Letters for July 4, 2018
July 4, 2018
In high school U.S. government class in the 1950s I was taught that a society where most of the people are employed by the government is not a healthy society and a government that keeps getting bigger will eventually collapse. (They probably don't teach that anymore.) And I strongly believe that people treat you as you allow them to.
These thoughts were prompted by my recent trip to the DMV. On your car registration bill there's a Reg Fee, a Gov Svcs Tax, and a new Technology Fee-VR (whatever this is) — used to be just a Reg Fee. The Gov Svcs Tax keeps going up and the new fee probably will too. Asked the person helping me with the drivers license renewal what the Gov Svcs Tax was for and he said, "road repair." We also pay tax at the gas pump for road repair and in what shape are our roads? Where is the money going? Probably into some bureaucrat's pocket.
How much longer are we going to allow our government to treat us like sheep? Lately I've felt that I am being herded to the slaughterhouse and I'm not going to take it anymore. But what can I do other than air my grievances in print or on the internet. Taking up a firearm is not a choice I'd make, but I can understand why some do. Citizens who feel they have no power in their lives often become mentally unwell and take their own lives and/or those of others.
On another note (but maybe not): It started as a joke, but it's not funny anymore: "How can you tell a politician is lying, their lips are moving." The political game has become: "Tell them what they want to hear because, after you're elected, you can do as you darn well please or whoever pays you the most and you'll still get your benefits." That's why when I get calls asking if I will vote or have voted for their candidate, I say, "Of course." Let them figure out why they lost.
Recommended Stories For You
I'd like to follow a candidate around and listen to how they alter their speech depending on the audience. That might not be as true on the local level as it is the national but local candidates are learning. Sometimes I wonder if they even listen to themselves? If confronted with a statement previously made, they deny or say "that was taken out of context." My belief is that transparency as far as government is concerned is nonexistent in spite of what they say to the contrary.
Courts have power to fix immigration
Matters of injustice created by legislation can be numerous.
It is obviously unfair and unjust to criminalize those who simply flee and seek refuge from a horrendous and dangerous environment. And need it be said, it is wrong to separate such people from their children. Further, it is wrong to force these people back into the situation from which they are fleeing.
It is wrong to characterize immigrants as being made up of hordes of murderers because one of hundreds of thousands committed a murder. Legal U.S. residents commit approximately 5 murders per 100,000 annually.
Simply signing an executive order saying children will not be separated from their parents is problematic. To say parents are detained with their children but not incarcerated is nonsensical. Detained, confined, incarcerated and imprisoned in this sense are synonymous.
Passing legislation that will allegedly protect our borders while simultaneously preventing injustices created by the strict enforcement of those immigration laws presents a Herculean if not impossible task. Without further legislation, injustices created by the rigid unyielding policy of enforcement could be stopped by our courts if they would but fully use their constitutionally granted judicial power.
Article III, Sections 1 & 2 of the Constitution created a one court system and extended its judicial power to all cases in "law and equity." Amendment XI further specifies "law and equity" as encompassing the court's judicial power.
Equity is a system by which judgments can be made according to what is fair and just regardless of and even though contrary to written law.
Equity procedures began in England and over many years and in numerous jurisdictions have existed under varying rules and principles. The Constitution does not specify limits or qualifications of any specific system; it simply states "equity." Therefore, it seems, the general all-encompassing unqualified principle of equity is extended to the court's judicial power.
Some states have by statute combined certain courts of equity and law however, the Constitution specifically created one court with its inferior courts and vested them with the overall judicial power of "law and equity." These state statutes are not only redundant but cannot limit the broad U.S. constitutional power of equity.
If our courts are not functioning as designed they are dysfunctional.