I just had a conversation with a friend who is in some legal trouble. They have an addiction problem with pain killers and that has caused some legal problems because they work in the medical industry.

Well, used to work.

Unfortunately, unable to work in this industry any longer, they will now have to find other employment in order to deal with their legal struggles. And all things lumped together means that there are also financial struggles to deal with as well.

I want to address the combination of these things, and this may look unlike anything that you are dealing with, but my guess is that there are more people out there struggling with crap in their lives, whether financial, legal, depression, substance abuse, or other forms of addiction (for example, pornography?) than any of us would like to imagine.

We want to think that a "godless world" is a perfect world--one with no bankruptcy, no divorce, no substance abuse, no infidelity, no unemployment--basically a perfect world. But this is just not the case.

Now, I would make the case that the problem is that we want to believe that "we" are in control, where we need to admit that there is a higher authority in this world, though not of this world, and we answer to Him. I call this being God, and he has a plan for our lives, and it does not involve substances that numb us to reality in order to better deal with it, nor does it involve living outside our means in order to look like "more" than we actually "are," nor does it involve us living in a constant fear of earthly authority in the form of the legal system.

I don't intend on preaching here, as that is not the purpose of my blog. However, I wanted to state my belief in that area so as to be clear as to where I am coming from. I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions, thus they should make decisions (aka, choices) taking that end into account.

I also don't intend on judging anybody whose situation in life, past, present, or future, resembles what I am discussing herein. I've been low, I've been sued, I've had an arrest warrant outstanding, and I've suffered from depression, so believe me when I say, I might not be able to relate to your situation, but I can certainly understand it.

Let us begin with substance abuse since that is what caused my friend's current situation to go south.

Foreign substances are bad for the human body. We know this because they introduce toxins to our system that impair our systems from operating as they are intended. Whether that substance is alcohol, cocaine, or vicadin, we are not supposed to ingest these substances in a way that impairs normal activity.

One drink isn't that big of a deal, unless you are an alcoholic, in which case, one drink is all it takes to slide down a really bad slope really fast.

One drag isn't that big of a deal, except that it is illegal, which can lead directly to legal problems, and unless you are a recovering addict, in which case you might slide a bit faster than the next guy who has never used drugs.

And while vicadin is a very useful agent used to numb pain in a variety of ways, in the words of one addict, "It makes me feel like Superman--like I can do anything! It makes me feel more happy and like I can have a better time." Now, if you have a back injury, vicadin might be your friend. If you have an addiction to vicadin, even one dose can cause you to relapse, even after a two-year absence of it in your system.

Financial problems and addiction seem to go hand in hand, largely due to the "paying for the drugs" aspect of addiction. It's not like we need any more help in this area, now is it?

We seem to think that money grows on trees with our big houses, big cars, and big credit limits! Which probably leads directly to many of our marital problems as well.

It is amazing how these things tie in together, isn't it?

Now, with marital problems, just as with financial problems and addiction problems, often legal problems follow closely. No surprise there, huh? Addiction problems lead to jail time. Financial problems lead to Bankruptcy. Marital problems lead to divorce. All legal issues.

There are other tie-in's between these, such as legal problems leading to unemployment leading to further financial problems (repossessions, foreclosures, divorce, etc.).

My point is this: If you are struggling with these issues, or any litany of related or other issues, you need help. Now, that may not sound great right now, especially the idea of sharing information about your situation with a personal, legal, or financial counselor, but you need to break through the prideful attitude and deal with the facts.

1.) You are in trouble of some sort, and it is your responsibility to take the steps to get out of it.

2.) The resources are out there to get your stuff together. You just have to take the steps. If that means selling your house, there is always a buyer. If that means refinancing your house, lenders have programs to work with borrowers. If you need to trade in a leased car you are two payments behind on, there are options (I recommend having someone go to the dealership with you--two heads are better than one!). If that means cutting up all your credit cards and living on a cash-only system like Dave Ramsey's "Total Money Makeover," that's why those systems are in place: People like you need them, and people like Dave are willing to help out!

3.) Get your stuff together so you can take care of you and yours! It's not my responsibility to care for you, nor is it your business to look after me!

4.) Don't be afraid of more education! A bachelors degree in accounting is a marvelous thing, and provides you the opportunity to work in an industry that is respected and well-remunerated!

5.) When you get your stuff in order, be it in 5 months or 5 years, and when you are taking care of your (reduced, hopefully!) obligations, putting some money away, and taking care of your family, don't be afraid to blow a little cash at that point! Key word: Cash!

Things may be tough, and I won't sugar coat it--getting out of trouble may be even tougher! I used to be in terrible debt, have little income, got laid off, and had a long-term relationship end poorly, all within a couple months of each other! It felt bad, I became depressed, and everything looked like it was caving in around me.

But it didn't! I took care of things, went back to school, got a degree in a field that pays great and offers career advancement, and now am doing well. It built character and wisdom that previously I did not have, and today, you all get to listen to me talk on my blog!

Just think, you too could be in this position soon, too!

And feel free to send me an email if you need further advice of a non-professional, uncertified nature about what you need to do to better your situation for yourself and your family.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/237/popup/index.php?cl=3620401

OK, I'm biased on this one, I admit. I hold an MBA in Finance, so I've got a few major problems with Senator Hillary Clinton's view of reality here.

First, a bit about my background. I earned an MBA in Finance from North Texas in 2004. Yet I have very little actual finance industry experience. Now, the mortgage industry is as finance-heavy as it gets. Home mortgages, mortgage-backed securities, investors and the secondary mortgage markets--I mean, if you want finance, the mortgage industry is the place to start, and it just kind of goes from there.

The link above begins with Sen. Clinton discussing her earlier years when she remembers neighborhood people celebrating paying off their mortgage by burning the note--a memorable day in any homeowner's life, I'm quite sure.

And then she goes on to list her desire to install Socialist housing programs to provide for people who cannot pay their bills and to fight the "Big Bad Banks" who lurk around like sharks preying on borrowers like chum.

Now, believe me when I say that I understand the concept of banks, lenders, and specifically credit card companies that engage in predatory lending practices. The modern version of slavery goes something like this: Get a borrower in debt, keep them in debt, and collect their interest payments from now on.

But I can also point out that it is possible to sell a primary residence every two years and pocket the capital gains (selling price less buying price) tax-free and invest that money in the stock market at 13% per year. This is due to largely Democrats who, when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, were seeking to look out for property owners in areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco whose property values increase at a significantly higher rate than, say, Dallas or Des Moines. Simple fact--more people want to live in some places than others.

