Haikus: (2016VS2022): The Future of All of Us is Truly in the PSALMS of OUR hands

*Some things never change. 💫🙏🦅🕊✨

Copyright. Karen Ben-Moyal. Dec. 18, 2021.

Copyright. Karen Ben-Moyal, 2016.

Featured

Setting All Propagandas Straight: Israel’s Place in the World

“When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

Continue reading “Setting All Propagandas Straight: Israel’s Place in the World”

Students for a Better Future Radio Interview, “The World in Crisis with Karen Ben-Moyal.” (Link & Audio)

If you’re interested, here is the website link & Audio to my hour-long interview with radio talk show hosts from Students for a Better Future last night. I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation we engaged in. I’ll have to take the hosts up on their offer to come back on the show and speak again soon!

Listen to the audio file version:


Listen via the direct link and Explore Students for a Better Future website:

//percolate.blogtalkradio.com/offsiteplayer?hostId=345067&episodeId=10052249

Thank you so much!

-KBM

Why Inequality Trumps Equality: In a Nutshell

Equality before the law is essential, in terms of how it is applied to people, and this is enforced more successfully in the United States than most other countries.

However, our inequalities are what make Americans thrive and work so well together. We should embrace these differences– not suppress them. They are the gems which make our country so special and so unique. Not to mention, it’s what makes us sovereign; the shining city on the hill. 

Yes, we are all equal under the law– and rightfully so– but our conflicting characteristics, ambitions, goals, dreams, interests, aspirations– our DIVERSITY– is what truly makes this country continue to grow economically and thrive strategically… If we were all equal, we would never have the opportunity to pursue our own version of the American dream, for we wouldn’t have the freedom to do so.

So yes– equality is silly. Makes you wonder why so many ppl our age advocate for this foolishness. I suppose silly people lack the ability to connect these dots that have been right in front of all of us this entire time….?! 

Thus, our INEQUALITIES are what drive capitalistic societies into becoming the FAIREST systems of government, in the world. 

Jerusalem, Mankind’s very First ‘Embassy’ Among other Thoughts, a short Tribute to the Homeland of all of US. Yours Truly, KBM

 

 היא מדינת ישראל

President Trump at the Israel Museum. Jerusalem May 23, 2017  Pr

 © Karen Ben Moyal, 5/16/2018

ירושלימ של זהב

Jerusalem, humanity’s very first embassy;
Origins of the first planted seeds;
Sprouted With light, love, faith, and liberty;
A desert only blooms when hope prayer and fate;
Are shared by an unbroken bond, lit with an eternal flame; 
The Tree of Life, the roots of all mankind;
Our worldly Branches connected;
An ancient species restored;
Bonded by prophecy,
in Hope; never fear;
With a passion for purpose— one quite clear;
To honor democracy;
to grow autonomously:
To gain independence,
And spread the wings;
Of freedom, peace,
And economic prosperity;
Unto their neighbors, and now all over the world
In gratitude they give thanks;
To the world,
To their Rock;
To the Redeemer, Adonai;
And of course, To their most cherished ally…
Those who have been awaiting reunion
Ever since Genesis—
In fact, only nation in history Never to wish the Israelites harm;
The United States of America,
For the first time in 2,800 years, took Yisrael under their arms;
It’s Foundations structured in pure *לב*
From Tel Aviv to the Red Sea,
Beyond The Sea of Galilee to the sand dunes of the Negev;
Happiness finally fulfilled,
For All cultures of the world now preserved;
The history of all of us is now Secured;
The entire globe welcome,
Free to return and rejoice
;
.ירושלימ של זהב
Jerusalem of Gold;
Lives on;
In our hearts and in our Universe;
The redeemers of Zion
Now, too, have a voice;
The Land of Israel belongs you and me.for the sake of our posterity.
Let us keep our Holy Land prosperous and free;
“היא מדינת ישראל.”
She is the State of Israel.
~ Forever & Ever.Amen.
Featured

The Re-Birth of Conservative Socialists in the 21st Century

All Rights Reserved.

Copyright, 2018. Karen Ben-Moyal

The Re-Birth of Conservative Socialists in the 21st Century

Note from Author: {As A Prologue}

Today’s self proclaimed constitutionalists and “Libertarians” have forgotten the foundational structure in which the core reasoning for an establishment for freedom was ever established, really would love to hear what the modern day BSers who claim the founders did not believe in contributing to the entire world, although the basics of our nation’s founding principles and fundamental values clearly states these basic laws to govern humanity towards freedom, I guess you may assume if you are not too big on thinking, that the meaning of “all men endowed by their creator,” or the many mentions of “All men being created equal,” was only meant to Americans?

This has always been something I have laughed at and in recent months seemed to be more of an issue that has continued to come to light in the narrow world of millennialism and Common Sense not only gives light to this fact over and over and over again, Jefferson too states in the Declaration itself and all other works, quotes that revolve around the true meaning of what it means to be an American:

Thomas Jefferson, the country’s first secretary of state and its third president, characterized the new United States of America as such: “the solitary republic of the world, the only monument of human rights . . . the sole depository of the sacred fire of freedom and self-government, from hence it is to be lighted up in other regions of the earth, if other regions shall ever become susceptible to its benign influence.”

