The 10th amendment

The 10th amendment is, in my opinion, the most important amendment in the constitution.  It gives the answer to how the U.S. Government is to tackle every issue not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights: let the states decide.  This amendment is often ignored.

The 10th amendment simply states:

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.

How can you get any simpler than this?  The purpose of this amendment was to protect the rights of the states.  In fact, it's the only reason many of the original 13 states signed onto this Constitution.

Many of the original states had schools that were run by religion.  Many of the states allowed slavery.  They didn't want the Federal government to force them to do things another way.  They wanted to protect their sovereignty: the right to have supreme authority over a particular area or region.

So, if you go by this ruling, there are really only seven things that Congress and the Senate have a right to rule on, such as commerce, ware, etc.  Everything else is left to the states and the people to decide.

By the 10th amendment, abortion should be up to the states and the same for healthcare.  Massachusetts, therefore, has a right to rule on healthcare, the U.S. government does not.  Also, Rowe-V-Wade is also unconstitutional.

The 10th amendment was the founding fathers affirmation of Federalism, or state's rights.  It assured that the Constitution gives lawmakers limited rights.

The idea here is the founders understood that since every state or geographic region is different, the states or local governments were more likely to reflect the interests of the people because the decision makers come from the regions or communities they are making laws for -- they are directly affected by their decision.

If people want to make change in the United States, this should not be done by the Federal Government.  Why?  Because this would be forcing people to do things they do not want to do, and trampling on their natural rights.  Many of our presidents, including George Bush and Obama, have ignored the 10th amendment, and we lose rights as a result.  Obama's healthcare reform act is a perfect example of trampling on state rights.

If people want change, they can do so at the state level.  Massachusetts passed a healthcare law, and it is working poorly. It acts as an example for other states, and since it's working poorly few other states want a similar program.

School choice is another example.  Many states have given parents vouchers so they can decide what schools their kids go to.  Since these programs work so well, other states have copied them.

The 10th amendment is also great because it allows to states to gamble, but prevents the states from doing so.  If the Massachusetts healthcare law fails, one state will fail and not the entire nation.  If Obamacare fails, the entire nation suffers as a result.

If one state like California wants to burden it's people with high taxes, it can do so.  If California wants to tax businesses 50-75 percent, those businesses can move to a state with lower taxes.  The economy of California will take a major hit, but not the whole nation.  If Obama raises taxes the same, he's forcing everyone to take that same risk.  However, taxation is covered in the constitution, and it therefore is constitutional for Washington to tinker with taxes.

So the 10th amendment has merit, and should not be ignored.

Abortion: Here's my take on it

Today I'm going to tackle an issue most prefer to avoid: abortion.

Abortion:  On the surface I am opposed to abortion and all it stands for.  To me it is murder.  Although, if we go by the U.S. Constitution, the subject is not mentioned, and therefore, by the 10th amendment, abortion is left to the states to decide.  It is for this reason I find the Rowe-V-Wade decision to be unconstitutional and wrong.  Prior to that 1972 ruling, some states allowed abortion and others did not.  This is called Federalism.  If you like abortion, then you can go to a state that allows it.  If you are opposed to it, then you can go to a state that does not supports it.  This is the same as any other topic that is not covered by the Constitution, such as healthcare.  

Abortion/rape/incest:  The ethics of abortion is one most people like to avoid.  So if you get pregnant by a guy who raped you, do you want to spend the rest of your life looking at this guys baby?  Do you want to spend the rest of your life caring for a baby that has no mind and body?  

Surely, if you have other kids, it would't be fair to them if you spend less time with them so you can care for a bed-ridden kid who is a burden on everyone who cares for him.  On the one side, all life is God's life.  The normal kid is just as much God's child as the challenged child.  

So the one argument is that challenged children are God's challenge to you.  On the other side, about 90 percent of aborted children are from impoverished urban areas.  

One argument is that these kids will be a burden on society, so we might as well let their parents decide to abort them.  Believe it or not, this was an actual argument in the early 20th century in Washington, although at that time it was regarding euthanasia.  

Today the same argument is made by those who champion for the right to abort, what they refer to as pro choice.  My problem with this argument is that if you decide it's okay for one person to decide to have an abortion, then you are opting to play God. 