So it really boils down to, can I make more in gains than I pay in interest? Over time the answer is absolutely yes!

A home mortgage will cost you anywhere from 6-12%. The stock market has historically risen at approximately 13% per year over the last 90 years, approximately. Now, we have experienced times like the Great Depression and the Dot Com Bomb, but we have also experienced the late 1990's and, now, the mid-2000's. In a given period of time you may see decreases of 30% average for two years followed by three years of 20% gains, etc. But over time the rule is, the market goes up.

That is, unless you operate in a Socialist system where the government attempts to pay for, or at least control, everything.

This blog's purpose is to point out the problems with the Federal government taking power (aka responsibilities) from the States. This is another example of the same old same old principle of just that.

Sen. Clinton says, "They (the Bush Administration) believe in letting everyone fend for him or herself. They believe in what the president calls an ownership society, which is really you're on-your-own. It's the yo-yo economy; some go up and some go down and the strings are pulled by other people," Clinton said, repeating a familiar theme from her campaign speech. "I don't think that's how America works best."

I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is straight up a 10th Amendment issue, and nobody in the media will say so. Nobody in the Republican Party will say so.

So I will.

The States are responsible for this matter, each for itself. Not the Federal government. Plain and simple.

Just as it is not the place of the Feds to get involved, which they have already done, in education or in abortion, this is not their place either.

And in the same way, if a borrower chooses to borrow money to buy a home, and they qualify for a lender's sub-prime program, then great! Buy a house! Experience that tax-free capital gains effect that I mentioned earlier!

Now, are there companies using the system to make a buck then leave taxpayers holding the bill? Sure. Here's another one for you: Enron looks like your kid's piggie bank by comparison!

That's right! Enron wiped out billions of dollars of 401 (k) and other retirement and pension accounts, but those investors are largely recovered now over 5 years later and in the midst of a roaring economy and stock market. Yeah, all you media folks who have been whining about a crappy economy the last three years look pretty danged dumb now, don't you?

But the mortgage industry is robbing people of equity in their homes, shackling them down with houses that are too big for their budget, and in some cases, tying up investor dollars to consolidate debts into homes that people simply walk away from, leaving investors again holding the empty bag.

And while this is tragic in every single case, it is the responsibility of State governments, not the Federal government, to deal with banking, lending, mortgage, and borrowing issues within their own borders.

Texas for Texas. California for California. New York for New York. And the rest each for themselves.

Standardization is not a power, nor a provision of the Constitution. Neither in banking, nor in education, nor in labor and wage rates, etc. These are matters that the States never intended to give over to the national government, the Constitution does not cover, the States did not cede in separate legislation, but rather, that Socialists like Franklin Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton have taken upon themselves, and the Federal government, as their responsibility and their calling in life.

Perhaps, a good, old-fashioned re-reading of the Constitution on the part of the candidates for the Presidency is in order?

Perhaps, if "We the People" decided to hold our representatives' feet to the fire, the next thing we might be hearing from Hillary Clinton's mouth would be...

"Thank you for choosing Wells Fargo! What financial product can I assist you with today?"

Have you seen the book titled, "What Roe Should Have Read"?  I've seen the cover.  Read the sleeve.  And promptly picked up a 'Calvin and Hobbes' compilation instead.  Call it 'wiping the mind clean with a sanitary cloth.'

Well-titled book!  Poorly conceived.  Apparently people have forgotten that the Law is based not on medical history and terminology, as was Roe, just as the author forgot that States are supposed to determine issues for themselves that are not included in the Constitution.

Fact:  The words 'abortion,' 'pregnancy,' 'mother,' and 'sex' do not appear in the Constitution.

Logic:  The Spirit of the Constitution holds that States have all power, each for themselves, and the Constitution simply set up a government that the States imbued with Supreme, though limited, powers.  But the key ideas there are that the States imbued the Federal with powers.  The Federal did not just simply spring out of the earth, seize control, and start taking on more as it saw fit.  And the Federal government is limited, specifically by the 10th Amendment, generally by the Spirit of the Constitution itself, from any other powers not cedede to it from the States.

Take Roe v. Wade (1973) as an example.  Prior to this Landmark Supreme Court decision being handed, I have not found one single law, State or Federal, that allowed unfettered abortion.  And in the proceedings in the twin cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (Georgia), I don't believe that the Plaintiff (pro-choice) won prior to the January 1973 Landmark opinion being handed down.

Now, this gets a little bit technical, and we delve into a bit of Constitutional and Political Theory here, so bear with me.  Townhall readers are a smart bunch--I have faith in you!

Constitution, right?  Written by the States through their delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia.  Ratified by the States in form of their Legislative bodies.  Ever since then, amended by the States 27 times.  So the Constitution is in place, and it neither mentions anything remotely related to abortion, nor does it cede such powers to the Federal level of government whatsoever.

I was listening to a local city council candidate a few years speak about abortion and it stopped me in my tracks!  "Wait a minute," I observed.  "You don't have anything to do with abortion one way or the other!"  And I was right!  So I started thinking about who did and why they did.

Who controls abortion?  Congress?  Nope.  The President?  Nope.  Despite all those spam mails asking us to please write President Bush seeking the abolition of abortion and the return of prayer to public schools, the Chief Executive has no impact on either of these issues.

So who controls aborion?  Answer:  The Supreme Court of the United States of America, ironic term that it may be.

The Supreme Court struck down State laws prohibiting and regulating abortion and has regulated every single facet of abortion ever since.  From overturning State laws in Roe, to revising portions of that decision, to outright declaring partial-birth abortion Unconstitutional earlier this year, the Supreme Court controls abortion completely.

But should it?

The answer to that question requires a walk down memory (and history) lane.

Begin with me at the beginning.  The Constitution is ratified, Congress is elected, things are running smoothly, and then the Supreme Court steps in and issues a ruling that really torqued off the Congress, so they counter this ruling by amending the Constitution.  After the Bill of Rights comes the 11th Amendment--the first slapping the Supreme Court down.  It would not be the last.

1803 brought a little family feud that became known as Marbury v. Madison, a case whose name resonates loudly in your memory and history as the case in which Chief Justice John Marshall declares that the Supreme Court has the power to say what the Constitution says.  Judicial Review is born!

Now, Marbury was a Federal matter between two Federal officials, so it only makes sense that the Federal Judiciary would decide the matter.  However, Chief Justice Marshall opened the Pandora's Box that led to future Courts striking down State Laws--an occurence completely contradictory to the Spirit of the Constitution!

