcare system which recently realized a major overhaul.
I would actually like to thank the President for floating the idea and signing into law the partial privatization of the program. He essentially did as much by reducing the historical 6.2% payroll tax to 4.2%. I will set aside that extra 2% in my personal retirement account, and I highly recommend everyone do so for two reasons. First, this tax cut is slated to expire at the end of the year, so if you are spending it, you will have to readjust your lifestyle. Second, depending on your age, it may be the only portion of that "tax" you ever get to spend in your retirement because all trust fund "profits", when there were any, were spent in the general budget in exchange for I.O.U.'s, and, as the same article noted, that same trust fund was in the red last year for the first time. By the way, those I.O.U.'s, or unfunded liabilities, amount to $17.5 trillion as of 2009 according to its trustees.
Yes. Private accounts do run the risk of losing money; many people were reminded of that 2-3 years ago in the crash of 2008. If you were less than 5 years from retirement, that was financially devastating. However, all ideas put forth so far plan to privatize accounts, even partially, only for those 55 or younger.
Private account balances may rise and fall, but at least that money really exists and will belong to you, not to your children and grandchildren who have yet to earn it.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Oldy but goody
Which of the following legally-binding statements is easier to understand?
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."
or
"Conditions Based on Health Status Factor.-If any of the conditions for obtaining a premium discount or rebate or other reward for participation in a wellness program is based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor, such wellness program shall not violate this section if the requirements of paragraph (3) are complied with."
The first statement is from the Constitution, specifically the first amendment. It was transmitted to the states by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified effective December 15, 1791, nearly 2 years and 3 months later. The people and their elected representatives had plenty of time to understand this new law.
The second statement is from Part 1, Subpart 1, Section 2705(j)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or H.R. 3590. It was introduced in the House on September 17, 2009, passed in the House on October 8, 2009, passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010, slightly over 6 months later. The people and their elected representatives had little time to understand this new law.
While the latter statement is not impossible to understand, new terms are introduced such as wellness program and health status factor. Where are these terms defined? Does the definition change with the times or at the secretary's discretion? What are the requirements of paragraph (3)? Given enough time and some legal aid, I could understand what the latter means to me, my neighbor, the insurance industry and/or my state, but I immediately understand the plain language of the former.
According to Washington Post's Ezra Klein, however, "nobody understands what it (Constitution) means because it's over 100 years old". What does age have to do with it? Is he not implying that because of its age it no longer has any applicability to modern society? I contend that no matter when it was written the Constitution, along with its amendments, the most recent of which was ratified on May 7, 1992, is still a modern document because we the people can change it whenever we so desire. We even added one banning booze in 1919 then repealed it nearly 15 years later. It is not up to the courts to modernize it at their whim; it is up to us. If we take no action to change it, then we believe it still applies to modern society.
Yes. The oldest part of the Constitution was written over 223 years ago, but it's not the age of the law that matters; it's how many lawyers you need to understand it. The 200+ companies getting waivers from certain sections of H.R 3590 are the ones big enough to have lawyers dedicated to understanding those sections affecting them. Small businesses, and individuals, without a legion of lawyers will find out the hard way. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was written in such a way that the common person can understand it all by him or herself.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."
or
"Conditions Based on Health Status Factor.-If any of the conditions for obtaining a premium discount or rebate or other reward for participation in a wellness program is based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor, such wellness program shall not violate this section if the requirements of paragraph (3) are complied with."
The first statement is from the Constitution, specifically the first amendment. It was transmitted to the states by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified effective December 15, 1791, nearly 2 years and 3 months later. The people and their elected representatives had plenty of time to understand this new law.
The second statement is from Part 1, Subpart 1, Section 2705(j)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or H.R. 3590. It was introduced in the House on September 17, 2009, passed in the House on October 8, 2009, passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010, slightly over 6 months later. The people and their elected representatives had little time to understand this new law.
While the latter statement is not impossible to understand, new terms are introduced such as wellness program and health status factor. Where are these terms defined? Does the definition change with the times or at the secretary's discretion? What are the requirements of paragraph (3)? Given enough time and some legal aid, I could understand what the latter means to me, my neighbor, the insurance industry and/or my state, but I immediately understand the plain language of the former.
According to Washington Post's Ezra Klein, however, "nobody understands what it (Constitution) means because it's over 100 years old". What does age have to do with it? Is he not implying that because of its age it no longer has any applicability to modern society? I contend that no matter when it was written the Constitution, along with its amendments, the most recent of which was ratified on May 7, 1992, is still a modern document because we the people can change it whenever we so desire. We even added one banning booze in 1919 then repealed it nearly 15 years later. It is not up to the courts to modernize it at their whim; it is up to us. If we take no action to change it, then we believe it still applies to modern society.
