Not in YOUR front yard.

I have a friend that I am going to call Sally for the sake of this post.

I would best describe Sally as a left leaning progressive. She believes strongly in using the strong arm of government to facilitate “social justice.”

Today Sally found the thumb of regulation on the other hand. And it pressed firmly down on her vision for America.

Sally tenaciously advocates for organic food, and involves herself heavily in urban farming. On Friday, she learned that city officials in a Detroit suburb charged a woman with a misdemeanor for growing a garden in her front yard. Seems that runs afoul of the authorities’ vision of “suitable” front yard vegetation.

“If you look at the definition of what suitable is in Webster’s dictionary, it will say common. So, if you look around and you look in any other community, what’s common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers,” Oak Park City Planner Kevin Rulkowski told WJBK Fox 2 in Detroit.

So basically, Kevin gets to use his power as a city planner to legislate his vision of a nice front yard on every Oak Park Citizen.

Details

Constitutional Sentence Frags

There is one trick that the progressive left likes to use which is to fragmentize the constitution in order to get the meaning that they want. A good example of this is the commerce clause where they use the narrow phrase ‘regulate commerce’ to suggest that congress has the power to regulate commercial activities.

They fail to read the entire sentence which suggest that congress only has the power to regulate commerce between states, Indian tribes, and foreign nations which sounds more like the basic power to control the flow of goods across a border. They hope that the public will not read the document in its entirety and use a few sentence fragments to get the meaning they want.

Recently, in this article it has been reported that Obama is going to ignore the debt cap and is claiming another sentence fragment in the fourteenth amendment. That fragment is “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law”. When you take that one sentence fragment as it is it sounds like all public debts are valid but if you look at the entire sentence “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. ” it says something much different.

Details