An Argument for States Rights
by Bob Hamer
Relax…this is not another NAMBLA story but give me a break. If you spent three years infiltrating a group of pedophiles you’d have a few stories serving as life lessons.
NAMBLA has a magazine but not a centerfold. If they did my nominee would be John from San Francisco. He was truly one of the more interesting characters I met at the Miami NAMBLA conference. Heavyset, in his late fifties, with his Mohawk hairstyle, a bad case of dandruff, earrings, shorts, and black knee high socks he made quite a fashion statement whenever he entered a room. John identified himself as a “gaythiest.” He had been to prison twice for child molestation and was caught a third time but for some unstated reason the victim refused to cooperate with the police. John admitted to being “out as a gay” and “out as an atheist” but “those things are different. You go around saying you like to run your hands through a little boy’s hair, or you like to kiss him or do other things like that, it doesn’t get the same reaction.” My only response is, “dah!”
What John also said was he used to live on the streets of Miami but moved to San Francisco because the public assistance was more lucrative in California. Another unforgettable character was Sam from Albuquerque. Sam was a three-time loser and thanks to our sting, was sentenced to thirty years. Sam, a former special education teacher and a member of the NAMBLA steering committee, their governing body, moved from Colorado to New Mexico because the Land of Enchantment had a reputation for being more sex offender friendly. Okay, Hamer, so get to the point.
As a Marine Corps officer and FBI agent I took an oath “to protect and defend” the Constitution. Just the other day I decided to re-read it. It really is an amazing document. It isn’t that long and seems pretty clear. As I read it, the Founding Fathers wanted to limit the powers of the federal government. The states were given most of the powers. Throughout our nation’s history the states have been independent experiments in democracies. Many programs instituted at the federal level or adopted by other states were the results of an individual state’s innovation. Article I, Sections 8 and 9 enumerate the powers of Congress. Both parties have played upon the “general welfare” phrase and expanded the federal role. The feds have their hands in everything from education to health care to farming to banking to a lot of other areas not covered by the document.
We can debate whether the Constitution is a “contract” or “a breathing living document.” Debate can be healthy. But today it seems like Congress wants to legislate everything but mandatory two-ply toilet paper.
This past week Congressman Paul Ryan in discussing the Republican’s alternative to the President’s stimulus package, said part of the reform would be converting Medicaid to an allotment to let states and governors enact programs most efficient for each state’s unique needs.
Rush Limbaugh threatened to sell his residence and move his Northern Command broadcast facilities from New York because of proposed state and local tax increases. His new home would be a state friendlier to business.
As I read it, all of this is part of the Founding Fathers’ Plan. Limit the feds, give the states the power, let them experiment, let them compete, and maybe they can build a better mousetrap. Otherwise, if it were one size fits all, Miami would still have the John the child molester living within its city limits and Sam would have never left Colorado.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
65 Comments
Too true, the whole purpose of allowing the states to have sovereignty was so that they would compete. Whichever state was most appealing to the people would, in theory, attract the most taxpayers so states always had incentives to experiment and reject ideas that didn't work while adopting the ones that did. Federal interference "levels the playing field." By taking more and more rights away from states, the only difference seems to be how corrupt and incompetent the states' governments can be and how easy they are on crimes.
If Diversity is so valued, let this nation be diverse in the way it was meant to be. Fifty separate and sovereign states answering to a constitution-respecting, limited central government. The way I remember the original Constitution (before it became "alive" and was simple sheets of paper) being described was that the states took care of internal affairs, the federal government took care of external and disputes between the states. Doesn't that sound ideal?
The time has come for the death penalty in the case of child rape. That these sick bastards have organizations and meetings on how to improve thier act is unfathomable to me. That we, as a society, allow it is not saying much for our society.
The civil war is coming and I hope these repugnant buckets of human excrement are the first ones to get the chop.
I'm feeling much better now.
Great article. Thanks for catching all the pervs!
"We can debate whether the Constitution is a “contract” or “a breathing living document.” Well, no on that one. The only way the Constitution can be changed is through ammendment. This "living document" nonsense is pure AlGoreian, meant to avoid the rough and tumbel involved in ammending that contract: debate, votes, etc.
Correct. True, constitutional-styled state sovereignty will allow each state to operate in a way that reflects the will of its own people. States that wish to implement conservative fiscal and social policies, and that encourage personal responsibility and hard work will attract and keep people with that world-view. States that seek to implement a welfare-state mentality, and that invite and protect the kind of people described in you article (pedophiles and other types of sex perverts) would be welcome to that policy.
Bob, the courage it took to not “accidentally” loose one of those creeps at NAMBLA is a testament to your professionalism and devotion to duty, honor, country.
States Rights are a critical part of our great countries success, and perhaps is a way to slow down an overreaching Washington. I’m no expert but a Constitutional Congress could strike back at DC. I believe it takes thirty-two States to reach a quorum and could potentially start to back off Barry? This in my mind would localize things somewhat and allow us to get in their faces easier. Maybe someone wiser could elaborate?
Bob, the courage it took to not “accidentally” loose one of those creeps at NAMBLA is a testament to your professionalism and devotion to duty, honor, country.
States Rights are a critical part of our great countries success, and perhaps is a way to slow down an overreaching Washington. I’m no expert but a Constitutional Congress could strike back at DC. I believe it takes thirty-two States to reach a quorum and could potentially start to back off Barry? This in my mind would localize things somewhat and allow us to get in their faces easier. Maybe someone wiser could elaborate?
Keep the NABLA stories coming. One of the problems with the common crime of child sex abuse in our society is that normal people don't have the stomach to hear such tales. Well, try living as a victim in one…
Even Hollywood backs off this sexual-related social item on the big and little screens. I can remember seeing a movie on TV with Ted Dansen as the father in an incest story. It was highly tame for such subject matter. Brad Pitts' Sleepers was more graphic and did a better job of depicting the subject matter and aftermath but still pulled a lot of punches that audiences don't want to see. I say again – try living through it.
My point being – society doesn't adequately deal with such things by avoiding them – because we are afraid of their graphic horrors. — The cold hard truth is — those graphic horrors are occurring in real life, whether we choose to acknowledge them or turn a blind eye.
Hollywood helped change our society for the better when it opened up its portrayal of rape of women and all the things connected to such crimes and the aftermath. It forced the society to look at a very real problem that had been purposefully avoided in public discourse until then.
— And who benefited from the silence that was the norm before? The abusers — Certainly not the victims. The victims were actually harmed by the silence. It wasn't until society was made to face the issue in all its graphic horrors that it opened up greatly with support groups and victim's rights advocacy and mental and physical health related items that were missing when the society felt more comfortable sweeping the issue under the rug.
I don't think we have yet been force to face the reality of sexual abuse of minors and children. That is still too difficult for normal people to stomach —— and that only helps the criminals like those of NAMBLA get away with what they do — and keeps many, many victims from the help they need.
Just looking at the statistics of past child sex crimes from polls taken of adults shows us the issue is much bigger than people generally think – and again – the reason they think that way is the lack of fortitude in addressing the issue in pop culture.
I forget the name of it, but I remember some years ago when that documentary came out about NAMBLA-types. A lot of people thought the film shouldn't have been made or distributed. I disagreed – as a former victim – I thought as many people as possible should be forced to watch it and see what these people are like and imagine what trail of destruction they leave behind them — as the bulk of society keeps their blinders on.
I thought it would be even better if the film had not left it so much up to the imagination about the destruction those people leave behind. It gave the NAMBLA-types a forum in which they damned themselves in the eyes of most viewers, but I don't remember it giving the victims the chance to show the devastation that happened to them….
Lastly, I'm a conservative but against the death penalty, because obviously in our society, the more money you have and the higher the price of a lawyer you can hire, the less chance you have of being convicted of murder much less sentenced to death. — But, if we are going to have a death penalty, I think convicted sex offenders, especially of children and repeat offenders, should make death row.
I think it's a double-edged sword. What happens when state's rights are used to violate the enumerated rights amendment?
We had a civil war over that.