So I know this is not normal but all things normal have been long lost from academia all the years I have attended college anyway. So, you tell me, Is this normal or is the west headed for decline with the the future leaders of America who have this mindset or who are even further off from what American Independence meant for the world at the time of its arrival?……………….. 😦

To me.

This paints a much larger canvass for discussion — for the purpose of effectively understanding these “truths” —
One must to look to another perspective, and perhaps some Insight into the meaning of“The hope” can be restored for the whole world to benefit from.
To shed light upon a group of words Americans know well — however, to understand the depth of this notion— Reevaluation should be considered at this point in out nations time and age —
In other words, the truth held behind the words themselves considers one to seek further analysis of how such universal rights” were established into law to begin with: One must look into the origins or to the roots of their *liberty tree*

****Hint-
“what it truly means to be citizen of humanity = why Americans set out to establish these rights = what it truly means to be a citizen of America = rooted at the core principles of mankind’ since Genesis:I

“…Liberty and Justice for All.”

“..Hold These truths to be self evident..”

“…That all men are created equal;

“..That they are Endowed by Their Creator with certain unalienable rights…“

The Road to
M A N I F E S T

D E S T I N Y

Begins Over Again:

Circa AD Year of RENEWAL;

Or

~Yr 2020 A.D.~

The Re-Birth of Conservative Socialists in the 21st Century

Copyright. KBM. 2017.

Forward

“Conservative Socialism” was a term coined by German Economist F.A. Hayek in the 1930’s to describe the nationalistic movement unprecedentedly taking place under the guise of German pride– that of which led up to the Second World War. Whilst reading his “Road to Serfdom,” the underlying messages behind F.A. Hayek’s ideas is what originally inspired me to form this logical (working) analysis. Hayek’s method so accurately predicted the rise of the Nazi regime that it was almost as if he already lived through the war and traveled back in time to write his predictions. Then again, this genre of quality is what makes the thinkers we remember, remembered. I have not really written much on my blog ever since I accomplished the initial goal I set out to do initially. This goal evolved around the 2016 Presidential Election. Such crucial information was simultaneously being severely hindered from the public during the time. By taking the personal initiatives towards spreading my thorough research & genuine life experiences, I was able to address and debunk all those who formed their opinionated theories on misguided propaganda rather than the truth, (i.e. historical facts or evidence). Hence the title of my blog, the “Concern” part obviously stemmed from the dire lack of political knowledge I commonly witnessed amongst my peers and my professors during my daily life as a college student. Simply put, it is my firm belief that if one hides from the truth, one is essentially hiding from oneself. And honestly, the longer you live this way, the more you discover you are not actually alive. You have several choices when your peer, your elder, or your neighbor comes to you with their own wisdom encompassed for the sole purpose of following their own passions. In the end, it is up to you to decide how much you want to learn, from anything in life; your knowledge is your doing. All of us depend on you if you plan to join us in the future when we are running this country. The following pages are going to revolve around my thoroughly researched opinions built from facts, over how the U.S. ought to conduct its business with foreign allies, foes, and humanity as a whole. As you read, please keep this in mind: It is very common for a carefree individual to hold such deep admiration for oneself in such a way they only care about their own wealth and sustaining it ruthlessly enough, to the point that they don’t care what happens to the middle or lower class. Rather than lacking respect and compassion for those less fortunate, the ones who think we should not follow history’s examples and suggest absurdly unrealistic ideas such as the claim in favor of the U.S. randomly detaching itself in sustaining American efforts from the rest of the world, have zero decency– not for themselves, not for anyone– at all. Not only is this morally irresponsible, it is a tasteless failure for a leader to leave their marked territory and their friends abroad to pursue a plan that has never even been tested, to prove a conspiring point. To idolize the idea that America can live amongst itself and cut off foreign trade or support of any kind has all sorts of implications that will be discussed at length in the following pages. Among other issues, keep in mind that pulling out of the world means loss of control with regards to economic prosperity, maritime forces, as well as mobility in air space. These aspects alone are crucial to the survival and development of American prosperity, not just mankind– who, by the way, we should also be thinking about in every act and policy we plan to pursue. This is simply because enormous responsibility comes with being the leader of a global enterprise.
Furthermore, please read the following PSA in which I took Hayek’s idea of a Conservative Socialist and transformed the systemic circumstances of a modern governing system. By arguing the similar reasoning in Hayak’s points, I paved a guide for one to follow in my logical footsteps towards expressing a whole new argument for a different age and country. Furthermore, I’ve decided to share with you all, my own take and personal my philosophic reasoning which connects Hayek’s theory. By utilizing modern-day arguments originally infused by a high dose of the “Buy American, Hire American” brigade, I plan to elaborate on this subject and completely debunk all other theories from here on out. Hopefully, my supporters and blog followers will find this subject as intriguing as my previous work. Either way– I am grateful for the opportunity to have a platform for you to listen.

The Re-Birth of Conservative Socialists in the 21st Century

Conservative Socialism is a term that could be used to describe the characteristics of those who fill the societal realm of today’s anti-globalists. To begin, I would like to ask this oxymoronic group just one question: Since when do human beings achieve economic prosperity through their nation? Isn’t the reason that America is the youngest yet most successful nation– (esp. economically)– because of individual free trade? Hasn’t the purpose of creating wealth always been up to the individuals who are trading with one another? Ever since this whole new wave of nationalism came about, it has sparked a trend of ignorance– anti-socialists actually agree with everything that socialism stands for without even realizing it. This here is a pretty scary parallel to Nazi Germany or perhaps today’s Venezuela and North Korea.

Think about how scary it would be if we did not allow World trade between America’s farmers, entrepreneurs, car dealers, etc. if you stop to think about it just for a moment, wouldn’t trade within our nation and our nation only give more power to the federal government? Giving up our ability to trade with foreign investors or markets will eventually give rise to the Feds whom will undoubtedly achieve full power over our economic boundaries… Placing restrictions on a concept which has made us the greatest nation in the world– how much sense does this nationalistic approach make to you? If you have a working mind, it should strike you as utter nonsense. Not allowing individuals to trade with whoever they choose is thereby just another form of Tyranny. A guise which restricts us from our well being and prevents us from depicting the natural scope of our own human nature– our own identity. Worse still, giving up this natural human right would prevent one from achieving his or her desires because stealing the free will of a free nation whose foundations birthed the world’s first free market– is ultimately the only end game in the eyes of absolute power. That is, the power stemming from the core elitists who have governed side-by-side the past eight years. You know, those who consistently blame middle-class Americans for their failures, not at all shocking, but ironic, that their schemes have always been aimed against the bourgeoisie yet to their astonishment, fell short. And now they choose to blame this unfinished business on those who put them into power and supported them in the first place. While it would be fair to make the claim that this outcome was a stroke of karma, justice, Kismet, divine will, fate, serendipity, or even sheer dumb luck never is the case for validity in such a circumstance. A leader who ridicules those he was given the honor and privilege to lead is a fallacy no matter how beautiful your most loyal paparazzi paint your picture.

Economic prosperity has been proven to work and continues to work so long as government and politics cease to intervene. Foreign trade has always been on the side of those who wish to trade with one another, giving benefit to the consumer, supplier, as well as their market investors. Why else would someone engage in trading goods if it was not mutually beneficial for both ends? No one is forcing someone to trade globally, they do it for a reason that obviously benefits them. And if it no longer benefits them, they can hop out of the ring at any time and find a better deal with anyone else in the world offering them a better deal. That’s the beauty of a natural economic system. Free flow of goods has nothing to do with policies which can only burden free people’s in the long run. Individuals trading with whoever they can profit most from, that is, without restrictions, regulations or unfair trade deals placed upon the individual should have nothing to do with nations trading with one another. This is how corruption forms, when the state takes it upon themselves to choose what form of trade works best for the majority of its melting pot of diversifying citizens–none of whom are the same– inevitably making the goals and relationships up for individuals as the government so chooses. This is the only realistic outcome that could result when any elite minority in power chooses to restrict anyone from our primal source of freedom.

Bottom line– Once you give a nation the power to Control your trade deals and your free markets, you are giving up your right to choose who you would like to do business with. No nation has the right to choose or decide who you yourself could benefit from. Freedom at its core would be sacrificed for the rest of your endeavors in life. Free trade is genuinely the source of all wealth. And It is no nations job to tell you and each individual from different walks of life how to trade and whom to trade with. Thar is what giving up your freedom looks like. And this is honestly the first permissible step towards a scary path of utter destruction. Not just the nation as a whole, but rather, you are committing aspirational suicide. More significantly, you’re paving the path to your own Self-destruction. Enslavement is the link between today’s Conservative socialists and self-proclaimed socialists. Their plans are one in the same. Nothing but a blueprint is all this hype is about. Propaganda goes both ways in this case– somehow fake news continues to effectively persuade both sides of the political spectrum. Persuading outrageous ideas that will end in both sides destroying themselves. Amazing how loudly and proudly they can manage to promote such irreversible damage. My hope is that they end up realizing this sooner rather than later– before they end up finding themselves living in the third world.

It’s time everyone starts thinking for themselves. After all, America’s most unique creation has always been her ability to surpass any other nation in creative thought. In other words, The underlying values which most contribute to our nation’s unprecedented success have always had its roots in our diversely competent creation of thought. This fuels competition– that of which is needed for anyone to succeed. Without competition, we are lost. Our demise is inevitable if we ever reach this ridiculous nationalistic approach to trade. Boundaries for business have no place in our free world. The second we allow it is the second we give up our natural born rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

To be continued.

KBM, July 2017


In the meantime……
Some thoughts from my personal philosophy, some have been published and some have yet to be discovered. These are always ‘to be continued:’

Continue reading “The Re-Birth of Conservative Socialists in the 21st Century”

December 18th, 2017: From the Roots of My Tree

Huuuge thanks to all of you lovely ladies & gents for the kind birthday wishes and sweet thoughts this past December 18th!

27 years ago today I started down this life path on Earth. Every birth is renewal, the reproduction of light, love, knowledge, and ultimately, life itself.
Today, I can proudly say that although my birthday was filled with non-stop job interviews and I am blessed to have graduated only a few days ago, from the University of Houston with my Bachelors of Science degree in Political Science.
Since the status quo has consistently brought this assumption to my attention over the years, or the notion that many of you feel as though politics is only a field for those who seek to pursue mass corruption, evil games of manipulation, and/or for power-hungry tyrants who ruthlessly seek out benefits for their own personal gain; and who simultaneously end up causing destruction to whomever stands in their way, In other words, today’s world does not view politics as being in the favor of We, the People, who always seem to get stomped on bc of “greedy” politicians looking to murder, persecute, or enslave civilians in order to reach their questionable life missions and/or goals.
To clear this up for those who continue to question why I chose to fulfill this purpose: The answer is simply this: My passion is not merely to excel at a life of “politics,” not as you all define the term at least.
Simply put, there is an eternal flame that burns within my gut, my innermost core, the soul of my being. My view of politics is more than just a longing for power or money or to tell lies and/or conduct mass manipulations. Politics is merely THE most effective career path to actually make a difference in the world. As Gandhi tells us, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” How does one obtain the position of power to be able to literally fix the problems they want to see solved? They go into politics. This is the 21st century, there is no way around it. To achieve anything near or revolving around heightened activism efforts takes political strides these days. It’s not a bad thing to be passionate about it, either. It is actually a quite noble pursuit if one does strategically develop a fair, safe, and valid plan with honest intentions to achieve lastingly effective results and engage in such efforts that will benefit most People, the greater good, i.e. for thy neighbors, thy friends, thy church group members, whoever it shall benefit, it shalt be one of their own, their fellow citizens. We are, after all, a nation made up of a democratic government meant to be ruled. “by the people, of the people, and for the people.”
How curious is it that no shame disembarks upon postulates after office who advertise promises of pure deceit in return for votes– they sell their souls for political power and become most cherished by the very individuals on whom their scheming is effectuated. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum in 2020.
Furthermore, my heart beats to the drum of an indescribable rhythm. An inexplicably intense feeling which streams down heavily from upon an intangible source of pure desire– to be used for the sole purpose of helping others. However, it takes guts to love, and therefore takes a whole lot more willpower to keep rekindling this drive within a soul. Well, within my soul — that’s for sure.
The way I see it, the more backstabbing and caniving behavior I witness throughout the motives of my peers and even mentors and superiors, the more karma reaches out to me. This is what motivates the light and thus fuels the flame which keeps your candle lit for as long as it takes to restore justice, or, the betterment of mankind; However little or small the issue or dilemma seems to be at first glance, or before a ripple has begun to take effect, the problems and disasters the GLOBE faces today are more complex than meets the eye…. WAY more complex. In this case, the ripple begins with you, it is born from you, it is created through your choices and your will, and, of course, the Will of G-d.
In sum, I can’t help but think of politics as the best — way/venue/route– possible — to take care of humanity itself. If you really think about it, the meaning of life is having the genuine knowledge and self-awareness of your own immortality. Wisdom is the only concept that sets the abstract apart from actual human existence. If you’ve got one but not the other, you will remain in the darkness.
With a little hope, focus on your very own destiny, and most importantly, with some serious GUTS you will find the inner strength to conquer your own self and may even overcome your fears, your insecurities, or whatever may be holding you back. Just remember that whatever is preventing you from truly seeing — or — whatever is keeping you in the dark — is only an emotion that YOU were responsible for letting in, and, you must thereby work twice + as hard to show that emotional creep the exit– out the door. You must also strategize a way to build a barrier around your heart –tall and strong enough so that your anxieties, or stresses, but mainly — your fear(s)– can disappear, for good. This means your guard must always be raised, and your mind must keep ego fierce enough to face your battles, but do not let your ego overcome your sense of humility.
Moreover, these passions, motives, feelings, thoughts, attributes, whatever you’d like to name them — are the matches which fuel the fire that my destiny requires to continue to grow and branch out as far and wide as the roots of my own tree of life, or perhaps the wind that blows will allow. Follow your wind, and I can promise you that —
Your deepest passion(s) will inevitably lead you to your purpose.
With this in mind, I encourage you all to go outside and take a look up into the starry Heavens above. EMBRACE tonight’s New Moon, embrace the endless wonders and impossibilities of our universe. Keep in mind, that with a little bit of creativity and imagination, the Milky Way is sure to throw some magic your way. NOTHING. IS. IMPOSSIBLE. Take it from someone who has literally defied the odds only your fears are forcing you to face. Get rid of fear, get rid of doubt, it sounds cliche, but honest to G-d, believing in yourself works. Your choices are half-chance, so.are.everybody.elses. Run with that 50% chance, run with it to the moon and back. Odds are, you will be the only person striving for the seemingly “impossible.” Because, in reality, not society’s reality, but through your OWN realistic lense, you know your possibilities are actually endless. And there is absolutely nothing that can stop you. Except for fear, don’t let it creep up on you. Your fire can blow it out of the water.
Fire kicks doubt’s ass…. Trust me. NO, better yet, trust in y-o-u! HAVE FAITH IN YOUR ABILITIES.
Did not mean for this to become a whole motivational speech or w/e, but thought it was about time for it, from my perspective anyway.
The origin of all of this thought was to remind y’all to embrace this time/season of renewal, as we ALL transition into the rest of our BEAUTIFUL journeys!
Happy Holidays and a Sweet New Year, Y’all! Take good care.

