Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

… Why China is a Problem [#legitimacy]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,January 18th,2017

.. it is still that simple — China is a totalitarian nation , one that is run by the Communist Party . It is a central fact that cannot be ignored ..

.. anyone who does business of any kind in the P.R.C. has to understand that . There is no effective ” rule of law ” in China . To protect one ‘ s rights , one has to negotiate contracts very , very carefully . To wit , you have to make sure that your rights are protected by a third party [arbitration] , or by the courts of athird party nation , such as the U.S. , Britain , OR Australia , for example ..

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. so , what do you do ? Move very carefully is one way to handle it . Another is to not do business in the P.R.C. at all . The latter is the course that I would choose ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… I have Heard of Stupid [#DemoCrap Misconduct]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,October 7th,2016

.. but this is beyond outrageous …

.. congressional oversight is an important part of Congress ‘ job . Besides the making of law and the changing of law , understanding and investigating what is going on in the government at large is damned important . However , Congress is only one part of a 3 – part system of government …

.. Congress relies on the separation of powers . Congress can issue a subpoena , but it relies on the other two branches to enforce a subpoena . The judicial branch will clearly enforce one , but what about when the executive branch is clearly failing to do its job ….

….Right now , I believe the Executive branch is failing in its duty . They should be acting to enforce a Congressional subpoena . However , right now , they are not doing so . They are actively working to obstruct the work of Congress by failing to do so . Worse is the conduct detailed here …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the news article …

… from Investor ‘ s Business Daily [ and Legal]…

DOJ Working With Elijah Cummings To Protect The IRS

An aide to the attorney general accidentally calls the office of the House Oversight Committee chairman, asking for help in spinning the defense of the agency whose head just said they obey the law when they can.

We have commented many times of the all-too-cozy relationship between the IRS and Democratic members of the House and Senate, with members writing to the agency demanding that specific conservative groups and political action committees they find particularly irritating be subject to the “special scrutiny” that the Tea Party and other conservative and religious groups were subjected to in the ongoing scandal.

Of particular interest to us has been Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., ranking member on Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, who has made every effort to keep the committee from finding out the true extent of IRS corruption and abuse of power in its targeting of conservatives…

Now we have Brian Fallon, a former aide to New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and a communications aide to Attorney General Eric Holder, who mistakenly called Issa’s office thinking it was the office of Cummings and asked for help in leaking documents to selected reporters for the purpose of creating media spin before Issa and his committee could make them public.

As Jonathan Strong reports at Breitbart News, now the subject of an IRS audit, a letter sent by Issa to Holder about the call “describes Fallon as ‘audibly shaken’ when he realizes his request to leak documents to help get ahead of news stories about them was mistakenly made to the very office he was seeking to undermine.”

.. The Executive is actually acting in concert with the House minority to obstruct the investigative acts of the House majority . They are leaking news stories through to the House DemoCraps , who then leak them to so – called ” friendly ” members of the LameStream media . They do it to try to get ahead of a news story in order to manage a news cycle …

.. it is , to say the least , not what they should be doing . They should be co – operating with the House and the Senate , fairly and equally , no matter who runs the place . Conspiring with one side against the other helps to damage our system of government and helps to endanger our rights …

Posted in legal opinion, personal opinion, rule of law, stupidity (legal) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the Reason Why One Amendment is There [#Bill of Rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,September 6th,2016

.. it is there to protect all of the others …

branco cartoon (2nd Amendment rights)

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog cartoon …

.. May God Bless America !! … and the 2nd Amendment ! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… There can be No Sanctions Deal with Iran [#nuclear deal]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,June 20th,2016

.. there can be no deal of any kind . none …

.. the sanctions that were imposed upon Iran were enacted into law by Congress . A POTUS cannot unilaterally abate or reduce them …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the news report …

.. Congress must act to reduce or eliminate the sanctions . His Lordship cannot unilaterally act on his own , and he knows it …. there is easily political support in the House of Representatives to reimpose or increase sanctions . Virtually all of the GOP caucus would vote in favour , and a significant chunk of the DemoCrap caucus would vote with them . I believe that it would easily attrack 320 to 330 votes , maybe more , which would easily override any Presidential veto …

.. the next question is the Senate . The GOP caucus [45 members] would be virtually unanimous in favour of sanctions . How would the Dems react , that would be the question ? At least half , likely more would vote in favour of the initial legislation . The big question is the veto override …

.. there would be enormous pressure to vote with POTUS to sustain a veto . In this case , I would think that it would not work . The Dems are likely to lose the Senate . They will not get the votes of the losers , and it will limit the impact of Dingy Harry ‘ s influence on the legislation . If the support gets to at least 75 votes [or more] , then sustaining a veto is a joke . it will not be worthwhile …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Is This School District Nuts [#religious freedom]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,March 21st,2016

.. this school district [Pine Creek High School] in Colorado has a period during the middle of the school day that allows , in essence , for the equivalent of ” recess . ”

.. So , these students organized a prayer group to pray during this time . They prayed , sang religious songs , and discussed issues from a Christian perspective . So , one would figure , who would have a problem with that ?? …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. other than radicals like the Freedom from Religion Foundation , the School District [the one that runs Pine Creek High] itself did . They complained that there is a so – called constitutional ” separation of church and state , ” and that they could not allow any religious – themed activities during the school day …

.. Right ?? Wrong !! . That time is recess time . The students are free to do whatever they want with their time during this period of the school day . They can do so as long as it does not disrupt the operations or other activities of the school …

.. so , what else happened ? The student group sued . They engaged the Alliance Defending Freedom foundation to handle the legal action . No resolution as of yet …

.. I wish these young people good luck . They deserve to win their case , and to receive damages and an injuction against the school district . That way , any other district so situated will not be tempted to repeat something like this using the ” separation of church and state ” excuse …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The Iran Nuclear Sanctions are an Act of Congress [#a law]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,March 15th,2016

.. so , His Lordship has only limited to no authority to waive them …

.. many areas of foreign policy are the exclusive province of the POTUS . Congress does have some role , but it is circumscribed pretty heavily by the Constitution ..

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the news article …

.. in this case , Congress has acted . It has enacted economic sanctions against Iran into law . There is normally a little bit of wiggle room for POTUS to waive those sanctions . That power is usually written into the law . Otherwise , no , it cannot be done …

.. So , if POTUS wants to reduce or eliminate the Iran sanctions , forget it . There is no moral or political support in Congress for the move . He might get some maneuvering room , but not much else other than that …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… About Time [#a partial solution on guns]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,November 6th,2015

.. at least it is a partial solution .

.. unfortunately , it will take political and legal will to take the case to SCOTUS to bring this silly fight to a conclusion ..

.. the District of Columbia is on notice . They have to allow private citizens to own guns . Not only that , but they have to allow private citizens to ” bear , ” or possess guns on the streets . The courts have made it clear …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. the 2nd Amendment is an individual right . it is a part and was included as a part of the Bill of Rights for a very good reason . Jurisdictions nationwide cannot prohibit people from ” owning ” and ” bearing ” guns …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Earth to the DemoCraps [#precedent]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,August 21st,2015

.. are you really sure that you want this ?? …

.. you are playing with fire …

.. POTUS is playing a very dangerous game . If [when] the GOP takes His Lordship to court over his gross abuse of power [over immigration] , it is setting up something that nobody may want . You may not want to do what you are planning , because someone else can eventually use the same maneuver as a precedent for something else against you …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog news …

.. I repeat , do you really want this ?!?! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… How Idiotic — A businessman cannot sell his ” boutique ” beer at his own restaurant [#nuts#insane]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,June 6th,2014

.. this local North Carolina businessman has a real neat idea .

.. he invested in a ” boutique ” brewery , in addition to owning and operating several successful restaurants . He wants to sell his own brand of beer at his own restaurant . One big problem …

.. the regulatory system …

.. [h/t — HotAir]..
.. [link] to the blog news post …

.. he has to deal with the historical legacy of the post – Prohibition regulation system for alcohol . Regulation may well reside with the states , but not entirely . The whole system is subject to the Constitution , like the rest of us all …

.. what do I think ? I think that Marty Kotis , the restauranteur in question , should retain the services of a verygood lawyer . if he wants to , there are quite a few free market public interest law firms that would be willing to take on the case , pro bono . They would love to get their chops into a case such as this , in oder to blow apart the post – Prohibition system , and bring the free market to bear . It would also get the states out of the way …

.. great name for a boutique brewery , the Pig Pounder  … go for it and sue !

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The Rule of Law and Our Rights are in Danger …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,May 1st,2014

.. you may wonder why ? …

.. His Lordship and his free – lancing on his executive authority , that is why …

.. [h/t — RealClearPolitics]..
.. [link] to the comments ..

.. the idea is to enforce the body of law ” as a whole . ” You can make choices , and deal with prosecutorial discretion (where it comes to criminal law) .. but , to use the ability to make those choices to turn everything inside out and twist it like a pretzel ….

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The Power of the Purse [The House ‘ s Power on Spending Bills] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,October 4th,2013

LEC here — initially , I was skeptical of Andrew ‘ s arguments . I have been following the debate between him , Ed Whelan , and Matt Franck (the latter two in National Review ‘ s Bench – Memos) . Since I have read through this , plus the Constitutional debates , plus the Heritage Foundation position paper (always a dandy , but especially in this case) , I am now convinced of his

Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814), American statesman

Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814), American statesman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

argument .

.. I am a big Andrew McCarthy fan . I am very thankful for his service , especially for his work in the Department of Justice as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the initial World Trade Center Bombing trials .

.. You can also find Andrew at PJMedia . He writes a regular column there …

The Origins of the Origination ClauseThe House’s power of the purse includes spending bills.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
In a Bench Memos post, my friend Matt Franck objects to the contention in my column for last weekend that the Constitution’s Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7) gives the House of Representatives primacy over spending as well as taxing. Matt claims that my interpretation is bereft of historical support, a defect I’m said to camouflage by an extravagant reading of an “at best . . . ambiguous” passage in Madison’s Federalist No. 58.
It is Matt’s history, though, that is incomplete. As Mark Steyn observes, there is a rich Anglo-American tradition of vesting authority over not merely taxing but also spending in the legislative body closest to the people. This tradition, stretching back nearly to the Magna Carta, inspired the Origination Clause. It also informed Madison, whose ruminations, besides being far from ambiguous on the House’s power of the purse, are entitled to great weight — not only because he was among the Constitution’s chief architects but also because his explication of the Framers’ design helped induce skeptics of centralized government and its tyrannical proclivities to adopt the Constitution.

Plainly, Matt is correct that the Origination Clause refers to “bills for raising revenue.” From the time it was debated at the

James Madison

James Madison (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Philadelphia convention, however, the concept at issue clearly referred to more than tax bills. It was about reposing in the people, through their most immediately accountable representatives, the power of the purse. Indeed, the term persistently used throughout the Framers’ debates was “money bills” — the phrase used by Elbridge Gerry, perhaps the principal advocate of the Origination Clause, when (as the debate records recount) he “moved to restrain the Senatorial branch from originating money bills. The other branch [i.e., the House] was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”

Matt portrays my position as eccentric. Nevertheless, the belief that the Origination Clause conveys the House’s holding of the purse strings — i.e., that it refers to the output as well as the intake of government revenue — is hardly unique to me. The Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution, for example, notes that the clause was meant to be “consistent with the English requirement that money bills must commence in the House of Commons.” Traditionally, that requirement aggregated taxing with spending — the “power over the purse” — which the Framers sought to repose “with the legislative body closer to the people.”

Similarly, the Annenberg Institute for Civics, in its series on the Constitution, instructs students that the Clause means “the House of Representatives must begin the process when it comes to raising and spending money. It is the chamber where all taxing and spending bills start” (emphasis added). To be sure, the lesson goes on to state that “only the House may introduce a bill that involves taxes.” Yet this obviously would not suffice to explain the conclusion that the House must “begin the process” when “spending money” — as well as raising money — is involved. That conclusion, like Madison’s, draws on the fact that the Framers intended to mirror the venerable English tradition of vesting the all-important power of the purse in the people’s direct representatives.

Mark Steyn recounts the Westminster practice, since the mid-17th-century reign of Charles II, that the Commons would not permit the Lords to alter “money bills.” In tracing the practice back much further, I am indebted to Nicholas Schmitz, a Rhodes scholar and Marine veteran who has studied the ancient Anglo roots of the Origination Clause. From his work I’ve learned that it was already solidified custom by the reign of Richard II (1377–99) that “grants” were the province of Commons, albeit, back then, “with the assent of the Lords.”

“Grants” did not refer merely to the extraction of assets by taxation; the term is also concerned with the purpose to which these funds were to be put. England’s 1689 Bill of Rights thus specified that a “grant of Parliament” was a necessary precondition to “levying money for or to the use of the crown.” Such grants were, in essence, appropriations. As the process evolved, the House of Commons structured taxes strictly in accordance with the specific purposes cited by the crown. It was very much a two-sided ledger, with Commons jealously guarding its oversight of both money in and money out.

As a number of the Framers were admirers of Locke, it is also worth remembering Locke’s teaching that governments are formed to protect private property. The concept stems, in part, from the (by then) established understanding that the state could legitimately extract the citizen’s property only by the consent of the people’s representatives for a proper public purpose. That is the foundation of the Origination Clause.

Given these roots, it should come as no surprise that, at the time of the Founding, several of the state constitutions vested in their lower legislative houses the prerogative of, in the words of Georgia’s constitution, initiating “bills for raising revenue or appropriating moneys.” Indeed, in famously supporting colonial opposition to the Stamp Act in 1765, William Pitt observed, “The Commons of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional right of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it” (emphasis added).

Maryland’s lower house, to take one example, was responsible for initiating “money bills,” which were defined as “every bill, assessing, levying, or applying taxes or supplies, for the support of government, or the current expenses of the State, or appropriating money in the treasury” (emphasis added). In Massachusetts, the home of Elbridge Gerry, colonial practice was that taxes and “money bills” were the privilege of the House of Representatives, with the upper house empowered only to concur or not concur. The Commonwealth’s 1780 constitution, adumbrating the federal Constitution’s Origination Clause, mandated that “money bills shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.”

Let’s move directly to the 1787 convention in Philadelphia.

One of the major challenges confronting the delegates was to broker the competing claims of small and large states. As Franklin summarized, “If a proportional representation takes place, the small States contend that their liberties will be in danger. If an equality of votes is to be put in its place, the large States say their money will be in danger.” This resulted, of course, in the great compromise: equality among states in the Senate and proportional representation (by population) in the House. But this arrangement was inadequate to quell the large states’ fears; it was also necessary to tinker with the powers assigned to the two chambers.

As Franklin put it, the Senate would be restricted generally in all appropriations & dispositions of money to be drawn out of the General Treasury; and in all laws for supplying that Treasury, the Delegates of the several States shall have suffrage in aroportion to the Sums which their respective States do actually contribute to the Treasury [emphasis added].
When the Origination Clause was specifically taken up, a spirited debate ensued, with some delegates protesting against restrictions on the Senate. According to Madison’s records, however, what “generally prevailed” was the argument of George Mason:

The consideration which weighed with the Committee was that the 1st branch [i.e., the House of Representatives] would be the immediate representatives of the people, the 2nd [the Senate] would not. Should the latter have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the source from whence they received it [emphasis added]. We might soon have an Aristocracy.

Mason’s concerns seem prescient in our era of mammoth national government presided over by an entrenched ruling class of professional politicians. He worried that the Senate is not like the H. of Representatives chosen frequently and obliged to return frequently among the people. They are chosen by the Sts for 6 years, will probably settle themselves at the seat of Government, will pursue schemes for their aggrandizement. . . . If the Senate can originate, they will in the recess of the Legislative Sessions, hatch their mischievous projects, for their own purposes, and have their money bills ready cut & dried, (to use a common phrase) for the meeting of the H. of Representatives. . . . The purse strings should be in the hands of the Representatives of the people.
Yes, the purse strings, not just the power to tax. Concededly, the Origination Clause speaks of bills “for raising revenue.” In selling the Constitution to the nation, though, it was portrayed as securing in the hands of the people’s representatives the power of the purse. It is an empty power if spending is not included.

The relevant paragraph in Madison’s Federalist No. 58 is worth quoting in full (all italics mine):
A constitutional and infallible resource still remains with the larger states by which they will be able at all times to accomplish their just purposes. The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

To my mind, what Madison describes unquestionably transcends taxing authority. I believe a “complete and effectual weapon . . . for obtaining a redress of every grievance” must give “the immediate representatives of the people” the power to block funding for a government takeover of health care that was enacted by fraud and strong-arming; that was adamantly represented not to be the tax that the Supreme Court later found it to be; and that is substantially opposed by the people, and has been since its enactment.
Matt begs to differ, relying on the text of the Origination Clause, the reductive construction of “revenue” as mere “taxation,” and Joseph Story’s Commentaries. This is reasonable, and — as Matt has emphasized — it certainly reflects conventional Washington wisdom. But I do not think it gets to the power of the purse that the Framers — and Madison, quite explicitly — were driving at.
In fact, Story’s conclusion that the origination power “has been confined to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word,” and not to ordinary legislation “which may incidentally create revenue,” is an overly narrow interpretation of the clause’s meaning, arrived at by taking out of context a portion of the delegates’ debate that related to two tangential concerns about potential abuse of the origination power. Specifically, Madison worried that the Origination Clause could be read too broadly, thus hampering the Senate’s ability to originate any legislation — since most federal legislation would surely have some conceivable economic consequence. Relatedly, other delegates worried that the House could abuse its origination power by tacking non-revenue legislation onto money bills in order to frustrate the Senate’s ability to make amendments.
The Framers wanted to endow the House with the power of the purse, but did not want to open the door to such shenanigans. Thus the fleeting focus on “incidental” levies: The debates fleshed out the principle that the Origination Clause was intended to apply to bills the patent purpose of which involved public money. That hardly meant, as Story inferred, that the Clause would only ever apply to “bills to levy taxes in the strict sense.” It meant that, in the peculiar situation of ordinary legislation that only incidentally raised money, the Senate would not be impeded by the clause from either initiating or amending such a bill.
I would also note that constricting the House’s Origination Clause power to taxation would render it a nullity — which, admittedly, is how modern Washington treats it. If the Senate is freely permitted to originate appropriations that increase our already olympian debt through more borrowing, it is effectively originating taxation every bit as much as if it forthrightly branded as “taxation” the bills thus initiated.

Two final points. First, I have no illusions that, at this late hour, the Senate would passively accept the premise that the House holds the full power of the purse, or that somewhere down the road the courts would enforce this principle. But each component of our government has the power and, I’d submit, the duty to construe its own constitutional authority in good faith. I am saying that if Republicans truly want to make good on a pledge to reinvigorate originalism, the House should be guided by Madison in its dealings with the Senate. That would make for some contentious times (similar to what we are witnessing now), but so what? Our system is based on the expectation that officials will vigorously exercise their quite intentionally separate and competing powers. The resolution of the inevitable collisions should be more a political process guided by constitutional principles than a legal process determined by courts. The former is how compromise and consensus properly emerge.
Second, there is some very interesting Origination Clause litigation ongoing against Obamacare, and it involves a construction of the clause that both Matt and I would probably find legitimate. Representative Trent Franks (R., Ariz.) and other House conservatives claim that the so-called Affordable Care Act violates the clause because it was a tax-hiking bill (as the Supreme Court has held) that originated in the Senate.
There will be much more to say about this legal challenge. I believe it will be less abstract and less contentious than our debate over the theoretical extent to which the Origination Clause reposes in the House the power of the purse.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.

… this [link] is to the heritage foundation guide to the constitution . It regards the debate regarding the origination clause …

… this [link] is to the Annenberg Classroom resources on the Constitutional debates …

… LEC here again — It remains to be seen how this shutdown will play out . However , I think the GOP has a fighting shot at winning this . Dingy Harry Reid ‘ s penchant for shooting his mouth off  , and sticking his foot in it in one thing . The other thing is POTUS . He is behaving like a petulant child , and Dingy Harry is no better …

Posted in legal opinion, personal opinion, political opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Ah , D.O.D. , What you are Doing is Circumventing State Law …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,August 14th,2013

.. in the state in which a base is located .

.. In Ohio , where I am , a base of this size , where there is likely to be such a gay soldier / airman population is at Wright – Patterson Air Force Base . Wright – Pat (for short) is huge , with many thousands of officers and airmen and airwomen . It also has detachments from the other services . These folks , though , have a problem .

.. For them , they have wither to live on base , or within a reasonable distance of the base . That means about 30 to 40 miles . Down there (Wright – Pat is downstate , just northeast of the City of Dayton , actually in Fairborn) , that means those folks live entirely within the state of Ohio . Where , matter of fact , that so – called “Same Sex Marriage” is both illegal , as well as unconstitutional . Huge Oops !

.. Somehow , I do not think that even a significant chunk of the Senate (in Democratic hands , for now) , much less saying the House (which is GOP – controlled) are going to be too thrilled with such a stunt . Circumventing local laws , where marriage is governed , and allowed servicemen and servicewomen to abrogate those local laws is not going to go over very well .

.. You might think why I picked on Wright – Pat ? It is , by far , the largest military base in the state of Ohio . No other one is really in its size class . Also , one other factor . Guess in whose congressional district parts of the base are located ?

.. John Boehner . Yea , Speaker of the House John Boehner . Whoops .

Posted in legal opinion, moral opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Spot On , Dr. Krauthammer [on WalMart] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,July 11th,2013

walmart beijing

walmart beijing (Photo credit: galaygobi)

.. WalMart is working its fanny off to bring jobs to the inner cities . The best way for that is for them to bring regular WalMart stores , SuperCentres , and support centers to those area . The lower prices that these shops would bring would likely be a heaven – sent blessing to the local market . The jobs , it would be said , would be even better for the local economy .

.. WalMarts are not small stores . The average regular store is around 70k to 75k square ft in size . The supercentres are around 175k to 225k sq ft in size . And , their product offerings are second to none . You name , just about , they usually have it .

.. Yet , the company receives a great deal of resistance and flack from the business , from unions , and from politicians . The businesses fear the competition . The unions fear the loss of dues , and the jobs of their members . The politicians ‘ interests are usually tied in to those of the previous two .

.. In Washington , D.C. , Mayor Vincent Gray is trying to bring WalMart to the city . Nonetheless , the D.C. city council has other ideas in mind . Like enacting what is known as a “living wage” law for the city . For the whole city ? Nooooo ! Only for companies whose stores are 75k square feet , or larger . Guess who that means ?

.. Yep . WalMart . No one else generally has stores that big . If the D.C. City Council passed that law for the whole city , at least (if not suicidal) , it would be understandible . They did not . Mayor Gray will veto the bill , but the Council may well override him . Congress should step in .

.. Congress is given (in the Constitution) exclusive jurisdiction over legislation over the District . In this case , it should step in , and slap the D.C. Council down . That is , unless the Courts beat them to it . What the Council has passed , is , as Dr. Charles Krauthammer put on this night ‘ s edition of Special Report , a bill of attainder ..

.. Big Oops !

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Voter I.D. , once again …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,January 31st,2013

my take – the voter id issue needs to be addressed . the consistent horsing around on it is getting to be ridiculous .

We as voters deserve to have consistent voting laws . We also deserve to have voting laws that make sense , that act to preserve people ‘ s rights , and act to prevent fraud . politicians , and in this case , state legislators , will mess around , until pressure is brought to bear …

Also , on the conservative side , the potential of an initiative or referendum to implement a conservative – oriented voting bill , or even constitutional amendment , has to be brought to bear , in order to get the legislature ‘ s attention , in order that they will get off their butts , and pass something more to our liking …


Contrary to popular belief , voter fraud is real , and is a problem . a serious problem , no , not now . but it is a problem that needs to be addressed . and not in a politically correct fashion ! …

Ohio House may again debate divisive voter photo ID issue

Robert Higgs, The Plain Dealer [01312013]

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Legislation to require voters to show a photo ID at

polling places, a divisive issue leading up to the 2012 election in Ohio

and across the nation, appears ready to make a return appearance in the

Ohio House.


Rep. Mike Dovilla, chair of the House Policy and Legislative Oversight

Committee, says there is interest among House Republicans for such

legislation. He doubts he will sponsor it, but acknowledged it likely

would go through his committee.


“I suspect that there remains interest in a bill of that nature,”

Dovilla, a Berea Republican, said Wednesday. “We think there is broad

support in the public.”


Similar legislation moved through the House in 2011 . It required

voters show a photo identification at polling places to verify their identity. The acceptable forms of ID were driver’s licenses , state

issued ID cards, passports and military identification cards.


