There are so many things being debated politically today but what is really shocking to me is that most of the discussions are actually irrelevant. Think for a minute about what we hear being argued:
Minimum wage
Education
Government keeping us safe
The value of Federal Reserve Notes
Price of oil
Rich are too rich
Global warming
Soda is bad for us
(many other things you can think about)
Let's ask ourselves two questions,
1- "Is our federal government involved in any of these situations?"
2- "If 'yes', are they legally authorized to be involved?"
#1 is a big YES. The federal government is involved in all of the above, except maybe "soda is bad for us." That may only be in some states.
#2 is an even bigger and louder NO!! The federal government is authorized to do only a few things that are specifically prescribed by law. This is laid out in plain English in just a few pages of text in our U.S. Constitution. The government is not authorized to be involved in any of the topics listed above. As a matter of fact, some of those issues are specifically listed with prohibitions against government involvement. The law can be changed of course, and there are specific ways that we can do that. However, none of the things listed above have been added to the list of things the government is authorized to be involved in... so how can that be? Well, think about that and do some research for awhile if you want the truth, and a pounding headache.
So the next time someone wants to argue with you about the minimum wage (or whatever else), you can just say "I have no opinion on the issue. Until the federal government is legally authorized to be involved with people's wages, the topic itself is irrelevant." Talk about getting some strange looks...
Anybody else kind of sick and tired of voting? I know we all get tired of those campaign ads. I'd like to just send out a little snippet of encouragement today.
I consider myself politically unaffiliated and if you're like me at all, you may have found yourself voting for people based on their policies and previous actions instead of their political affiliations. A candidate's party means little to me except that it can sometimes be an indicator of what that person uses as a guideline for their policy ideas. Other than that, it is virtually meaningless and that isn't even always accurate.
I often get criticized for voting for people who "can't win" like so-called third party candidates or unaffiliated candidates.
"You're throwing your vote away!" they will say.
"You're helping the worst people when you do that!" some shout.
"That is unpatriotic!" others will complain.
Well, don't be discouraged by this. The statements above are things that have actually been said to me and I will share with you some of my responses:
"It is my duty as an American to vote for someone I believe in."
"I don't see how voting FOR someone helps anyone else."
"Voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is unpatriotic."
"If there are no candidates worth voting for-don't vote, or better yet write in someone you DO believe in."
"When I go to sleep tonight, I can rest easy knowing I have voted for our Liberty."
So get out there and vote! Know who you're voting for and why. Be confident in your decision and if you're not, you shouldn't vote. When you show up to vote, smile, say a prayer, take a deep breath, and cast your vote. Oh and one more thing, bring your own barf bag just in case.
Someone told me that traffic tickets violated the U.S. Constitution. My first thought was, "What?! How can that be? I doubt it." But if you know me at all or have followed my posts for a while, you know that we can't just take someone's word for it anymore no matter who that someone is (friend, newscast, government, etc...).
I was told that a traffic ticket falls under the definition of a BILL OF ATTAINDER or BILL OF PAINS & PENALTIES, and that it is expressly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution. Naturally I wondered, "What is a BILL OF ATTAINDER?" and, "Does our Constitution really forbid it?"
WHAT IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER? (according to Black's Law Dictionary)
[A legislative act, directed against a designated person, pronouncing him guilty of an alleged crime, (usually treason,) without trial of conviction according to the recognized rules of procedure, and passing sentence of death and attainder upon him. "Bills of attainder," as they are technically called, are such special acts of legislature as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offenses, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a "BILL OF PAINS and PENALTIES," but both are included in the prohibition in the Federal Constitution.]
U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1
"No State shall... pass any Bill of Attainder..."
Although a traffic ticket can be challenged in court I guess, it seems to me that the mere issuance of such a penalty is prohibited. Not to mention the costs charged to the accused and to the court (which is charged to the accused and others by way of taxation) for the proceedings.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
