Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

Bobby Jindal Appeals Ruling On Bernette Johnson, Black Supreme Court Justice


In a statement released by one of his lawyers, Jindal said the matter should be settled by the Louisiana Supreme Court and the federal government should not be involved.

“The issue on appeal is not who should serve as the next Chief Justice, but whether the Louisiana Supreme Court should be prohibited by a federal court from interpreting the state’s constitution,” he said in the statement.

 

Jindal is such a republican! Who should serve as the next Chief Justice is exactly the issue at hand. The Question is whether or not the Louisiana Supreme Court can be fair and impartial in this particular case. The question of whether or not the Louisiana Supreme Court should interpret the state constitution is a red herring. A fallacy of broad generalization. It’s dishonest.

“Johnson was initially appointed to the Supreme Court, not elected”

Let’s test that against the LA Constitution:

“Section 6. The judge oldest in point of service on the supreme court shall be chief justice. He is the chief administrative officer of the judicial system of the state, subject to rules adopted by the court.”

LA State Constitution, 6. Supreme Court; Chief Justice

Point of service, without regard to how that service started.

“Jindal said the matter should be settled by the Louisiana Supreme Court”

“The issue on appeal is not who should serve as the next Chief Justice, but whether the Louisiana Supreme Court should be prohibited by a federal court from interpreting the state’s constitution,” he said in the statement.

There are two huge, Huge, HUGE problems with that line of thinking.

First up:

“The other members of the current court, who are all white, contend that Johnson does not have the seniority to be the next chief justice.”

The rest of the LA Supreme Court are the PLAINTIFFS in the case. Establishing the plaintiffs as judge and jury (literally) would be spitting in the eye of blind justice. It would be a complete farce.

Secondly:

“Johnson’s colleagues on the court say that her first six years as an appointed justice should not count toward her seniority.”

The other justices have already pre-judged the case, which further disqualifies them – over and above the obvious conflict of interest.

I would say that Jindal’s call for such a travesty of justice must surely violate his oath of office. Funny thing is – the LA Constitution does not require an oath of office.

Jindal is such a republican!

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

September 9, 2012 Posted by | Administration, Constitution | , , , | Leave a comment

Sen. Mike Lee Vows To Block Obama Nominees


Mike Lee went ballistic over President Obama’s recess appointments in January. This is how someone who believed in presumption of innocence might have worded it:

Senator Mike Lee formally responded to the President’s (allegedly) unconstitutional recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In a statement delivered at a Judiciary Committee business meeting, Lee outlined the (allegedly) unconstitutional nature of the appointments and criticized the justification offered by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

“President Obama used (in Lee’s opinion) deeply flawed legal reasoning to circumvent the Constitution’s clear requirement that the Senate must be in (official) recess in order to make such appointments,” said Sen. Lee. “The President’s assertion that he (the Office of Legal Counsel) may unilaterally determine for himself (the administrative branch of government) whether or not the Senate is in recess (allegedly) violates the Constitution’s fundamental separation of government powers and the Senate’s rightful prerogatives.”

“Although some Senate Democrats claim prior ‘obstruction’ of nominees during this Congress, in reality Senate Republicans have willingly allowed the overwhelming majority of the President’s nominations to pass through the Judiciary Committee with little controversy and receive an up or down vote on the floor.”

Passing a nominee out of committee does not necessarily mean that the nominee got an up-or-down vote.

Getting nominees confirmed has proved a challenge for the administration. A recent report from the Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington said the federal judiciary had had more than 750 days with at least 80 vacancies on the federal bench, which adds to the workload of an already overburdened judiciary.

“Never before has the number of vacancies risen so sharply and remained so high for so long during a president’s term,” wrote the group, which noted that all presidents come into office with a backlog that gets worked down more quickly over time.

Judicial nominations have been a source of escalating conflict since the fight over President Ronald Reagan’s attempt to nominate Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987. Over the years, fights have included refusals by Senate Republicans to hold hearings on Mr. Clinton’s nominees and Democratic senators filibustering nominees of Mr. Bush.

Now that conflict is just one of many in a continuing battle between Congress and the president that also includes nominations to the executive branch and efforts to pass major legislation.

While Mr. Obama was relatively slow to nominate judges earlier in his term, his team has now sped up, the group said. But Congress has been slow to confirm nominees, some of whom “go through committee without any opposition and still spend months and months waiting for a vote on the Senate floor,” said Doug Kendall, the group’s founder. “That’s never happened before, and it’s a big part of the reason the judicial vacancy problem has reached crisis proportions.”

