Dear America,
This country, believe it or not -- accepted or not -- wanted or not -- was made with the MOST power going to the people, the individual; coming in second, to the state; and coming in last but certainly not least (with a little irony thrown in on the fly), to the oh so limited federal government.
And yet, something happened to me just last night that reveals a twisted interpretation of this out here in the wild, wild west, living in the hallucinogenic reality that is California: someone who looked much like a drifter knocked on my door, holding a clipboard with medical marijuana paraphernalia attached.
now honestly,
I was on my way out,
or I would have talked his ear off for awhile...and not even because I'm like totally against it, or anything...it would have been an interesting exchange, I'm sure.
For me, it's simple: It falls back to that one itty bitty detail that keeps getting in the way: Marijuana is an ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE and against the law.
Current federal law has deemed it unlawful to grow, use, smoke, eat, sell.... in all forms. When it becomes legalized -- then we can all partake in the good and the bad and the ugly that comes with it. But at this time, why should it be allowed and accepted to use freely by only a portion of society? Just because they are ill? Why is it "legal" for just the infirmed (and those who find a doctor for the fringe who just wanna get high)?
Given the arguments made by our lowly supreme court on the SB1070 law -- sanctuary marijuana clinics must cease and desist, as of yesterday; medical marijuana shops must close down. California is acting against federal law all over the place. [especially considering another reality -- being in the midst of a scandal within the DOJ over the Fast & Furious "tactic" that got two border agents shot, and hundreds of Mexicans killed, and at the heart of unspeakable violence of the drug war crossing our borders everyday.] [but let's just have the federal government cherry pick where they take issue with states having it their way with federal law, right]
The thing is, STATES, acting on behalf of the people, in whole or in part, NEVER would have entered into a UNION if they had to give up their sovereignty. NEVER.
This country was not intended to have a king of any kind; this country was not intended to grow under the controlling confines of a central, federally mandated, government, easily reduced to organized crime built upon crony capitalism, corruption, waste, fraud, leading us to this very day where we have a president usurping the power of congress and the supreme court simultaneously [see executive decisions, privileges, to date].
Do you really think this president didn't think the timing of his amnesty announcement all the way through?
He did it just days before the Supreme Court announced it's decision on the Arizona law; it sort of pulls the magic carpet to enforce it right out from under them, no?
How many of us would characterize our federal government as operating with "a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants?" pardon me, while I get in a good belly laugh.
It's so simple it makes my head spin.
When, or if, Arizona is ever allowed to it's own entitlements, ILLEGAL immigration would immediately stop; these ILLEGALS would simply go somewhere else; they would go somewhere else, possibly to some other state, until such time that that state decides it can no longer support the illegal immigrant (financially, through free education, free medical care, public assistance welfare, etc.).
On a G-note closer to home ---
Yesterday, another decision by the Supreme Court, directly affected a local memorial: the SCOTUS decided not to hear the case regarding the Mount Soledad war memorial cross. The decision not to hear the case means that the unconstitutionality of the cross on site stands, as established by the Ninth Circuit court.
The good news, it's not over until it's over; and the court may ultimately take it up once a final rendering of a decision of what to do with the cross is made -- again, by the Ninth Circuit court. For a brief update, go here.
A cross has been atop Mount Soledad since 1913, the current one erected in 1954. People, of the State of California, more specifically San Diego, affirmed and fully supported by the "free exercise thereof" clause, to put a cross on top of a hill. Since it's inception, the war memorial has evolved and it has grown into a community cornerstone.
Perhaps the community of people in this area would never approve of erecting such a landmark again -- there is that. But shouldn't it remain, grandfathered in, according to the lay of the land and community we have all grown? There was a time -- confirmed by the very stone in the shape of a cross atop a hill -- that this community embraced a spiritual reverence.
It simply isn't about a cross anymore. It has been built into a landmark the community has grown around and attached itself to, like moss to a tree, like patina is to brass -- compounded over time, wind, rain, and sun, it isn't just about the cross, it's also about all who have come into contact with it over the years, all of us who have left it's side with a memory, and all of us who wish to live in community with one another here now.
But now, back to the larger community that is the United States.
The prevailing belief at the time of our Constitutional convention is that the States UNITED on the basis of keeping their sovereignty, reinforcing the power to the people, locking in the individual's inherent rights and privileges passed on to us by our Creator, not the king.
The federal government serves us.
As a nation of immigrants -- where every nationality was a minority at one time or another -- the emphasis has always been upon assimilation; reinforced by the belief that it entirely up to the individual, the one in the minority, to apply themselves to the American culture -- communing in language, by bettering themselves in education, becoming a self-sustaining, productive, asset of the community.
and that's where we will end it today.
Make it a Good Day, G
ps can hardly wait til thursday.
"Federal power over immigration
comes from the same source
as state power over immigration:
it is an inherent attribute -- perhaps the fundamental attribute --
of sovereignty.
The states, of course, are sovereign,
the United States being a Union of sovereign states.
To be sovereign
is necessarily to possess
the power to exclude
unwanted persons and things
from the territory."
Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Bench Statement
This country, believe it or not -- accepted or not -- wanted or not -- was made with the MOST power going to the people, the individual; coming in second, to the state; and coming in last but certainly not least (with a little irony thrown in on the fly), to the oh so limited federal government.
"No federal law says the States
cannot have their own immigration law."
cannot have their own immigration law."
Scalia
"Of course, the Supremacy Clause establishes that the federal immigration law is supreme, so that the States' immigration law cannot conflict with it, cannot admit those whom federal law would exclude or exclude those whom the federal law would admit. But that has not occurred here. Arizona has attached consequences under state law to acts that are unlawful under federal law -- illegal aliens' presence in Arizona and their failure to maintain federal alien registration. It is not at all unusual for state law to impose additional penalties or attach additional consequences to acts that are unlawful under federal law -- state drug laws are a good example. That does not conflict with federal law." Scalia
And yet, something happened to me just last night that reveals a twisted interpretation of this out here in the wild, wild west, living in the hallucinogenic reality that is California: someone who looked much like a drifter knocked on my door, holding a clipboard with medical marijuana paraphernalia attached.
"hey, what's up, are you aware of um, ah, the growth of the medical marijuana needs in your community..."
or something like that, anyway.
I was on my way out,
or I would have talked his ear off for awhile...and not even because I'm like totally against it, or anything...it would have been an interesting exchange, I'm sure.
For me, it's simple: It falls back to that one itty bitty detail that keeps getting in the way: Marijuana is an ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE and against the law.
Current federal law has deemed it unlawful to grow, use, smoke, eat, sell.... in all forms. When it becomes legalized -- then we can all partake in the good and the bad and the ugly that comes with it. But at this time, why should it be allowed and accepted to use freely by only a portion of society? Just because they are ill? Why is it "legal" for just the infirmed (and those who find a doctor for the fringe who just wanna get high)?
Given the arguments made by our lowly supreme court on the SB1070 law -- sanctuary marijuana clinics must cease and desist, as of yesterday; medical marijuana shops must close down. California is acting against federal law all over the place. [especially considering another reality -- being in the midst of a scandal within the DOJ over the Fast & Furious "tactic" that got two border agents shot, and hundreds of Mexicans killed, and at the heart of unspeakable violence of the drug war crossing our borders everyday.] [but let's just have the federal government cherry pick where they take issue with states having it their way with federal law, right]
The thing is, STATES, acting on behalf of the people, in whole or in part, NEVER would have entered into a UNION if they had to give up their sovereignty. NEVER.
This country was not intended to have a king of any kind; this country was not intended to grow under the controlling confines of a central, federally mandated, government, easily reduced to organized crime built upon crony capitalism, corruption, waste, fraud, leading us to this very day where we have a president usurping the power of congress and the supreme court simultaneously [see executive decisions, privileges, to date].
Do you really think this president didn't think the timing of his amnesty announcement all the way through?
He did it just days before the Supreme Court announced it's decision on the Arizona law; it sort of pulls the magic carpet to enforce it right out from under them, no?
"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only...reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be preformed by a few servants." Thomas Jefferson
How many of us would characterize our federal government as operating with "a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants?" pardon me, while I get in a good belly laugh.
"In sum, Arizona is entitled to impose
additional penalties and consequences
for violations of federal immigration laws,
because it is entitled to have its own immigration laws."
Scalia
It's so simple it makes my head spin.
When, or if, Arizona is ever allowed to it's own entitlements, ILLEGAL immigration would immediately stop; these ILLEGALS would simply go somewhere else; they would go somewhere else, possibly to some other state, until such time that that state decides it can no longer support the illegal immigrant (financially, through free education, free medical care, public assistance welfare, etc.).
On a G-note closer to home ---
Yesterday, another decision by the Supreme Court, directly affected a local memorial: the SCOTUS decided not to hear the case regarding the Mount Soledad war memorial cross. The decision not to hear the case means that the unconstitutionality of the cross on site stands, as established by the Ninth Circuit court.
The good news, it's not over until it's over; and the court may ultimately take it up once a final rendering of a decision of what to do with the cross is made -- again, by the Ninth Circuit court. For a brief update, go here.
A cross has been atop Mount Soledad since 1913, the current one erected in 1954. People, of the State of California, more specifically San Diego, affirmed and fully supported by the "free exercise thereof" clause, to put a cross on top of a hill. Since it's inception, the war memorial has evolved and it has grown into a community cornerstone.
Perhaps the community of people in this area would never approve of erecting such a landmark again -- there is that. But shouldn't it remain, grandfathered in, according to the lay of the land and community we have all grown? There was a time -- confirmed by the very stone in the shape of a cross atop a hill -- that this community embraced a spiritual reverence.
It simply isn't about a cross anymore. It has been built into a landmark the community has grown around and attached itself to, like moss to a tree, like patina is to brass -- compounded over time, wind, rain, and sun, it isn't just about the cross, it's also about all who have come into contact with it over the years, all of us who have left it's side with a memory, and all of us who wish to live in community with one another here now.
But now, back to the larger community that is the United States.
The prevailing belief at the time of our Constitutional convention is that the States UNITED on the basis of keeping their sovereignty, reinforcing the power to the people, locking in the individual's inherent rights and privileges passed on to us by our Creator, not the king.
The federal government serves us.
As a nation of immigrants -- where every nationality was a minority at one time or another -- the emphasis has always been upon assimilation; reinforced by the belief that it entirely up to the individual, the one in the minority, to apply themselves to the American culture -- communing in language, by bettering themselves in education, becoming a self-sustaining, productive, asset of the community.
"So the issue is a stark one:
Are the sovereign States at the mercy
of the federal Executive's refusal to enforce
the Nation's immigration laws?
A good way of answering that question is to ask:
Would the States conceivably have entered
into the Union
if the Constitution itself contained the Court's holding?
... The delegates of the Grand Convention
would have rushed to the exits
from Independence Hall."
Scalia
Are the sovereign States at the mercy
of the federal Executive's refusal to enforce
the Nation's immigration laws?
A good way of answering that question is to ask:
Would the States conceivably have entered
into the Union
if the Constitution itself contained the Court's holding?
... The delegates of the Grand Convention
would have rushed to the exits
from Independence Hall."
Scalia
and that's where we will end it today.
Make it a Good Day, G
ps can hardly wait til thursday.
Posts
BZ!
ReplyDeleteTYFTGP6-3!
MGBYAKY