In Ohio, as in other states where the issue was debated, supporters

touted the laws to ensure voting integrity and thwart voter fraud.

Opponents made equally passionate cries of voter suppression.


Ultimately, the photo ID requirement was removed last year to avoid a state referendum.


Republicans hold strong majorities in both the Ohio House and Senate and

could push through legislation now. But if it is reintroduced, expect

hot debate.


“I think the broad approach toward election reform is that you want a

system where there’s the greatest possible integrity,” Dovilla said.

“There’s nary a thing in society that you can do where you don’t need to

show ID of some sort.”


Ensuring integrity of the ballot and creating a barrier to voter fraud

is important, he said. “The onus, I think, is on those who oppose this.”


Democrats are quick to counter. Requiring people to have an official ID

creates a burden that can keep some, particularly poorer voters, from

being able to vote, they say. They liken it to a tax on voting.


“We would have very serious concerns about such a proposal,” said Rep.

Kathleen Clyde a Kent Democrat and, a member of Policy and Legislative

Oversight Committee.


“An ID requirement is kind of a veiled way of having a poll tax, where

you’re requiring people to pay to have a photo ID,” Clyde said. Getting

a state-approved ID could be a financial and logistical problem for the

poor if they have to pay for documents needed to get an ID and have to

find transportation to proper offices.”


Dovilla suggested that the ID could be free for those found to be

indigent. “We want to make sure people have access to this.”


Clyde counters that people should not have to prove they are poor to be

able to vote. “Is that the process we want for our elections?”


Rep. Teresa Fedor, a Toledo Democrat, disputed the ballot integrity issue.


“There’s no outrageous amount of fraud,” she said. “It’s just a

ginned-up issue.


“You just get tired of beating back these non issues.”


Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted did not support the photo ID

requirement in the 2011 bill. His spokesman said Wednesday that Husted

would not comment on the issue now until specific legislation is



Dovilla expects that likely would be soon.


“Election bills tend to move in the first year of a two-year session

like this,” he said. “You don’t want to get into the guts of the

election cycle and then have people from either side saying you’re

trying to move the goalposts.”

Posted in moral opinion, political opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… It figures …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,January 31st,2013

… every time there is a serious incident with guns , elected officials come for our guns , and our 2nd amendment rights ….

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the ” Go Around ” …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,August 27th,2012

… about any President ‘ s desire to ” go around Congress ” …

… {from Article 2 , Section 1 , Clause 6} , … he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed …

laws — those passed by Congress , and signed by the President ; or those enacted over his Veto …

faithfully — in basic , from any dictionary , adhering firmly and devotely …

Posted in legal opinion, national security, personal opinion, political opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… there is an Added Problem with the Mandate ….

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 17th,2012

… it is something that i have never heard spoken about , or debated about , on radio , on TV , or in the blogosphere …

… the individual mandate is a ” bill of attainder . ”

… a what ? …

… for those who do not know our Constitution , it is a provision of our learned document (Article 1 , Section 9) . It is an act of a legislature , in this case , Congress , that is meant to punish a person , or , a group of person , without the judgement of a judicial proceeding …

{wikipedia} def of attainder –> meaning taintedness

… in simple , the Mandate , acting as a penalty , is , i believe , a Bill of Attainder , and should have been thrown out on the spot by the courts , definitely by the U. S. Supreme Court …


Posted in legal info, legal opinion, news, personal opinion, taxation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the Constitutional Court

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,July 16th,2012

… no , folks , not our U S Supreme Court …

… the German Constitutional Court .

… whatever may happen in Europe will likely start in Germany with their highest court . Why ? a number of their constitutional law professors have challenged the bailouts , as well as the mechanisms that the national governments have been using . and the demand keeps growing . and , they do need Germany , with its deep pockets …

… however , they may not have it . If their court says no , in full , or in part , Germany will effectively be out of the bailout business . I think that this court may well say no , at least in part …

… in Germany , especially , given its recent history (who can forget ,  and no one should) , they need to stick to their rule of law more than anyone , and avoid legal finesse …

… but , the consequences for Germany , Europe , the EU , and for everyone else may be telling ….

Posted in legal opinion, national security | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »