Tennesee Makes A Law To Promote The General Welfare Against Drunk Driving

The state of Tennessee has come up with an innovative way to stop drunk driving. This innovative way is to shame the participants by having them pick up road side trash while wearing a orange vest that declares they are a drunk driver. Like most innovative ideals this one has its critics including the governor, law enforcement, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The complaints are will be too costly and/or ineffective. I agree with the ineffective but the legislative members who passed it are the elected representatives of the state of Tennessee and they have the right to test out their hypothesis on how to improve their state without interference me, the federal judiciary or anyone else. The United States Constitution grants them that power in the Tenth Amendment.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Equal Protection Under The Law V. Providing For The Comon Defense

According to an Associated Press article in the state of Georgia, Democratic lawmakers vow to repeal a law requiring that voters have a valid drivers license or state ID. Their complaint is that the $35 it cost to obtain either of these is equivalent to a poll tax.

In October a federal judge blocked the law for just that reason. There is a precedent in the 1966 case Harper v. The Virginia Board of Elections. It is a lousy precedent put in place by activist judges who stated that "Notions of what constitutes equal treatment for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause do change". Fine if that's so, then it is up to the democratic process and not unelected federal judges to determine what the clause means. If the Justices arbitrary choose a meaning according to their own judgment instead of going by the original intend then they violate the Constitution by taking power reserved to the legislative branch. The James Hamilton warned us against just such a case in #78 of the Federalist Papers with these words.

It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.

Despite what the deciding justices said about the notion for equal treatment purpose of the equal protection clause changing the original intent does not. The original intent was to stop the Jim Crow laws that were designed to keep blacks as second class citizens. If the Supreme Court had not misapplied the clause in the first place then these later Justices would not have to cover up their predecessors racism by muttering nonsense. The equal protection simply means that every citizen no matter their race must be treated equal by the law. The poll tax which had a grandfather clause did not treat everyone equal because if your grandfather voted you were exempt. The grandparents of people of color did not vote since it was illegal at that time.

The purpose of the law is to stop illegal aliens from voting which protects the legal citizens of the United States from foreign influence. The drivers license fee applies to everyone equally. If it was not equal it would be the drivers license fee and not the voter law that was unconstitutional. An argument could be made that it is excessive and so prejudices against the poor, but that argument can be used against the legal system as a whole and is best left up to the legislative branch to resolve. Canada tried to stop poor Chinese from legally immigrating to Canada by charging them $50-$500 a head in the 19th & 20th Century and it failed because the Chinese were willing to make the sacrifice. So if you want to vote you will scrape up the $35 to get a drivers license or state ID.

I went to the Georgia Department of Driver Services and looked up the fees. The fee for a Georgia driver license is $20 for five years or 4 dollars a year or $35 for ten years or $3.50 a year. It is the same cost to renew it. I also found they have a Georgia Identification Card for Voting Purposes Only which has no fee if qualified. Looks like this issue is fraudulent and for reasons know only to themselves the reporter was incompetent, biased or both. The judge who made the decision in October is either an activist, badly misinformed, or both.

All People Have The Right To Make Their Own Laws

Here is the story of a man who killed his 4 daughter because he believed one was guilty of adultery and so dishonored the family name. Rights groups said such honor killing will stop when the government gets serious about prosecuting them. Which shows that the rights groups are more concerned about pushing their ideal of right upon a people that they are with the democratic process?

What is needed is a law that makes adultery a crime and a sentence that is satisfactory to the average citizen of Pakistan or a region thereof. The people of Pakistan can be won over to use the courts to determine guilt and to exact the just penalty for what they believe is evil instead of taking it into their own hands. If the people of Pakistan approved I would then establish a law than punished those whom took the law into their own hands.

Those "outdated Islamized laws" are the laws of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan are the only ones with the right to change them despite what these activist say. It is their religion and they have the right to practice it how they see fit. Until liberal westerners show respect for that fact it is the westerners that are the oppressors. Such actions would explain why the attacks of 9/11 happened. Reform can happen but Islam and not secular atheism should be the base of that reform.

Contrary to the teaching of atheist, devout religions do adapt to what they perceive is a better path to serve their God. This sad event reflects on us here in the United States in that we have to stand up for other countries right to rule themselves even if we find that rule lacking. It also means that we in the United States have the right to rule according to what we deem ethical.

This reminds me of the International Court of Justices desire to force Israel and the United States to compromise their own security and justice by ordering them to alter their internal laws and policies. The ACLU also uses the same mentality to force their radical agenda on the United States. We need to fight against these tyrants or we will loose even what little freedom remains to us.

The International Court Of Justice V. The Liberty Of The United States

The International Court of Justice ruled in early 2004 that the United States violated the “rights” of Mexican citizens because we did not grant them their privilege to consult their home country and the arresting officers did not tell them they had that right. This “right” was supposedly created by the 1963 Vienna Convention. President Bush refused them that decision saying the cases were a sovereignty issue and the ICJ should be weary of allowing itself be used as a criminal appeals court.

The Mexicans in question are convicted murderers and Mexico is against the death penalty. Evidence I wrote about earlier also seems to indicate they covet at least parts of the United States which they say we stole from them in the Mexican American War. They hope that if they make the process more burdensome that we will rule according to their laws in the United States and it has worked in the past.

Treaty law is below all legislative law as Congress has the right to declare war and thus break treaties within the federal jurisdiction. Outside Federal jurisdiction Treaty law is not binding and so states do not have to go by it. The ICJ assumes otherwise. The United States Constitution is not an absolute protection because activist federal judges ignore it and thus make their own arbitrary judgments law.

In addition to ruling against the establishment of justice the ICJ also ruled against a country providing for their common defense. Israel has decided to build a wall to protect them from Palestinian barbarians much like we have decided to protect ourselves from an invasion from Mexico. The ruling was that the wall was damaging to the Palestinians and Israel was ordered to pay restitution as well as tear the wall down and stop building any more. They were also ordered to change their laws regarding the wall.

This paper argues that in disregarding these rulings the international community is undemanding the legitimacy of the ICJ. That is good because ruling that are corrupt, need to be defied and shows why the United States does not want to be under the authority of any world organization.

Canada's Loss of Their Right To Happiness And The Threat To America

Things to come in the United States if we refuse to remind our courts that it is the people in charge are trumpeted in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that group sex at sex clubs was legal and is not a threat to society. Group sex a form of adultry is most likely a threat to the institute of marriage. The link between the breakdown of marriage and the increase in crime is overwhelming. Perhaps group sex is not a threat to Canada’s corrupt society since it already is corrupt but then perhaps they should look at their youth violent crime that as of 2001 is on the rise despite the overall drop in violent crime. Violent crime has been on the rise since 1962 and reached its peak in 1992 after which it dropped for several years before beginning to rise again in 2000.

Canada’s overall violent crime drop like that in the United States is most likely due to arbitrarily and deliberately killing of their own people through abortion. This has reduced the number of children suffering the adverse effects from the breakdown of marriage that result from rulings that encourage sexual anarchy. One of these adverse effects is feelings of hostility that cause youths to strike out in violence either against others or to themselves.

The Government of Canada is obviously responsible for the increase in the divorce rate of Canada starting with the Divorce Act of 1968 that started a long upward climb in the divorce rate. The Divorce Act of 1985 stopped a short term decline and caused a spike of the divorce rate that peaked two years later. Why the government would act destructive about its peoples right to happiness I have no ideal.

Canada’s marriage rate has been on an overall decline since 1972. Since 75% of divorces are initiated by women which brings my to the hypothesis that women are the target of a mass market campaign to destroy marriage. If you do not believe such a campaign exist then look as this paper by F.L. Jackson titled Freedom and the Tie That Binds: Marriage as an Ethical Institution. His proposition is that modern liberal and those who follow their ideals consider marriage is unwarranted restriction of the natural freedom of the human animal. Marx, Nietzsche, Engels, Freud are four names he gave as contributors to the modern atheistic theory of liberty. All four are atheist. This is what is pushed as the modern feminist agenda. Reason states the agenda is really just a tool to attack the "religeous" institute of marriage that atheistic doctrine declares is opressive.

Take a lesson from Canada’s harm and make your own decision whether you will allow these attacks in the United States to continue unresisted, or will you stand against it and be counted as a patriot. The federal and state courts must be brought under control of the people of the United States before they continue to be used to force a radical and destructive agenda on us.

A Wise Ruling To Resolve When Democracy Collides With Liberty

Here is an interesting story in which the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling of a lower court. That decision was that it is not the courts job to “balancing the interests between the pigeon club members and their neighbors”. The case involved the city of Chicago banning racing pigeons, a step I find extreme. Other cities have taken a more moderate route to resolve the same problem such as limiting the number or regulating the industry.

It is clear that the ordinance does conflict with the right of liberty under the Declaration of Independence. The damage caused by the pigeons was in public nuisance from the cooing and litter from the bird droppings, and loss feathers. That damage is less than the loss of liberty inflicted on pigeon owners by the city. Still the federal courts are not democratic and the The United States has chosen the democratic system as the best way to resolve what is best for the safety and happiness of the general public. It is the duty of the legislation to develop and test solutions to city problems, of which this is one. The pigeon owners can and should already have appealed to their fellow citizens for intercession by getting a petition together that calls for more moderate action on the part of the city legislative members.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly who is subject to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals should pay attention to this ruling which conflicts with own his ruling on another case. The ruling which I wrote about earlier decided that selling violent video games to minors violates the right to speech of the game designers.

Another Federal Judge Rules Against Democracy And The General Welfare

Someone needs to explain the republic system of government to federal judges because they certainly seem completely ignorant of it. In the United states the people get together and make a decision about who they will elect to represent them. The majority rules. The majority have a set of beliefs which determines what they believe is best for the local community, state, and/or country. These beliefs are probably based on their individual ethical code. Their representatives then get together and make laws to further their constituents goals on obtaining a better world. They have the right to be wrong, but not the right to be oppressive.

According to an UPI news article in California the government has made a law that makes it illegal to sell violent video games to minors. Minors in our society, are considered individuals to be protected even from potential dangers. The best protector of minors is their parents. Now in practicality all this law does is prevent minors from obtaining violent video games without their parents permission as it does not prevent parents from purchasing the game and giving it to their child. In fact anyone that has reached their majority can purchase the game and give it to a minor. So if this is a restriction on free speech then I question if it is a significant restriction.

Now the Court in a preliminary decision has decided that the law is overly restrictive of free speech. but that the lack of a law is not oppressive to parents and others. Obviously he disagrees with a number of constitutes who believe that violent video games are oppressive in that they teach children violence. He is not elected, and so not subject to the will of the people. This make him a dictator. On the other hand the legislative members are elected and the people can petition them to change the law if they find it is oppressive.

I will write my Senators and tell them they need to do something about the bad behavior of these federal judges whom feel they have the right to rule from the bench. Whether you agree that violent video games are dangerous or not, if you value your freedom, you should do the same.