-Karen Ben-Moyal, Dec. 2017

tenor

Former Houston City Council Worker, Karen Ben-Moyal: Research Publication Data, Findings, and Recommendations to Fix Houston’s MBE/WBE Program

The following Excerpt was pulled from former Houston City Council Worker, Karen Ben-Moyal’s Executive Summary incorporated into her Official Research Publication over her data findings and recommendations to fix the City of Houston’s MBE/WBE Program, which was originally created to exclusively grow and promote Houston’s small businesses that are owned and run by minorities and women only. Both the data and the proposal were presented by her former Employer, Houston City Councilman Mike Knox, to the Mayor of Houston, Sylvester Turner, in January of 2017.

“According to the research recently conducted through use of Houston’s Office of Business Opportunities website within the last several months, studies showed that after calling 500 of the 1,929 M/WBE businesses listed on Houston’s OBO website, 1 in every 5 vendors was out of business. Additionally, other statistics acquired on Houston’s MBE/WBE program proved that 1 in every 3 listed OBO vendors were in business, but had not renewed their certification licenses in years. This report presents the findings collected from a number of issues derived from the city of Houston’s OBO program. It then discusses the recommendations for potential improvement and various plans towards success, for both contractors and subcontractors of Houston’s small businesses. These recommendations were based off the City of Chicago’s WBE/MBE Procurement program and website, as well as Chicago’s ordinances which were recently implemented. These recent implementations to Chicago’s OBO program proved to provide ground-breaking tools that not yet been surpassed in revenue and level of overall successes. These include helpful workshops and symposiums, which assist vendors in running their minority and/or women-owned businesses, regular auditing systems, financial reimbursement programs, and graduation programs; which allow subcontractors to quickly graduate and become prime vendors with ease. In sum, this report represents months of research, discussion, analysis, and outreach in further identifying opportunities to improve efficiency, increase accountability, and economize public funds in government procurement. The Office of Business Opportunities’ stated goal is about implementing innovative paths for growth, creating new ways to promote equal and fair opportunity in small businesses, and efficient ordinances introduced and maintained by the city. In order to stimulate efficiency in communication/collaboration, and to expand small-business vendors and jobs, a channel of local government must be willing to provide resources to businesses that currently lack the appropriate amount of courteous guidance, competitiveness, and financial assistance required to succeed in their local communities’ businesses. However, based on the findings from Houston, an apparent lack of coordination among qualified vendors directly impacts the vendor community. Complication and confusion created by varying processes and forms can create barriers to entry and frustration among businesses. This potentially results in a less competitive vendor pool. It also fuels the perception that Houston is a challenging city with which to do business. Contrastingly, one city that seems to have a successful procurement program is the City of Chicago’s M/WBE program. The City of Chicago’s plan highlights recurring opportunities for active vendors to reduce burden and cost through collaboration, joint purchasing, and shared services, as well as enact meaningful reforms. The City of Chicago’s efforts are intended to further current efforts to ensure that their policies and practices support competition, efficiency, transparency, integrity, and uniformity in procurement.”

In order to view the PDF files of both the physical data collected, as well as the official report on the findings of my research and the recommendations I came up with in response to these findings, please view the 2 followings links listed below:

  1. To view PDF file of the data pie chart used to project OBO Statistics collected, click here to openLink for Data Spread Sheet: Collection of OBO Statistics Prior to Writing Research on Findings and Recommendations
  2.    To view the PDF file of my executive summary, findings, and recommendations report, please click this: Link for Final Research Report Houston’s Office of Business Opportunities Program: Executive Summary, Findings, and Recommendations
Copyright: Karen Ben-Moyal, 2017

Why Inequality Trumps Equality: In a Nutshell

Equality before the law is essential, in terms of how it is applied to people, and this is enforced more successfully in the United States than most other countries.

However, our inequalities are what make Americans thrive and work so well together. We should embrace these differences– not suppress them. They are the gems which make our country so special and so unique. Not to mention, it’s what makes us sovereign; the shining city on the hill. 

Yes, we are all equal under the law– and rightfully so– but our conflicting characteristics, ambitions, goals, dreams, interests, aspirations– our DIVERSITY– is what truly makes this country continue to grow economically and thrive strategically… If we were all equal, we would never have the opportunity to pursue our own version of the American dream, for we wouldn’t have the freedom to do so.

So yes– equality is silly. Makes you wonder why so many ppl our age advocate for this foolishness. I suppose silly people lack the ability to connect these dots that have been right in front of all of us this entire time….?! 

Thus, our INEQUALITIES are what drive capitalistic societies into becoming the FAIREST systems of government, in the world. 

Modern-Day, or Socialist-Feminism, is Cancer

This undying issue is becoming more and more outrageous– at least within the spectrum of American millennials– I feel it needs to be addressed.

