Dave's Droppings

Some food for thought when a knee-jerk Lib castigates either Republicans or Conservatives for tax laws that favor the “Rich”…

Let’s see… The branch of Government that writes the tax laws is Congress. Looking back over the decades since 1952 which party has controlled Congress? Hmmmm…

Over those 67 years the Republicans controlled both Houses only 12 years. However, for 6 of those years they did so with a Democrat as President that had to either sign that legislation into law or veto it. That means the Republicans had control of both the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government for all of 9% of the time.

Over those 67 years the Democrats controlled both Houses 38 years and for 24% of the time the Democrats controlled both the Legislative and the Executive.

The other 11 years saw a split control of Congress with the Democrats controlling the House for 6 of those 11 years. Care to guess which House of Congress is tasked by the Constitution with writing the Tax laws?

So… Since 1952 The Republicans have controlled the Tax writing House of Congress for only 17 years. The Democrats have controlled the Tax writing House of Congress for 75% of the time.

So please tell me again which Party is “all about wealth redistribution, sucking as much money out of the pockets of the working class before they completely destroy it and stuffing it into their own.”

I first posted this up about +2 years ago on FB. Figured I’d put it here too so I don’t have to keep digging for it over there to point people too.

I’m neither pro nor anti. I’m agnostic since I don’t think the government should be involved in Marriage. Surprisingly uber Lib Cass Sunstein makes the case for Conservatives to join with Libertarians by pointing out that Marriage is just another government licensing (read tax) scheme.

Sunstein proposed that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. “Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government,” and “the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people.” and “Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage,” by referring to state-recognized marriage as an “official license scheme.”

I too lean Libertarian on the issue of Marriage. That is I don’t think the State has any business in the matter. I am in favor of Civil Unions in that this establishes the “contract” between the parties for the purposes of protecting the parties and the children in the event the relationship fails. Marriage should then be a purely Religious ceremony governed by your Religion and your beliefs as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

My own religion has two different types of marriages. One performed at the local Chapel, etc… if you are not able for whatever reason to be married in the Temple. That Marriage is like any other Marriage in that it is for this lifetime only. We believe a Temple Marriage is for “time AND all eternity” Guess which Marriage certificate means more to me? The one I have from the State of Arizona or the one from my Church?

If a couple from the Unitarian Church (who whatever) had either a state issued Civil Union contract or a Marriage License from their current Church and decided to convert to my faith the Church would certainly recognize them as being married. If they then wanted to “seal” that marriage in the Temple they could do that too.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade because it is horrible law. If you have to get into a reliance of emanating penumbras then you really have no basis for law since the ghost you think you see might just be a bank of fog.

As for abortion…

Here is the Gospel according to Dave. I have had this conversation many times…

“I’m neither pro-abortion nor pro-life. I agree with Bill Clinton: “Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare”

The decision should be between a Women and her Doctor. However, since pregnancy (in cases other than rape, incest, etc…) take “two to tango” in the case of an “oops” if the pro-abortion lobby is saying the matter is only the concern of the women and the father has no say in the abortion than I want to hear them say that if the woman makes the choice to carry to term and the guy does not want it then she waives the child support.

I come to this opinion on my own. I don’t know when the fetus becomes a human (that is not to say that there is a question as to it’s potential. It’s not a seahorse for crying out loud.) I mean when does God introduce a spirit to the flesh? At conception? At first breath? I don’t know. I can certainly feel safe with first breath being a reasonable point. Before that point is why I think the issue of aborting a child conceived in rape is one of the allowances of my Church. Understand. NO General Authority of the Church has EVER (to my knowledge) uttered anything approaching that concept. That is purely the “Gospel According to Dave”

Also in line with my Church’s teaching on the matter (which includes life of the mother) I do not see a contradiction in that stance of being generally opposed to Abortion since we are commanded to go forth and multiple. Terminating a child in the womb is certainly short-circuiting that and would be at cross purposes.”

Some comments I have posted…

Question for the anti-gun rights folks. If you really believe that the 2nd Amendment refers to the right of a Militia (and not people) to own guns please explain to me why the need for an Amendment to ensure the ability of the Executive to exercise it’s already enumerated Article 2 Section 2 powers?

Another thing for those on the anti-gun side wondering if the 2nd Amendment covers guns like an AR-15 or AK-47. Read the Supreme Court decision in Miller when they decided that a sawed off shotgun was not covered.

The ruling did not actively address the individual right to own a gun (that was covered later in Heller) merely considered the “Militia” aspect of the Amendment.

“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

1. The Individual citizen was expected to bring his own gun to the muster if called
2. It was to be a kind in common use for that purpose. Note: the civilian version of the AR-15 and AK-47 “look” like the type used by the Military to use for defense but don’t function like them.
3. The AR-15 and AK-47 variants are a common type of rife in use

So… If you want to take this to the Supreme Court the precedence argument could be made that Miller allows for full auto weapons like that used by the Military. You sure you want to have that argument?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

The purpose of the words “A well Regulated Militia” from the Heller Decision

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

“Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people.