If you are playing God, then you have to decide at what point is that baby a real person.  You will have to draw a line somewhere.  Is that baby a real person at conception (pro-life argument)? Is that baby a human at 1 month? 2 months? 3 months? (where the Supreme Court Drew the line)? When it develops a heart? at birth?  When? 

So by my argument here, both pro-lifers and pro-choice advocates will not like me.  Pro- life people who want to force their view that abortion is murder on others are just as guilty as the Supreme Court was in 1972.  Rowe -v-Wade would be overturned, and the states would be allowed to decide the issue of abortion.  

The only way to truly settle the issue other than that would be to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  At least this is how it is in the Unites States anyway.  

And if you think the Constitution is old and antiquated and therefore holds no merit in this argument, see this post:  The Constitution should be etched in stone. 

Your thoughts are welcome, but you better be nice for crying out loud.  

Gay Marriage: Here's what I think

Today I'm tackling a topic few want to discuss yet we should: gay marriage.

Gay Marriage:  All people are born with natural rights.  One natural right is the right to choose who we spend our time with.  One natural right is the right to choose who we marry.  It is not a natural right to tell other people who they can and cannot marry.  You don't have to agree with a person's lifestyle, yet you have no right to force other people to live the way the majority does.  So while this might surprise many of you, I believe gay people should have a right to marry if they so choose, and have all the benefits that go with marriage.  If the people of a state are adamantly opposed to "scarring" the institution of marriage, then I have no problem with some other method of allowing gay people the right to enter into some kind of union that allows them to share their assets.  

Gay rights:  Gay people have the same natural rights as anyone else.  See Gay Marriage.

Constitution was meant to make things fair for all, Unfairness Doctrine a perfect example of complete and total unfairness for all

One of the reasons our founding fathers produced the Constitution was so that every person in the majority or minority would be treated with equal respect. It's when people sway from the Constitution for their own personal gains is when the most people cry out with the deepest of "IT'S NOT FAIR."

I think abortion was a perfect example of this. I completely understand liberals when they say that every woman should have a right to an abortion. I don't think abortions should be done, but I respect that opinion.

However, when liberals say that an abortion should be legal just because "it's the right thing," is no reason to simply make it legal. The same is true for the pro-life crowd. We cannot simply make laws based on the idea of "It's fair," because what's fair to one is not fair to another

And it is this idea that separates the U.S. from other democracies around the world. In Europe ideas can be made law that half the country might totally disagree with. Socialized Health care might make no sense to a majority in a particular country, but when it's leaders decide every person "HAS A RIGHT" to medical care and make a law as such, it's NOT FAIR to the rest who think such an idea is bad.

So, in the United States we have many people who want to have their way. And the only way they should ever completely get their way is by abiding by the principles set forth by the Constitution. If it is not mentioned in the Constitution, it should therefore be left to the states (per the 10th amendment).

If it is not mentioned in the State Constitution, it should be left to the people. This policy, set forth in the Constitution by the founders, was set to create equal FAIRNESS for all Americans.

So when I read about liberals in an attempt to re-create things like the fairness doctrine, I cringe. And democrats say that conservative talk radio is being "ridiculous' in creating the fear that liberals want to SILENCE talk radio in any way.

However, when we turn on the Internet and read of liberals like Debbie Stabenow talking about how she is interested in making a law to make talk radio MORE FAIR, we see that these conservative fears are NOT unfounded -- they are scary and UNFAIR. It is the liberals attempt to silence their competition that is UNFAIR, and unconstitutional.

If you don't believe me, check out this conversation between Stabenow and Bill Press:

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

LOOK PEOPLE, THIS WAS A UNITED STATES SENATOR SAYING THIS. WE SHOULD BE SCARED TO DEATH WHETHER YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE OR A LIBERAL.

Sure Obama has said he's not interested in doing this, but the fear is that you have a liberal House, a liberal Senate, and a liberal President, all of whom hate that Conservatives have a dominant voice on talk radio.

If a Fairness doctrine is returned, or something similar to it, it will be no different than the Alien Sedition Acts of John Q. Adams to silence his competition. It will be a slippery slope.

