My Even More Ridiculous Proposal...Or Not? - Another Article From My Old GeoCities Blog

Here is another archived article I did on my GeoCities website years ago but with all of the "State's Rights" issues happening right now due to the illegal ObamaCare legislation that infringes on State's rights and citizen's rights, I thought I would re-post this old article here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050329022622/www.geocities.com/LennyVasbinderPI/Politics_Ridiculous

I originally wrote this Letter-To-The-Editor to several papers back when former President Clinton was proposing a Federalized DWI Law, which I thought was ridiculous, so I called this...

MY EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS PROPOSAL.. OR NOT?

Since everyone associated with Washington, D.C. (i.e.-FEDERAL POLITICIANS, NON-ELECTED FEDERAL JUDGES, WASHINGTON BUREAUCRATS, ETC.) want to tell the States, Parishes, Counties, Cities and the People how to regulate themselves, or face CUT-OFF or CUT-BACK of Federal Funds, why not just DISSOLVE ALL CITY, PARISH, COUNTY AND STATE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT? Then we can make all of the existing state and local laws, rules and regulations into federal laws, rules and regulations. Then we can just let everything and everyone be run by the Federal Government in Washington, D.C., since there is already the President, Congress and all the various Federal Agencies run by bureaucrats already.

NOTICE TO ALL CITY, PARISH, COUNTY AND STATE POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS AND EMPLOYEES:

If you do not want MY EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS PROPOSAL to eventually come true, then you better start showing some autonomy and follow the ideas and dictates of our Founding Fathers. Begin by immediately protesting any federalized proposal that contradicts or usurps our State, Parish, County and City laws, rules and regulations, and the beliefs of the majority of the people. For example, Louisiana politicians eventually raised the drinking age from 18 to 21, not by a vote or proposal by our people, but ONLY after federal threats of cutbacks in federal highway funds, and lobbying by special interest groups.

An 18, 19 and 20 year old is either a MINOR FOR ALL PURPOSES or an ADULT FOR ALL PURPOSES, which includes buying a beer. This has nothing to do with promoting drinking and driving or relaxing the existing DWI laws, as I am against that, but it is RIDICULOUS that the liberals in Washington, D. C. want to stop an 18 year old ADULT from buying a beer, even though these same 18 year old ADULT men are required under federal law to register for the selective service, be eligible for the draft and even go to WAR for our country. These same 18-year-old ADULTS have the right to vote which many politicians seem to forget!

NO POLITICIAN IN WASHINGTON, D.C. OR ANY STATE that I know of has ever proposed a criminal law against two minor teenagers that have sex and make an illegitimate baby! Which is more detrimental to society? The 18 year old ADULT who buys a beer or the unmarried teenage moms with illegitimate babies. Once again, I am not saying it is O. K. to drink and drive, only that a LEGAL ADULT should have all the other rights and privileges as any other LEGAL ADULT, since two minors can legally make illegitimate babies without any legal repercussions. IN FACT, WE END UP PAYING THEM TO DO IT, VIA WELFARE AND OTHER SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

The latest reported statistics claim that there were 40,000 traffic fatalities and the overwhelming majority WERE NOT caused by drunk drivers, and of the ones that were caused by drunk drivers, the average blood alcohol content was 0.17%. In that same year, there were an estimated 1,000,000 abortions, and more than 20,000,000 abortions since Roe v. Wade, yet when our State tried to curb these irresponsible people, the Courts said NO!

Irresponsible people having un-protected sex and using abortion as a means of birth control are far more detrimental to society than an 18 year old ADULT buying a beer.

DISCUSSION POINTS:

THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, who were, and still are much wiser than most of the current politicians, was that each State should have autonomy without an overpowering and encumbering Federal Government telling them or their people how to run THEIR STATE. This was intended so that States would be different as far as laws, rules and regulations are concerned, so that each State would have to compete for business, industry and even to attract and retain its tax paying citizen base. For example, if one State started taxing and regulating people too much more than another neighboring State, those people, businesses and industry could move to the less burdensome State. These types of market forces would have caused States to compete with lower taxes, better schools, better police and fire protection, better roads, etc., in order to attract and retain more people and businesses. This same analogy applies to Cities, Parishes and Counties within any given State.

I think that the way the Federal Government is now collecting the money (i.e.-our tax dollars) and only giving it back to us if we "stay in line" with Washington, D. C. is RIDICULOUS, and against the original intent of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution of The United States.

IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN ANY GIVEN STATE WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TELL THEM HOW TO LIVE, WORK AND RAISE THEIR CHILDREN, THEN THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE TO DISSOLVE THEIR CITY, PARISH, COUNTY AND STATE GOVERNMENTS AND GO UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL. THE PEOPLE IN THAT STATE, THAT DO NOT AGREE WITH FEDERAL CONTROL OF THEIR STATE ARE FREE TO MOVE TO ANOTHER MORE FAVORABLE STATE.

NOTICE TO CITIZENS:

IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE ABOVE TO HAPPEN, START TELLING YOUR CITY, PARISH, COUNTY AND STATE LAWMAKERS AND BUREAUCRATS TO STAND UP TO WASHINGTON, D. C. (many cannot, due to being so spineless) AND DO WHAT OUR CITIZENS WANT, NOT WHAT SOME FEDERAL JUDGE, POLITICIAN OR BUREAUCRAT WANTS US TO DO!

For example, tell our ELECTED Sheriffs and Judges to stop releasing prisoners due to some liberal Federal judges ruling and just pack the convicted criminals into the jails until the seams are bulging. WATCH THE CRIME RATE GO DOWN THEN! It should not cost the taxpayers $25.00 to $40.00 per day to house convicted criminals while they serve out their punishments. Until our elected Sheriffs and Judges start standing up for STATES RIGHTS, we will continue to pay huge amounts of money to give these convicts free living space, free meals, free medical treatment, free recreation, etc., etc.

I KNOW THAT SOME OF THIS SOUNDS RIDICULOUS AT FIRST BUT RE-READ THIS LETTER AND START THINKING ABOUT THE OVERALL MESSAGE. IT ACTUALLY STARTS TO MAKE SENSE!

Lenny Vasbinder

P.S.-This writer has no financial interest in any alcohol beverage outlet, but is very interested in RIDICULOUS government policies and against the ever-growing size of the Federal Government.

Here is the Preamble of The Constitution and The Brittanica Concise Reference excerpt from Yahoo!

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Brittanica Concise Reference from Yahoo! Reference site explains the Constitution as follows:

(Pay particular attention to the 2nd Paragraph)

Fundamental law of the U.S. federal system of government and a landmark document of the Western world. It is the oldest written national constitution in operation, completed in 1787 at a convention of 55 delegates who met in Philadelphia, ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation. Because ratification in many states hinged on the promised addition of a Bill of Rights, the Constitution was not fully certified until 1791.

The framers were especially concerned with limiting the power of the government and securing the liberty of citizens. The Constitution's separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, the checks and balances of each branch against the other, and the explicit guarantees of individual liberty were all designed to strike a balance between authority and liberty.

Article I vests all legislative powers in the Congress--the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article II vests executive power in the president. Article III places judicial power in the hands of the courts. Article IV deals, in part, with relations among the states and with the privileges of the citizens, Article V with amendment procedure, and Article VI with public debts and the supremacy of the Constitution. Article VII gives ratification terms. The 10th Amendment restricted the national government's powers to those expressly listed in the Constitution; the states, unless otherwise restricted, possess all the remaining (or "residual") powers of government. Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by Congress on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. (All subsequent amendments have been initiated by Congress.) Amendments proposed by Congress must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in as many states. Twenty-seven amendments have been added to the Constitution since 1789. In addition to the Bill of Rights, these include the 13th (1865), abolishing slavery; the 14th (1868), requiring due process and equal protection under the law; the 15th (1870), guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race; the 17th (1913), providing for the direct election of U.S. senators; the 19th (1920), instituting women's suffrage, and the 22nd (1951), limiting the presidency to two terms. See also civil liberty, commerce clause, Equal Rights Amendment, establishment clause, freedom of speech, judiciary, states' rights.

Sincerely,

Lenny Vasbinder