Granted, slavery was a hideous practice, and anybody today not wearing a sheet would agree with that.  But one of the chief concerns of southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention was their ability to amass property--meaning land and slaves among other things.  Slavery was recognized by the Constitution, but its regulation was completely left to the States.  For the Federal government to force an end to slavery was extremely damaging to the Constitution, and an occurence that nearly destroyed not only the Union, but the Constitution as well.

The Congress later amended the Constitution three times to right the wrong done by the Court in Dred Scott v. San(d)ford in 1857, bringing to four the total number of amendments due to Judicial actions.

By now, the Supreme Court was in high swing, so declaring segregation Constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was par for the course.  While this actually went along with the idea of States' Rights under the 10th Amendment, the Court had no right to even hear such a case, the matter being strictly the realm of the States.  Having the Supreme Court declare slavery acceptable after a Civil War, Reconstruction, and three amendments, all in response to Dred Scott, is unconscionable, and was an error that took over a half-century to correct.

Upon the reversal of Plessy in 1954 in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, and the subsequent era of racial strife that resulted in the Civil Rights Act, we enjoyed a brief respite from Supreme Court Landmark decisions over-stepping the boundaries of States' Rights.  This ended with the ruling in Roe v. Wade in January 1973.

One must understand, regardless of one's stance on abortion, what the Constitution says about deciding such cases.  The Constitution, and not the Supreme Court, is what is relevent.  For Marbury is not Constitutional Law, nor an amendment to the Constitution--it is simply an opinion.  An 'interpretation' of one man.

Now, what do we hear from Libera atheists when confronted with texts from the Bible?  "Oh, that's your interpretation."  An opinion, if you will.

But when the Supreme Court, which really isn't, hands down an opinion, it becomes hard, cold, gospel truth!  And bubba, don't even think of countering it!  Oh, man--"Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble!"

No, the Supreme Court now depends on multiple interpretations of an interpretation in order to do its job.  It no longer refers to the Constitution, but to Precedent.  Meaning that the Court listens to "itself," not to the Constitution.  "What did previous Court's say?"  Not, "What does the Constitution say?"

Simply stated, there should have been no ruling in Roe.  There should have been no hearing.

For the Constitution simply states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are hereby reserved to the States, or to the people."

Translation:  "Abortion is not delegated to the United States Supreme Court by the Constitution, nor is it mentioned in any amendment thereof, thus it is reserved to the States."

I leave off the "or to the people" part for a simple reason.  Who decides law as it relates to motor vehicle law?  Who determines corporate law?  Who determines law pertaining to capital punishment?  Not individuals!  Not people!

The States!  The States!  The States!

Truth be told, the entire Federal Judiciary should be impeached and replaced with the most capable State Judges in the nation.  That is how strongly I feel about the topic of States' Rights!

I have something of a problem with a Republican Debate being put on by ABC taking place on Sunday morning. I mean, who is going to watch such a thing in the first place? And second, why in the world would a news agency choose to put such a thing on television when everybody in America is either on the golf course, in church, or in bed? You don't see many 'Prime Time' shows on in that busy Sunday 9 a.m. time slot, you know?

O.K. Off that soapbox now, let's get to the meat of a couple of issues in the clips I have seen online.

First, the Tom Tancredo clip on an "Unhealthy" Healthcare System and Rudy Giuliani's clip on taxes and bridges are right on the money.

Republicans like to spout the Reagan lines of "smaller government" and "lower taxes," but have neither a decent record on either nor do they drive home these points well enough in my estimation.

Both were driven out of the park like a juiced Barry Bonds home run Sunday morning.

Did you see the look on Mitt Romney's face while Giuliani was speaking on the topic of reducing taxes in New York city which resulted in an increase in tax revenues? OMG...he wanted to jump right in and say, "AMEN, Mayor!" And quite frankly, I wish he would have.

Incidentally, and irrevently, do Mormons say 'Amen'? No offense intended if they don't.

The Mayor quoted historical evidence from heavily Liberal New York City records from his tenure as mayor there that showed that by reducing taxes rates by 25%, an increase in tax revenue of 45% was the result.

This mirrors the effect of the Bush tax cuts from 2000 wherein the long-term capital gains rate of 28% was reduced to 15%, among other reductions in income tax rates, etc, resulting in a significant increase in income tax revenues!

Further, I have read that in each and every case since 1900 (or whatever the date was) in which the tax rate has gone up, tax revenues have decreased. And in the same time frame, when tax rates decreased, tax revenues have increased. However, I have never seen nor read anything online nor seen anything on the news or cable about the opposite being the case.

Let me repeat that for effect...

As much as Democrats bash Republicans, and specifically President Bush, on everything they can or can make up (see present debate on Spy Bill the Senate finally relented on and passed after Democrats have roundly beaten the President up over warrantless wiretapping for two-plus years), there has been NOTHING said to dispute this widely accepted ECONOMIC LAW and FACT!!

How funny it was to hear the question being asked from the Liberal perspective, as Giuliani noted, that assumes that if you want to increase tax revenues, you should simply increase tax rates. And not only did the moderator assume this widely-accepted Democratic falsehood perpetuated for decades, ignoring facts stated above, but when he tried to push the Mayor on what programs specifically the Mayor would cut, the Mayor replied with the above fact-based (and applause-supported) reply, and roundly dispelled the moderator's notion that raising taxes to pay for bridge repair (the new hot-button topic, for obvious reasons!) would work!

Now, this does not condone the Republican Party's inability to cut significant programs and portions of the federal budget. And perhaps Mayor Giuliani discussed later the programs, departments, and unnecessary portions of the federal government that he would recommend cutting, but this particular clip did not mention them. But it does not condone his not mentioning them either.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Giuliani, nor a Republican Party, Kool-Aid drinker. But this point that Giuliani drove out of the park is mine, and I will say the same every single day, and twice on Sunday (ironically).

The same is the case with regards to Rep. Tom Tancredo's comments on a National Healthcare Insurance System. It is not a matter of what the system should look like, it is a matter of it being non of the Federal government's business to get involved!!

Remember my previous blog about the 10th Amendment and my comments about Social Security. It is the same issue, carbon copied and pasted herein. No delineation, no difference, and no question about it.

Socialism is about the government providing for the needs of the people.

Actually, Socialism is about power. Socialists cannot influence the system because they are not capitalists. They provide no discernable benefit to society via science, industry, commerce, or art. They therefore must take over the system and dominate it utterly. The easiest way to do this is by coercing the simple-minded masses to fall in behind them in their quest unknowingly.

Socialists begin by promising "goodies" to those lacking in creature comforts such as healthcare insurance or retirement plans, some ignorant of the results of what they propose, some out of desire to help those lesss fortunate--a noble but ignorant position.

Those who they promise "goodies" to vote them into office in droves. They are rewarded with these "goodies"--socialized housing, socialized welfare, etc. And it goes on, spiraling upward. Next it is income re-distribution and taxpayer-assisted healthcare insurance. And if Michael Moore had his way, taxpayer assistance for new parents to include maid service and folding of your laundry. How typical is that? Give, give, give.

But each of these programs has a cost, both financial and societal. The financial cost is easy to pay for when you have an economy roaring along like ours is and does. The societal cost is less easy to measure.

First people become complacent and accept that some in society will receive these benefits because they do not have the financial means to provide them for themselves. Nevermind that they cannot buy healthcare insurance because they drive a $40,000 car and live in a $200,000 house, both parents earn $80,000 total, have 4 children from previous and current marriages, and are maxed out on credit cards! No wonder they cannot afford healthcare insurance! It's called Dave Ramsey, folks! Get out of debt, pay off your debts, and pay for your own children's needs so I don't have to!

But that doesn't sound good on the campaign trail. Free healthcare and income re-distribution sounds much better.

But think about Income Redistribution for a moment through the eyes of the Constitution. Certain States have greater wealth than others. This was a matter of contention at the Constitutional Convention. It is not new to today's political climate. The matter then was the preservation and pursuit of wealth, to be protected above all else and held as paramount to the need for a new government.

So where does the idea of Income Redistribution fall in line with the Constitution?

Answer: It does not.

Sen. Barak Obama is a Harvard Law School graduate and the first black to serve as Editor of the Harvard Law Review. So it either speaks very poorly of the Harvard Law School to have such a person discussing the topic of Income Redistribution on the national scene, or it reflects poorly on Sen. Obama. Perhaps a bit of both, for the Sen. is wrong--dead wrong!--for speaking on this topic, and if that is what Harvard is teaching, then they are wrong, too. And if they are not teaching Socialism, then shame on Sen. Obama for not paying attention in class.

And for me being the one to bring up the matter, having neither pedigree nor degree in his chosen field of Law.

Just the same, the Federal government, as Rep. Tancredo stated, has absolutely no authority, no power, no right, no purpose even discussing the topic of Healthcare Insurance as a matter of Federal oversight.

Do you see this? Do you believe this?

Let me end with a quote from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist #1:

"On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

So it is that we are blessed to be in the position of opposing such a lot in our contemporary society. They are known today as Socialists. Their actions are known now just as we now know those of Napolean, the Bolsheviks, and countless others before them that Col. Hamilton refers to here.

Will you stand against them? Mayor Giuliani and Rep. Tancredo, by their commentary, sound ready to stand firm, for which I commend them both. My the Republican Party stand so firm as these two sons. For the Democratic Party has made its purposes and its positions known.

Sorry I have taken a bit of a tangent lately. News events have come across my plate that I found too enticing not to comment on.

"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." 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America."

First of all, the appropriate title of the Constitution is as it reads above, and in my undergraduate history text (which was replaced after I took this course, so I kept it):

The Constitution of the United States of America.

"Why not the United States Constitution?" you ask.

It is an epiphany that must be realized but that has been shrouded by over two-hundred years of false opinions and incorrect interpretations. Wrong applications of intent, or outright seeking to supplant the existing government, as put in place by the Constitution, with another ideology.

I say epiphany because the United States of America are just that according to the Constitution: American States, as in Nation-States, United as one. Notice that I said "the United States are," not "the United States is."

Do you understand the distinction?

The States who sent delegates to Philadelphia in May 1787 to discuss the formation of a new governmeent did not do so with the intention of ceding powers to this new national government that they could take care of themselves. They had no intention of, having just finalized their own independence from Britain earlier in the same decade in the Treaty of Paris, signing over their sovreign powers to a tyrant in the New World.

No, the States had every intention of maintaining powers that they held under the Articles of Confederation that they did not deem necessary for the National government to oversee.

All they wanted the new government to oversee and ensure was trade between the States, who maintained their complete independence and sovreignty under the Articles of Confederation, trade between the United States and foreign powers, and defense of the common Union against the same.

Now, has it been necessary for certain entities to be brought into existence at the Federal level since that time? Certainly. We live, today, in a post-Industrialized society (dare I say world?). With the advent of such inventions as the combustion engine, gas-powered electric plants, and the increased use of rivers for shipping, it is necessary, for example, to preserve the environment, as prior to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency the enforcement of environmental policy was spotty at best.

However, we have swung hard to the side of government oversight and enforcement and away from the concepts of small government and State control. If we wish to proceed further down the current path then we must amend the Constitution to allow current practice and to proceed further because current practice, since roughly the New Deal under Roosevelt, is in complete contradiction to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the United States are (again, note grammar) to continue to allow themselves to be dominated by the Federal level of government, which invades such issues as stem cell research, abortion, marriage, capital punishment, prayer and religious expression, and even such historical issues as slavery, segregation, and obscure topics dealt with in, say, the 11th Amendment, as if the Federal government, and specifically the Federal Judiciary, have any stated right or power to oversee such topics, then we must explicitly give such powers to the national government and not continue to ignore the 10th Amendment and the Doctrine of States' Rights.

Actually, these issues were discussed by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Several asked if the State governments ought to be abolished under the Constitution due to the nature of its powers, etc. They voted on the matter and it was decided that, no, States would only be ceding powers to the national government that pertained to Interstate or International matters, and that Intrastate affairs would best be left to the States to deal with for themselves.

Dare I say, this is the only reason that the Constitution was ratified? I put forward that no State, having just shed the tyrannical British monarch, would have laid down all arms and surrendered all authority to a government far from its own borders and ratified such a document. More likely, the delegates would have been castigated for framing such a document and another path would have been tread.

The 10th Amendment is very clear in its language. No powers not given over to the national government in the text of the Constitution are to be deemed ceded by the States, then or today, to the national government. There is discussion over the inclusion or exclusion of the term 'explicitly' or 'implicitly' in the language of the Amendment. It is irrelevent. A power not granted is a power not granted. And a power taken is a power taken.

Take for example Social Security. The federal government in the New Deal took the power to plan and provide for retirement from the States and individuals. Now, whether or not we need any level of government to oversee such a matter is irrelevent. The simple fact is that my 401 (k) and Individual Retirement Accounts have averaged 20% the last couple of years, where the Social Security system might cover the rate of inflation.

Now, I went to grad school and earned a Masters of Business Administration in Finance in order to be able to gain employment that would pay a living wage and allow me the ability to invest some of my income with the intention of buying a nice place in my old age and traveling around the world comfortably.

Social Security does not provide for that. Before Roe v. Wade (1973) robbed us of our future young work force, the purpose of Social Security was to provide a little bit for everybody in their old age.

Now, who votes in greater percentages than other demographic groups? Old people.

Now, who gets Social Security? Old people. Worked the same then as it does today. Today, you don't touch old people's retirement accounts or the full wrath of the AARP and its membership is felt quickly and painfully.

At the time of the New Deal? Suddenly you have an entire generation of old people who, for whatever reason, had not properly cared for their old age who get handed full retirement at taxpayer expense--who didn't have to pay a penny into the system!

The argument of whether Social Security will be around for my generation or not is a moot point. With the Social Security system, I am paying 12% of my salary into a system that might return the equivalent amount in today's dollars in 30-some years.

Now, a rudimentary assessment of the stock market's performance over the last 15-20 years, if that continues out into the next 30 year's future, tells one that relying on the Social Security system rather than the finance industry is folly.

The purpose of government is to grow and get bigger, increase revenue (taxes), and repeat the preceding.

The purpose of industry is to grow and get bigger , increase revenue (commerce), and repeat the preceding.

See the similarity?

See the difference?

The similarity is that government takes from those who produce in the form of tax.

The difference is that government does not engage in commerce. It does not generate profit, which is taxed. Therefore, it is better to let for-profit industry engage in commerce, produce profit, and tax that profit than to let government take over a piece of that commercial interaction and interfere with established, accepted, proven economic law.

How does this relate? Simple. Make the federal government relinquish control over that 12% of my salary and allow me to invest it myself. I will retire a millionaire many times over where the government will never allow that possibility.

A simple rule is this: The Social Security system will never make a millionaire out of its recipients.

A more complicated rule is this: A wise person invests out of the fruits of their labor and their little invested over time becomes more, and more, until, as the Bible says so eloquently, "A wise man leaves an inheritence for his children's children."

The federal government, in the Social Security Act, robbed individuals of the power to control 12% of their income as well as all investments that might result from their control over this income. And the federal government has in other Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Judicial Opinions repeated this 20th-Century example of Unconstitutional behavior repeatedly throughout its history, almost since day one (see 11th Amendment's history on wikipedia.com).

The 10th Amendment is there for a reason. It is a part of the Bill of Rights, which means that if the same people who wrote and ratified the Constitution agreed on the first 10 Amendments, it is pretty darned important. We are wise not to forget its words so quickly:

"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." 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America."

Amend it. Replace it. But don't keep ignoring it!

Sorry, busy July. I see nobody missed me...yet.

So, did you see the news as of about 15 minutes ago (10pm CDT)? The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a measure allowing the President to perform warrantless wiretaps.

Did you catch that?

The United States Senate, controlled by DEMOCRATS, passed a measure that, if passed in the U.S. House, would allow the PRESIDENT to perform WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS! Hopefully the caps and exclamation point helped that time.

Now, do you understand the significance of that statement? Think about it.

The Democratic Party has been roundly crawling up George W. Bush's tailpipe ever since he was running against former, and late, Gov. Ann Richards waaaaaay back in 1994. Now, Texas politics are one thing, and national politics quite another. But that was a significant election when you think about it.

Gov. Richards was one of the darlings of the Democratic Party back then. Then along comes "little Bush" (as the Chinese so affectitately refer to the POTUS as), and defeats the sitting Democratic Governor of the nation's second (then third?) most populous state. With eyes on the White House just as soon as Republican nemesis Bill Clinton was out, Bush became public enema...er, enemy number one in Democratic eyes.

This continued in the 2000 election, and as the results of that affair went to the Supreme Court, the Democrats found a new slogan to describe Bush and their disdain for him: "Not MY President!"

One thing after the other has followed, with Democrats sometimes bashing Bush just to be ugly and besmirch his name, and nothing more.

Now admittedly, Pres. Bush has at times done his fair share to make it difficult to like him, even for Republicans and conservatives like myself who have voted for him four times. Events like the Dubai Ports deal, the Harriet Miers appointment mess, and the continuing inability to balance the Federal budget, not to mention the recent handling of the matter of illegal immigration, have Republicans at times wondering what the President is thinking, and up to?

But Democrats have been relentlessly ugly for 13 years!

Other matters that Democrats have been relentless on include "Bush lied, they died," in reference to the justificatiton used to go to war in Iraq, and my personal favorite, the warrantless wiretapping issue.

Now, personally, I have absolutely NO problem with my International emails and phone calls being tracked. I have a business brokering wood products and have dealings with people in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Israel, the UAE, and China. Now, that may look suspicious to some spook at Langley, so if they think that my little venture in International free enterprise necessitates some "Jack Ryan" wannabe looking over my shoulder, then go for it. Just don't let me find out about it.

But the matter of warrantless wiretapping has NEVER been about American citizens like myself, born here, whose families trace back over a century! Who cares what American citizens do. Timothy McVeigh is the concern there, and that's why we have the ATF and others.

Warrantless wiretapping involved the CIA and NSA tapping NON-CITIZENS' foreign telephone and other conversations. And the last time I checked, you have to be an American citizen to be able to claim rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. Remember when Sadham Hussein attempted to salvage his life by applying for an appeal of his death sentence to the U.S. Federal Courts system? Please. Die. Sucker.

Warrantless wiretapping is, in my estimation, a non-issue. Actually, more accurately stated, it is simply a political issue. One that the handlers of the Democratic representatives in Washington, D.C. get to use to bash Bush and annoy the Republicans with relentlessly in the press, but that amounts to nothing. Sen. Harry Reid's own personal soapbox, and that's about it.

If a non-citizen is communicating with people on phones that, say, INTERPOL knows to be radicals, wouldn't you want those phone conversations to be monitored? And if a phone traced to, say, the tribal lands of Pakistan or the mountains of Afganistan is found to be routinely communicating with Islamic students in New York City whose visas expired three years ago, wouldn't you like to know who is saying what to whom?

Well, until today, the Democrats in the United States Senate, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid-D, Nevada, didn't want the President to perform such "invasions of privacy."

But today, and I cannot stress this enough, the United States Senate chose recess and vacation over principle. And I just wanted to point it out to any of you who happen across my humble blog.

Cheers! And say hi to your Senator for me this weekend if you see them!

OK, let's get one thing straight right up front--I have no dog in the George Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Republican Party hunt. Being from Texas I have the distinct (notorious?) distinction of being able to claim having voted for George Bush four times. When his opponents include Ann Richards, Al Gore, and John Kerry can you blame me?

So I am not a left-of-center, Republican-hating, Bush-basher. But I am also not his cheerleader any longer. With the Dubai Ports thing, the Harriet Myers thing, and his rather disappointing stance on illegal aliens, not to mention Iraq, I am not inclined to preserve, protect, or defend this President any longer.

That all being said, allow me to delve into one of what I hope to be a very infrequent conversation regarding politics as usual.

I am of the belief that seldom do two events occur on the left without each being equally linked to the other. Case in point, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Now, AG Gonzales is one of Bush's most loyal and closest supporters and backers. Hence his name being thrown around as a Supreme Court nominee. Hence his position as AG. Hence the President's unwavering support for his "guy."

AG Gonzales, if you hadn't been paying attention, has been in somewhat of a hot spot lately with the Justice Department attorney firings. I would say scandal except that it really isn't. And if Bush/Gonzales are in the midst of a scandal for firing 8 attorneys, where does that put a Bill Clinton, who fired all--what?--94 of the suckers??

Just today, the Senate failed to garner enough votes in its cloture vote to close debate and seek a vote of no confidence in the AG. Now, this might sound perfectly normal, except that a vote of no-confidence amounts to a claim that Iraq is harboring WMD's. There's no substance to either.

But remember, there are two things going on here like I alluded to earlier. What could the second be? Why would Democrats be so hell-bent on getting rid of AG Gonzales?

Think about other news from last fall and this spring that involved the Attorney General. What is the one issue that a true Liberal will come to blows with you over. Not Iraq, the contemporary issue. Not illegal aliens. Not Social Security. Think Supreme Court.

Roe.

Democrats fully support abortion rights because their ultra-Liberal handlers require them to. And wouldn't you rather find yourself between a cub and it's mother than attempt--even THINK!--of assaulting a woman's right to an abortion.

Well, who did just that in the last year--and succeeded!? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales...

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Attorney General sued in order to keep an Act of Congress restricting partial birth abortion constitutional in the eyes of the Supreme Court.

And Liberals HATE him for it!! For the first time since 1973, a chink was found in the armour. Granted, not a very big chink, but you know what happens to water when it seeps into a crack between two rocks and water freezes there, right? Abortion rights activists have for decades fought tooth and nail for ever opportunity to have abortion on-demand--or any relevant issue--declared constitutional.

Then along comes the present AG. Gonzales v. Carhart went the other way. Opponents of abortion see it as a sign of future successes related to the issue of abortion in the court system. I believe, personally, that in addition to throwing a little bit of egg on President Bush's face, it is nothing more than sweet revenge to have the AG squirm a little bit before Congress on ANY TOPIC that they can bring him in for.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is not a victim of circumstance. His present state has been wildly planned down to the minute detail. Do you really think that the party of Kennedy, Clinton, and Kerry wouldn't like to see gonzales at least resign, therefore fueling their own arguments? And even better would be if something really dirty were to come down the pike for the AG and his "boss."

Ironically, nobody on talk radio, notorious for its conservative tendencies, is talking about the link between these two current events. Not O'Reilley, not Rush, not Medved, Prager, Savage, Ingraham, or any of the many subs these guys call when they take a day off to play golf, etc.

Look for more such shenanigans from Democrats and their Liberal handlers as we head into the last 17 months of the Presidential election!

According to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/landmark

Landmark-an event or development that marks a turning point or a stage.

According to Dave...

Landmark-an opinion handed down by the Supreme Court that violates the 10th Amendment, States' Rights, and the very spirit of the Constitution itself.

A bit biased? Not really. Just a silly definition added to further my point.

The Supreme Court of the United States has made something of a history of horrendously bad decisions. You know, declaring slavery constitutional, declaring segregation constitutional, overturning the death penalty as unconstitutional only to have States revolt, alter their laws, and challenge the ruling only to have to reverse itself and declare Capital Punishment constitutional. Depending on where you are on the issues of abortion and religion, declaring one constitutional and the other unconstitutional.

Ironic, really...

1.) Abortion does not appear in the Constitution, thus the 10th Amendment would lead one to believe that it was strictly a States' Right to regulate such a topic without the intervention of the Federal Government.

2.) Freedom of Religion IS in the Constitution, as is a complete ban on CONGRESS regulating it's activities. So why would the Supreme Court decide that IT had the right to do so? One would think that the right to choose to participate in religion would be an individuals, and the right to do pretty much whatever it wanted resided with the States. Maybe I'm just from Mars...

Another couple of thoughts on the history of all our Harvard Law graduates (aka, the Supreme Court)...

1.) The Supreme Court declared slavery constitutional in 1857 in the (there's the word!) Landmark decision in Dred Scott v. San(d)ford. They couldn't even spell the poor guy's name correctly! Then the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and (did you know about this one?) the Civil Rights Act of 1868! I didn't know about that until beginning all my research! All of those Acts, Amendments, and Executive Orders and the Supreme Court still comes out in 1896 and says segregation is constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson.  I mean, at least they spelled the guy's name right this time!

2.) The Supreme Court, in it's decision in Plessy, was actually, for once, in line with States' Rights! The Southern States enacted regulations restricting blacks from sharing facilities with whites, etc. Back of the bus kind of stuff (actually, that started with railroads, hence Plessy). No-win situation. Do we defer, refusing to issue a decision and allow State law to stand, thus recognizing 10th Amendment States' Rights, or do we overturn States' Rights, thus further damaging the Constitution. Answer: Best not to have ruled in slavery 50 years before! (many more issues to discuss, not the time just yet--come back!)

3.) Even when the Supreme Court finally decided to do the right thing, consider the turmoil that resulted. The 1950's and 60's were a time of considerable unrest and racial tensions. We are still to this day feeling the effects of slavery, segregation, and the Civil Rights era. Way to go, Justices! Way to do the (unconstitutional) right thing! (I say unconstitutional because they shouldn't have ever entered into these issues)

4.) Did you know that four Amendments to the Constitution exist as a direct result of Supreme Court rulings? With three modern amendments always on the forefront of activists activities (flag burning, gay marriage, abortion) The Supreme Court rules and Congress acts to rebuff the Justices. See also the 11th, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Four out of 17 since the Bill of Rights and Constitution were ratified.

