Remembering the past

When I start talking about the fact that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to do things like fund public television or monitor a cell phones without a warrant, somebody will inevitably counter with the following statement:

“The founders never anticipated things like television and cell phones, or any of the other technological advances of the last 200-plus years. We have to give the federal government the flexibility to deal with these things.”

But these folks ignore that fact that the framers created a mechanism to allow the Constitution to evolve with the changing times – the amendment process. When lawmakers feel the advancement of technology necessitates additional powers, they should first go to the people, let them decide, and if they deem it necessary, amend the Constitution to delegate the requisite power.

Of course, it’s true that the framers could never have imagined all of the technological and societal advances that would occur in the United States over the course of time. And the amendment process makes it pretty clear that they recognized the Constitution would not, and should not, remain static. But the framers did understand some things do  not change – among them, basic human nature. They understood that, as Lord Acton eloquently put it, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” For that reason, the framers created, and the people of the states approved, a government of limited powers and included numerous checks on the few powers that were delegated.

While technology and society might evolve, it is imperative we keep in place those basic checks on power.


Massachusetts Nullification Initiative Set to Win in a Landslide

Seventeen states already have medical marijuana laws on the books, but now Colorado, Oregon and Washington want to expand that to recreational use. Massachusetts and two other states are voting on medical marijuana this November. If the measure passes in any of those states, it could serve as a bellwether, helping expand the already de-facto…


Lies of Omission

After the first debate between the Undynamic Duo, many conservatives are basking on what appears as the total domination of President Obama by Mitt Romney.   Initially, many liberals hanged their head in shame as their messiah was totally humiliated by his opponent.  This isn’t just my opinion, Chris Mathews said the same on MSNBC after the debate.  I seriously thought about buying poor Chris a box of Chamomile Tea and mailing it to him.

However, liberals recovered and started providing liberal biased sources proving that Romney lied on many occasions during the debate.   I have two responses of these statements:

One, again many of their sources (including many fact checking sites) have a liberal bias.  Facts are facts, but often it depends on the CONTEXT of how the facts are being expressed.  Often times, the distinction is subjective to the individual observer.

Two,  liberal claims of Romney is lying.  Of course he is lying!  He’s a politician!

I suspect you thinking, “John, what are you saying?  Your first point, you’re stating that Romney might have not been lying based on the perspective of the observer, and then you come right out and call Romney a liar anyway?”    EXACTLY!


Two Failures

by Judge Andrew Napolitano

President Obama is a failure as a president, and Gov. Romney is a failure as a candidate.

When he took office, Obama told the press that if he couldn’t cure the economic mess he inherited from President George W. Bush in four years, he wouldn’t deserve a second term. I guess he didn’t anticipate making the mess worse.

When he took office, the federal government owed $11 trillion to its creditors; today it owes $16 trillion. When he took office, gasoline was running about $1.85 a gallon and today costs about $3.85 a gallon. This is price inflation that he directly caused by flooding the markets with cash, and that directly harms the middle class and the poor. Unemployment has remained north of 8 percent throughout his presidency for those still looking for a job, and about 16 percent if you count all able-bodied out-of-work adults, half of whom have stopped looking for work on his watch.

He supported radical fanatics in their takeovers of the governments of Libya and Egypt, even going so far as to help them kill Col. Gadhafi, the former Libyan strongman who was once our ally. In the process, they opened jails in Libya, and out came some of the same folks the U.S. government has been fighting against in the Middle East since 2001. Obama pushed from power Hosni Mubarak, the strongman in Cairo, and he was replaced by the head of a criminal organization that Obama’s own State Department has prohibited Americans from engaging with. (Query: If the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, how can the government help a foreign group and at the same time prohibit Americans from doing the same?)