About Me

Name: JayPeriod
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Constitution...What Constitution?

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:37:58 AM
By now, I'm sure you've heard all the hoopla over President-elect Obama's citizenship.  There have been more than a dozen lawsuits filed by citizens and former candidates to stop the Electoral College from finalizing the past election on the grounds that the President-elect has not provided iron-clad proof that he is a U.S. citizen.  To this point, both courts and the President-elect have ignored document requests and deadlines, most citing the lack of standing the plaintiffs have to bring the suit.

These suits will not stop.  Well into his term, more and more people will bring these suits to ask for proof.  There is only one way for Obama to put these suits, which his staff call "garbage," to rest; produce an official copy of his birth certificate.

Much like Sen. John Kerry four years ago, the production of an official document could put an end to the endless claims.  Yet, here we are four years later, and Kerry has not produced the requested documents, which he promised to do.  I fear the President-elect will follow the same way.

We live in a society in which we are innocent until proven guilty.  Yet, there is still the idea of, "what have you got to hide?"  If Obama is confident of his citizenship, he has nothing to fear in releasing the document.  If he indeed has no such document, don't we the people have a right to know?

So, what will happen?  Nothing, I suppose.  The courts have stated that it is the responsibility of the Congress and the Democrat Party to ensure he fulfills the Constitutional requirement of being a "natural born citizen."  In our current state, that's like asking the fox to watch the hen house.  In other words, nothing will be done and this will haunt us for the duration of his term.  History could very likely reveal that he was, in fact, the first unconstitutional President.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SCOTUS Finally Gets One Right

Posted by JayPeriod on Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:03:33 AM
Today, the Supreme Court finally ruled that the Founding Fathers meant what they said when it upheld the 2nd Amendment as a personal right.  In a 5-4 ruling, they overturned the gun ban in Washington, D.C., the strictest in the US.  The ruling means that our Founding Fathers really meant to endow the right to protect ourselves on us, not the government.

It only makes sense, really.  The Founding Fathers were really against a centralizing of powers.  In that, they gave us three branches of government and a Constitution that specifically divided those powers and gave the majority of rights to us, the people.  In letter after letter from the Fathers, they stated their distrust of centralized government and their concern should that government become too powerful.  Today, the Supreme Court delivered a victory, not only to us, but also to those Fathers.

Of interest, though, is the dissent of Justice Stevens in which he thought, surely, the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure the government had the right to regulate gun ownership.  I'm not sure which Constitution he's reading (hard to tell these days with all the "international" law woven into liberal decisions) or which Founders he's referring to.  Many letters, specifically from Jefferson, expressed concern for the central government growing too powerful and the need for the people to be armed to prevent that power from becoming absolute.  I guess a letter from a Founder doesn't carry any weight in decisions.  Oops, except for a letter written by Jefferson in which the idea of separation of church and state is taken out of context and misinterpreted.

Hopefully this ruling, after the botched one on child rapists yesterday, will put the SCOTUS back on track.  I doubt it, though.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Supreme Court Rules States Have Rights

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, March 28, 2008 12:00:33 PM
In a session where a lot of attention has been given to the battle for our 2nd Amendment rights, a ruling by the Supreme Court has made a ruling that should be echoing around the nation, and in fact the globe.  The Conservatarian reports on his blog that the SCOTUS has ruled against both the President and the World Court, in favor of state's rights.  The ruling, 6-3, may give some hope for this court, yet.

"Finally, checks and balances are being recognized by one branch of our government, at least! I just can’t help but wonder why there was so much in the press last week about the Heller gun case than there ever was over this HUGE case regarding states rights and national sovereignty. Makes you wonder about the agenda of the fourth estate, doesn’t it?"  Read more.

In this case, the case of a Mexican citizen, here illegally, the court found that the state of Texas did not have an obligation to contact this criminals embassy without his request.  He was found guilty of murder and was trying to get off on a technicality, but Texas determined his rights were not violated.  The Supreme Court ruled they had that right.

Let's rejoice that we may finally have a Court that has the rights of the people, the true meaning of the Constitution and our national sovereignty in mind.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Court Still Can't Get It Right On Homeschooling

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, March 28, 2008 10:48:27 AM
Earlier this month, the Los Angeles 2nd Appellate Court ruled that parents do not have a right to homeschool their children.  They ruled that the state is the sole provider of quality education and parents are required to place their children in these state controlled indoctrination centers.  This ruling has gotten ire up of homeschoolers across the nation, California Governor Arnold Schwartenegger, the California legislature and several US legislators.

This week, the court agreed to rehear the case at the request of the parent, their umbrella school and the Governor, among others.  Rather than hear the arguments of those involved, though, the court wants to hear from several teacher's unions regarding their opinions on homeschooling.  I suppose they would also want to hear Karl Marx's opinion on capitalism if that were the case!

The absurdity of the court's request is a simple slap in the face of homeschoolers everywhere.  Aside from this court, I can't imagine a more corrupt body in the US.  Teacher's unions across the nation are bought and paid for by extremists, namely the gay and lesbian community.  That hits at the heart of this case.

In my opinion, this case arose because of the recent bill passed in California; the bill that forces educators to impress only positive teaching on gays upon children.  In response, Christians and family advocates across the state have called for a mass exodus from public schools.  It was after this call that this case came to the forefront, with this court deciding to scare hundreds of thousands of parents out of pulling their children out to homeschool.  Now, they are partnering with the corrupt teacher's unions to achieve their goals.

The fact that this court feels it can get an unbiased opinion out of the teacher's union on this case strikes at the heart of the agenda of this court.  Add to that the fact that they refuse to hear from the umbrella school, or any other advocates for homeschooling, and you get the picture of how similar this court is to old Nazi Germany.  Germany, in fact, still has Nazi-era laws on the books regarding homeschooling, and currently jails parents and kidnaps their children for the crime of homeschooling.  This court is trying to follow in their footsteps.

It has become more than apparent that families are under attack in California.  California is no longer a family-friendly state.  They have let extremist groups take over and decide law, whether Constitutional or not.  The time for exodus from the state is upon us.  I suggest the rest of us do all within our power to help those who want to abandon this rogue state to leave.  In fact, we could offer it back to Mexico in lieu of amnesty for illegals.

It is my hope that someone with some common decency will step up and put this court in its place.  They cannot be allowed to strip average, hard working people of their rights, no matter what extreme agenda they have.  They should be removed from office and disgraced for their embracing of extremist ideas, those which go against the very grain of American fabric.  These are the type of courts that need to be overturned as un-American for viewing the wishes of extremists over rights of normal people.

When will we determine enough is enough?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Second Amendment Validity

Posted by JayPeriod on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:26:18 PM
Today, the Supreme Court will hear the case against the gun ban in Washington, D.C.  They have the chance today to turn around several years of bad decisions by making the right one today.  They will decide if the Second Amendment really means that people have the right to keep and bear arms when it says that people have the right to keep and bear arms.

After decisions over the last few decades ruling that the Constitution includes rights to an abortion and rights to gay sex, among other things, they have a chance to rule on a right that is actually stated in the Constitution.  We have seen them make rulings based on the "right to privacy," now they will make a ruling on an actual numerated right.  Of course, it shouldn't even be one that should be heard, since it's actually mentioned.  That should be common sense, but that seems to have left our society.

At the core of the argument is whether they founders actually intended for individuals to have the right, or if it was to be left to state militias.  In fact, the beginning of the amendment specifically mentions that for the purpose of keeping a well armed militia, the need for keeping and bearing arms is important for the people.  Yet, as you look at how they pictured the defense of our nation, there was no national military, but state militias made up of individuals who provided their own arms.  This kept the need for taxes out of the equation.  See, our Founding Fathers abhorred taxes more than guns, and viewed taxes as more evil than guns.

Yet, even with this mention of militias, our Founding Fathers would have never imagined a society where guns, and the right of people to protect themselves, would have existed.  In reading letters and speeches from them, they saw the need of the people to be armed for several reasons.  Of those reasons, protecting ourselves from an oppressive government was mentioned quite frequently.  They saw in a government that disarmed its citizens a great danger.

We do not need to look far through history to see the dangers of disarming the people.  In the mid-1930s, Adolf Hitler knew that he could never have taken power in Germany if the people were armed.  For that reason, one of his first actions was to disarm the people and outlaw gun ownership.  Then, as he stormed through the streets at night, arresting innocents, there was no one to stop him.  Is that what we want in America as we start the 21st Century?

A review of history and the times of our nation's founding will show that in a nation of hunters, the main source of feeding one's family, why would they have thought individuals should not own guns?  In fact, those types of guns were thought to be necessary for each individual.  As for pistols, they did not come to the mainstream until the late 19th Century, although there were some black powder pistols in the colonial days.  There was not attempt, though, by the early government to limit any of these.

As we come through history, it is only in the last 40 years that there is any indication that guns are brought into question.  The further we go back in time, closer to the Founding Father's time, there is no attempt to limit this right, not even during the "wild west" days.  If is has only come to question lately, I would have to question the question.

Hopefully, as the Court has "found" other rights, they will "find" the right to bear arms in the listed right to bear arms.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nazi California, USA

Posted by JayPeriod on Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:30:37 AM
The California 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles has ruled that the First Amendment religion clause does not apply to parents who want to homeschool on the basis of religious beliefs.  In an opinion which eerily sounds like the law written by Adolph Hitler still in use in Germany today, the court found that a parents wish to homeschool because they do not agree with the teachings of the state is not reason enough for the state to allow them to do so, regardless of the fact that the California law states just that.  They determined that the states wish to teach student to conform to society overrules the parents wishes, no matter how degraded the society becomes.

Recently in California, the legislature passed, and Gov. Schwartzenegger signed, a law that not only makes it appropriate to teach alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality and transgenderism, but makes it a crime to teach in a way that would make someone from those groups uncomfortable.  Because of this, several groups are calling for the exodus of over 600,000 children this year from the California public schools.  This courts misinterpretation of the law, actually outright activism, is an obvious response.  The court is, in effect, telling those parents that they do not have a choice.

Homeschooling is growing in America.  With the slouching morals of public schools, complete lack of discipline in the classroom and the ever falling intellectual output, more and more parents are making the decision to teach their children themselves.  Statistics prove over and over that homeschooled children fare better on college entrance exams and in college classrooms than those educated in the public arena.  Yet, school boards and the teacher's union are in a constant battle to have homeschooling outlawed.

This latest move by a liberal, activist court in California is surely approaching the final straw.  While there is still the call for exodus from the classroom, this along with other actions taken in California over recent decades, leaves me to make a call for a different exodus; leave the state and let's give it back to Mexico.  With such newsworthy cities as San Francisco, Berkley and Hollywood, would we really lose that much if we ceded the whole state back to Mexico?  These fortresses of liberalism have surely proven that the state no longer wants to be part of this great nation.  With leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, among others, surely they would do better under Mexican rule.  They would certainly be popular!

So, show this court that you will not allow them to take your God-given rights, as citizens and parents, and move from that darkened state.  Leave them to their deviate lifestyle and anti-Americanism.  There is nothing left there, nor anything redeeming.

Read the WorldNetDaily story.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »