12 August 2010

Slice of Life: AHHHHHH Football!

Even if it's pa'tend football, I'll be watching my Ravens eat some kitty cats.  Go Purple and Black attack!  GO FLACCO!  I need some distraction for work and sucky news lately.  How about blogoland?  Watching any preseason games lately? 

1000 Round Challenge!

Caleb over at Gunnuts.net has a great challenge.  Shoot 1000 rounds in a month out of your favorite carry pistol or practical defense gun. 

An excellent idea!  So much so, I am going to attempt to make this happen in the month of September.  Who knows, maybe my shooting will improve if I do it (but I doubt my wallet's financial position will). 

Does the Rule of Law Over Rule The Mob?

Gay marriage is always a touchy subject.  The right generally wants nothing to do with it, mostly due to it's "morals" and "christian values."  The left seems to legitimize it, but only to the point where they can buy enough votes from the true advocates who are left holding the torch without much backing from the liberal, political leadership.  So it should come as no surprise that the tragic comedy continues in Commifornia where last week, Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker threw out the votes of some seven million in favor of Proposition 8. 

The controversial ballot initiative that would have banned same sex marriage in California through a constitutional amendment, is back in the news today.  Judge Walker has lifted a stay of his ruling which means starting next Wednesday and until 9th Circus intervenes, same sex couples are free to apply for a marriage license and join us heteros in wedded bliss.  Personally, I say good for them!  I'm sure that isn't exactly what you were looking to hear now was it dear reader?  

Let us face some facts.  First, who cares!  Conservatives claim to be for individuals and against government intrusion, yet they decry against a judge who actually ruled in favor of the individual.  Friends and family know how I feel on the subject, it's none of the government's business on who parterns and who weds.  No government agency should craft any policy for anything referencing marriage or wedding [emphasis added].  Marriage is strictly religious and should be left to various churches.  If you want to be married, go to a church, if you want a legally recognized, civil law unity, go to a court house.

In Judge Walker's opinion, he stated:
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.  Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”
Further in his opinion, the Judge said that "The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. "

Basically, the judge said that the rule of the mob, in this case 52% of voters, cannot deny rights to the other  48% who disagree with them.  The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, relying upon the rule of law to balance power between those who have it (same sex marriage opponents) and those who don't (supporters).  In this case, Judge Walker stepped in and showed that due process cannot deny rights to anyone based upon race, sex, creed, religion, or sexual orientation.  Further, the privileges and immunities of any individual cannot be abridged, arbitrarily, by any one state or another.  Now, I do want to throw in two caveats: 1) I am only an arm chair lawyer and 2) I think there are some serious Tenth Amendment issues that are not discussed in the ruling.  Since the US Constitution is really silent on the issue of marriage, does it give the FedGov any ability to regulate it?  If not, that means the FedGov should have no say, and it is to be left to the states and the people (X Amendment).  

Conservatives can't have their cake and eat it too.  Either you believe in individual liberty, even when you don't agree with the act (my personal view) or you are a hypocrite on this singular issue.  The religious right continuously condemns the government for "forcing" same sex marriage on us, when they could simply force the issue that the government has no reasonable right to regulate the act in the first place.  Judge Walker could have saved a lot of headaches had he just thrown out every single "marriage" law on the books, but then we would have surly seen appeals and reversals of such a radical ruling. 

That would have made for a real return to Constitutional governance. Striking all reference to "marriage" out of any state or federal code in his district would mean that laws would have to be rigorously adjusted.  Think what implications that could have had.  No more marriage penalty in the tax code.  No more class warfare between married parents and benefits for "single" parents.  None of that would exist, all because now, the state and federal governments would have to craft new laws that do not discriminate against the individual or the individual legal entity (what marriage really is).

I do admire the passion by the right to preserve the traditions and sanctimony of marriage, but there are bigger fish to fry than religious superiority.  Further, even as someone that does not agree with homosexual marriage on a religious level, God told us not to judge.  It happens to be one of those pesky ten commandments the religious right seem to conveniently forget about.  As far as those who put the initiutive on the California ballot, it's a political stunt!  Learn it, live it, love it!  Those officials seeking office are trolling for votes, and only the small religious right base care so deeply about this issue.    

Look, if someone wants to be gay, are you going to stop them?  Who cares if it's learned, hereditary, or taught, what snowflakes in hell difference does it make to the impact of your's and my daily life?  Simply because we happen to walk past someone who's better dressed with more cologne or happens to play sports better than us?  Stop being part of the mob.  Realize the Judge got this one right, even though on a tenth amendment issue he may be wrong.

As long as the world doesn't produce more Prez Hilton's who shit rainbows and flaunt their lunacy, what's wrong with MORE individual freedom?  Please, enlighten me, I'll be waiting to the twelfth of never. 

Electoral College Drop Outs

A news story that flew under the radar two weeks ago was that Massachusetts has now become the sixth state to enact legislation changing how their electoral college votes are cast for the election of the President.  Unlike most states that certify their electors based on popular vote within the state, the winner of the national popular vote will get all the votes from the Bay State. 

If this seems a little odd to you, it definitely did not pass my smell test.  Doing a little further research, it seems my home state has also passed similar legislation.  From a 2007 WaPo article, it would appear that Maryland's legislation does not take affect until a majority of states pass and enact similar laws.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, aforementioned Maryland, Washington and now Massachusetts are the states that have enacted this law.  These states total 61 votes of the electoral college, where there are a total of 538 possible votes.  Investigating further, I turned up a link from the CBS article to an organization that is pushing for legislation in every state in the union.  In addition to the six states with laws enacted we can follow this breakdown:

  • 4 States have passed legislation by both houses
  • 10 states have passed by one house
  • 9 states have passed 1 committee
  • 11 states have held hearings
  • and 11 other states have had bills introduced
  • 50 states and DC with bills

Continuing to dig around on this website (which I refuse to give publication for), yields a free book published by a who's who of those who have taught at Standford, run law firms, are for Obamacare, have run financial institutions, as well as others who are "independents" and malcontents that do not understand the inner workings of our Constitution.

They claim that "one man" should have "one vote," which is how the current electoral college system works.  If it isn't known to the American populace, our Republic's charter is meant to provide a balance of power.  It is meant to prevent any one group from wielding too much power against those who do not possess power.  In other words, the Constitution is meant to prevent tyranny and hence the reason why the founders conceived the electoral college system.  The electoral college system is also meant to preserve power across the several states, and ensure each state has an equal ear of the Presidential Candidates and the POTUS himself.  Our founders wanted to make sure that Presidential candidates didn't migrate to every major metropolis, ignoring the rural parts of the country in an effort to garnish the majority of the popular vote.

If every state were to have this popular vote legislation, all that would be nessecary to win is to campaign in every major city and win solid majorities from those cities.  I've seen this before where in theory, 49 states can elect one president, yet if one state has the right turnout in a popular vote situation, the one state can overrule 49 of their peers.  For instance, without the protections of the electoral college, every state in the nation can vote for candidate A who wins by 500 votes giving him a 24,500 vote lead going into the final state.  Let us assume the final state is California where candidate B wins in a state landslide by 24,501 votes.  In that instance, Candidate B would win the plurality of votes for the entire nation in the popular election by one.  Candidate B would have only won, one state's support.  Doesn't seem how our Federal Republic is supposed to be run, at least to this individual. 

Those in this group clam to be creating more "individual freedom" which usually would be an admirable campaign.  Don't be fooled, it is simply a ruse!  Presidential popular vote agendas are nothing more than an effort to undermine the Constitution and it's safeguards.  This group willingly wishes to destroy the inherent protections afford to the people that our founders created.  Instead of attempting to amend the Constitution where they know they would never succeed, this group instead attacks the states whom have sympathetic ears.  Obviously, this is one blogger that is onto their shenanigans and doesn't appreciate their plot to tear apart the parchment paper we hold so dear.