"Lastly, I'm a conservative but against the death penalty, because obviously in our society, the more money you have and the higher the price of a lawyer you can hire, the less chance you have of being convicted of murder much less sentenced to death."
Hmmm…I'm not really feeling the force of your argument on that one. I have only one criteria in evaluating the death penalty: did the crazy s.o.b. do it or not? If he did, then ice him and he'll never do it again. Guaranteed.
If some other crazy s.o.b. walks because he has a better lawyer that's unfortunate, but it's no reason to let them both off.
The concept of "fairness" just doesn't move me in this case.
Really, not so much. We had a civil war because the slave-holding states demanded slavery be expanded into newly acquired western territory. Not even Lincoln was trying to force them to give up their own slaves.
They fired first.
I'm all in favor of "states' rights", especially as it relates to the welfare dole. California can be as liberal as they want to be, and maybe some of the MS13 gang members who have now moved into Nashville, Tennessee will go back where they came from.
Or maybe not. These guys are well enough organized by now that they probably have territorial assignments kind of like corporate sales managers.
It's not just a case of getting off or being convicted — the more money you have, the better your lawyer, the better chance you have of missing the death penalty if convicted.
Someone found guilty of a crime but not given the death penalty isn't getting off – he's getting a different sentence.
I'm not strongly against the death penalty. I have no problem with the idea that the state has the right to take a citizen's life or that a citizen can forfeit his right to life by doing certain crimes against his fellow man or the state. But — I feel there is too much disparity between who is likely and who is unlikely to ever receive a death sentence in practice to support it as a judgment.
I'm for the death penalty for sex crimes if we have a death penalty, but I'm not in favor of silencing these groups.
As a conservative, I can't believe how far the liberals – especially in places they control like a college campus – have gone in promoting "hate speech" codes and the like. There was a time when organizations like the ACLU would defend the KKK – not what they stood for but for their right to speak, write, and gather as they liked.
I think it is right that our society allows a group like NAMBLA to have the freedom of speech and assembly.
And what better way to keep track of them and infiltrate them and lock them away when they do or attempt to commit a sex crime?
StlDan nailed it. The feds have made a power grab over the years, but the states have largely created their own dependency by allowing their independence to slip away by depending on federal government funds. That money is like an addictive drug. They give the states a "free sample," then they charge them a little more, and a little more, until they're hooked. The feds didn't steal the power, the states just handed it over. Ultimately, the price of that money becomes complete submission to the federal will.
States rights is not an abstract concept created by Southerners to oppress black people, although for many years it was used exactly that way. It's a basic constitutional guarantee. States do whatever is not forbidden by the Constitution, and the feds do only that which is specifically set out in the Constitution. The lure of federal largesse has proven irresistible to most states most of the time, so when the feds actually exceed their constitutional authority by a country mile, nobody complains, and if a state is so foolish as to challenge federal intervention in state affairs, the Supreme Court will discover an emanation, umbra or penumbra in the Constitution that says the feds actually had that power all along. Phooey.
That's where legitimate federal preemption comes in. I emphasize "legitimate." The federal government has expanded its powers beyond both the Constitution and beyond comprehension. But in those narrow areas where the federal government is specifically granted power, it has the right to enforce that power within the states.
That's absolutely correct.
While this trend unfolds, we continue to ignore the Tenth Amendment — Ron Paul excluded, of course. I disagree with that man on a lot of issues, but a Ron Paul administration sure looks great right now.
So how do we get our home states to enforce States Rights? It’s a hell of a lot easier to get to local representatives, they’re still among us. It would seem to me that if even one red state sueing for states rights would make for interesting news (PR) in the MSM. It would in my opinion expose the craven nature of DC, and perhaps start a trend. I know it would be portrayed by the press as racist insurrection or some such nonsense, but as conservatives we must get past PC gobbledy-gook.
This will be a long, arduous and uphill battle. It must start at the local level, and before any action can be taken, a majority of the local jurisdictions will have to convince the state to take action. Then somebody has to convince the state authorities to sue the federal government. Although it's possible to do that on an individual basis, the federal courts have a very bad habit of denying individuals and small groups access to the process because they lack "standing" to sue, even when their individual rights are being directly impacted by the federal actions.
The fact is that law-abiding, tax-paying conservative voters must gain majority control over the political process, state by state, before they will be able to do much of anything in the legal/constitutional arena. Absent divine intervention, this will not happen in a true blue state, and even in strong red states it won't be easy.
The real problem legally is that a state can't simply go into federal court and sue for its "states rights." There has to be a specific act of the federal government which exceeds federal authority by exercising a right reserved to the state in a specific case at a specific time. There is unfortunately no realistic way to take a case like that and make it a general rule damning federal intervention. In the long run, this battle will be won, not in the courts, but at the ballot boxes.
This latest upgraded web design is really clumsy and user-unfriendly. It's hard to find anything past the original posts, the threads are a mess, it's nearly impossible on a busy thread to find where you left off, or navigate from page to page, and replies to Intense Debate e-mail replies are practically an exercise in futility. On this current new and relatively short page, it still took about five minutes to get to the right spot, log back on, and reply without losing track of where I was in the first place. The cursor behaves oddly, one paragraph posts are flagged as being too long, and a host of other problems. If anybody else is experiencing these problems, please use the TIPS and FEEDBACK button and let the webmaster know we have a problem.
I thought that is what you would say. Thanks for the info LH. However an interesting concept and perhaps in time useful.
I have already lodged a complaint as well.
Hey Lawhawk,
I am NOT happy with the changes either. With the threads closed, I can't read the comments without opening each thread. That is a huge waste of time, and I guarantee you that it will cut down on how many comments I read.
Even worse, I don't seem to be able to open the closed threads except every once in a while, so I'm not going to hang around today because it's not worth my time. I'll try my luck tomorrow.
I have sent them feedback on this and I hope others do as well.
The Constitution only lives when the majority of the people in this nation choose to give it life through the process of amendment. That's the inconvenient truth the left likes to overlook and to teach the populace to overlook. And unfortunately, we as a society have become too complacent when it comes to government overstepping their rights in regards to what the Constitution allows. When you start the slipppery slope argument, our current Fed is a perfect example of why no one should go there … ever. We started that slippery slope a long time ago, and look where it got us today.
Yeah. I wrote to John as well, and he's looking into it. They've made a couple of small corrections, but on the whole, it's still a mess. I happened to catch your comment only because I was searching for StanH's. Once you open a thread, almost anything is likely to happen, including entire pages disappearing. The simplicity of clicking on an Intense Debate reply is totally gone, since it takes you to the site but gives you no indication where the post you're replying to is..
The number of thumbs up/thumbs down on the threads tells you that most people, even those who use the site regularly, have given up on going into the threads. You and I have both experienced the fact that some of the very best posts occur on those threads. I've also noticed that I have to log in again every two or three posts, even though I'm frequently going back to exactly the same place I just left five minutes earlier.
There are 31 states in the U.S. now involved in the 10th amendment sovereignity movement, most notable Oklahoma last June when the House there passed a bill.
Oddly enough, there are 31 supposedly free and sovereign states in Mexico (I doubt many people know there are states in Mexico).
Here's some good reading –
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=1...
Since the sovereign state of Common Sense seems to have vanished in Washington, and since guns are sold out as well as ammunition all across the U.S. we're headed toward that old Chinese curse, "interesting times."
You have just given the perfect description of the "social compact" which holds civilized nations together. Both the constitution and the law rely on that common belief that no man or nation is above the law, no government is exempt from its own rules and founding documents, and that both government and individuals agree that for the common good everyone must obey the law until, by common consent of the people, the law is changed or the Constitution amended. Those who either disobey the Constitution or simply ignore it are presently in charge of Congress and the Presidency and four-ninths of the Supreme Court. The concept of ordered liberty has devolved into "if it feels good, do it" and if the Constitution doesn't address the subject, make something up and call it received wisdom.
Without state' rights you do not have a constitutional republic. Which, of course is what we have. Read your Federalist Papers and Madison will fill you in… to the left, however, the Constitution NEEDS to be a so-called 'living breathing document' so the likes of Algore can interpret it as they see fit. Without an ironclad constitutional agreement you do not have established rules; and therefore agreements cannot be guaranteed.
Kind of like what is happening now on Wall street.
I just don't get it! Here we all sit on the precipace, and on this site, clearly seeing the error of our ways, and yet a rather large amount of people still think Barrys better than sunshine. The Constitution has done right by us for the last 240+ years, but now comes the real test. Unfortunately what makes sense is of little consequence. You will never return to States rights, or change the tax code or anything else that would be constructive. Only the destructive now flies. Besides, the powerbase wants the Feds in charge. They want the tax code as complicated as an octopus having sex, and they want to further and further intrude into our lives. It's safer for them.
The way I learned it, the Southern states weren't demanding that slavery be expanded into the newly acquired western territory – they were insisting that those states have the right to have slaves if they wanted to go that way.
I was just fixing to say, I hate this new collapsed thread business. It is hard to follow. I thought it was just me having trouble posting and with my cursor. I am lodging a complaint on this one, too. As for this posting, I have the strong urge to start singing "We the people" and I'm just a bill." As for the kiddy pervs, Of course, as a delicate, sensitve woman, I would just hang them all and be done with it. They do not rehabilitate.
Let's encourage everybody to do write to the webmaster at the Tips and Feedback button. I almost had a heart attack when I clicked on your reply on my e-mail from Intense Debate, and it actually took me straight to your reply on BH. I sat and stared at it, wondering what I had done right. Every other time I've tried it in the past twenty-four hours, I went to blog limbo.
Schoolhouse Rock is far too sophisticated for the left, so maybe the gallows is (are?) the solution.
Oh, and congratulations. You hit the century mark!
Bob,
Great post. And bless you for your hard work as an FBI agent.
My comment is regarding your point that under the Constitution "states were given most of the powers".
Actually the way I read it the intention was to reserve most of the power for INDIVIDUALS. Then
the states, then a few enumerated responsibilities for the federal government. Today, of course,
this is completely reversed.
Keep up the good work.
yo bob
great post, i have been using the "independent experiments in democracy" for years to explain the overreach of the federal government to my addle-pated friends and others (most of them have been educated beyond their capacity to grasp a simple concept). keep up the good work!
with this layout i can't even find that button!!
One of the most frustrating things in discussing states rights is that if one really thinks about it, liberal or conservative, there's no way to argue against it. It allows local people to freely choose what they want to do. I'm against government funding of the arts, but an arts commission in Santa Fe New Mexico might make sense (might, but I'd vote against it). The problem is, as with many things, leftists lie about states rights and often connect it to slavery. However, states rights would allow San Francisco to remain leftist and Knoxville, TN not to. As far as slavery, Mark Levin made an interesting point last night where he pointed out that slavery in a way was anti-states rights since many of the northern states were opposed.
I finally found your comment on the right site, BY ACCIDENT! But in case you didn't get my earlier note from an entirely different post from a completely different day, the Comments and Feedback button is over on the right hand side, just below "Featured" "Subscribe via RSS" and the stupid DNA ancestry ad.
"So how do we get our home states to enforce States Rights?"
Step one is to get your state off the Federal dole. As long as you rely on the Feds for money, they can exert control over you.
Unfortunately, I live in California and that is not going to happen in my lifetime. In fact, Sacramento seems to be eager to be come a permanent ward of D.C.
"…he used to live on the streets of Miami but moved to San Francisco because the public assistance was more lucrative in California."
Hooray for California. Here, we make child molesters and gang members feel welcome. :/
The problem is the States have stopped fighting the Federal Government, because so much funding is dependent upon what the Feds require the states to do, to receive the funding. The way I see it, the states are just as guilty as the feds. If we stop sending the money to the feds and keep most of it in the local and state economy, the feds lose the power (he who controls the check book, controls everything)
When you get in bed with the feds you wake up with one hell of a rash; a gift that never stops reminding you of how dumb you are.
I've also noticed that some of the threads aren't showing all the comments. At least I sometimes see it says it has "4" replies and I only count three. Tried changing the sorting method and that sometimes works, but not always.
To me, it's not federal versus state's rights – it's individual versus the courts. And in California, the courts have taken away our state's rights. Two separate times we', the people of this state have overwhelmingly voted in the majority against gay marriage. But each damned time our rights have been kicked in the teeth by the courts giving us the middle digit. So what good are our rights if we aren't allowed to have them? People on this site are commenting that it's a struggle between federal rights and state's rights? Well – both are negated in California whenever a single judge wanders within a country mile of them. You can argue all you want about state versus federal – as I've just said, it's really individual versus the court. And the individual – at least in California – is losing.
Irony being that the super flexible "living" document type rights were a large part of what provoked the original war for independence. The colonies were used to self-governance and thought that the constitutions of Enlgand gave them those rights, but English Parliament yanked that rug right out from under them and hyjinks ensued.
I don't live in CA, so forgive me if my understanding of your situation is wrong, but my understanding is that you all have an insane Constitutional process at the state level at the moment. Basically, if a judge strikes something down as unconstitutional out there, the only way to resintitute it is to either overturn the ruling in a higher court or amend your state constitution. _If_ that is correct then you are basically completely at the mercy of your state judiciary, which sort of constitutes an oligarchy rather than any kind of representative government at any level except perhaps federal although there are means for your judiciary to mess that up too.
I'm certain IntenseDebate was programmed with a liberal mindset, therefore it's Andy's fault the site isn't working. They had to fix it to give Andy his 100, and as long as they were reprogramming for one thing…
The existence of the political class accelerated the trend, with an accepted career path of local to state to national. Such cross-pollination is a proven danger, what's good for the federal may not be good for the state nor the nation.
My very local State House Rep will likely be carried off the job, now 80, and has undoubtedly caused many split tickets over his 29 year career in the same office. Where we'll find another true dedicated public servant like him, I do not know. And PS, yes he's a Republican.
You sort of have it right, but it's not as crazy as it seems, just convoluted. The State Supreme Court is our highest bench in the state. If they interpret a statute as violating the state constitution, we still have the right to take it directly to the people, which is more than most states and the federal government have going for them. The hangup in the gay marriage initiative (Prop
is that a simple law put on the books by an initiative or referendum needs a simple majority, but an amendment to the constitution requires a supermajority. That's the issue that was brought to the State Supreme Court most recently. It's a fine legal point, but as a famous jurist once said, hard cases make bad law. In Massachusetts and more recently Iowa, the people cannot act on their own to put a law on the books. They have to convince the legislature to put the proposed law on the ballot before the people can vote on it (a referendum). Californians can do it directly (an initiative). So in fact, California is less subject to the rule of an out-of-control judiciary than many other states. And if all else fails, we have a very healthy judicial recall process.
When I left Ventura County, I left behind two of the best and most intelligent conservative Republicans in the state. Now in San Francisco, I have Nancy Pelosi. Talk about culture shock. One of the two Representatives I'm talking about, Tom McClintock left his seat in the state senate to run for governor during the first Schwarzenegger election, and finished a respectable third out of a field of nearly twenty. He is now the congressional representative from a northern California district located between Sacramento and the Nevada border. He definitely knows that what's good for the feds is likely not good for California or any other state, but he's part of a small and shrinking minority here in la-la land.
PS I did notice that Andrew skipped town right after he hit 100. I know that concurrence is not causation, but it is mighty suspicious, huh? Maybe it just means he cheats better than I do.
aharris – you've nailed it. We ARE at the 'mercy of our state judiciary' – and that mercy isn't tender. It's as self-righteous and contemptuous as they come. Most of the judges here could strut sitting down. It's an 'you ignorant peons, let intelligent me educate you' mentality with the judiciary. I should now, I worked in a California law firm for 20 years. And you're also right about the judiciary's power to smack us down – they can do it in the snap of their fingers whereas our responses are tortuous – and tortious – in the extreme. Damn. Now you know why I'm leaving this state the instant I can.
No offense, but he posts like a lawyer and/or a politician. "Great (idea, post, concept, thought)! I fully agree my good (man, lady)! Now to (discuss, clarify, expand, refute) this one point…" Hard to tell if he's answering questions on a campaign stop or playing Matlock. But whether from juror or voter, you know he wants that citizen's vote.
Good point. I fully agree with you. Now just for the sake of argument, let me clarify one point. Wait a minute, that's his script. Who's got my script? I was right all along. People really are out to get me.
Being paranoid doesn't mean that someone is not out to get you.
Mr. Hamer, feel free to keep talking about NAMBLA, I find it informative, especially with your delivery.
One thing to mention, unlike some here I'd consider the death penalty for these child molesters a waste. After all, they're closing Club Gitmo and moving the leftovers stateside. We should house the Gitmo refugees with the NAMBLA's. A great benefit for our country, truly a type of national service, they can quickly and effectively identify detainees who'd want to harm, even kill, our fellow Americans, no interrogation required. What a wonderful thought, not letting a waste go to waste.
Good post, AJ. The lure of the left is, and always has been, emotional and feel-good. It is the siren's cry of 'less pain for all'! It is 'feed at the trough' collectivism. Our Constitution was not founded upon that mentality. It is based upon liberty, which is neither an easy concept to grasp nor a free ride for the individual. You are right: now comes the real test. I truly fear it will involve more than words and ballots.
Yes, keep up the posts on NAMBLA, or heck, any case stuff you want to talk about. You make for an interesting read, and I need, as I am sure do others here, stuff to keep on minds on that is not strictly political. We still have at least 4 more yrs of the presidency to get through.
My personal viewpoint is to do something similar to the legal system that sentenced Saddam Hussein. Within thirty days of the verdict, the sentence must be carried out. You have only thirty days to appeal. No Ifs, Ands or Buts. The better lawyers might still be able to get the creeps off of Death Row, but not everyone gets a good lawyer. Don't let Perfect get in the way of Better.
Yes, as Lawhawk mentioned don't bother leaving California to come to Iowa. I must have failed Civics class and that whole 'checks and balances' thing. But high school was almost a whole 10 years ago, and college government class was about four years ago.
Living in Iowa, I feel so awesomely progressive these days. And it's all thanks to the handful of judges on the state Supreme Court bench. Texas is looking better and better.
Crazy – I about had a heart attack when I saw the judicial ruling last week. My friends and I live in San Francisco – but WE were stunned. How could a heartland state do that? Of course, the only answer is – the state didn't. The courts did. And there you have the problem. The two are no longer united – the courts are now the enemies of the state. Sheesh.
How could a heartland state do that? Ya got me. Something tells me they're desperately trying to appear relevant in the national spotlight between a caucus that comes along every four years.
But I know if we were able to do something like Prop 8 here in Iowa, it would get overturned so fast it would make the state Supreme Court's collective heads spin. Sure, the major cities (Des Moines, Cedar Rapids/Iowa City, Davenport, etc.) trend blue, but there's still some pockets of red in there, mainly the suburbs. And wherever there isn't a big city, i.e. 90 percent of the state, you can count on traditional, conservative values, even if people aren't as vocal about them. But I know if we could go out and vote on it, those people would be the first at the polls. Too bad we likely won't get that chance.
Crazy – that's despicable. You mean that there is no way that Iowa can allow its citizens to vote on a 'prop 8' type of measure? Can't they at least put it on the ballot for next November 2010? Of course, I'm thinking about California where that's the norm here – everyone does it. But I surely thought the citizens of Iowa would be given a chance. If not – how scary.
Well, my comment was a bit generalized. Like Lawhawk (and yourself) mentioned, we can only get it on a ballot after we convince the legislature to do it through referendum. We can't directly do it ourselves through an initiative. With any luck we'll be able to show the state Supreme Court just what we think about them circumventing the legislative process, but I have a sneaking suspicion (and I'm sad to say) that by 2010 some people that may be fired up about the issue right now might not care as much about the issue then as they do now.
Doing what the Supreme Court did can foster a sense of cynicism among voters as well. Some might say, "Why bother voting to overturn this law that's been on the books for a year and a half already, when the Court is likely to just overturn it again a few months down the road anyway?" It's not going to change my vote, but I will not be surprised when I hear that argument being used.
Websites you should visit…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.