ss_blog_claim=beb8d77763a778df008fbeb5e1dae37f

Left And Right Politics

…plus the cream in the center.

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

Posted by Billy On September - 7 - 2011

For some time now, the idea of having welfare recipients drug tested for them to receive benefits has been appealing to many, but for those on the left as well as those who are on welfare, it’s a different story. No matter which side of the issue you are on, this topic brings a lot of discussion and emotion to the conversation.

The state of Florida has recently passed a law that states that any new welfare claim that is submitted, the person must have a drug test done before receiving any benefits. the claimant is responsible for paying for the test, but if the test is negative, the person will be reimbursed for the cost of the test. If they fail, they will not be paid back for the test as well as they will not be eligible for welfare for one year. This issue has become an ever growing concern for people on both sides of it.

The left (Democrats) feel that it’s an unconstitutional decision to invade someone’s privacy. They use the 4th Amendment as they reason to not allowing these test to be legal. The right (Republicans) think that if you’re going to get assistance from the government, you should be expected to abide by the same standards as those who have to take a test to get a job. They say that since employees who work to pay taxes to help fund entitlement program have to take the same test to work, the people on welfare should do the same. The reason behind their thinking is that there is so much corruption within the welfare system (along with multi-generation families) that this is one way to weed out the wrong-doers.

Those people who say that the drug testing is wrong is because if infringes on their Constitutional right as laid out in the 4th amendment The fourth amendment protects the American citizen from unwarranted and illegal search and seizures. In 2003, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Michigan’s drug testing of welfare applicants as a Fourth Amendment violation.
As for the other side of the issue, the 4th amendment pertains to privacy and they feel that if these people are looking for public assistance, then the issue of privacy doesn’t play a role in the debate.

While I agree to the drug testing, some say that I’m wrong. All I can say to that is that I must trust the judicial system to make the right decision on the matter. Unfortunately I don’t trust those who are serving on the circuit courts as well as the Supreme Court. Again this issue is for each state to make their own decisions as to if they want to legalize medical marijuana.

Tags: , , , ,

The 14th Amendment

Posted by Billy On July - 29 - 2011

As the debt ceiling talks continue to deteriorate into nothing more than school yard standoff, Many democrats are pushing for President Obama to bypass Congress and cite a small provision in the 14th Amendment. The section the Democrats are referring is in Section 4.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Of course they only recite the first sentence of the section. As the text is written, yes, the United States does have an obligation to pay all debts. As any responsible adult should, so should the country/government . The problem I have with the Democrats and the Obama Administration is that they easily omit the most important part of the 14 amendment (in my opinion), Section 5 which reads…

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I can see why the president and the Democrats in Congress would want to ignore (or fail to mention) section 5. Because as it reads, the legislation branch holds the power of the 14th amendment, which is Congress, not the president. If Obama does overstep his boundaries of the executive branch of the federal government to raise the debt ceiling without the appropriate bil from Congress, it will be an impeachable political move. Obama has said (as well as the media), that he is a Constitutional scholar and understands the Constitution better than anyone. If that’s the case then he also knows the truth about this section and will not enact it. Obama and his aides know that he lacks the Constitutional power to do so, but that doesn’t mean the the Democrats and others alike aren’t pushing for him to change his mind.

So since we’re looking at the 14th Amendment, let’s look at Section 3 for just a moment…

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

As the text reads, neither the president, vice-president or any member of Congress shall engage in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution or given aide or comfort to an enemy of the document. So I guess our executive and most of the legislative are already in violation of this amendment. The Health Care bill, Cap and Trade are just two of the most recent violations against the Constitution, I won’t even try to go back as far as 30 years where there were so many other violations we can consider.

Tags: , , ,

The Right To Carry

Posted by Billy On June - 29 - 2011

A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
II Amendment

Our founding fathers put this in the original amendments of the Constitution for a reason. They knew for a new country to protect themselves from enemies domestic and foreign, the citizens needed to be able to defend themselves.

In the last few years there has been an ever growing desire for the American people to apply for a Concealed Carry Permit (CCP) or Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP). The reasons vary from person to person. Whatever the reason, as American citizens we have the right to be allowed to do so if we want. There are many that feel firearms promote criminal activities, but that is their opinion and they have the right to voice it. That doesn’t give them the right to tell others what they should be allowed to do. My overall Libertarian view to everything is…”Do what you want as long as it causes no harm to anyone or anything”. That also includes telling people how to live their lives.

The concept behind having the right to carry a firearm is for self-defense, to protect one self from any serious harm to come to them or their family. Over the last few years there have been more people getting their CCP/CWP and during those years there has not been an increase in criminal activities in those areas. Why is that? Because criminals don’t defend, they attack innocent people who won’t be able to defend themselves against criminals.

Of course the media and the government will have you believe otherwise. In Chicago, a city where owning a firearm, being a pistol or rifle, is illegal. If that’s the case then why is it that the crime rate hasn’t dropped one percentage point since the law’s inception? Because if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Yes I know it’s an old cliche, but it’s dead-on right. Take a good look at the cities that have firearm bans and you will see that they are also the areas with the highest crime rate. Criminals will increase their activities if they know that the people can’t defend themselves. In Kennesaw Georgia, a law was passed in 1982 that required home owners to own at least one firearm with ammunition for home protection. Many thought it was going to become the wild west, but on the contrary the crime rate went down by 89% and has stayed at that level for years after and to this day.

We have the right to protect our self from becoming a victim. Firearms are bought for protection and security, just like we do with car insurance, owning a fire extinguisher, wearing our seat belts and using a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

Tags: , , , ,

Alex Snitker Makes Florida History In Senate Bid

Posted by Joanne On April - 23 - 2010

The race for the Florida U.S. Senate seat just became even more interesting as Alex Snitker becomes the first Libertarian to qualify for the ballot in the state’s history.

TALLAHASSEE – Standing on the steps of the historic State Capitol building, Alexander Snitker made some history of his own by becoming the first Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate to ever appear on the Florida ballot. Snitker announced that he had met all the requirements to qualify for the ballot, which included paying the $10,440 filing fee.

“This race just became at least a three-way dogfight,” Snitker told the assembled media at a press conference in Tallahassee on Wednesday.

Prior to the announcement, the race for Florida’s U.S. Senate seat was considered a two-way contest between the Democrat and Republican nominees, with Kendrick Meek and Marco Rubio being the front runners from each respective party.

Rumors continue to grow that Gov. Charlie Crist will drop out of the GOP primary to run as an independent, which would result in a four-way contest between the two major parties, a Libertarian, and an independent.

Snitker is running on a platform centered on a Constitutionally-limited federal government. While Snitker and Rubio agree that the government is too large and spends too much money, they differ on how to solve the problem. Snitker proposes a balanced budget Amendment, abolishing the IRS in favor of the Fair Tax, an audit of the Federal Reserve, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

However, on moral issues, Snitker sometimes sounds more like a Democrat. When asked his position on gay marriage, he queried, “Why should the federal government be involved in marriage at all? Isn’t marriage between two individuals? I haven’t found anything in the Constitution that governs individual relationships, so it is a power reserved to the states or to the people.”

The 34-year-old former Marine and office equipment salesman for AXSA Document Solutions considers himself to be a “citizen statesman” in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. “The framers of the Constitution never envisioned that someone would want to make a 40-year career out of serving in Congress,” he said. “They looked at it as a civic duty — you made the laws and then you went home to live by the laws that you made.”

To achieve that goal, Snitker proposes a two-term limit in the Senate, and a six-term limit in the House, both equaling 12 years maximum. He also supports ending Congressional pensions and perks.

After the announcement, opinion in the blogosphere seemed to be split right down the middle. Many tea partiers and conservative bloggers viewed him as a better alternative to Rubio; a regular guy as opposed to a career politician and lawyer. Most said they liked his strict Constitutional interpretation of the issues. However, others angrily warned that he would split the conservative vote, with a few even speculating that he was part of a progressive conspiracy.

Snitker addressed the split-the-vote issue by saying, “The two-party political class has gotten us to where we are today. If my opponents are concerned about splitting the vote, I suggest they do what is best for the country and drop out of the race.”

While most pundits give him only the slimmest chance of victory in November, Snitker says don’t count him out just yet. “I’m in this to win.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ads