The attorney for the City of Watauga, Texas recently argued in a case before the Texas Courts that it would be a crime for a citizen to drive on the streets with a political bumper sticker on their car. Outrageous that this one lone attorney can interpret the law in this manner.
This opinion by the lone attorney was offered in the recent case against Chris Howe by the City of Watauga, Texas. Mr. Howe was imprisoned for five hours and then criminally prosecuted for holding a political sign on city property in Watauga, Texas. Guess the City of Watauga made the decision that taxpayers did not own the property! When did U.S. Citizens have to get the government's permission to speak about elections or important issues of faith? When did local government decide that they are the keepers of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
The bureaucrats have assembled way too much power, and it is time the power was returned to the people. The people pay the bills and the salaries that these bureaucrats collect each week. Power to the people!
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
What does the 14th amendment really say
Mark Davis from WBAP News/Talk 820 and 96.7 presented some good observations the other day on my drive to DFW to catch a flight. Thought it would be good to share his thoughts on birthright citizenship and the U.S. Constitution.
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, and then some states took it upon themselves to enact laws providing lesser status for the newly freed individuals. Thus, the 14th Amendment was enacted to protect the newly freed individuals from the states who in turn tried to restrict their freedoms with new codifications after the passage of the 13th Amendment.
The language chosen for the 14th Amendment did not say "all persons born in the United States shall be Citizens of the United States." Mr. Davis stated that there was a qualifier of six words - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - and this certainly applied to the newly freed slaves. However, in his opinion this does not necessarily apply to a baby born to a woman who sets foot on American soil at the time she wishes to give birth to a child.
Mr. Davis brought forth some court cases that have explored the 14th Amendment, but they have never really addressed the specifics of the amendment with regards to citizenship. U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) asserted citizenship rights for a man born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens at the time but were legal residents. Chief Justice Melville Fuller in his dissent opinion warned against granting such precious rights to "children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country."
In 1982 Plyler vs. Doe case negated Texas' right to deny funding to children of illegal immigrants. Nothing about the case involved birthright citizenship as some would have you believe today. "Plyer stands up for education dollars for the children of illegals, not their automatic right to full citizenship."
Do we need a constitutional amendment to rescind birthright citizenship? Everyone seems to be calling for an amendment to end birthright citizenship. I and Mr. Davis agree in that we don't think an amendment is needed. Our interpretation is that the U.S. Constitution does not and never did grant birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants regardless of how anyone wants to read the 14th Amendment.
We do need sensible immigration laws involving securing our borders and removing the incentives for coming to America illegally. The promise of instant citizenship without one legal resident parent is as strong a magnet as American jobs and welfare. Our belief is that the courts need to interpret the U.S. Constitution as it was written and intended and quit thinking about what the 14th Amendment should mean.
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, and then some states took it upon themselves to enact laws providing lesser status for the newly freed individuals. Thus, the 14th Amendment was enacted to protect the newly freed individuals from the states who in turn tried to restrict their freedoms with new codifications after the passage of the 13th Amendment.
The language chosen for the 14th Amendment did not say "all persons born in the United States shall be Citizens of the United States." Mr. Davis stated that there was a qualifier of six words - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - and this certainly applied to the newly freed slaves. However, in his opinion this does not necessarily apply to a baby born to a woman who sets foot on American soil at the time she wishes to give birth to a child.
Mr. Davis brought forth some court cases that have explored the 14th Amendment, but they have never really addressed the specifics of the amendment with regards to citizenship. U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) asserted citizenship rights for a man born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens at the time but were legal residents. Chief Justice Melville Fuller in his dissent opinion warned against granting such precious rights to "children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country."
In 1982 Plyler vs. Doe case negated Texas' right to deny funding to children of illegal immigrants. Nothing about the case involved birthright citizenship as some would have you believe today. "Plyer stands up for education dollars for the children of illegals, not their automatic right to full citizenship."
Do we need a constitutional amendment to rescind birthright citizenship? Everyone seems to be calling for an amendment to end birthright citizenship. I and Mr. Davis agree in that we don't think an amendment is needed. Our interpretation is that the U.S. Constitution does not and never did grant birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants regardless of how anyone wants to read the 14th Amendment.
We do need sensible immigration laws involving securing our borders and removing the incentives for coming to America illegally. The promise of instant citizenship without one legal resident parent is as strong a magnet as American jobs and welfare. Our belief is that the courts need to interpret the U.S. Constitution as it was written and intended and quit thinking about what the 14th Amendment should mean.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
In 1858 he said
Tocqueville in 1858 stated that aid (2010 term is Stimulus) must be temporary so that it did not develop into a 'right'.
In 1839 Tocqueville campaigned for the Chamber of Deputies of France. He campaigned as an independent candidate beholden to no one. He desired to serve his country in a disinterested spirit and cautioned the French people not to end up in political apathy and soulless materialism. He cautioned the people to awaken and mobilize.
It is now 2010 and does this not sound fimilar?
In 1839 Tocqueville campaigned for the Chamber of Deputies of France. He campaigned as an independent candidate beholden to no one. He desired to serve his country in a disinterested spirit and cautioned the French people not to end up in political apathy and soulless materialism. He cautioned the people to awaken and mobilize.
It is now 2010 and does this not sound fimilar?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Birthright Anchor Babies
In 2009 60,000 Texas babies were born to illegal immigrants.
11,000 of the 60,000 were born at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.
Everyone of them a U.S. Citizen, and no one really knows how to fix the problem. Some call the U.S. Constitution a 'dead' document and some call it a 'living' document; however, the problem of new illiegal immigrants being dropped on American soil continues. Not solving this problem will continue to bring harm to your pocketbook now and in the future.
11,000 of the 60,000 were born at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.
Everyone of them a U.S. Citizen, and no one really knows how to fix the problem. Some call the U.S. Constitution a 'dead' document and some call it a 'living' document; however, the problem of new illiegal immigrants being dropped on American soil continues. Not solving this problem will continue to bring harm to your pocketbook now and in the future.
Monday, August 16, 2010
10th Amendment Center
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com
This is an interesting site if you are 100% for the rights of states per our U. S. Constitution.
The 10th amendment should be the ultimate check on on federal power. It is clearly stated in a single line:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."
Sounds clear that most rights in this country rest with the States, and the PEOPLE.
Arizonans' have the right under the 10th Amendment to write their own laws. This will be interesting to see how the federal courts take on the State of Arizona.
This is an interesting site if you are 100% for the rights of states per our U. S. Constitution.
The 10th amendment should be the ultimate check on on federal power. It is clearly stated in a single line:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."
Sounds clear that most rights in this country rest with the States, and the PEOPLE.
Arizonans' have the right under the 10th Amendment to write their own laws. This will be interesting to see how the federal courts take on the State of Arizona.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Taxpayer Beware!
http://www.empowertexans.com/node/1370
Taxpayers be on alert for all governmental entities are now involved in budget planning sessions. They are running short on funds due to decrease in property values, reduced sales tax income, etc. Local government entities have a limited amount of options in which they can raise revenue, i.e. property tax rate increase, raise water and sewer rates, raise usage fees, etc.
The one method that most almost always forget - CUT THE SPENDING by reducing the expenses. Yep, some employees might have to be let go, but that is the way it has been in the real world for the last two years.
Taxpayers be on alert for all governmental entities are now involved in budget planning sessions. They are running short on funds due to decrease in property values, reduced sales tax income, etc. Local government entities have a limited amount of options in which they can raise revenue, i.e. property tax rate increase, raise water and sewer rates, raise usage fees, etc.
The one method that most almost always forget - CUT THE SPENDING by reducing the expenses. Yep, some employees might have to be let go, but that is the way it has been in the real world for the last two years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
