Free Speech at the Capitol

I for one was troubled by the whole idea that you needed a permit to protest your government on public property.  I believe that this is unconstitutional, nowhere does it say that you need permits to peacefully assemble.  When the tea party rolled into town on Monday I thought that they of all groups would not get a permit.  No, I was totally wrong.  For all of complaining about government excesses and wanting to restore the constitution they are really all about law and order.  The first question I always ask is would they be ok with the rule if a guy they don't like did it.  Amazingly that becomes a different story.  But, some are consistent and as a person told me all of the protestors breaking the law should be in jail.  This person was all about maintaining civil society.  They would probably do well in a dictatorship.  The fact is that protest and the ability to protest is a key component to the country's founding as well as nearly any change that has taken place since.  There is no question that opponents of health care reform succeeded in watering down what was eventually passed.

If you want to look at protests another way compare the reaction of the Walker administration to unarmed protesters with the debate on gun regulation. The right to assembly does not mention permits, regulation, control,...  Whereas, the second amendment mentions a well regulated militia as being essential to defense as being the reason why gun possession shall not be infringed.  Does that mean that everyone needs to be in a militia that is regulated?  Then there is the argument that we no longer need militias since we have a large standing army.  This is where the above people who got a permit say that we need weapons to fight the government with.

I believe that both amendments shouldn't be curtailed but unfortunately that is not what is happening and only a minority seem to care about the first amendment.

Can't they Answer the Question

Last night's debate had a question about the role of government and neither candidate had an answer.  Mitt Romney who is on the restore the constitution as I know it tour quoted from the Declaration of Independence a document that does not stat the role of government.  For President Obama's answer he started out good by talking about how the government assisted the railroads in building the trans-continental railroad (taxpayers built it just don't own it) and funding science.  Then he went off into other programs and failed to tie it back to the Constitution.  A better question would have been "how do you interpret Article 1, section 8, clause 1 of the US Constitution and how do you see the role of government in the US?".  This would force each of them to address the promote the general welfare of the nation sub-clause.  The liberals see that as meaning that government has a role in ensuring that people aren't left behind.  The right sees that as being an extension of providing for the defense of the nation, that you have to keep people safe thereby promoting their welfare.  A follow-up could have been "section 8, clause 8 describes a government that promotes the arts, funds research, and promotes science what are your thoughts?".  It should be noted that Romney did indicate that the arts would be cut although that and defense would appear to be 2 programs that the founding fathers wanted.

Tim Pawlenty at the Debate

There was just so much quotable material from the Republican debate the other night but this one from Tim Pawlenty stands out. When asked about people born here and citizenship he responded by saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that you are a citizen just because you are born here. Unfortunately for Mr. Pawlenty that is exactly what the Constitution says. By his reasoning only the people who obtain citizenship are citizens (they had to more than just be born here). I'm waiting for the mis-spoke explaination. Maybe he just meant brown people from Central and South America couldn't be citizens if born here. I'm pretty sure that my ancestors started families here before they were naturalized citizens, so what does that make my Great Grandfather, and anchor baby?

On the Road with Sarah

As candidate (personality) Sarah continues her vacation in the East she continues to mangle the Nation's history. Her latest gaff is on the ride of Paul Revere. Her telling is that he was warning the British that they were not going to come and get our guns but we were going to be free. Not exactly, he was riding to warn the colonists that the British were coming not to get your guns but to put down an armed rebellion and they were serious about it. This revisionist thinking that everything was about the right to be armed is non-sense. The revolutionary war is much more complex than that. Some colonists were angry that they weren't represented in the House of Commons, some were angry that the taxes were too high, and still others were angry that they were not making enough money in their businesses. The gun right didn't come until later and because they wrote 3 clauses into the amendment it has been hotly debated ever since. It says as we all know " A well regulated militia as being essential for the protection of the nation. The right to keep and bear arms. Shall not be infringed." The strict constructionists out there (Sarah) focus on the right to keep and bear arms. They don't talk much about the well regulated militia very much or the infringement. We have passed some type of concealed carry in nearly every State. But, nearly all of those require some type of license and or training. That is an infringement. Not talked about much by the NRA or the right wing. No one is out there saying that you need to be a member of a well regulated militia. Well regulated implies Government run and we know that Government is the problem. If not Government who has the power to regulate? The founders were not anarchists. They were businessmen, scholars (elitists), and farmers who recognized that Government played a role in regulating (leveling the playing field) and governing in order to maintain a civil society. This would be at odds with our current leadership which ignores the general welfare clause of the Constitution in favor of removing the safety net so that desperate people are on the streets. That scenario has not worked out well in history.