For Obama, a Record on Diversity but Delays on Judicial Confirmations

Back to Mike Lee (NO relation):

“Given this President’s (allegedly) blatant and egregious disregard both for proper constitutional procedures and the Senate’s unquestioned role in such appointments, I find myself duty-bound to (commandeer the authority of the judiciary to determine constitutionality, ignore my “advise and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution, and) resist the consideration and approval of additional nominations until the President takes steps to ‘remedy’ the situation. Regardless of the precise course I choose to pursue, the President certainly will not continue to enjoy my nearly complete(ly imaginary) cooperation, unless and until he rescinds his (allegedly) unconstitutional recess appointments.”

Now that we’ve seen the rant, let’s look at the Constitution.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

US Const. Article II, sec 1.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

US Const. Article II, sec 2

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

US Const. Article II, sec 3

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

US Const. Article VI

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constituti­on of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservatio­n or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Mike Lee is only concerned with the Constituti­on when it is politicall­y advantageo­us. How many pledges of allegiance (like the Norquist pledge) did he swear to before he got to the oath of office?
  1. Lee has personally determined that these particular recess appointments are unconstitutional. He has no constitutional authority to make such a determination. His constitutional authority is limited to legislative actions, confirming specific actions of the President, and approving selected structural matters of the country. “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Unless he has legal standing to challenge a law in court, his only constitutional remedy is to change the law. In either event, he is obligated to support the law until it is legally determined to be improper.
  2. It is Lee’s Constitutional duty to support the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof”. While he has the authority to oppose specific nominees, he does not have the authority to reject the Constitutional mandate for a confirmation process.
  3. The President has a Constitutional obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, and the obligation of a Senator to “support and defend the Constituti­on of the United States” and “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” requires him to support and enable the President to fulfill his own obligations to the Constitution.
  4. By putting his ideology ahead of his (alleged) commitment to the Constitution, he is rejecting his oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office”. He has set himself up as judge, jury, and executioner for laws that offend his ideology. This is how dictators operate, not American Constitutional officers. This could easily be considered an impeachable offense. If he does not like a law, his sole Constitutional remedy is to change the law.  Congress does not have the authority to implement, or prevent the implementation of, a law.

This is an anti-constitution power grab.

Lee has made at least two oaths he clearly holds above his oath of office. His loyalties are divided. Patriotism or subversion?

Continue reading

February 4, 2012 Posted by | Constitution, Ethics, GOP, Governance, Government | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Citizens United Amendment Summary


January 21, 2012 is the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision of CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Joint Resolution Proposing the Twenty-third Am...

Today, I choose to look forward to the day it is overturned. In that vein, I offer a survey of Constitutional Amendments proposed to achieve that end. I will analyze them in future diaries. This is just a reference.

Article V of the Constitution provides for two methods of amendment. Congress can propose an amendment with 2/3 approval from each chamber. Joint Resolutions are the vehicles used for this process. Once approved by Congress and signed by the President, 3/4 of the state legislatures must ratify it.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

112th Senate Joint Resolution 29:

Section 1

Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on–

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Section 2

A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on–

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

Section 3

Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

112th Senate Joint Resolution 33:

Section 1

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Section 2

Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

Section 3

Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

Section 4

Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

112th Senate Joint Resolution 35:

Section 1

Congress shall have the power to regulate the contribution of funds by corporations, entities organized and operated for profit, and labor organizations to a candidate for election to, or for nomination for election to, a Federal office, and the power to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations, entities organized and operated for profit, and labor organizations made in support of, or opposition to, such candidates.

Section 2

A State shall have the power to regulate the contribution of funds by corporations, entities organized and operated for profit, and labor organizations to a candidate for election to, or for nomination for election to, public office in the State, and the power to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations, entities organized and operated for profit, and labor organizations made in support of, or opposition to, such candidates.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this Amendment shall be construed to allow Congress or a State to make any law abridging the freedom of the press.

House Joint Resolutions and others after the fold…

Continue reading

January 21, 2012 Posted by | 112th Congress, Campaign Finance, Citizens United vs FEC, Constitution | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Richard Cordray’s Recess Appointment Gives Consumer Agency Full Power


In principle, I think that recess appointmen­ts are obsolete in these days of modern transporta­tion, communicat­ions, and longer sessions of Congress. But that depends on a properly functionin­g Senate. Obstructio­nist republican­s have thrown that out the window.

The reason for a recess appointmen­t is to fill major empty positions in the administra­tion (on a temporary basis) when the Senate is not available to confirm an appointmen­t and convening them for confirmati­on would leave the position open too long.

In this case, it is the intention of the republican­s to leave the position unfilled. This is a direct rejection of their oath of office to support and defend the Constituti­on, particular­ly the President’­s Constituti­onal obligation to administer the law. This has created a Constituti­onal Crisis.

By blocking the nomination for reasons unrelated to the qualificat­ions of the nominee, they have perverted the “advise and consent” authority of the Constituti­on, and created the very emergency situation that the recess appointmen­t exists to resolve.

Some claim that the language of the law prohibits recess appointments for the position of Director. The authority of the recess appointment is part of the Constitution, and cannot be revoked without a Constitutional Amendment.

Pro forma sessions are not addressed in the Constitution. There is precedent for using them to block a specific appointment, but that precedent includes objections based on controversy over the qualifications of a specific nominee – not the position or the law. This obstruction is without precedent, and an unprecedented response may be necessary to maintain a Constitutional government.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

January 5, 2012 Posted by | Administration, Constitution, Direction, GOP, Governance, Government | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Russell Pearce, Recalled Arizona Senate President, Could Get State Reimbursement For Campaign


Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, standing i...At least one Arizona state senator thinks that an obscure provision in the state constitution could entitle recalled state Senate President (R) to money from the state.

State Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise) said that his reading of Article 8, Part 1, Section 6 of the state constitution would allow Pearce to ask the state to reimburse the cost of his unsuccessful campaign to fight being recalled from office this week.

According to records on the Arizona secretary of state’s office website, Pearce raised $230,282 for the recall campaign and spent $159,587. Pearce, the architect of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, lost the recall election in his Maricopa County district to fellow Republican Jerry Lewis.

This raises an interestin­g question of constituti­onal law.

Article VIII

Section 6. The general election laws shall apply to recall elections in so far as applicable­. Laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the provisions of this article shall be enacted, including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer.

But looking further (figurativ­ely) – Article VIII again: Continue reading

November 11, 2011 Posted by | Campaign Finance, Constitution | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

112th Congress HJRes78 – A Citizens United Amendment


Ii I analyze any more Democrat Bills, I will have to come up with a new category for them.

The Joint Resolution:


[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.J. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 78

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the 
      expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations.
_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2011

  Ms. Edwards (for herself and Mr. Conyers) introduced the following 
 joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the 
      expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress 
and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and 
restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any 
corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, 
including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in 
opposition to, a candidate for public office.

    ``Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed 
to abridge the freedom of the press.''.

                                 <all>

Analysis

Section 1:

This is similar to my second proposed amendment in that it works to deny Constitutional protection to corporate political spending. This is probably the least disruptive method from a legal standpoint, but it retains the “regulating the hand that feeds” conflict of interest problem.

It does not include organized religion, which should not be engaging in political campaigns but do anyway.

To be fair, it does not include unions either. On the other hand, unions are associations of actual people, not “artificial persons”. They do not pose the same threat to our sovereignty as corporations. Perhaps someday an adjustment will need to be made, but that becomes a slippery slope problem.

Section 2:

The freedom of the press must be maintained, though the corporate media undermines the Fourth Estate through the corrupt use of ownership powers.

Constitutional Authority Statement:

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 134 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6097-H6098]

From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 By Ms. EDWARDS:
 H.J. Res. 78.

[[Page H6098]]

 Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
 to the following:
 Article V of the Constitution.

Article V:

    • The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
    • or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
  • which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
    • ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
    • or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,

    as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

  • Provided
    • that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
    • and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Related Bills:


Conclusion

This is a simple and straightforward answer to Citizens United. Without a mandate, I think that there would be many partisan battles over regulation. Especially when one party confuses corporations with living people.

I also think it needs an enacting clause. Other than that, I like it.

November 8, 2011 Posted by | Campaign Finance, Citizens United vs FEC, Constitution, Legislation | , , , , | 1 Comment

112th Congress SJRes29 – A Citizens United Amendment


I usually reserve my analysis for the republican clunkers. This is the second time I have analyzed a Democrat Bill.

The Joint Resolution:


[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[S.J. Res. 29 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 29

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.
_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 1, 2011

   Mr. Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Begich, and Mrs. 
  Shaheen) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and 
spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal 
elections, including through setting limits on--
            ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
        nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; 
        and
            ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 
        support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

    ``Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and 
spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State 
elections, including through setting limits on--
            ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
        nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; 
        and
            ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 
        support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.

                                 <all>

Analysis

Section 1:

I see three problems with this section:

  1. It does not cover issues. While issues are not directly on the ballot, they are still an integral part of a political campaign.
  2. It does not cover Constitutional Amendments.
  3. The politicians setting the regulations, without direction or mandate, are the ones who benefit from the current state of campaign financing. This leaves plenty of room for continued influence peddling.

Section 2:

There are similar problems with this section:

  1. It does not cover issues.
  2. It does not cover Constitutional Amendments.
  3. It does not cover referenda.
  4. It does not cover local elections.
  5. It does not cover other Questions put to the voters, such as millage.
  6. It does not cover cross-state interference in local politics. The sovereignty of the individual states is being challenged by out-of-state money.

