GOVERNORS CAN SLOW THE ENGINE OR LEAD WITH POWERFUL AUTHORITY!

Janet Napolitano silenced and stymied the conservatives in the State House by use of her veto pen for six long years. Oh but now, that there is a new Republican Governor the conservative agenda and conservatism in Arizona is growing.

http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2010/04/30/ariz_lawmakers_give_conservatives_plenty_to_cheer

 This new Arizona Immigration Law is just one of a number of new pieces of legislation the State House has on its agenda. In an un-intended way the Obama Administration has removed the hen guarding the fox house. By giving her office to Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer a strong social conservative Barak and Napolitano have both made Arizona's homeland more secure.

Jan Brewer has promised the Republican legislators that their conservative agenda priorties will be signed. Voters in Arizona are not just tired of the lack of Federal action on the border but equally frustrated at the flacid flip floppy middle of the road republicans that run on conservative values but play wish washy on the issues. Sound familiar Washington Republicans? What does this mean? Two things for us to remember until November;

 One; ( "all politics is local." Tip O'neill), we cannot underestimate or under-value the power of Govenor's races and State House races.

Two; by telling the candidates in our local State races that Arizona's actions are the kind of tough conservative stands we expect from our republican representatives, perhaps we will encourage them to take a stand,
On something...on anything and then stick to their...principles. (I bet you thought I was going to say guns? No...they can't be trusted.) 

THE CRAZY MODERN PAUL REVERE!

Which guy do you think is is the crazy one? Does the Democratic Party really believe that by bashing political commentors on the right that we will be blinded by what are own eyes see?
As Americans would we not rather be called crazy than cattle and sheep being led down the Socialist path?

The mainstream media is losing viewership, the liberal radio talks shows,
the liberal print media and according to polls our own President is not being listened to as well.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

I think the pollsters should ask what people think of Glen Beck? Do they trust him or think he is a right wing crazy nut-case?

Have you not noticed that President Obama has gone out of his way to address  or more aptly to marginalize his detractors yet Glen Beck's red phone never rings.

Perhaps the President is afraid that if he took on the people's political guru and sage (Beck) his poll numbers would plummet even further. Then he would be a political campaign liabilty for Democratic candidates in this years election more so than at present.

Glen Beck is the Paul Revere of our distressing anti-constitutional times and he has been and is still, warning us that the "turncoats are coming...the turncoats are coming."

THE PEOPLE'S PARTY!

What would you say if I told you there was a People’s Party? That this Party has the slogan “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men” joined in opposition against human enslavement and government tyranny. What if I equally told you that this Party has fashioned its name to allude to one of the Founding Father’s Thomas Jefferson?

Are you interested in learning more about this political Party? Well, it is a party dedicated to the rights of the individuals over government.

Doesn’t this sound like a Party you would like to support? Want to hear more information as to its platform? It is a Party dedicated to “reducing the size of government, streamlining bureaucracy and returning power to individual States.” This party considers itself Freedom Fighters and claims to be dedicated to “fight for individuals’ rights in opposition to a large, intrusive government.”

Would you expect that those candidates running on its core principles and beliefs would be worthy of our Tea Party Movement vote?

Alas, and true like all great ideals and intentions that initiate structure and organization to solidify support, endeavor to retain loyalty, amass creditability and do practical battle in the political arena something gets lost. Yes, by well-meaning miscalculation, political expediency or just plain pompous grandiosity these political groups and parties tend to lose focus and adherence to their core principles.

It becomes our incumbent and ever vigilant duty to remind those Party leaders who have strayed and or abandoned those core principles to step back into the Party platform or be replaced as spokespersons.

Now, back to the People’s Party, I had asked you earlier “what would you say if I told there was a People’s Party?” It does exist. I was not teasing you.

They just have another name that they have been using since 1856. Their first party president John C. Freemont gave the Party its National status and four years after that it won a presidential seat. Ring any bells yet? Oh well perhaps I should mention that it decided to use another name other than the People’s Party.

They call themselves…The Republican Party or if you prefer the 1875 expression the“gallant old party” that changed into the “grand old party” or the “G.O.P.” Remember them? Perhaps they have forgotten us?

http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/who_we_are/

TALK IS CHEAP!

I have often had discussions with people who expressed strongly their political views. I always enjoy a spirited debate and never allowed myself or them to debase the discussion into personal attack. The theme I most often heard was I hate all the bums (politicians) and it is all (politics) corrupt. I may not have necessarily disagreed with that broad brush stroke of dissatisfaction but we were usually arguing candidates or issues.

When that statement was made I flashed in my mind the question that might in the end win the argument. "Who did you vote for in the last election?" More than not the answer was "eh...I don't involve myself in the dirty business of politics plus my vote doesn't count." Ha I thought another bag of wind blowing hot air as I changed the subject knowing that this person did not deserve my political engagement for they were the problem. Talk is cheap and talk from disengaged spectators is the cheapest!


There is no reason anymore for any American to not be registered and to claim that their vote doesn't count. Apathy and or disgust with politics should no longer be tolerated by Americans who are cynical and do not trust their government.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/


Registering to vote is an easy process and one needs only to type into their computer search engine "Secretary of State Alaska" or Maine or California example and then look for the Election icon and easily find the information on how to register to vote. Some States like my Great State of Maine allows you to register the same day of voting whereas others require one to register in advance of the election.


Another big excuse given by people in the past as to why they do not vote is that they are not informed of the issues and find it hard to educate themselves. Again, that was when voters had to rely on their newspapers, the League of Woman Voter organizations or the T.V. News debates and
political adds.

No more excuses of ignorance are acceptable in today's Internet age for all voters. "Google" or "Yahoo" or "Bing" or any search any you like, to investigate the candidates, to learn more about the referendum question and to easily and quickly ascertain the information about up-coming elections without having to be a political junkie.


Go back to the Secretary of State site and print out or view a sample ballot you will be given weeks before an election. Mock it up, discuss it with your family and friends but go into the polling place prepared and informed.

KNOW your rights in the polling place! If you marked your ballot incorrectly and want another ballot you have a right to request one but not after you have submitted your ballot!


Vote in your town, city and State elections as well as in primary elections because that town selectman you disagree with will run for the State House and then maybe for State Senate and so on and so forth. The best way to defeat career politicians or those candidates with Anti-Constitutional values is when they are in your neighborhood sniffing for votes.

Do not be discouraged when your vote is in the minority and you lose elections. Keep voting and keep participating because when you do talk to your friends about your political views at least now you can be proud and back up your political views and positions by saying "yes" I am registered and I vote my voice and views religiously. I am a civic minded patriotic American citizen.

THE CONSTITUTION IS A CONTRACT UNDER SIEGE!

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL JURISTS IN THE UNITED STATES.


 I believe that the majority of you that preside on the bench strive using your best efforts to make determinations, rule and defend your only client, the law.
It is easy to sit on the sidelines in wait to second guess your decisions and then attack the well thought and reasoned rulings you have rendered. It is inevitable that the judgments that you undertake in your function will please only half of the parties placed before you while disappointing the other half. Unenviable therefore is your charge and responsibility and I for one respect the court even though I like many have disagreed with some of its rulings.

Your fidelity is to the law and the Constitution of the Untied States that secures its foundation and defines, binds and limits its power. Laws can be made by righteous men and women with all good intentions of purpose but because they are codified does not make them sound or empowered. The law in and of itself therefore is a living breathing animate animal that grows and procreates itself to an ever larger expanse that has been guilty of cannibalism, despotism, aggression and treachery to its own body let alone the followers under its power. The law on its own without the Constitution to reign in its dominion therefore is corruptible. You as jurists are the both the protectors of the law to insure it is well preserved but equally the master of the law to insure it stays in the enclosed framework of its boundaries and does not overtake the people it serves.

The problem is that there seems to be two schools of thought in your training to become the law’s gatekeeper. One is the “Evolutionist Theory” of the Constitution that believes it should be interpreted in a modern day context and therefore be seen as an expandable document retrofitted to answer the present day conflicts and issues. The Second school of Constitutional interpretation is the “Constitutional Orthodoxy” or now known as “Originalism” which divines to ascertain what the Forefathers intended when writing the Constitution.
Both of these schools of thought therefore start with the premise that interpretation of the Constitution is the goal and objective. Further they have been treating the Constitution as they do the law, a living breathing animated animal.

How can the animal cage the animal? How can the powerless limit the power? How can a changeable parameter define and keep constrained the parameter? How can the moving and changing foundation keep the building sound and erect?

The answer is that it cannot. The Constitution is not an animated document but rather a binding contract. It is a contract like all others that can be amended with the parties involved both consenting and following the terms stated for its amendment. However you might say that all contracts are subject to interpretation and therefore whether it is called a contract or a template it is still subject to interpretation? Reading and understanding the terms of the contract and the noted language in the contract to identify the limits and agreements of consideration by all parties bound by the contract is not interpretation. That which is stated exists and that which is not stated does not exist. That is no more interpretative than saying “I breathe, therefore I am alive.”

Anyone wishing to break a contract combs such contracts for ambiguities, conflicts, exceptions, loopholes, limitations and actions not expressly dealt within the confines of a contract. Poorly written contracts that leave open gaping exceptions to which parties can easily avoid their obligations or contracts so well written and filled with specific and enumerated obligations that always leave contingencies unforeseen to allow escape by one party or the other to the adherence and obligation to the contract are inevitable. They are all flawed to some degree or another as they are written through the imperfections of human beings. There is no such thing as a perfect contract as equally as there is no such thing as a perfect human being.

The Constitution is a contract between the governors and the governed. What becomes so unique about the Constitutional contract is that the governors are the governed and that the governed are the governors. There is no mistaking that those who are in the position of authority are equally in the position of subservience to the governed. Those who are in the position of subservience are equally holding the power of governance. That balance of consideration and power seems to escape those who wish to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. The text speaks for itself adequately and where new or old meaning is searched it effects an abridgement and or breech of the contract.

I cannot with the best lawyer abridge a lawful contract that I willing signed by arguing that the intent for the contract was in my mind for one purpose while the contract binds me to obligations I do not intent to agree. “Ignorance is no escape from the law” or from contracts I freely enter. I can however, request that the other party agree to re-negotiate said contract and make changes or release me from its obligations entirely but only if they agree. In contract disputes both sides need to be represented in order that contracts are upheld or dissolved.

The Constitution can never be dissolved by any in government in charge to uphold her on the side of those governing without the consent of ALL those governed, the People. The Constitution should equally not be breeched, abridged, altered or redefined in its explicit text save for the amendment process clearly defined within its contract. The Constitution did not have the hubris to believe that it could in all instances guard, protect, insure and secure all the rights of the governed by those in governance and created the opportunity for its possible omissions and unforeseen conflicts necessary to amend its scope. There is no flaw in a contract so well written as the Constitution, that it was constructed to recognize and codify its own remedy to imperfection. Equally its remedy by use of Amendment being made so requiring of re-sounding democratic principles so as to not make facile or corruptible the Amendments proposed to itself. Equally the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights made all rights and subjects not spelled out in the Constitution to be expressly granted to the government to be instead expressly remained with the people.

In closing let me say that I have this right as a citizen to express my views despite my lack of expertise as a Constitutional scholar, jurist, lawyer or credentials other than being “but any intelligent American citizen, whether or not he or she is a philosopher”. (Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s speech at Catholic University of America on October 18, 1996.) In that right I contend that our Constitution has been under siege by both sides, Originalists and Evolutionist trying to interpret rather than read the well worded contract our forefathers framed. In fact for those who camp with the Orginalists sentiment wanting the spirit and intent of the Constitution to be implied by its reading unwittingly give fuel and empowerment to those on the other side (Evolutionists) wishing to alter its meaning by implying a modern day evolvement of its intent.

The Constitution should be applied by text and not interpreted but followed in the script that our forefathers wrangled so fiercely about before signing. The words used and their meaning and definitions at writing are well known and preserved. The word “regulate” and “commerce” are words used by Congress to secure that it has a right to pass laws regarding all measure of commerce in the states. The intention and use of both words by our founding fathers were different than used and interpreted today. They would have used “control” not regulate if they meant to confer powers to the Congress rather than normal maintenance and they would have stated “sale of all American goods foreign or domestic” not commerce if they thought business transactions from one party to another were in the control of the Federal government. The meaning of the words used at the time should be historically preserved and supported with the original interpretations by those whose hands and minds scribed the document.

Any precedent set on an interpretation of intent other than what historical records can show our forefathers authored (Madison, Jefferson, Jay, Hamilton ex.) while and after the Constitution was written by their own explanation of what their text meant is unethical precedent. This document was written by men dedicated to preserving and blueprinting success for a brand new self-governed Nation that the world had yet to try and that remains still today as the world’s shining example of practicable and workable democracy. To all jurists I and most Americans say swear your oath and stop straining your allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!