That's roughly one in four as a result of Supreme Court actions.

Landmark--also known as waste of time! As in, Congress' time.

Here's a bit of Constitution trivia for you--who controls the Supreme Court? I mean, they're unelected and appointed, "in good behavior," for life. So who owns a "check" on the Supreme Court?

Interesting, isn't it, that the Supreme Court is comprised of unelected people, the people don't have a direct say in who sits on the Court, and they currently have the most impact and seemingly are the mightiest of the three branches of our government, hmm?

Where is the concept of self-governance in a system where unelected Justices hand down ruling after ruling that overturns Acts of Congress and State Law? I don't read that in either the text of the Constitution or the text of the deliberations of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

In fact, I barely read ANYTHING about the Judiciary in the debates! The make-up of the Congress, how many Representatives per State, how many seats Slaves count for, what powers the Federal Government will have and which reside with the States, what powers the Chief Executive would have, which checks and balances are to be held by each branch, etc.

The delegates were VERY meticulous--we would call them anal today--about the Framing of the Constitution. Yet, they spoke about the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary for about two days and Article 3 was complete.

Now how is it that a group like the States could be sooooo concerned about government making decisions without considering the will of the people and they would be so deliberate about placing controls on the government, yet they would put in place a system where unelected persons who have the power to say what the Constitution means have absolute power in that system? That just doesn't make sense.

Then you consider how many times the States or Congress have acted to restrict future impact of Supreme Court decisions on the nation.

Then you are forced to ask, as I did a few years ago, where does the ability of the third branch of government to control the other branches and lower levels of government?

Answer: John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in his Landmark (oh, oh--there it is again!) decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Marbury was some government lackey being appointed as Justice of the Peace or some other necessary government position by outgoing President John Adams. Incoming President Thomas Jefferson wanted "his" guy in Marbury's position, and refused granting Mr. Marbury's commission for said position. Kind of a Scott Armey situation: "Please, give me a government job--I can't get a job anywhere else! Please, please!!"

It turns out, Mr. Marshall and President Jefferson were cousins! How about that--a Hatfield's and McCoy's long before those clans duked it out int Kentucky, or wherever, duking it out in the Halls of Congress (back when the Supreme Court met in the basement!).

Oh, and Madison as in James Madison, Father (and signatory from Virginia) of the Constitution, present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. John Marshall was out playing golf at Pebble Beach that day, or some such.

Well, what would the Chief Justice know about what the Constitution meant? After all, he didn't write it!! James Madison had more to do with that, and should have known something about what it meant seeing as how he was there and had the notes to prove it.

Incidentally, Congress made it legal for an incoming President to appoint his own staff, advisors, etc sometime subsequent to the whole Adams/Jefferson/Madison/Marshall thing. And President Madison did not release the text of his notes from the Constitutional Convention until late in life (approximately 25 years after Marbury).

So, in other words, the Chief Justice did not have the notes from 1787 to refer to in order to fully grasp the intents of the Framers, and instead established the Power of Judicial Review for future generations of Justices to be bound by. And the entire issue brought before the Court in Marbury--the ability of the President to fire those he wished or replace those he wished within his administration--was later Legislated in Congress, as it should have been.

This rather casts an interesting slant on Precedent. It was not fuly informed when it was established, and the case that brought it up was later made obsolete by Legislation, thus eliminating the need for the "opinion" of the Chief Justice in the first place!

Too bad things don't work out the way they should have. Because after Marbury, every major (or Landmark) case since has been predicated on the notion that the Supreme Court is imbued with some great Power to say what is and is not constitutional, according to the great and uninformed John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As opposed to the United States Supreme Court.

Interesting thoughts, hmm? Most of my analysis is just that--my taking historical events that are indisputed, and considering a bit deeper the ramifications of other events, and disputing those with which I disagree wholeheartedly.

Today we have a government that is dominated by the Judiciary, where from what I can see the Justices should really be relegated to amateur golfer status. We have a Congress that is discussing Socialized Healthcare Insurance, Gay Marriage, and occassionally, Abortion, and States that are either too inept, or too ill-informed, to take action and reclaim powers that should never have been stripped from them by Washington.

We have serious problems, and our wannabe representatives would rather talk about flag burning, abortion, and healthcare insurance.

Where am I going with this? Come back for more, but I don't intend on just talking about the problems or just putting forward solutions.  I am inclined to do something about the problems and I hope that distinguishes me from many other bloggers out there.

Until next time...

Budget and Government, huh? Good enough.

If you are visiting because of my reply to the Republican question, welcome. If you found me any other way, sorry to have distracted you!

This blog and others elsewhere deal with States' Rights, the 10th Amendment, and violations thereof by the Federal Judiciary and others. This is in my opinion the single most important topic that faces us and keeps us from devolving into outright Socialism. And of course, there will be nominal comparisons of one of the major parties to that form of government. $1 to the one who can guess that fastest!

Dave-ism #9: "You cannot know what the Constitution of the United States means by reading the opinion of a 21st-Century Justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals--you know what the Constitution means by referring to the words of those who Framed the Constitution (hence the term 'Framers') through studying the text of the deliberations of the Delegates from the several States to the Constitutional Convention of 1787."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm

So there you have it! Read it if you haven't already. It is something of a task, so don't expect it to last a couple of minutes between re-runs of 'Friends' and 'Seinfeld.' But it is the most important thing facing our country today.

First, why do I refer to it as the Constitution of the United States and not the United States Constitution?

Because that is what it is.

Who wrote it? By what authority did they write it? Who ratified it?

Delegates of the several States were dispatched to Philadelphia in 1787 to deliberate the new government. Key point--read that again.

Delegates of the several States were dispatched to Philadelphia in 1787 to deliberate the new government.

Some of the States (for example, New Jersey I believe?) barred their delegates from adopting anything that would have established the new government. They required that whatever the result of the Convention, that the State Legislature be the arbiter of what should be adopted or ratified.

Thus, for the better part of 5 months, the delegates debated and deliberated the text of what is now our Constitution. But they did not adopt it. Signed, yes. And then they each scurried off to their respective States to deliver the final product for consideration.

Nearly to a man, on the day they signed the Constitution (or refused to, in several instances) the delegates stated their beliefs that there were flaws, errors, or outright bad things in this Constitution, but they were affixing their signatures in order to replace the Articles of Confederation with something more effective.

And boy, were they right! About the effective part, I mean.

With the ratification by 9 States of the new Constitution, it went into effect.  Key point--read it again!

With the ratification by 9 STATES of the new Constitution, it went into effect.

Meaning, that when 9 STATES ratified it, the Constitution became ruling law.

And who was meant to alter, or amend, this document setting up our government that contained so many inherrent flaws?

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding...the STATES!! Article 5.

And who is all power RESERVED (key word!) to that is not specifically awarded to the United States by the Constitution?

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding...the STATES!! 10th Amendment.

Read over the text of the Constitution and the text of the deliberations as taken by James Madison at the Constitutional Convention as preserved on the Yale Law School web site at their Avalon Project. Or keep coming back here. We will be discussing further so you will be able to keep up here.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm

So why is the doctrine of States' Rights so important at this juncture of American history?

Simply put, because it is not being observed at all.

Small government and lower taxes? Yeah, and the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause are real. Sorry to burst that bubble for you.

Our government outgrew the manufacturing sector in our economy during the Clinton Administration. Not a slam on that Administration, just an historical fact that came about during that time. It would have been during Bush 41's Administration had he been re-elected. Just a date on the calendar.

Point: We have more lackeys working for Washington than Boeing, GM, Ford, and Chrysler, etc combined. Where exactly is the smaller government in bigger government?

And Bush 43 lowered taxes by about 2 cents on the dollar--great. Makes a lot of difference when gas goes from $0.89 / gallon to $3+ during the same time period, doesn't it?

And lets discuss the responsibility of the Federal Government for providing for people's retirement planning through the perspective of the 10th Amendment.

Oh yes, the 10th Amendment--the one that is called "the most abused and violated Amendment in the Constitution." You know, the 10th Amendment, as in the Bill of Rights?

Here's an unrelated (for now) question for you: Which major political party is in favor of violating no fewer than 3 Amendments to the Constitution? Not the elephants. (1st - Religious Freedom; 2nd - Gun Control; 10th - States' Rights).

So, States' Rights--why are they so important? It boils down to this:

1.) The States feared a tyrannical national government. After all, "Why would I want to exchange 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?" (Mel Gibson in "The Patriot") They wanted to maintain control over their own operations while replacing the ineffective Articles of Confederation with something that worked better and allowed better trade between the States and between the United States and foreign powers.

2.) The Senate was originally elected by the State Legislatures--nice way to keep the "upper" House of Congress in line, hmm? Relinquish the Senate from loyalty to the States that send them and what happens? Primary allegiance is to those who put you in office. When that was the State Legislature, they were loyal to their State. Now it is loyalty to the National Party of your allegiance. Tell me that I'm wrong!

3.) When it boils right down to it, who will keep the Federal Government at bay? Who will keep it from usurping powers reserved to the States if not the States themselves? Who requires the Federal Government act within its powers? If the State governments were to be eradicated in favor of one national government, who would protect the People from a tyrant in the Executive Branch?

Separation of the Powers--remember that one? It works between levels and branches of the government. The Federal Government has certain powers and there are certain checks and balances in place on these powers. And the States retain powers to, say, punish drunk drivers, regulate corporations, and educate the youth of the nation.

So why, once again, would we want a Federal Government making decisions about our retirement planning? Social Security, in typical fashion, earns something like 3-4% per year, barely outpacing inflation. You can almost do better putting money under your mattress! I earned 19% in my IRA and 401(k) last year--beat that!

Then there is the current debate over national, taxpayer-paid healthcare insurance. Huh? Am I missing something? Where is it given in the Constitution that the Federal Government, or it's Representatives, have any business discussing this topic?

OK, here's an even better one for you. How do we expect to pay for this system if we can't even pay for Social Security and righting that Titanic?

The problem with our Federal Government today is that it is taking up every issue that it is not supposed to. Name a topic of great interest at present and try me on it.

Abortion. Gay Marriage. Social Security. Healthcare Insurance. Capital Murder and the Death Penalty. Religion in Public Life.

Where are any of those in the Constitution?

Answer: They fall in under the realm of the 10th Amendment. "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."

Oh, yeah--the people! More on them in a minute.

OK, so none of those topics appear in the text of the Constitution. Trust me, I checked! So by a cursory reading of the 10th Amendment, all fall either to the States or to the People.

Well, the argument, picking everybody's hot-button topic, on abortion is that "it is a woman's right to choose." Well, how about vehicular manslaughter? Does the driver get to choose? Or how about murder committed in the act of robbing a convenience store--does the thief get to choose?

How about Ken Lay? Fraud, deliberate manipulation of the financial markets and extortion, etc, et al, and whatever else he was guilty of. Does Kenny Boy get to choose?

Who chooses whether these activities are legal, and if illegal how to prosecute them and what the penalties are?

Answer: The States. Each for itself. If you don't like the death penalty, it doesn't go to the Supreme Court, it goes to the State Legislature. The Constitution doesn't say, "All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the States...unless the Supreme Court decides it's a slow news day and it needs to approve of something the States don't want or overturn something that they do want." It simply says, the States RESERVE (key word) all powers that we are not SPECIFICALLY GRANTING to the Feds.

The States wrote the Constitution, the States ratified the Constitution, it is the States who Amend the Constitution...it is the States who basically get to decide for themselves what they want to do on ANY topic not covered by the Constitution.

More on the Explicitly/Implicitly thing in another blog. More also on the Federal Judiciary's choice to follow Precedent (John Marshall and Judicial Review) above Constitution (James Madison and 10th Amendment States' Rights) in another blog, too.

There is so much to go over here, I hope you will come back for more. And I will apologize in advance for both the length of my blogs and my verbose nature. Too many words! But the topic at hand necessitates it.

I would love to hear from you. Please comment below and email me as well.

Dave-ism #11: "I reserve the right to blow off logic based on emotion." I don't care what your view of abortion is. It doesn't matter to me. It is not the right of the Supreme Court to overturn States decisions in matters. Yes, yes, segregation and States, blah, blah. More on that later, too. Do some research, folks. You've got a Presidential candidate with a degree from Harvard Law who neither discusses the violations of States' Rights by the Judiciary, nor does he care. It is our duty to educate ourselves in this important topic because those who represent us don't know this stuff, and those who are supposed to have taught them are teaching individual choice, not collective will of the people.

Read Federalist #1 on the topic of individual rights by Alexander Hamilton. Paragraph 4. Very good comments from a fellow whom I disagree with on several other topics. But my, oh my, he nailed "demagogues" and "tyrants" right on the head.

Until next time..