Constitutional Authority Statement:

None given (yet), but Article V of the Constitution covers it.

Article V:

    • The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
    • or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
  • which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
    • ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
    • or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,

    as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

  • Provided
    • that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
    • and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Related Bills:


Conclusion

I do not believe that this proposed amendment goes far enough to protect our democratic process from the influence of non-citizens or the excessive influence of the very rich.

November 6, 2011 Posted by | Citizens United vs FEC, Constitution, Legislation | , , , | 1 Comment

Lori Klein, Arizona State Senator, Pointed Loaded Gun At Reporter Richard Ruelas’s Chest


Senator Lori Klein holding her .380 Ruger handgun in the Senate members lounge.

Mark Henle/The Arizona Republic - click to read

Oh, look at my cute pink girlie-gun with the laser sights and no safety…w­ha…[bang­]..[thud!] That’s not my fault! I’ve been kinda sorta trained in gun safety, and I didn’t mean to shine the laser in his eye! I couldn’t help it if he flinched and set off the gun! That was his choice. I didn’t force it on him. I have a right to carry a loaded gun, and I’m not forcing that choice on anyone! There are even places where *blind* people can carry guns.

Well, Ms. Klein, a gun is a weapon, not a fashion statement. A gun is made to kill living things. By treating it like an accessory or a conversati­on piece, you make a mockery of the right to bear arms.

You also demonstrat­e how people should have a good reason to be carrying a gun, more than simply to make a political statement or out of paranoia. You have demonstrat­ed a complacent or careless attitude toward guns that will become more common as more people carry for impulsive or frivolous reason. This makes tragedy inevitable­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

July 11, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, Second Amendment | , , , | 1 Comment

Michele Bachmann Talks Evolution, Intelligent Design At Republican Leadership Conference 2011


“I support intelligen­t design,” Bachmann told reporters in New Orleans following her speech to the Republican Leadership Conference­. “What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”

I wonder if her class on the Constituti­on made it as far as the First Amendment. She simply does not believe in Separation of Church and State. This tells us, in turn, that she does not comprehend the reason for Separation – or, for that matter, the demands and limitations of democracy.

As far as scientific issues go, she’s wrong on that point too. A federal court ruled that intelligen­t design is NOT science, but religion presented as science. I guess that law degree from a faith-base­d “universit­y” isn’t really working for her. One would think that her time at William & Mary School of Law would have straightened her out on the law.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

June 18, 2011 Posted by | Candidates, Constitution, First Amendment | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kansas law allowing blind to carry concealed guns intact


The Great Seal of the State of Kansas

Image via Wikipedia

Kansas has joined the ranks of crazyville.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has expressed concerns about changes to the concealed-carry law that prevents the state from denying gun permits to the blind and other people with serious physical disabilities.

The Legislature also has removed all requirements that people who wanted to renew their license must pass a close range accuracy test.

Kansas law allowing blind to carry concealed guns intact

I’ll start with the stupidity of letting blind people carry guns, let alone carry them concealed. These are people who, by definition, have virtually no ability to aim a gun, let alone verify a target or make sure the line of fire is clear of innocent people.

There are only two reasons to let a blind person carry a weapon:

  1. They intend for someone who cannot legally buy a gun to use it.
  2. Lawmakers care more about ideology than public safety.

Next up, people with serious physical disabilities.

  1. Putting a gun in the hands of someone who cannot physically control it is inherently dangerous, and a potential threat to the public.
  2. They intend for someone who cannot legally buy a gun to use it.
  3. Lawmakers care more about ideology than public safety.

Finally, people who have not proven their ability to hit what they aim at, even at close range.

  1. Putting a gun in the hands of someone who might shoot it wildly is inherently dangerous, and a potential threat to the public.
  2. They intend for someone who cannot legally buy a gun to use it.
  3. Lawmakers care more about ideology than public safety.

These changes to the law promote a 2nd amendment ideology while turning it’s back on the general welfare of the citizens. It is crazy bad government.

[UPDATE October 14, 2011]

I was double-checking some information before writing a comment, and discovered that the Kansas City Star has scrubbed the article this post is based on. Other articles on this subject seem to be based on a single AP article. This raises a flag for me.Further research is in order.

Dereck Schmidt is a gun rights enthusiast, which lends credence to his concerns about the law.

Personal and Family Protection Act Statutes(K.S.A. 75-7c01 et seq.) – Updated 01/14/2011

Summary of the 2010 Changes to the Concealed Carry Law after passage of SB 306

Self-Defense Statutes – Updated 2011

Kansas sends SB 306 to Govenor

Still needs more, as time allows.

June 13, 2011 Posted by | Second Amendment | , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: