The Federal Government Acts To Promote The General Welfare

In yet another story of E. coli contamination Jim's Market and Locker an Iowa firm recalled ground beef produced between August 31 and September 1. This effects 5200 lbs of product. According to reports no illnesses have been associated with this beef.

Some libertarians do not support the Food and Drug Administration as they state that that the consumer should be responsible for his/her own life and health. I think it is nonsense since the vast majority of citizens I know do take responsibility for their own life and health to the extend they believe is necessary whether or not the government does anything and the government is better equipped to handle these situations.

It is true that consumers can sue companies that cause them damage by negligence but that requires someone to take them to court and fight it out with them. That in itself has problems such as excessive rewards and the idea that most companies will hide their guilt rather than face a lawsuit in the first place. It is also cleaning up the mess after it happens instead of preventing the damage in the first place and it is easier to prevent a person from dying from E coli contamination than to bring them back to life after they already died.

In short it comes down to the fact that government regulation is probably the best choice. I say probably because among other things I have not heard the cost versus benefit analyst yet. The federal government does have the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce according to Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The states on the other hand have the authority to regulate commerce within a state and the two governments should work together as allies to promote the general welfare in those areas where there different spheres conflict.

This does not mean I back the Food and Drug Administration as it sits now because I find its formation is unconstitutional because it exercises legislative and judicial powers which are forbidden to the executive branch of government. It needs to be abolished and a new organization needs to be established which enforces legislation passed by Congress as well as investigate possible ways to improve the health of the people. In short it should become a law enforcement agency instead of regulatory agency.

Source 1 is account of recall of ground beef due to E. coli contamination.

Activist Judges Who Work Against The Common Defense Of America

Today the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of a law that required voter presenting an identification or proof of citizenship. They are most likely addressing the Twenty Fourth Amendment as those who oppose the law claim “it discriminated against minorities and the poor, who might not have funds to obtain the necessary proof of identification.”

One fallacy is the Twenty Forth Amendment only applies to federal elections and not state elections. The other is it gives Congress and not the federal courts the power to enforce it. So the question is whether or not there is a federal law that world effect this situation. If there is then that law would be applied but if not then it is questionable if you can rule the law invalid since the Twenty Forth Amendment would not be enforced.

If we ignored the wording of the Twenty Forth Amendment and instead misinterpreted it to fulfill our political agenda then the sky is the limit as it no longer has any thing to do with the rule of law but rather who is more powerful in the federal courts.

Putting a possible non existent federal law aside the issue is not a constitutional issue but is instead a political issue and according to the U.S. Constitution separation of power political issues are property decided by the legislature at they have the power to pass legislation while the judicial branch is limited to judging according to that legislation.

As a political issue looking at the cost of obtaining a photo ID and dividing it by the number of years it last will probably come up with yearly cost of $10 dollars or less which is easily paid by even the poorest American. If any state is above that pleas speak up. If any person in America can not afford to pay $10 or less than the least of their concerns is voting since they are probably starving to death. Still if we pander to the opponents of the law and give a free picture ID to anyone they will probably not be happy as that is what was the case in Georgia where they expressed concern that homebound people could not go out and get such a license. The government offered to come to them and give them licenses but that was not satisfactory for the opponents.

The bottom line is that alien both legal and illegal, convicts, and other individuals that can not vote legally make enough difference at the polls that some politicians do not want them screened out. In places where such illegal voters are more prevalent they may well vote in significant numbers to determine who gets into office. So from where it is sitting the opponents look like fools or traitors. If anyone has a better objection than the one mentioned in the article please let me know what it is.

Source 1 is about Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals putting a hold on Arizona voting ID law.

The Mindset That Causes Legislating From The Bench

A state appeals court in California ruled the pseudo marriage of to members of the same sex is not mandated by the state constitution in a narrow 2-1 ruling.

The deciding Justices which included Justice William McGuiness stated:

The Legislature and the voters of this state have determined that 'marriage' in California is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples, and it makes no difference whether we agree with their reasoning,

In his and Justice Joanne Pirelli’s support for the separation of powers and the power of the people to determine their own fate.

I question the existence of the right to marriage since marriage is a social contract and not a characteristic that human beings are endowed with by the Creator. I am not arguing that individuals who meet the criteria necessary to enter marriage can do so as that is a right to liberty and a right to pursue happiness issue and not a right to marriage issue and calling it the later obscures those rights.

The deciding judges defended the power of judges to legislate with these words

That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings,

And thus contradicted their earlier statement or maybe he was just saying that the judges are more powerful than the Legislature and the voters which is an idea that is opposed to the idea that every state should have a republican form of government.

On the other hand, Justice J. Anthony Kline, the dissenter must have been having a bad day to state:

the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the rights of personal privacy and autonomy and is just as discriminatory as California's former ban on interracial marriage, which the state Supreme Court struck down in 1948.

Since marriage is a social contract and thus not something you keep his or concealed which would be personal privacy. You can not have it both ways. On the other hand his second objection is more open to opinion but flawed as he said it as just being discriminatory does not make something wrong and may actually make it right since forbidding someone to have sex with a dead person is discriminatory and it is also right.

I believe that marriage is formed under the idea that the two individuals involved could crossbreed by nature if they had the standard abilities of both individuals in the relationship and both have the ability to chose whether or not to marry. This means that even infertile individuals of the opposite sex can marry while a male dog and a female human being could not.

My source about the California Appeals Court Ruling In San Francisco.

Prosecutors Are Employees Of The People

Here is a look at the St. Rita’s nursing home flood in New Orleans during Katrina that left the owners charged with 35 counts of negligent homicide and 64 cruelty to the infirm. The 35 dead have no one to speak for them except the living and those that suffered harm may be able do speak up but it is unlikely giving their state of being. So the people of Louisiana have to speak through the prosecutor to defend their right to life and what health they have. The people of Louisiana also find it in our interest that the accused have a lawyer so they will not be unjustly convicted.

The prosecutor accuses the couple of abandoning the elderly to the rising water after Katrina struck. The defense is that the government levee unexpectedly failed and the government failed to evacuate the patients.

Their defense is hogwash because the primary care for the elderly was in their hands and not the government’s and the government order a mandatory evacuation previous to Katrina striking. To make their case they would have to prove that the government had a contract with them to evacuate the patients and that the government also guaranteed the levies would stand. We know the second is not true because of the mandatory evacuation order and I have heard no evidence of the first occurring.

I have heard that they were called previous to the flooding and warned to get out by others but the government. What appears to have happened is they assumed that Katrina would not do significant damage and then when the opposite happened the panicked and saved themselves instead of taking responsibility for their actions and doing their duty to their patients. If this is the case negligent homicide is a very light charge as they knowingly committed murder while carried away with the emotion of fear which sounds like a Second or Third Degree Murder as their intend was leave them there to die.

I understand the defense in this one is the blame the government defense that sadly might work in our society at this time but we as Americans need to start taking responsibility for our actions even if those actions lead adverse effects including to bad government .

Source 1 is the article about the St. Rita nursing home flood.

Congress Makes A Move To Protect United States Gambling Interests

Congress made a smart move to protect American gambling interests against the threat provided by free trade gambling interests. This of course hurt the UK and other internet gambling interests but more than likely helped the domestic interests. Since our government gets money from local gambling I am not surprised that Congress stepped up to the plate on this one and did not give into free market capitalist.

Some claim gambling is a tax on the poor and that is probably true but unless you spend the money of the poor for them you can probably not change the fact that some of them spend what little resources they have foolishly. They could spend their money on cigarettes and alcohol but I would rather they spend it on gambling which is probably healthier for them and may if they are blessed give them a return.

Some claim gambling causes addiction and I have no doubt of that but so does shopping. If addicts can be spotted and treated or otherwise dissuaded at a reasonable price then it should be done.

Some hold gambling is a debaucherous practice and that may in fact be the case. Thomas Jefferson argued against that viewpoint by pointing out it is not really different than investing your money in a business. I am not sure I agree with him since there is a more instant gratification to gambling.

The money made through gambling aside there is damage to our society caused by the addicts. I do not know if this is significantly greater than would have been caused in other ways by the same people. I tend to believe it would not be. I do know it is up to the people of each jurisdiction whether they want to tolerate this violation of natural law or not and if they don’t to what degree they wish to address it.

Source 1 Complaints about American protectionism.

Source 2 The effects of gambling on our society.

Is Making Obscenity Illegal Constitutional?

The Supreme Court turned down the case Acosta v. Texas without comment. The case is about the sale of sexual obscene devices. The accused defense is the right to privacy the Supreme Court created in the 1960’s. The states case is that the item is “so offensive on its face as to affront current community standards of decency“ and “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.”

The right to privacy is a joke that in my opinion is used to obscure the right to do with your own property what you see fit. The closest the U.S. Constitution comes to it is in the Forth Amendment when the government is forbidden to make an unreasonable search of your property and thus breaching your ability to hide/conceal your own property.

The accused could argue that the item is his and he can do whatever he wants with it provided it is not harmful to himself or others even if people find such action offensive.

That argument should not work since debaucherious behavior is considered a breach of the natural right to liberty of what the law of the U.S. government is base according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

That of course leaves the normal way of changing laws which is to get legislation changed. If the people chose to tolerate a breech of natural law then that is their choice.

Source 1 is the article about Acosta v. Texas

Source 2 is Texas Penal Code Section 43.21

Source 3 is Chapter II of John Locke’s “Second Treatise On Civil Government” which is part of the Foundation of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and so of American Law as it was meant to be.

Politics And Good Character

New York is having an interesting run for Attorney General between Jeanine Pirro and Andrew Cuomo though she is currently trailing him. She is being investigated for attempting to get a family attorney to bug her family boat and having her husband followed. I have a little trouble seeing what crime has been committed since she has the right to bug her or her families property if she wants and tailing someone is not against the law If there is a law against bugging your own property then it is a violation of the right to do as you see fit with your own property which I can see no good justification for.

This all came out of a leak from the Federal Attourneys office that was highly illegal and most likely political motivated.

She is accused of being a weak individual since she won’t divorce her husband that has been convicted of fraud and is guilty of adultery and has even received two speeding tickets including one for driving 51 miles an hour in a school zone. The fraud and adultery gave her sufficient justification for divorcing him but she decided for her own reason that it was better to remain together and try to overcome the effects of his bad character in hopes that he would change and her and her children would come through. Divorce is rough on children who often react with anger so I can certainly see her reasoning.

Mind you, Hillary Clinton who is running for Senator in the same state did the same thing as Jeanine did and the Democrats had no significant problem with it. The Republicans that vied to face Clinton, tore each other up with accusations about their bad conduct and the battered winner is not doing well in the polls.

I personally favor Jeanine even though she is trailing because she seems to favor the victim of crimes and appears to want to reduce the number as she is proud of reducing crime by 30% in her previous jurisdiction while Andrew Cuomo things the criminal needs more mercy as he is proud of launching a fight against drug law which he considered evil. In my opinion if you commit a crime then you deserve the penalty that goes with the crime because there are plenty of law abiding citizens in New York. He did mention the larger arrest and conviction rate of blacks but that is probably linked to the higher divorce and cohabitation rates among blacks. This because children of divorce often anger issues and children of cohabitation situation are more likely to lack self discipline as they have not been taught it since a single devoted parent has less time to spend with them than two devoted parents do. Drug and alcohol abuse are also factors leading to child abuse and negligence as well as to domestic violence and even effect married families, and so to future crimes as well.

My Source is about the tabloid type Scandals in New York State.

Here is a source of the recent culturally liberal trends and how they effect children.