Yes. The oldest part of the Constitution was written over 223 years ago, but it's not the age of the law that matters; it's how many lawyers you need to understand it. The 200+ companies getting waivers from certain sections of H.R 3590 are the ones big enough to have lawyers dedicated to understanding those sections affecting them. Small businesses, and individuals, without a legion of lawyers will find out the hard way. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was written in such a way that the common person can understand it all by him or herself.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Anti-bullying Wave
On Thursday November 18th, the Dallas Independent School District expanded their anti-bullying policy to include gays, lesbians and transgenders. That policy already applied to the characteristics of national origin, family background, religious and political beliefs. Although there was no particular incident at DISD that led to this policy amendment, the school board felt compelled to do something in the wake of recent bullying incidents in other parts of the country that even led to suicide. They were smart enough to change the policy before something happened. Punishment ranges from counseling to expulsion.
1. The intent of this anti-bullying policy is to protect students from other students. Fair enough, but what about protecting students from teachers or other staff? The latest case in point is an incident at Howell Public School District in Howell, Michigan on October 20 which features an economics teacher, Jay McDowell, and one of his students, Daniel Glowacki, discussing various issues completely unrelated to economics. It started when another student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle was told by McDowell to remove it, but Glowacki defended it on free-speech grounds. McDowell then called Glowacki a racist. McDowell, who wore a shirt highlighting one of these recent gay-student suicides, also asked Glowacki for his opinion on gays. After responding that he opposes that lifestyle on religious beliefs, he was ejected from class.
After reviewing statements from all parties, the district suspended McDowell for one day without pay and determined Glowacki had not engaged in any bullying or hate speech. First, I tend to believe the students' story since the district is standing by their decision despite intense pressure from the teacher's union of which McDowell is president. Second, I am quite surprised that the district has not "buckled". The big question is...would they would have stood by the student if their anti-bullying policy had been as explicitly worded as DISDs? Verbal harassment based on sexual orientation is found in the Howell policy, but apparently this did not rise to the level of bullying. What happens when bullying is both someone speaking against the gay lifestyle on religious beliefs and someone who is gay or supports the gay lifestyle criticizing those same religious beliefs? Who is the greater victim?
While the gay lifestyle seems to be more palatable to society, issues of religion and faith are not a buffet. We do not follow a God of our own making; He did not give us the Ten Suggestions. Does the clay have any right to question the Potter?
2. Apparently bullying has morphed from just hitting, or physical abuse, to hitting and intimidation, or emotional abuse. I did on a few occasions endure some physical abuse in my K-12 years. Nobody then could question that those incidents were bullying. I assumed this was just part of life; some people have to physically dominate you to elevate their egos. I did not lodge complaints with the administration but "rolled with the punches" so to speak. If intimidation now also qualifies as bullying, then I spent the better part of K-12 being bullied. While I make no apologies for it, I don't feel any worse off for it 17-30 years later. Perhaps I could wear the victim mantle and use it as an excuse for my many failures in life, but will my boss, wife or kids give me a pass because of it? Is it at least a lesson to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and teach my children the same?
1. The intent of this anti-bullying policy is to protect students from other students. Fair enough, but what about protecting students from teachers or other staff? The latest case in point is an incident at Howell Public School District in Howell, Michigan on October 20 which features an economics teacher, Jay McDowell, and one of his students, Daniel Glowacki, discussing various issues completely unrelated to economics. It started when another student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle was told by McDowell to remove it, but Glowacki defended it on free-speech grounds. McDowell then called Glowacki a racist. McDowell, who wore a shirt highlighting one of these recent gay-student suicides, also asked Glowacki for his opinion on gays. After responding that he opposes that lifestyle on religious beliefs, he was ejected from class.
After reviewing statements from all parties, the district suspended McDowell for one day without pay and determined Glowacki had not engaged in any bullying or hate speech. First, I tend to believe the students' story since the district is standing by their decision despite intense pressure from the teacher's union of which McDowell is president. Second, I am quite surprised that the district has not "buckled". The big question is...would they would have stood by the student if their anti-bullying policy had been as explicitly worded as DISDs? Verbal harassment based on sexual orientation is found in the Howell policy, but apparently this did not rise to the level of bullying. What happens when bullying is both someone speaking against the gay lifestyle on religious beliefs and someone who is gay or supports the gay lifestyle criticizing those same religious beliefs? Who is the greater victim?
While the gay lifestyle seems to be more palatable to society, issues of religion and faith are not a buffet. We do not follow a God of our own making; He did not give us the Ten Suggestions. Does the clay have any right to question the Potter?
2. Apparently bullying has morphed from just hitting, or physical abuse, to hitting and intimidation, or emotional abuse. I did on a few occasions endure some physical abuse in my K-12 years. Nobody then could question that those incidents were bullying. I assumed this was just part of life; some people have to physically dominate you to elevate their egos. I did not lodge complaints with the administration but "rolled with the punches" so to speak. If intimidation now also qualifies as bullying, then I spent the better part of K-12 being bullied. While I make no apologies for it, I don't feel any worse off for it 17-30 years later. Perhaps I could wear the victim mantle and use it as an excuse for my many failures in life, but will my boss, wife or kids give me a pass because of it? Is it at least a lesson to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and teach my children the same?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Changes
As I finish my last day as president of the University Kiwanis Club of Wichita Falls, I reflect on this and other interesting things happening in my life and that of my family. I certainly enjoyed leading this club which focuses on improving the lives of the citizens of Wichita Falls, particularly its children.
The club started one new project in December while continuing existing projects. That new project was a Christmas party at one of the poorest elementary schools in town. The students and staff were overwhelmed so much so that the staff helped us at our big fundraiser. We continued existing projects of monthly bingo at the state hospital and concessions for YMCA spring baseball games at Kiwanis Park. We served a record crowd of 12,000+ people and almost a world-record number of pancakes at our annual Pancake Festival in January despite icy weather just across the border in Oklahoma. We also formally approved new by-laws that will guide our club. While I received many thanks for my service, the club is full of self-motivated people that are fully capable of seeking and serving. I thank them for allowing me to lead them for a year.
Another big change is that our church is finally completely replacing the HVAC system in the sanctuary. That work has been needed for at least the past seven years. We elders discussed how we would adjust the worship setting at our meeting earlier this month thinking it would be much later in the year. Well, the contractors had an opportunity to start in the middle of this month to which the building committee agreed. Where we formerly had an early service, Sunday school and a late service, we decided on a two-week trial of one service with a mid-service Sunday school break. After two weeks, we elders have been pleased with the congregation's response to this change which Lutherans tend to resist. Before any of these changes were even considered though, I agreed to lead a new adult Bible class, now one of three from which adults may choose. However, it is now in the rotation on this new Sunday school break which hosted a crowd of 100 people last Sunday. I was a little nervous, but I really enjoyed leading the discussion on the topic of faith and reason.
Last but not least on the list of big recent changes is that my youngest child, Reagan, turned one year old on September 21st. It seems that I enjoyed her company during her first year more than I did Nick or Jenna during their first years. It's not that I love her more than the other two. I simply see how fast they grow, and I don't want to miss a moment. We had a great party for her on the 18th with her sponsors and grandma and on the 21st with her grandpa. These grandparents drove half to full days to be here with her.
Despite these changes, good or bad, we can count on the Lord to stay the same, perfect.
The club started one new project in December while continuing existing projects. That new project was a Christmas party at one of the poorest elementary schools in town. The students and staff were overwhelmed so much so that the staff helped us at our big fundraiser. We continued existing projects of monthly bingo at the state hospital and concessions for YMCA spring baseball games at Kiwanis Park. We served a record crowd of 12,000+ people and almost a world-record number of pancakes at our annual Pancake Festival in January despite icy weather just across the border in Oklahoma. We also formally approved new by-laws that will guide our club. While I received many thanks for my service, the club is full of self-motivated people that are fully capable of seeking and serving. I thank them for allowing me to lead them for a year.
Another big change is that our church is finally completely replacing the HVAC system in the sanctuary. That work has been needed for at least the past seven years. We elders discussed how we would adjust the worship setting at our meeting earlier this month thinking it would be much later in the year. Well, the contractors had an opportunity to start in the middle of this month to which the building committee agreed. Where we formerly had an early service, Sunday school and a late service, we decided on a two-week trial of one service with a mid-service Sunday school break. After two weeks, we elders have been pleased with the congregation's response to this change which Lutherans tend to resist. Before any of these changes were even considered though, I agreed to lead a new adult Bible class, now one of three from which adults may choose. However, it is now in the rotation on this new Sunday school break which hosted a crowd of 100 people last Sunday. I was a little nervous, but I really enjoyed leading the discussion on the topic of faith and reason.
Last but not least on the list of big recent changes is that my youngest child, Reagan, turned one year old on September 21st. It seems that I enjoyed her company during her first year more than I did Nick or Jenna during their first years. It's not that I love her more than the other two. I simply see how fast they grow, and I don't want to miss a moment. We had a great party for her on the 18th with her sponsors and grandma and on the 21st with her grandpa. These grandparents drove half to full days to be here with her.
Despite these changes, good or bad, we can count on the Lord to stay the same, perfect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)