Statist Rags

By Tom Rhodes 10/11/2011

The St. Pete Times Tuesday October 11, 2011 editorial was based on a recent Philadelphia Inquirer editorial, even though the times treats it as a news article. The basis is: if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania won't issue a person a carry concealed weapons (CCW) permit then Florida shouldn't be allowed to issue such a permit to the same person. Florida issues concealed weapons permits to all applicants who hold a valid driver’s license in their state of residency, are mentally sound, have never been convicted of a felony, and have had firearms training. Philly won’t issue CCW’s to anybody they don’t like.

Because the government in Philadelphia either cannot or will not convict a person of some crimes, but that person is “known” to be a criminal, they think that is justifiable reason to restrict a person’s rights. The Times laments that the State of Florida may grant a CCW permit to a person whom the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has denied. They seem to think the Florida standard of guilty until PROVEN innocent is extreme. They want to Florida to accept Pennsylvania’s standard of guilt by association. The Times tries to make this out to be a State’s Rights argument. They blame the agreement Florida has with Pennsylvania honoring the CCW permits issued from each other.

It is not a State’s Rights issue; Pennsylvania is free to change its laws, and/or modify its agreement to only honor Florida CCW permits from Florida residents or not honor Florida CCW permits at all. The Times fails to even recognize that people are Innocent until Proven Guilty, and accepts the standards of guilt by association, and guilty until proven innocent. Not one time to they think about the rights of individuals, nor consider that a person should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Yes, by the standard of treating people innocent until PROVEN guilty, some guilty people will get through the cracks, but as a society we long ago determined that it is better for some guilty people to go free, than infringe upon the basic rights of all people.

So what is the point in noting that the Philadelphia Inquirer and St. Petersburg Times have a bias against citizens having guns? Both of these newspapers have proven and long standing “liberal” bias, and have consistently held anti-gun positions. The point is not to further expose known truths about them, but to note that they are in fact not liberal newspapers. A liberal, by definition, is someone who is favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. The articles from both papers lament the fact that Florida honors and protects civil rights over the interest of the State. They conclude that the State should have the authority to restrict an individual’s civil liberties without due process or having to actually prove a person is guilty of something. They want to allow the State to instill a penalty for merely being suspect of committing a crime. They in fact are not “liberal” newspapers but “statist” rags. They actively promote principles and policies of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. This is the very definition of Statism.

My open question to the Philadelphia Inquirer is why don’t you condemn the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for restricting fundamental rights of its citizens without due process?

My open question to the St. Petersburg Times is why do you consider Florida’s belief and protection of the concept that all individuals are “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” and as such should be treated as innocent unless actually convicted of a crime do you find radical or extreme?

High Speed Rail - Letter to Nelson & Rubio

CC:Gov. Rick Scott,
Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos
Florida Speaker Dean Cannon
Feb 18, 2011

Dear Senator Nelson:

I am an active member of the Libertarian Party and a voter in Florida. I applaud Gov Scott's decision to reject billions of federal dollars to build a high speed rail in Florida. The governor rightly cited the inevitable cost overruns and over-optimistic ridership projections as factors in his decision to protect Floridian's pocketbooks.

Of the $2.4 billion dollars allocated to Florida for this project, $1.6 billion is "Stimulus" monies. This is money that the United States does not have as our nation is currently running a deficit (spending more money than it takes in) while it carries a debt of over $14 trillion dollars. Each taxpayer's share of this debt is in excess of $127,000! To keep up this level of spending, the government has to either print more money which causes inflation, or borrow from foreign countries like China that come with large interest payments that add to the deficit and debt. Either way these options are unacceptable and very simply the spending has got to stop!

I am deeply concerned, however, that hours after Gov Scott informed Sec of Transportation Ray LaHood of his decision, that you Sen Nelson, called LaHood to tell him that you were consulting lawyers with a plan to circumvent the Governor's decision. This rogue action on your part and others is contrary to the constitutions of the United States and of the State of Florida. Supreme executive power of the State of Florida is vested in the Governor's office, not the Senator's. It is Governor Rick Scott who is the chief administrative officer of Florida, not Bill Nelson. It was Governor Scott who was elected on a platform of reform in November, not Sen Bill Nelson.

Florida citizens passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 to renounce the development of high speed rail by the state. President Obama has a vision for high speed rail in Florida which is in direct conflict with the will of Floridians. We do not want the president's vision of transportation imposed upon us. High speed rail is to transportation as Obamacare is to healthcare. I urge you to stop meddling in this matter, and instead focus on how you are going to stop spending and get our country back in fiscal order. I urge you to reach across the aisle and join the freshmen Senators elected with a mandate in 2010 to stop the wasteful spending and to stop the practice of legislation by regulation and adjudication.

Last November, the People spoke loud and clear that they are tired of the out of control spending. This project is full of pork and will not help create jobs. As a Libertarian Party member, I will remember who fought for the people in November 2012!

Karl Dickey
Director At Large
Libertarian Party of Florida

Response to "10th amendment victory!”

In response to my “10th amendment victory!” article I received the following letter. It was addressed to JJ McCurry, Chairman of the LPF. JJ did not write the short article, so it is not his opinion, but mine.. Below are both Zack’s letter and my response.

From: Zack ****** [mailto:********@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:24 AM
To: info@lpf.org
Subject: [From the LPF website] On DOMA and the 10th Amendment

Mr. McCurry,

As a young man becoming more involved in politics, my open and rational mind eventually led me to become very attracted with the Libertarian party's stances on many issues. As a Floridian, my desire to help like-minded state candidates led me to this website.

However, on the main page, you have an article entitled "10th amendment victory!" While I agree with the judges' ruling on the case that the issue should not be taken up by the federal government because of what the Constitution says, I do not think that even a state government should have the ability to dictate the definition of marriage through sheer, democratic fiat. My train of thought is in accordance with the Libertarian Party's platform, section 1.3.

In the article, you understand that we live in a republic and are subject to the rule of law, not mob rule (democracy) yet you assert that as a "Christian Libertarian, I firmly believe that marriage should be protected." How can you reconcile that statement with actual Libertarian social thought? You have every right to be a Christian and, for example, go to church, as a homosexual has the right to solidify a relationship through marriage. If the bill was to be introduced here in Florida, you are implying you would support it, and because there are many Christians here, the bill would likely pass, and the rights and liberties of homosexual couples in Florida would be entirely infringed by the majority.

Any clarification on this issue would be great.

Thank you,

Zack ******* from Jacksonville

Here is my response to Zack.

---

Hi Zack,

Thank you for your reply. JJ didn’t write “10th Amendment Victory!” article, I did, my name is Tom Rhodes and I am editor of the LPF newsletter, Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Citrus County, and editor of the lpcitrus.blogspot.com blog. Thank you for your response. I believe that your assertion that “a homosexual has the right to solidify a relationship through marriage” not logical if you believe that rights are unalienable, and not granted by government or society. Exactly where does this right come from? It is not based upon any traditional or natural right.

We live in a constitutional republic not a democracy; as such both the federal and state governments are limited by their constitutions. Please re-read the preamble to our constitution. You will note that the constitution is established to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” not just to secure those blessings for the current generation. Establishing in the first sentance of our constitution the protection of children. Both thousands of years of tradition and research have shown that the best environment to raise children and pass down family and societal values is through an intact family unit consisting of a married man and woman and their children. I agree with the national platform that “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government”. I also agree that the Federal government is limited and “does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.” Based on the writings of our founding fathers our rights are based on “natural” law, which are basically the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness (in some documents just termed property), is generally be considered a combination of life and liberty, meaning you have the right to the fruit of your labor (property), and the right to use and protect that property as you see fit so long as you don’t infringe upon the rights of another.

The special purpose of marriage for thousands of years has been to create a family to protect the upbringing of children, holding the woman and man who enter into this covenantal contract accountable to the family. A marriage is based on people agreeing to sacrifice their rights for the good of a family and progeny not to "solidify a loving relationship." Since you own your own body, and a spouse owns their own body, a marriage traditionally blurs this distinction to create a single entity, a family. Children are physically and emotionally part of that couples body, and traditionally treated somewhat like property until they reach the age where they can be considered an independent person, at such time their parents are no longer responsible for the actions of their child nor providing for the child’s welfare (this age has varied in societies over the ages but the principle has remained for thousands of years). As such parents are both responsible for the upbringing and at liberty to determine what values and property are passed on to their “posterity,” not the state. A states interest in marriage is both financial and moral; traditional marriage has proven to be the best way to secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, and traditional families have proven to be more financially stable and hence less burden on the state, and a better source of taxes.

I disagree with the portion of section 1.3 of the LP platform which states that “marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws” are rights.

Marriage is not a right, it is a covenantal contract sanctioned by both the church and the state for the expressed protection of passing down both property and values to future generations. This has proven over thousands of years to be what’s best for society. There are individual cases where this is not the case, but overall nothing has proven better. We do not have to accept the perversion of the meaning of marriage because a very small group of society wants to force its values upon the rest of society. Consenting adults should be free to engage in any behaviors they wish so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of another. This does not give them the right to force others to accept their behavior as normal, acceptable, desired, or moral. Nobody has the right to feel good about their behavior, nor to silence others who criticize their behavior, nor to restrict the rights of another for how they feel or what they say about a specific behavior. Hence Christians have no right to stop homosexuals from engaging in and enjoying whatever consensual acts they choose, and homosexuals have no right to silence Christians when they declare that homosexuality is an abomination, deviant, immoral and socially unacceptable. Marriage laws do not violate anybody’s rights; they do promote a behavior that has been considered desirable for thousands of years, through legal protection and tax incentives without punishing other behavior. But on U.S. constitutional grounds that authority is reserved to the states or the people, not the federal government.


Ask yourself, does the state or do parents own children? Is the state or are parents responsible for children? Marriage laws place a moral and legal obligation on parents to children. Child custody and adoption are an extension of property rights, and nobody has the right to any specific property that they don’t own, conditions of acquiring property are subject to the whims of the current owner. Both child custody and adoption are contractual agreements for one party to assume the responsibility and benefits of rearing a child as if they were that child’s natural parents. There is no natural, moral, or traditional right to have a child you didn’t create yourself. Therefore whomever has the custodial rights to a child can and should have the right to determine the contractual obligations and conditions of transferring that custodial right.

I agree that immigration should have no limits, but practicality it must remain limited and controlled so long as there is a welfare state, the libertarian idea of open borders is both foolish and unwise without first ending all state sponsored charity (this includes social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc.) Until state charity is ended, a secure border and limited immigration policy is a must or our country and liberties will be destroyed.

Military service is not a right, it is a contract; all those who choose to enter the military do so voluntarily, and as such agree to all the limitations and contractual obligations in exchange for the training and pay received. Since nobody is forced to join, free people are at liberty to join or not join and accept the terms of the contract. There is no right to be in the military and not meet your contractual obligations because you don’t like the terms of the contract. You are free not to join if you don’t like the terms, just as you are free not to accept a job that requires you to wear a chicken suit and pass out flyers if you don’t like those terms. Our military has proven that an all volunteer force is superior to any conscripted force; as such no leaders in our military want anything to do with the draft.

I believe the portion of LP Platform 1.3 which considers marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service as “rights” is mis-guided and not founded on either true libertarian principles nor natural law, nor the foundational documents and writings of this country, it is not logical for us to “create” these as rights any more than it is logical to “create” a right to a good job, or a right to health care. Unlike the Republican and Democrat parties the LP is clearly open to all liberty loving individuals; as such atheists, anarchists, and many extremists have found a home in the LP. They are all welcome, but so are Christians and traditional lovers of liberty. There are some in the LP who do not like nor accept Christians and their ideology, they fail to realize that it is Christianity and Christian ideology that are the basis for libertarian thought. Only ignorance of history, theology, and philosophy can lead a person to the idea that libertarian ideology is not based on solid Christian doctrine and principles. Please read http://tinyurl.com/25wmsoy.

Regards
Tom Rhodes

10th Amendment Victory!

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional, because the federal government was impermissibly intruding on family law, "a quintessential area of state concern." He wrote that the definition of marriage has long been viewed as a power "reserved to the states" by the 10th Amendment because it is "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States."

As a Christian Libertarian, I firmly believe that marriage should be protected, but either we live under the rule of law and the limits to federal powers as described in the Constitution of the United States are the law of the land, or we believe that the federal government has no limits and can do whatever it chooses. We live in a Federal Republic which has few and limited powers. As much as I agree with the ideas and principles of the DOMA, to be valid it must be a constitutional amendment. Judge Tauro was correct in ruling that congress does not have that authority.

Using the logic that we have equal protection under the law, again Tauro was correct in ruling the feds must accept each states definition of marriage, not some overarching federal standard. The DOMA act only protected those states that agreed with the federal government, therefore id did not offer equal protection for all States, much less for all people.

Hopefully we'll see more rulings invalidating the huge number of federal laws that are clearly not among the enumerated powers that we the people have granted to the federal government.

SCOTUS Rules Second Amendment is Fundamental Individual Right

Monday June 28, 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that Chicago’s blanket ban against owning handguns to be unconstitutional. Writing for the majority Justice Samuel Alito says, "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The case, McDonald v. Chicago, challenged a 7th Circuit court ruling that said the Second Amendment applies only to federal regulation of an individual's right to guns and not in cases of restrictions by states and municipalities. The SCOTUS overturned this ruling agreeing with the plaintiff’s argument that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and applies to both states and localities. This opinion confirms the historically liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruling that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" and regarded as the "true palladium of liberty," so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

The court’s 5-4 decision was split along its typical ideological lines: The conservative justices; John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, all voted to extend gun rights, the liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor voted to allow continued restriction on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

This decision is going to make people like Chicago Mayor Daly unhappy. He promised new laws and said, "As a city we must continue to stand up and fight . . . for a ban on assault weapons . . . as well as a crackdown on gun shops." I believe it will also profoundly consternate liberals in congress and the White House. The statists temporarily in charge, who think ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to make our own health care choices, or decide which schools their children attend, will be apoplectic that the SCOTUS has ruled that the people can make decisions about how to defend themselves.

Quotes from the majority opinion:

The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana , 391 U. S. 145 , and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S. 702 .

"It is clear that the Framers [of the Constitution]. . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,"

If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.

President Obama’s first appointment to the SCOTUS, Justice Sotomayor, proved herself to be contemptuous of the Senate and the people. She ruled exactly the opposite of the way she intimated she would rule during her confirmation hearings last year. When asked about gun control during those hearings she said, “One of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized. . . . I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.” Obviously she understands how important it is to many Americans, but does not believe that it should be it is a right fundamental right for all Americans regardless of how "important" it is to the people. Justice Sotomayor formally agreed with the minority opinion criticizing the ruling, including this statement by Justice Breyer, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ in so far as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Of interest is the pro-Tenth Amendment arguments presented by Justice Breyer in his dissenting opinion. Justice Breyer says "I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government." He also says, "Private gun regulation is the quintessential exercise of a State’s “police power”— i.e. , the power to “protec[t] … the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and the protection of all property within the State,” by enacting “all kinds of restraints and burdens” on both “persons and property.” Slaughter-House Cases , 16 Wall. 36, 62 (1873). The Court has long recognized that the Constitution grants the States special authority to enact laws pursuant to this power."

Breyer’s strong Tenth Amendment words included, “In a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?" Breyer wrote. "What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?" Taken at his word you would think that Stephen Breyer, will side with Montana, Tennessee, and the 6 other states that have so far passed Firearm Freedom Acts, exempting from federal regulation the sale of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition manufactured and retained in the state. I’m sure that Justice Breyer will contradict himself and rule against his own opinion if any of the Firearms Freedom Act laws make it to the Supreme Court.

The right to keep and bear arms is the law of the land. The SCOTUS has ruled that “The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee.” If the government or the people want to change that it will and should require a constitutional amendment. We are a nation of laws, with constitutional restrictions on what the federal authority can do. If the statists currently in the majority of elected federal positions want to change that, then they can and must amend the constitution. It is neither impossible nor difficult; it was amended 4 times in 8 years between 1913 and 1920. The situation has changed, to amend the constitution in the era of new media in which the powerful elite no longer control all the news and information, the will of politicians to further restrict liberty knowing it could lead to their loss in the next election, does not exist. The people, not the statists in charge, believe in the rule of law. Monday’s SCOTUS ruling just confirms the plain meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, that the people have the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

SCOTUS DOCS http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html

The constitution is dead.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller declared the constitution dead. Totally ignoring the 10th amendment, in a recent Commerce Committee hearing, when the constitutionality and principle of federalism were raised, Jay Rockefeller, chair of the committee, proclaimed “I don’t really give a hoot about states’ rights or federal rights on this one. I care about results.” Rockefeller is proposing federal legislation to ban “texting” while driving. Aren’t there laws that allow civil suits and criminal prosecutions of persons who cause accidents while driving negligently?