Imagine if talk radio is suppressed by the government, and 50 years down the road conservatives have control of Washington, and they decide to shut the liberal media up. After all, it is unfair that all those newspapers and TV stations are liberal.

Well, IF WE FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION ALL THE TIME INSTEAD OF JUST WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO OUR CAUSE, FAIRNESS WILL BE EQUAL FOR ALL AND ALL TIMES. WE MAY NOT ALWAYS BE HAPPY, BUT AT LEAST THINGS WILL BE FAIR.

That, my friends, is my Constitutional Rant for the month.

10th Amendment backed again by Supreme Court

We here at Freadom Nation love the 10th Amendment, and we are glad that once again this amendment was supported by the current Supreme Court.

I always thought it odd how easy it was to cast a vote. All I do is walk up to a booth, write my name and address on a piece of paper, and then I receive my ballot.

It seems it would be easy for someone to make a list of people they know will not vote and have illegal immigrants or other people who cannot vote in a U.S. election go to the voting place and write in someone else's name. How are the officials going to know he is who he says he is if he doesn't have a photo ID.

That's why when Michigan passed legislation that required photo identification, and this law was upheld by the Supreme Court, I smiled. However, when I voted in this past primary election I still was not asked for any form of ID. I'm not sure if the law wasn't enacted yet, or if my local small town still wasn't enforcing the law.

That aside, I had to smile again today as I read a NYTimes.com post which informed the world that the Supreme Court once again upheld a state voter identification law, this time in Indiana, by a 6-3 vote.

The big complaint that brought this case to court was that requiring voter identification would work "against Democrats, whose ranks are more likely to include poor people or those in minority groups," according to the article.

Likewise, the dissenting opinion was that this law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens.”

We here at Freadom Nation wonder what those three dissenters (Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer) were thinking, because they cannot rightfully make a decision based on their opinion. That would not be Constitutional.

Thus, it states in the Constitution that: "The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If democrats do not like this law, then they can work by legal means to change it. And, if in 20 years they succeed at getting rid of this law and making it easy for people to fake vote, the Fed will have little say in the matter, because voting is a State right.

My humble ideas to better educate American kids

As you know from my previous posts, I place education as the #4 biggest priority of the next president, after national defense, providing a decent economy, and assuring judges rule fairly.

We must note that if our nation is not secure, we have no demestic issues to worry about. If we have a poor economy, we can't afford to spend money on domestic issues. If judges are ruling unfairly, it doesn't matter what we do.

And, if we fail in educationg out children, we will also fail to lead the way to greatness into the future, something we have continued to do since the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

The road to the future is through our children. And therefore, I think it's of utmost importance that our next president focus on improving education in the country. I'm not concerned with how it got to be the way it is today, nor what persons are responsible. The task at hand now is to simply fix the problem

One poll I looked at, I think it was a recent issue of Parent magazine, revealed that about 80% of Americans believe more money needs to be thrown into education. The poll did not go into why parents think this, but I'd surmise the reason is because they believe more money would solve this problem. I believe this is not true; that money is not the issue here.

I've read these statistics in many places, but since I just finished reading "War on the Middle Class" by Lou Dobbs, I will use his statistics.

High school drop out rates have been rising steadily over the last 30 years. Today we spend nearly $8, 287 annually for each child in our public schools

• Thirty years ago we spent nearly half that, and we were the #1 most well educated country.
• he U.S. is currently ranked 7th on the list of best educated countries
• Only 40% of high school seniors are qualified to take college-level algebra
• Only 56% of all high school students take or exceed the recommended core curriculum for college bound students.
• The bulk of education spending goes to the bureaucracy, not to the students, not to teachers, not to schools. This is where most of the money is going. It is being wasted.
• The U.S. pays its teachers less than other countries by almost a tenth.
• Currently, the average teacher pay starts at $29,000 and maxes at about $47,000. This is not much of an incentive for people to want to teach. Many teachers quit each year because pay is so poor.
• Greater than 90% or dollars spent by teacher unions to lobby Washington goes to democrats, yet they have not solved the problem. Are they to blame then? Doesn't matter.
• As a general rule of thumb, while politicians claim our schools are good, many have a tendency to send their children to private schools.
• Teachers are not provided raises based on merit, but seniority. This provides no incentive for them to go above and beyond in educating themselves and their students.
• Since many businesses are now hiring people from other countries for high tech jobs because they expect far lower salaries, they are taking away these jobs from Americans. Thus, Americans who have these jobs are being laid off, and the unemployment rate in this area is at 7%, higher than the national average of 4%. Since the unemployment rate is so high for these jobs, students are choosing other fields of study. This is scary, and, according to Dobbs, is especially bad for the future of our national security.


• While people complain that George Bush hasn't allocated enough money to education, the money allocated to education has in fact doubled under GWB.

I could go on, but I think you should get the picture of how poorly our schools have become compared with other nations. This is going to hurt us in the long run because these other nations are going to be leading the charge to the best technologies and, ultimately, the most high tech weaponry will be invented and perfected by other countries.

You can imagine what this would mean to the future of the current Super power.

Because he is a journalist doing his job of reporting these facts, Dobbs, in his book, made no effort to provide theories as to how to better our education process. However, I have some ideas I think would work.

1. Congress needs to make it illegal to take money from education lobby's. This would force Congressmen to make decisions that are good for all Americans, as opposed to the people they are receiving money from.


2. Money allocated to schools should be sent directly to state governors, bypassing all the middle-men and bureaucrats.


3. As many bureaucrats as possible should be fired. Why not, they have failed in their job anyway.


4. Each state should decide how to allocate education funds in their own respective states. States that come up with good ideas will have the most well educated students, and states that have failing students will want to copy ideas of the states that work.

Ideally, that's as far as the next President has to go. It makes more sense for governors to have control of education, as opposed to some person sitting at a desk in Washington telling every school in the United States to do this and do that or "I know what's best for you."

However, what's good for some school in upstate New York may not be good for some school in a small town in Alabama. It makes more sense for someone closer to the problem, like state governors, to be making decisions of who gets what money and for what.

Besides, a little competition between the states would be great. It is true that good old capitalistic competition has made our economy the best in the world. Thus, competition would be great for what ails our educational system.

The states can make all other decisions. And, since the middle men will be gone, and since Congress can no longer take money from educational lobbyists, more money will be available for the states to give teachers raises to increase the incentive for students to choose the teaching profession.

How should the governors allocate this money? Some of them might create school voucher systems, where parents get to choose what schools to send their kids to. I really like this idea, because it would create competition between schools. Any kind of competition, I think, is good.

If schools are failing, then parents will send their kids somewhere else. The schools that are failing will have no choice but to adapt a better system, or close shop. Eventually, we would end up with the best schools, and the most well educated kids.

However, I don't think that school vouchers is something the president should force on States. I think, as is written in the 10th Amendment, that what's not in the Constitution should be left to the states, education included.

If a state wants to stay the course they are on as far as education is concerned, then that's what they should do. If they want to try something different, like vouchers, then that's what they should do.

Keep in mind that I am not an educator, nor a politician, but these are my ideas as a parent. Whatever we are doing now is failing our kids and our future. It's time our politicians, our next president, do something to the benefit of our kids instead of their own political purposes.

Hillary/ Obama will make the Constitution irrelevent

I wrote before that I think it would be a mistake for Conservatives to run from Guliani if he is eventually nominated as the republican nominee. Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Conservatives vote for a third party candidate. Hillary will become President.

In other words, a vote against Guliani will ultimately be a vote for Hillary, who in return will make a gallant attempt to force her views on the people (i.e. Hillaryscare) and, thus, further diminish the value of the greatest constitution in the history of the world.

If, for example, one party can force it’s viewpoint on the people, as was the case with the pro-choice movement, then some day the pro-life movement might attempt to do the same by making abortion illegal for everyone. To do this would be equally preposterous and unconstitutional.

If Roe-v-Wade is Constitutional, then some day someone in the Federal government might be able to make a law stating you have to buy health insurance whether you want to or not. The Fed will also be allowed to punish you if you do not buy health insurance.

I bring up Health insurance here only because Mrs. Clinton proposed it, and because it makes for a good example of the point I’m trying to make.

Fast forward to 2010 with Hillary as President.

“But I don’t want to buy health insurance,” a young, dark haired lawyer retorted in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. “By what grounds can this be Constitutional. I see nowhere in the Constitution that says anything about requiring people to buy something, let alone that the Fed can punish you if you do not buy it.”

“Roe-v-Wade makes it possible,” an elderly gray haired male justice states calmly. “Since the Supreme Court declared Roe-v-Wade the law of the land, and there is nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion, then why do we need to go by the Constitution on other matters, i.e. health care?”

“If you give the Fed the power to force you to buy something, and the power to punish you if you do not,” he looks the justice square in the eyes, “then you also given the Fed the power to tell you that you have to be healthy. ‘Hey, since we are paying for your health care, we have the right to force you to be healthy.’”

“That is correct. Congress can make such a law.” A smirk slides out alongside a thin, crooked lip.

“Congress can make a law making it illegal to eat trans fat.”

“Correct.”

“Congress can make a law making it illegal to smoke.”

“Correct”

“The folly of that is this: I have a Constitutional right to be wrong.“ He stomped his foot. “I have a constitutional right to not be healthy. I have a constitutional right to be stupid.”

“Not if we don’t go by the Constitution.”

“That’s exactly how liberals want it. If we rule by the Constitution, nobody can force anything on anyone. If we disregard the Constitution, anything goes.”

“You are talking about the slippery slope.”

“Yes!” He stomped his foot again. “Now the Fed passes a law that your kids cannot say the Pledge, nor pray in class, even though this is a right protected by the Constitution. They will make a law that you cannot go shirtless on the beach; you cannot drink alcohol; you cannot preach conservatism; you have to buy red cars.”

“Red cars?” he laughed, and laughter ensues from two or three other justices, followed by a delayed laughter from the crowd. Several justices seem to glare at the crowd, which quickly grows silent.

“Why not.”

“If the laws we are making are for your own good, then they are fine. If you do not smoke you stay healthy longer and cost the government less money.”

“I have a right to smoke.”

“Not if Congress says otherwise.”

“Congress cannot say that.” He stomped his foot.

“Roe-v-Wade says it can.”

“The truth is, as the founding fathers well knew, I have a God-given right to make my own decision. I even have a right to be wrong. But I do not have a right to force my views on other people. This not only goes for the pro-choice movement, but the pro-life movement as well.”

“Reiterate.” The questioning justice slouches back in his chair and pulled a cigar out from under his robe.

“In fact, the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights states this: ‘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.’”

“Go on.” The justice is now chewing on the cigar, his expression smug.

“The authors of the Bill of Rights were wise in writing this, for if the liberal movement can succeed in forcing abortion on the people, some day pro-life movement can use the same Constitutional claim by making abortion illegal.”

The justices stir, but remain silent.

“I profess,” the lawyer continues. “Neither to make it legal nor illegal. My point is that the issue of abortion should never even have been taken up by this court. According to the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, the matter should have been left up to the states.”

“How so?” This time lady’s voice. At first our lawyer doesn’t know the source of the voice, then he sees a chubby lady lean forward onto the table. She looked giddy.

“Prior to the 1972 ruling, some states made abortion legal and others did not. This is called Federalism.” A moment of silence ensued. The lawyer continued a stern glare at the lady justice, who‘s countenance did not provide any hints as to what she might be thinking. “My point is to leave the matter to the states, as per the 10th Amendment.”

“This is called Federalism.” It was the elderly justice again. He continued chomping on the stub of the cigar.

“In his closing arguments to his fellow American’s in the 2nd Continental Congress, Ben Franklin gave a speech in which he stated that his initial gut feeling was to not sign the newly created Constitution.”

The members of the court continued to stare. After several moments of silence, the lawyer continued.

“Then, by basing his decision on a gut feeling, he decided that since every man has a different opinion on every issue, and that, I quote, “most men indeed as well as most sects of religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that whatever others differ from them it is so far error.’”

He waited for the justices to respond. When none spoke, he continued once more:

“Therefore he decided that ‘I agree to this Constitution with all its faults.’”

The elderly justice slowly stood. He removed the cigar stub from his mouth, and a smile crept onto his face. “That Constitution was made for a people of long ago. It is null and void as is the Declaration of Independence.” The audience stirred.

The young lawyers heart skipped a beat, a shiver crept up his spine. A tear formed in the corner of his eye. Looking at the floor, he said, “That is what I was afraid of.”