Thursday, October 16, 2008

Rant on the Issues

Let's look at issues that are so ever present in the current political landscape. I encourage democrats, republicans, independents, catholics, christians, muslims, jews, atheists and everyone else to approach the issues on a LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL level.


Legally, and if I am wrong then someone needs to show me the CONSTITUTIONAL LAW that says otherwise, a person is either Human or a corporate entity. On the HUMAN side of things, one is not a Human until the moment of BIRTH. Therefore, from a constitutional point of view and unborn child is NOT a Human and therefore are not afforded any rights of a Human. No matter what your religious or moral viewpoint, the LEGAL status of Humans is as such and anyone who would argue otherwise is simply instilling a religious or moral viewpoint on an issue that is a LEGAL one. With that being said, I do not favour nor do I support abortion. Personally I would not be for it, but I will NEVER tell another HUMAN that she can not get an Abortion especially if she's been raped or is in a medical emergency. From a constitutional standpoint Abortion is and shall always be legal and I dare say that no state can make a law providing for it because it would violate the United States Constitution. I suppose you must place my position as being liberal when in reality it is simply a constitutional position.

Affirmative Action:

Affirmative action is constitutionally illegal. It gives a preference based on race, sex, or other category. To give a preference to one group over another when it comes to race, sex, religion, age, etc is ridiculous and unconstitutional. I would even go as far as to say that the age of majority and the age of consent should be one and the same and the age should be placed at 14, meaning you can vote, drink, smoke, what have you at age 14. It would eliminate 14-year-old kids getting off with 4 years of detention and being tried as an adult for adult actions. We are going through a reversal of times. Years ago people were wed at very young ages for many different reasons; life span, religious views, necessity, etc. People were wed at onset of puberty through arranged marriage. There is no reason to prolong childhood into our adult years. Back to Affirmative Action, if a company does not hire a proportionate number of women, african americans, seniors, what have you, then they could be subject to going before a court to explain why that is such and the person or persons who feel they have been prejudiced against need to prove how. If a woman sued a lumber company for not hiring her because she was a woman, I would have a hard time finding in her favour. She would have to prove that she was physically able to do the job. I'm sorry but if you can DO a job, then you should be allowed to DO IT. If you are physically, mentally, or found inadequate in another aspect for a specific job, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN THAT PROFESSION! A person should be hired only on his or her merits and qualifications. The legal system exists for those who have been screwed over by corporate prejudice.

Gay Marriage:

Once again, I urge everyone to look at this from a strictly legal sense. Marriage is a LEGAL and FINANCIAL agreement between two HUMANS. To say that marriage is only for a man and a woman and is for the protection of FAMILY is not only religious bigotry and hatred, it is unconstitutional. The problem is that it needs to be fought in each and every state. It violates the United States Constitution. Gay marriage at the time of this writing is legal is California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Again, if I am wrong someone prove me wrong with CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. If it's legal in one state, i.e. made LAW in Cali., Mass., and Conn., then it MUST me ratified and recognized by the rest of the states and territories, MEANING same sex marriage is technically legal in every municipality in the United States. Let's not forget about the whole idea of making laws based on age, sex, race, or sexual orientation!

Gun Ownership:

Self-defense and providing for food. That's what gun ownership is about. I can do both with an automatic weapon, but I can do it better with a double pump shotgun or an AR15 with 3 round burst. I don't feel that a private citizen should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon. That should be for the military and the military alone. The police should not be allowed to use weapons that civilians cannot use, so I feel that while private citizens should not be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon, if the police can than private citizens should. If you don't want to hunt, do hunt, but do NOT tell others that they can't. While we're at it, if a burglar tries breaking in, I'm shooting him or her, once they enter my house without proper warning. And proper warning shall be understood as if you come into my house with out my permission I have every right to shoot you. I should NOT have to tell someone to NOT come into my house. This goes for police as well as private citizens.

Teaching Family Values, Sex Education, Creationism, and allowing Prayer in School:

Family Values: No
Sex Ed: Yes
Creationism: No
Prayer: No
Notice anything? The "No's" are all issues that have to do with religion and morality. You shouldn't teach something in public schools that is based on a religious or moral viewpoint, especially when public school children have many diverse backgrounds. Now if you have a religious viewpoint and do not wish that your child learn how to protect itself from STD's, understand puberty, understand date rape, pregnancy, or a myriad of other valuable tools, then you sign a waiver your child brings home before instruction can begin. You can't teach family values when the idea of family values varies so greatly from family to family, even ones within a shared religious set. Creationism is NOT science and has to carry with it a belief in a Christian God, therefore being biased towards a group based on a religious or moral viewpoint. Now, if you wish your child to learn creationism, teach him or her on your own or in your religions educational program. Prayer should NEVER be a mandatory part of ANY PUBLIC AFFAIR. There should not be a prayer to open a session of congress, to open a sporting event, or any other circumstance except a religious service or event. It is offensive to anyone who is not Judeo-Christian to be made to worship along with others or to endure worship of something that very may well be against your own religious viewpoint. Now I understand this might be hard to understand for those who are Judeo-Christian, which is part of my point. Imagine being a Judeo-Christian and going to a basketball game and having to listen to a prayer to Allah or hearing a reading on how the players should play with the Buddhist Principles of the Eightfold Nobel Path of Enlightenment. I'm pretty sure you would be beyond uncomfortable and you should not have to be subjected to that. Nor should anyone else, so pray on your own or before or after the event on your own. Heck give your shout out to your god or gods while you play I don't care as long as you don't violate the rules of the game or taunt or make fun of another person's religious or moral beliefs.

Death Penalty:

As I mentioned earlier, a Human is born and as such a human dies. That death should ALWAYS be natural, save accidental death. If someone murders another, depending on the circumstances, that person should spend as much time in prison or a mental care facility until it is deemed that person can return to a life outside of a cell. It is not only cruel and unusual punishment, but one can not expect to be and enforcer of inherent rights if one takes those rights away. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may not be taken away for taking someone else's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pretty simple, maybe someday the rest of the world can figure that out.

Drugs and the War on said Drugs:

Marijuana should be legal. Not because I am a pothead, I'm far from such. It's a naturally occurring substance, not man-made, and therefore should not be regulated for personal use. While I agree that adults should be allowed to use alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, etc., I think that it should be unregulated except for health reasons, non smokers can laugh, but hear me out. Cigarettes should be made free of chemicals and additives and a health warning be on all packaging. Cocaine, meth, opium, etc should be illegal because they can easily kill someone who is not knowledgeable enough or could mishandle the drug, i.e. everyone other than herbalists, chemists, doctors, and the like. Not only should the war end against marijuana, we should go after the other drugs with a vengeance while offering programs to those who wish to end their addiction to tobacco and/or alcohol. The use of weed for medicinal purposes should negate every ridiculous law outlawing it's use, possession, and consumption.

The Patriot Act:

The Patriot Act violates constitutional rights. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56), otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act, is an American act which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. It was renewed on March 2, 2006 by the Senate and on March 7 by the House. President Bush signed the renewal into law on March 9, 2006. Unfortunately provision 213 allows for the "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided." Also, many people do not know that the owner of the property or person identified does not have to be told about the search. There is an extra special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to ask for the phone records of a person without EVER notifying the person and if the company does not provide said documentation fines, or worse can be imposed. For things other than Phone Records the person or property owner must be notified, but not necessarily before the search occurs. THEN you have Section 215, which allows the FBI to secretly obtain a warrant from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. Many parts of the Patriot Act are not needed at all and in fact are illegal. It allows law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, basic human rights, and the right to privacy. THE WORST PART: section 215 allows government investigators to gain access to personal records such as financial, medical, telephone, internet, student records, and/or library records, simply on being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities," rather than probable cause as the Fourth Amendment of the CONSTITUTION provides.

And so for now I will go lay down and let my mind wander as I drift off to sleep.


Heinous said...

I'm with you on just about everything except for the death penalty. I'm an eye for an eye kind of guy...and I think they should be killed in the same manner that they murdered with.

Anonymous said...

i think there are places you're spot on and others where nah, not so much. as for abortion, nobody favors abortion, nobody. people have them, but nobody says, wow, think i'll go have unprotected sex so that i can have abortions. while certainly some people have them lightly, that is such a miniscule percertage that it's barely worth mentioning.
sorry, so not with you about the age of consent. children of 14 are children, and not built for bearing babies. given what we now know about growing brains, they're not built for liquor or drugs either. we are mammals and we have to be cut free when our bodies brains and psyches are ready.

i'm a lot older than you are. we may be growing to a place where affirmative action is not necessary, but we wouldn't have gotten here without it.

death penalty, i'm with you with not taking away their lives, but their liberty and pursuit of happy. too bad. if they murdered someone, we need a little protection from their option to do that again. so liberty absolutely. i can't imagine there's lots of pursuit of happiness in prison, but i certainly wouldn't deny them that if they're not infringing. but one's constitutional rights are dependent upon not infringing on the rights of others.

sorry to be anonymous... i'll have to figure out the identity choice some other day... gotta run. but thanks for being thoughtful!