4 More Governors Bow Down to DC

So now a handful of Governors- one from my current state of WA, have ‘banded together’ to petition the Federal government.

Their demand?

That the Federal Government initiate a multi-year process of examining new evidence that medical marijuana COULD be useful medically.  The process goes like this:

  1. DEA does it’s own analysis on medical cannabis
  2. The FDA does IT’S own analysis, reviewing it’s previous work
  3. The DHHS does the same thing as the FDA
  4. The FDA & DHHS then submit THEIR findings to the DEA for even further review
  5. The DEA, unelected and EXPENSIVE bureaucrats make their decision

And just where does the bidding of We the People fit in the above process?  It doesn’t.

Details

Heritage Foundation: Drop those Independent Thoughts, Citizen

The Heritage Foundation, as usual, is trying to rein in all non-establishment thinking, which is popping up all over the place these days. Its New Year’s Resolutions for Conservatives basically amount to this: if you still have any conservative instincts left, drop them and become a neoconservative already.

Of course you should not consider nullification, since CNN won’t like that. The post then proceeds as if I hadn’t answered Heritage’s arguments on this already — here and here — or as if people couldn’t simply get to my fairly comprehensive “Nullification: Answering the Objections” via Google.

Details

Independent of and Superior to the Civil Power.

cross-posted from the Pennsylvania TAC

Declaration of Independence:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

NDAA for 2012

Details

Hamilton on “Necessary and Proper” and “Supremacy”

A couple of the commonly misunderstood parts of the Constitution are the Necessary and Proper clause, and the Supremacy clause. I thought I would publish what Alexander Hamilton wrote on the subjects from the Federalist #33. Remember that these papers where written during the debate over ratification, and widely circulated. They informed the ratifiers to the understanding of the document they where about to sign, and as such they are similar to writing in the borders of a written contract, they are legally relevant, and enforcable.

By way of a general explaination or summation of Hamiltons sentiments I offer this short summary. The Necessary and proper clause is simply declaring that the way the legislature would carry out their enumerated powers would be to pass laws that are incidental to their powers, and the Supremacy clause simply stated the obvious that in powers pursuant to the Constitution the laws of the union would be supreme.  In areas not pursuant to the Constitution however the laws of the states would still be supreme… DUHHH.

Without further hesitation, here is Hamiltons paper on the 2 clauses:

Details

New Hampshire kicking off 2012 pushback against TSA

CONCORD, N.H. (Jan. 2, 2012) – Many state legislatures will consider ways to rein in overreaching TSA searches during their 2012 legislative sessions, with New Hampshire leading the way in early January.

Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Rockingham) says he expects a vote on an amended version of HB 628 during the first week of January. The bill would require state and local law enforcement officials to document complaints from citizens who feel TSA searches cross the line.

“HB 628 is a strong step in the right direction,” Manuse said. “The bill would require state and local law enforcement officers to take a report from a citizen who claims to have been abused by the TSA, and then will put that record in a designated public database so that such complaints can be tracked. The person making the complaint will have his or her identity protected. The bill will also allow citizens to videotape their encounters with the TSA and require police officers to take the citizens’ side against any TSA officer trying to stop them. It is my hope with this bill that by allowing citizens to shine a light on the problems we’ve been hearing about, such transparency will have the tendency to prevent wrongdoing.”

Last year, Manuse cosponsored the original bill, which would have made, “the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault.” But the legislation stalled in committee. The New Hampshire lawmaker says he hopes citizen complaints will raise awareness of the problem and possibly generate support for stronger TSA legislation down the road.

Details

A Guide to the Presidential Candidates’ Proposals to Cut Spending

Over at Downsizing the Federal Government, Chris Edwards and I have regularly complained that most policymakers have been insufficiently specific when it comes to identifying spending cuts. With the Republican primaries about to get underway, it’s a good time to see what the current crop of presidential aspirants has to offer.

There are multiple ways to skin this cat, but I decided to put together a comparison table based solely on the content found on each candidate’s campaign website. I did not consider past statements or votes, the televised debates, or outside sources (unless linked to by a campaign’s website). The idea is that statements on each candidate’s website should offer the clearest indication of their intentions should they become president.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually produced a proposed federal budget. Therefore, I started with his template and added additional agencies/programs cited on the websites of the other candidates. Again, the idea is to show specifically what the candidates are proposing to cut. Thus, proposed spending reforms such as a Balanced Budget Amendment or a spending cap are not included.

There is a degree of subjectivity in putting this together, but I tried to be fair and consistent. It is for informational purposes only (i.e., it should not be construed as an endorsement of any candidate(s)). Finally, it is possible that proposals were missed, but that could be a reflection of a website’s accessibility to pertinent information.

Details

One of Reagan’s Greatest Acts on Behalf of American Freedom

It seems that every year, conservatives and Republicans go further in their admiration of President Reagan. Surely he is held up as some kind of paragon of proper governance, and many nostalgically look to his reign as some kind of high point in the executive branch’s devotion to American liberty.

There is one area where I do think Reagan was more clearly on the side of freedom than many of his contemporaries and, in particular, the presidents who have followed him. There is one issue—an important issue—where much of the nation and the Republican Party has strayed from a devotion to liberty where we can trace the decline as happening since the era of Reagan. That issue is immigration, on which Reagan would not only be seen as a liberal today, but more radical than virtually any Democrat running for major office. It was 25 years ago that Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act—also known, including by Reagan himself, as “immigration amnesty.”

Back then “amnesty” was not a dirty word. The Gipper was proud to call for legalizing the illegal aliens who, due to unjust immigration laws, were technically in violation of the law but were no kind of actual criminal other than this. Yet today even taking a moderate position pushes one outside of the Republican mainstream. People who do not advocate “amnesty” are smeared for doing so. This is a tragedy for freedom and also bad politics for the Republican Party, argues Alex Nowrasteh.

Details

Federal leaders aren’t so hot either

On July 16, 2012, Sherrilyn A. Ifill published an article titled “Can State Leaders do a Good Job” at CNN.com. I contend this article is full of innuendo and devoid of proof backing up many of her statements.

Her argument is in defense of a huge, overpowering central government just because states don’t do what she thinks is right. Of course, she ignores the horrible leadership provided by our illustrious federal leaders over the years.

Her first mistake is quoting the gaff master, then Senator and current VPOTUS Joe Biden, who will say anything just to hear himself talk.

“The reason the federal government got into 90% of the business it got into is that the state[s]…did not do the job.”

As the article progresses, she refers to “doing a good job” as accepting all federal dollars offered, as if they came from some source other than the plunder of its citizens.

She specifically excoriates Gov. Perry of Texas for saying they will not participate in the Affordable Care Act or Medicaid expansion. According to her, it is the government’s fault that 25% of the Texas population does not have health insurance.

I suggest that the health care / health insurance problem is another pain inflicted on Americans by the central government which created the monster. When FDR instigated wage and price controls on the country during WWII, companies needed a means to keep and hire the best employees. They did this by offering expanded benefits which included health insurance. After the war, unions and government employees took this offering as a “right” and demanded healthcare coverage paid for by their employer. Businesses and governments mistakenly did not evaluate the future cost which has led many to bankruptcy – see General Motors and Stockton, CA.

Details