On the death of the Free Press

Just read this.

So....

Where are all the people screaming about "separation of press and state"?

It is, after all, in the exact same amendment! In case you haven't read it lately, here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Open letter to the Governor

Mr. Governor,

I am writing to you to encourage you to Veto AB-962.

The sanity of attempting to use Law to restrict the flow of munitions to those who openly ignore Law to start with is questionable at best. It will do nothing but harm those it means to protect.

Essentially, AB-962 will accomplish exactly the opposite of it's intent! Instead of discouraging crime, it would only restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Even worse, there is a real risk that it could simply encourage currently law-abiding citizens to go down the path toward lawlessness, especially those heavily invested in the more extreme "Second Amendment" causes. That would be disastrous for our State.

Finally, AB-962 would put an undue burden on an already strained Budget. While there is a provision in the Bill for a fee to be charged to cover its expenses, the Department of Finance Bill Analysis clearly states that the total cost will most likely not be covered by the fee authorized within the Bill, leaving the remainder of the cost to the General Budget.

Please, for the good of our State, I encourage you to Veto AB-962.

Sincerely,

Steven R. Allen
Fairfield, CA

On Property and the State

Something has been bugging me lately, and I didn't quite know what it was, until I read the Opinion in the case of Nordykes v. King, from the 9th Circuit court (which, incidentally, incorporates the 2nd Amendment against the States, but that's another post).

What's been bugging me is the almost universally accepted idea that "Federal land" or "State" or "County" or "City" property -- such as National and State Parks, etc. -- are owned by the relevant beaurocracies, in the same manner as Private land is owned by it's deed-holders.

There is an unspoken assumption, especially on the left, that "public" land is claimed land, claimed by the beaurocracies, specifically, and that you have to get permission from the bureaucrats to actually do anything on said land, as you would have to get permission from a private owner to do anything on his land. They treat it like the Public is a guest on their lands.

But they don't realize that Public land is public. Unless we as a People have chosen, for the public good, to prohibit certain behaviors on public land (such as Indecent Exposure), nothing is prohibited.

This includes, among many other things, the right to bear arms, open or otherwise, on public property. And since the rule of the Law of the land is that we as a People can only remove that right via Consitutional Amendment, any Law to the contrary is null and void, and of no effect -- to be flouted at will. Furthermore, actions taken by "officials" to enforce such unlawful Laws are, by definition, illegal themselves, and subject to as much resistance as we can muster, and that not subject to reprisal.

Ok, so this post is a rambling conglomeration of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional limitation with the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."

Still...there's something seriously backward about the fundamental assumptions most people have when it comes to Public land. What to do about it? Not sure yet. Let me know what you think.

Questionnaire for Canditates

Since Ellen Tauscher was selected for a position in the Obama administration, CA's 10th Congressional District is without a Representative. So we are going to have a special election on Sep. 1 of this year.

This past Saturday night, I looked up a list of who's running for the office, and sent each of the candidates (those I could find the contact information for, anyway) a questionnaire.

I sent it to:

Mark DeSaulnier
Adriel Hampton
David Harmer
Anthony Woods
David Peterson
Joan Buchanan

I attempted to submit it to Chris Bunch, but he doesn't list his email address, and his Contact page only allows 500 characters in the Message box. I'm going to send him the same slimmed down version that I sent to Jeremy Cloward.

Also, after reviewing Mr. Cloward's web page, I sent him a second question.

Now, I do not actually expect that these individuals, busy as they are, will be able respond to each question fully. But there are things you can learn from what someone doesn't say and how they don't say it, so I think that what responses I do get will be enlightening nonetheless.

I will post their responses as comments below, including when they responded.

---

BEGIN EMAIL:

[Greeting here],

I am in the process of determining to whom I, through my vote, will grant the high and distinguished privilege to represent to our Federal Government my interests as a free Citizen of the sovereign Republic of California, and of the City of Fairfield in particular. To help me in this determination, I would like to pose the following questions to you.

1. Have you read and understood the entire Constitution of the United States, including all of it's Amendments? Please explain why or why not.

2. How do you understand #1 to relate (or not) to your Duties as a Legislator?

3. What do the words "protect," "preserve," and "defend," mean to you and how will they affect your Duties as a Legislator?

4. How do you define "Rights" and "Privileges"? How does this apply to me as a Person? To the States, both individually and collectively?

5. What is your specific understanding and opinion regarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th, 14th, and 17th Amendments specifically? (Feel free to address any that aren't listed here also.)

6. What, in your opinion, are my options, as a Person and Citizen, to address and/or remedy any breach, intentional or otherwise, of any of the provisions or prohibitions of the Constitution by any Entity or Person?

7. What, in your opinion, are the options of the City of Fairfield, Solano County, and the State of California, respectively, to address and/or remedy any breach, intentional or otherwise, of any of the provisions or prohibitions of the Constitution by any Entity or Person?

8. What is your understanding of the word "Lawful," and how does it affect to my Duty (or lack thereof) to obey Legislation, Executive Orders, etc. produced by the Federal Government?

9. What do you consider necessary, if anything, to a proper understanding of the text of the Constitution?

10. How do you determine if, in your opinion, a Resolution, Bill, Law, or other Statement having the force of Law (for example, an Executive Order) is Lawful under the Constitution?

11. If a Resolution, Bill, Law, or other Statement having the force of Law ("Law") is not Lawful under the Constitution, what are my options as a Person, and as a Citizen in regards to that Law? Your options as a Legislator? Our State's options?

Your response, or lack thereof, to these questions will be sufficient to allow me to judge your viability to the Office you seek.

I eagerly await your response.

Your potential constituent,

Steve Allen
Citizen, City of Fairfield

---

SLIMMED DOWN VERSION:

Have you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, in their entirety? If not, why not, do you plan to (and when)? If so, please explain what they mean to you, and how they will affect your duties as a legislator.

---

SECOND QUESTION FOR MR. CLOWARD:

Have you read Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto". If so, what does it mean to you, and how will it affect your duties as a legislator?

Splitting the blog...

This is a new blog, my second, which I split off from my main blog, Beholding the Beauty.

I started by moving a few of the posts I had there over here.

Beholding the Beauty is still my main blog, since the majority of my posts are related to spiritual things, but I really got the sense that the political stuff needed it's own space to play in, thus this blog. :)

Unlike BtB, comments on this one are moderated. I had started off with comment moderation on BtB as well, but turns out it wasn't necessary. So I may wind up turning it off here, too. But we'll see. Regardless, please do comment.

Constitutional Law and the Burden of Proof

If the Constitution heavily limits the Congress (and it does), it stands to reason that, rather than assuming a Law is Constitutional (and therefore legal) until it is struck down by the Supreme Court (i.e. that the law is innocent until proven guilty), we ought to assume that a Law is invalid, unconstitutional, and therefore of no force, until it is proven otherwise. (i.e. the law is assumed guilty until proven innocent.)

To this end, it is my recommendation that three amendments be made to the Constitution, the first lifted verbatim from the Constitution of the Confederate States, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 20. For the third one, credit for the idea goes to Ron Paul, but the words are mine. Here they are:

1. Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
2. Any law, or resolution having the force of law, can be repealed by the request of two-thirds of the State legislatures, or of three-quarters of the People. In cases where the law required a two-thirds or more vote to pass, the law may be repealed by the request of one-half of the State legisltatures, or one-half of the People.
3. Any law, or resolution having the force of law, must include, as part of it's preamble, a defense of it's Constitutionality.

Currently, the burden of proof is laid on the People, or the States. We must prove a law to be unconstitutional before it is invalidated. Furthermore, we must do so in Federal Court. True, the Constitution, Amendment 1, provides the right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. However, said Petitions have been routinely ignored, and the only way to enforce them is for the People to sue or commit violence, and for the States to sue or secede from the Union.

Being a peaceful people who recognize and enjoy the benefits of our peaceful Union and lawful society, who therefore desire to reserve violence or secession as a last, desperate resort once all else has failed, I think it best to provide, in the Constitution itself, a way for the People and the States to directly enforce the limits the Constitution places on the Federal Government -- a way that does not rely on the Federal Government itself to be enacted (i.e. the Federal courts). Thus these Amendments.

Let me know what you think, or how these Proposed Amendments might be improved. Also, if you have any other Proposed Amendments, include them in the comments.

QOTD

"You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -- Isoroku Yamamoto, Japanese Admiral

Excellent Essay...

I just read this excellent essay:

http://www.sharperiron.org/heart-of-collective-king

Francisco's Money Speech, from Atlas Shrugged

This makes all kinds of sense both logically and biblically.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826

Don't worry, the paragraph in support of the love of money is based on the faulty definition of "love" that the speaker provides. In the Scripture (I Tim. 6:10), there is only one word in the Greek that is translated into the three-word phrase "love of money." The word has a negative connotation of "avarice, greed, covetousness," which is exactly the kind of looting that the speaker decries. :)

Any thoughts?