Respectfully, I have just one basic question for you Self-proclaimed feminists: Why can’t women celebrate the magic only we can perform and that men can’t? Instead of striving to be like men, why not embrace our gender’s unique abilities?
– Ex. The ability to create human life is the single most miraculous process performed in this universe. So much so that it is truly beyond human comprehension. Yet, this formula is only endowed upon one gender. In fact, it is impossible for men to ever experience growing another life form, developing it for 9 months, and then producing the end result by escorting it out of ones own body. The miracle of life is just one example.

Ladies! Please Realize that WE have the upper hand. Why not utilize our unique abilities instead of wasting them by whining or longing for the opportunity to have what men possess and that women allegedly don’t. *We all know we’ve got equal rights here in America. In fact, our country was the first to address this issue & revolutionize an entire movement out of it. America’s women’s rights movement even paved the path toward the adoption of women’s rights worldwide. In case you haven’t heard the memo, we succeeded. Equal opportunity in the USA prevailed. Just sayin, I believe these inexplicable wonders that WOMEN possess and MEN cannot ever experience–should be celebrated– not stomped on.

Embracing your badass magical powers > Pretending to fight for rights we already have.

But that’s just my opinion.

NoteWorthy

IS IT NEWS-1This excerpt from a speech given by John F. Kennedy is one of the most legitimate and accurate responses to the illegitimate reporting, underlying deceptions, and false claims spewed and depicted by U.S. media, now and then.

In his address, Kennedy was exposing the multimillion dollar news outlet corporations who are currently waging a war on the Trump Administration today, and who in turn, have essentially become the most dangerous threats to the national security of the American people. Kennedy addresses this issue in stating the claim that, “If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war has ever imposed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of ‘clear and present danger,’ then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent. . . .” In other words, how could the public interest be of any concern to those who stand to gain such benefits and symbiotic relationships with their fellow elite? So long as they stay in power, they have the tools to manipulate, sabotage, corrupt, and even destroy a nation—literally.

The truth of the matter is, our nation’s national security is not at the heart of the concerns of those who seek to reap the benefits of their own ratings and monetary gains. Common sense and foreign analysis prove that America’s implementation of deterrence to deter nuclear threat and to secure the protection of our nation and its allies, is in no way a threat to the American people, nor is it a threat to any other countries abroad. In sum, the underlying issues with such propaganda continue to be hidden by the entities lurking about the fake news media, the only difference is that our generation cannot take a moment to glance up from their screens and see the world for how it really is– not how it is depicted in cyber space. Although, if you won’t trust any politician, perhaps you will listen to a guy we can all agree with. “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” The real world is an enlightening endeavor. The 21st century can either make or break you. Your potential to explore the gloriousness of its vastness lies in actual space, not cyber space. Ferris knows it, Kennedy knew it, Trump knows it, I know it, and you could know it too. Just look up.

KBM

Featured

The Rehnquist Court’s Federalist Legacy & The Transformation of the Tenth Amendment

Read Word Doc by Clicking here.

Karen Ben-Moyal

Constitutional Law

Introduction

The purpose of the 10th Amendment has been a controversial issue since the founding of America’s constitution. Of all the foundations implemented into the Bill of Rights and the Constitution since America’s founding, the issues which continue to surround the Tenth Amendment have stemmed from the conflicting interpretations of both the court and politicians at different points in time. In fact, they remain at the heart of the most controversial debates to date. Furthermore, the tenth amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,”[1] is meant to protect each of these powers from both entities. Those powers not delegated are reserved. It says nothing about whether delegated powers are to be broadly or strictly construed. In retrospect, the most significant differences in constitutional law are a direct result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s revival of federalism as a constraint on federal power. The federalism decisions, which will be discussed in detail, are the product of the Rehnquist Court. With a majority comprised of five conservative SCOTUS justices under the leadership of William Rehnquist who were all deeply committed to protecting state rights from federal government invasion. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and O’Connor, were responsible for introducing the concept of “New Federalism,” which virtually affected every area of U.S law, both civil and criminal, which ultimately changed the course of history and the future of the Supreme Court. The Court’s rulings are also pledged with restoring what the founders had in mind when they composed the tenth amendment. Among them, to restore dual sovereignty between government entities, establish an effective and fair system of centralized power, and overall, protecting the virtues that come with the promise of individual liberty. Thus, the goal of this report is to address and evaluate past Supreme court cases and specific provisions that were both relevant to the reconstruction of the Tenth Amendment as a limit on the powers of Congress, and were resolved by the Rehnquist Court. It will also provide an analysis to express the data and briefings which are fundamental to each court case, and thus significant to the evolution of constitutional law. Another area that requires further analyzation concerns the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Therefore, an analysis over the significant role that the Rehnquist Court played in the expansion of sovereign immunity is essential to understanding this part of the discussion.

The Transformation of the Tenth Amendment Over Time

Throughout the course of American history, the Supreme Court has transitioned between two very different forms of federalism.  The details of these changes in interpretation throughout American history are worth noting. The first involves a somewhat nationalist view, or the belief that the tenth amendment is not a separate constraint on Congress, and that it is only a reminder that Congress may only legislate if it has authority under the Constitution. The second pertains to the “federalist” approach, or the conviction that the tenth amendment protects state sovereignty from federal intrusion.   In America’s first century of existence, the Court took the former approach. In the court case, Gibbons v. Ogden[2], for example, Chief Justice John Marshall rejected the perception that the scope of Congress’s powers had any limits under the Tenth Amendment because he held the strong belief that any exercise of constitutional enumerated authority was granted by the constitution unto congress to serve the purpose of expanding scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause. This vision last until 1890’s until 1937 when the Supreme Court shifted to the latter approach. During this time period, the Court placed great emphasis on the Tenth Amendment, redefining it as a limit on congressional power. An example of this was represented in the court case, Hammer v. Dagenhart,[3] when Congress passed a law forbidding the shipment of good in interstate commerce if those goods were manufactured by any form of child labor. The Supreme Court held that it violated the Tenth Amendment. From the late 1930s until the early 1990s, constitutional clauses related to federalism were greatly discounted due to the massive expansion of federal power enacted under Franklin D. Roosevelt and his “New Deal” Congress. Under the leadership of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, however, the meaning of the Tenth Amendment utterly transformed the way the Courts view the idea of federalism, creating a new form of this concept called “New Federalism.”  Further, the decisions made by the Rehnquist Court involving the Tenth Amendment not only strengthened the bond that coincide between two different entities of government, it also reinvigorated the concept of Federalism by achieving an even greater endeavor. It defied the majoritarian opinion of the elitists, essentially giving back what was lost by the states throughout time and history, gaining back the power to govern on their own terms. Thus, this was a victory for both the states and the people. Public trust in the government has since increased because the people being governed are lacking in fear of tyrannical overthrow by the national government.  As for the states, they were given back the powers by which they were originally intended to receive.  Three sets of doctrines were at the heart of some of the major decisions held by the Rehnquist Court. Taken all together, these three manifestations of constitutional law epitomize a Revolutionary departure from court decisions in prior years.  The following manifestations by the Rehnquist Court include themes which represent the court’s devotion to the preserving of states’ rights and importance of state autonomy: 1. Significant limitations placed on the scope of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. The revival of the Tenth Amendment as a limit on federal power. 3. Finally, the court’s expansion of the sovereign immunity doctrine.

Limiting the Scope of the Commerce Power

Over the years, the Rehnquist Court handed down a succession of decisions which drew stable boundaries between the powers of the national and state governments.  In turn, the court was able to effectively keep tight rein on congressional power under the interstate commerce clause.

Gregory v. Ashcroft

Gregory v. Ashcroft,[4] was a case in which four Missouri state court judges challenged the provisions of the Missouri Constitution located in Article V, 26, which ensured a mandatory retirement age of 70 for most state judges. The court was then compelled to consider whether or not the mandatory retirement provision violates the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)[5]. The Missouri judges further argued that the mandatory retirement provision violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case was significant because of the fact that it signified one of the first indications of the resurrection of the Tenth Amendment. Another noteworthy point the Court added to its decision in this case stressed the importance of autonomous state governments.

United States v. Lopez

The court case, United States v. Lopez,[6] is considered one of the most important Supreme Court decisions that limited the power of Congress under the commerce clause. With respect to the defense of states’ rights, this case set a paramount precedent for the court’s future.  A 12th grade student brought a gun to school. The student was caught, charged, and convicted under the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which stated that possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school zone is considered a federal crime. In court, the defendant argued that the act was an unconstitutional act of the Commerce Clause which exceeded the scope of Congress’s powers. Moreover, in U.S. v. Lopez, the Court expanded upon the theoretical reasoning previously applied to the case of Gregory v. Ashcroft. Moreover, it concocted a rule of disposition which limited the scope of Congress’s commerce power for the very first time since the New Deal. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion for the court’s decision by retracing fundamental principles. In his ruling, Rehnquist quoted James Madison’s vindication located within the Federalist Papers, he stated that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. This constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.”[7] Thus, the court held that, “Congress can regulate under the commerce clause only in three circumstances: 1) the channels of interstate commerce; 2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons or things in interstate commerce; and 3) activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Court found that the federal law prohibiting guns near schools met none of these requirements and thus was unconstitutional.”[8] The same logic was applied to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, (in the case of United States v. Morrison[9]), which Congress authorized under the pretense of the Commerce Act.

Cases such as Lopez and Morrison open the door to constitutional challenges to countless federal laws, especially those that regulate non-economic activities.

Narrowing the Scope of Congress’s Powers: Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment

Another significant source of congressional power worth noting is section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause, in particular. It establishes that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions. However, this power was significantly restricted in 1997, in the decision of a case called City of Boerne v. Flores[10] in which the Court ruled that Congress may not use its Section 5 powers for the expansion of the scope of rights or implement new ones.

City of Boerne v. Flores

In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court declared the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional because it sought to enhance protection of the free exercise of religion. The Court argued that the expansion of the scope of rights made it impermissible for the court’s authority to determine the content of religious freedoms. There is an issue here. The dramatic new limit on federal powers puts the constitutionality of many federal civil rights laws in doubt. Another problem that this ruling created was that it (almost) seems as if this case was the precursor to states’ rights beginning to infringe upon the powers of the federal government. You start to see drastic changes and major complications in later Supreme Court decisions. A major change in the way the court approaches future cases dealing with state governments and their newfound ability to avoid being sued, by almost any means by the national government, become apparent in later years. You begin to notice a pattern in cases such as Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents,[11] when the Court decided that state governments may not be sued for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Decisions such as these set the precedent that state governments cannot be sued when they violate federal law. The crucial question persists: Is this an instance in which the Rehnquist Court went too far in extending the power of the states?

Revival of the Tenth Amendment as a Limit on Congressional Power

Another aspect of the Rehnquist Court’s federalism revival has been its use of the Tenth Amendment as a limit on federal power. During this time, the Supreme Court held that the Tenth Amendment reserves a zone of activities for exclusive state control. Rehnquist’s first major triumph came in the 1976 case of National League of Cities v. Usery[12], which established a limit on the powers of Congress to interfere with such “traditional governmental functions.” Additionally, the Tenth Amendment also prevents the congress interference of certain (state) law making processes. In the next two decisions discussed, the Rehnquist Court revived the Tenth Amendment as a constraint on Congress’s authority.

New York v. United States

For the first time since the overruled case, National League of Cities[13], the decision held in New York v. United States[14], the Court invalidated a federal law as violating the Tenth Amendment. Moreover, the court held that, “While Congress can encourage states to dispose of waste, they do not have the authority to compel them to do so.”[15]   In New York v. United States, a federal law deemed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act,[16] required states to provide for the safe disposal of radioactive wastes generated within their borders. The act also provided monetary incentives for states to comply with the law and allowed states to impose a surcharge on radioactive wastes received from other states. Moreover, the act protected the claim that if states did not properly dispose of any wastes within their borders by January 1, 1996, they would essentially “take title,” or in essence take responsibility for all damages, thereby inserting them the obligation to become accountable for any future damages that may or may not occur, both indirectly or directly. Nonetheless, by a 6-3 margin, the Rehnquist Court held that the “take title” provision of the law unconstitutional because Congress imposing either option on the states would be considered impermissible and strictly off limits under the constitution. The Court contested this argument by which the defense stated, “that it was ‘clear’ because of the Tenth Amendment, that ‘the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”[17]

Printz v. United States

Several years later, in Printz v. United State[18]s, the Court applied and extended New York v. United States. The significance of this case was that it further extended the limits on congressional power to use state officers directly. Moreover, Printz involved a more controversial challenge to the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required that the “chief law enforcement officer” of each local jurisdiction conduct background checks before issuing permits for firearms.[19] The Court concluded that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment by compelling states to implement federal mandates.  This case was also significant because the majority opinion contained the revival of the term, “dual sovereignty,” [20] which was redeemed by Justice Scalia in order to explain the structure of American government.

The Expansion of Sovereign Immunity

Another indispensable change in the law from the Rehnquist Court has been the Supreme Court’s significant expansion and rejuvenation within the scope of the doctrine of state sovereign immunity from civil suits under the Eleventh Amendment.

Alden v. Maine

In Alden v. Maine[21], probation officers in the state of Maine sought compensation for their hours of overtime work. They argued overtime pay was required under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The act permits state employees to sue in trials held by their own state courts. However, a Maine trial court dismissed their assertions on the grounds that sovereign immunity exists in this case. The Supreme Court later affirmed the decision and held that because of state sovereign immunity, a state government cannot be sued in state court without the consent of the state, even if the basis is off a federal claim. After a 5-4 decision, Justice Kennedy expressly defended sovereign immunity based on this assumption. Thus, the following explains the reasoning behind the court’s decision. Delivered by Kennedy for the majority opinion:

“The constitutional privilege of a State to assert its sovereign immunity in its own courts does not confer upon the State a concomitant right to disregard the Constitution or valid federal

 law. The States and their officers are bound by obligations imposed

 by the Constitution and by federal statutes that comport with the

 constitutional design. We are unwilling to assume the States will

 refuse to honor the Constitution or obey the binding laws of the

 United States. The good faith of the States thus provides an

 important assurance that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the

 United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be

 the supreme Law of the Land.” U.S. Const., Art. VI. (103)”[22]

 

In other words, the court held that the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act violates Maine’s sovereign immunity guaranteed under the Eleventh Amendment. Although this logic does not stem directly from a literal translation of the Eleventh Amendment, the grounds for this decision are well within the Constitutional structure that promotes the argument for a view of federalism that does not violate the common law principle that, “a sovereign may not be sued without its consent.”[23]

Gonzales v. Raich

Finally, in Gonzales v. Raich,[24] both principles of state sovereignty and of enumerated powers were ultimately tested in the court of law. At the time, California was one of nine states that legalized medical marijuana. Despite this fact, federal agents confiscated medicinal weed plants from the property of a California resident under the Compassionate Use Act.[25] Even if you don’t agree with Rehnquist’s opinion here, and as far as significance goes, this case was the one in which William Rehnquist’s no-nonsense character really made an impact on the perception of the chief justice. In Gonzales v. Raich, