I'm going to try and hit some of the main points of the argument:
I was asked how my Christian Spirit was feeling today. Well, my feelings are that in no way should Christian morals or beliefs be a part of legislation, it should be freedom and personal liberty should be at the forefront. If this country was a Christian nation, then by all means give to charities and the poor and less fortunate, but I'll be damned if the American government mandates me to give to charity cases and the less fortunate. I'll do that on my own, as well as most Americans. Just don't tell me I have to do, that is a violation of my personal liberty.
When it comes to taxing the rich, it is NOT fair to tax the rich more than the poor! To say that they can afford it is a cop out, and apparently, you have something against the rich. As you might know, I am going to be a high school teacher, so I'm not going to be making $80,000 a year, much less than $200,000.
I do believe that this is unconstitutional, and I am not just throwing that term around willy nilly. Saying something is unconstitutional is a big deal. But this is. This is the first time in history that the federal government is REQUIRING you to buy something you don't want to. Yes, you have to buy auto insurance, that is very true. But you do not have to drive. Driving is a privilege, its a luxury, it can be taken away from you either for your own, or more likely, others safety. Living is not a luxury, it is not something that can be taken away like driving.
Without a constitutional amendment, Congress has no authority to force people to buy insurance. Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress’s reach.
The court reaffirmed this rationale in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, when it validated Congress’s authority to regulate the home cultivation of marijuana for personal use. In doing so, however, the justices emphasized that — as in the wheat case — “the activities regulated by the [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic.” That simply would not be true with regard to an individual health insurance mandate.
The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the “production, distribution or consumption of commodities,” but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate non-economic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.
With all the talk about Federal Taxation, I suggest you take a look at the Fair Tax Bill that was introduced by Rep. John Linder.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
This Is What It Is ALL About
The Ku Klux Klan... Nazis... Anti-Semites... Holocaust Revisionists...
KKK:
One Google search on the KKK will give you several "Homepages" of the secret organization. This shows me that lumping all members of the KKK into one specific ideology is reckless and misguided. Just like many organizations, there are many members that do not think alike.
Many believe that the KKK is just a bunch of white rednecks that want to kill all black people in the South, but as we have discussed in class, this is not always the case. We have learned that most in the KKK want to separate the races, and preserve white culture. Their solution to this is obvious; The members of the KKK would want to be separate the races. This explains the tactics of cross burning and harassment of black people in the early 20th century.
Nazis:
Nazism is very complicated. Just like the KKK, there are many different sects, both past and present, that claim to be Nazis, Neo-Nazis, etc. Most commonly, Nazism denotes the totalitarian ideology and practice of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), and Adolf Hitler’s government as dictator of Nazi Germany, from 1933 to 1945. So really, Nazism is technically a political ideology, just like capitalism, communism, etc. So why are they so controversial? One word, racism.
Adolf Hitler founded the Nazi state upon a racially defined German people, meaning that those within Germany saw themselves as a singular race and this race bound them to the state.
The official philosophy of the Nazi party was that the German people were descendants of Atlantis, and therefore were vastly superior to anyone else. Hitler believed that those who were in power were obviously stronger racially, and likewise, those races that were weak and seen as subhuman or parasites.
The most obvious example is that Hitler believed that the Jews were the weakest of all nations.
The solution to their problem is obviously that Holocaust during World War II. But the Holocaust was not limited to Jews, but also gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, etc. Basically anyone not a "German."
Anti-Semites:
People today that are Anti-Semites are usually called such when they actually aren't Anti-Semites. Those that have a specific hatred for Jews are going to be part of the Neo-Nazis, the KKK, etc. Anti-Semitism is as old as the Jewish people themselves. Being one of the 3 great monotheistic religions, with the smallest population, means that there are a lot of people out there that disagree and don't understand them.
Holocaust Revisionism:
Here's an idea: There are people out there that don't really agree with the history that is taught and presented to them. This makes sense seeing as, "The winner writes the history." There are people who just don't quite agree with what is presented to them. These are not Holocaust deniers, they believe that something horrible happened in the 1940s in Europe, but how many people were really killed? How far did Hitler prepare to go with his world domination? Those that question some aspects of the Holocaust just want to have that opportunity, to be able to question.
ALL OF THESE HAVE ONE SIMILARITY: F R E E S P E E C H!!!
Did I make that clear enough?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
"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."
But this doesn't apply to Nazis? Or to Palestinians that are Anti-Semitic, does it? Yes, in fact, it most absolutely does. While the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States of America, the preamble states that it is used in order to secure the "Blessings of Liberty," an idea that is covered by all men in the Declaration of Independence.
So where is the line between racism and prejudice? My question, rather, is, "Is there a line between racism and prejudice?" Prejudice is exactly what the world say, "Pre-judging." That might very well be because of their race, religion, or way of life. But if you are a racist, you ARE prejudiced. I do not believe that their is a line, I believe that they are one and the same. Basically, you can be prejudiced without being racist, but you can't be racist without being prejudiced.
Being a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, I believe that anyone that has the views of the groups mentioned above has every right to do so. What draws the line is when that speech becomes threatening. I believe that "Hate Speech" is perfectly fine, just so long as it doesn't turn to threatening. In my opinion, I can say that I hate you, without threatening your personal liberty in any way, shape, or form.
Irving_Kristol
"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity."
KKK:
One Google search on the KKK will give you several "Homepages" of the secret organization. This shows me that lumping all members of the KKK into one specific ideology is reckless and misguided. Just like many organizations, there are many members that do not think alike.
Many believe that the KKK is just a bunch of white rednecks that want to kill all black people in the South, but as we have discussed in class, this is not always the case. We have learned that most in the KKK want to separate the races, and preserve white culture. Their solution to this is obvious; The members of the KKK would want to be separate the races. This explains the tactics of cross burning and harassment of black people in the early 20th century.
Nazis:
Nazism is very complicated. Just like the KKK, there are many different sects, both past and present, that claim to be Nazis, Neo-Nazis, etc. Most commonly, Nazism denotes the totalitarian ideology and practice of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), and Adolf Hitler’s government as dictator of Nazi Germany, from 1933 to 1945. So really, Nazism is technically a political ideology, just like capitalism, communism, etc. So why are they so controversial? One word, racism.
Adolf Hitler founded the Nazi state upon a racially defined German people, meaning that those within Germany saw themselves as a singular race and this race bound them to the state.
The official philosophy of the Nazi party was that the German people were descendants of Atlantis, and therefore were vastly superior to anyone else. Hitler believed that those who were in power were obviously stronger racially, and likewise, those races that were weak and seen as subhuman or parasites.
The most obvious example is that Hitler believed that the Jews were the weakest of all nations.
The solution to their problem is obviously that Holocaust during World War II. But the Holocaust was not limited to Jews, but also gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, etc. Basically anyone not a "German."
Anti-Semites:
People today that are Anti-Semites are usually called such when they actually aren't Anti-Semites. Those that have a specific hatred for Jews are going to be part of the Neo-Nazis, the KKK, etc. Anti-Semitism is as old as the Jewish people themselves. Being one of the 3 great monotheistic religions, with the smallest population, means that there are a lot of people out there that disagree and don't understand them.
Holocaust Revisionism:
Here's an idea: There are people out there that don't really agree with the history that is taught and presented to them. This makes sense seeing as, "The winner writes the history." There are people who just don't quite agree with what is presented to them. These are not Holocaust deniers, they believe that something horrible happened in the 1940s in Europe, but how many people were really killed? How far did Hitler prepare to go with his world domination? Those that question some aspects of the Holocaust just want to have that opportunity, to be able to question.
ALL OF THESE HAVE ONE SIMILARITY: F R E E S P E E C H!!!
Did I make that clear enough?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
"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."
But this doesn't apply to Nazis? Or to Palestinians that are Anti-Semitic, does it? Yes, in fact, it most absolutely does. While the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States of America, the preamble states that it is used in order to secure the "Blessings of Liberty," an idea that is covered by all men in the Declaration of Independence.
So where is the line between racism and prejudice? My question, rather, is, "Is there a line between racism and prejudice?" Prejudice is exactly what the world say, "Pre-judging." That might very well be because of their race, religion, or way of life. But if you are a racist, you ARE prejudiced. I do not believe that their is a line, I believe that they are one and the same. Basically, you can be prejudiced without being racist, but you can't be racist without being prejudiced.
Being a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, I believe that anyone that has the views of the groups mentioned above has every right to do so. What draws the line is when that speech becomes threatening. I believe that "Hate Speech" is perfectly fine, just so long as it doesn't turn to threatening. In my opinion, I can say that I hate you, without threatening your personal liberty in any way, shape, or form.
Irving_Kristol
"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
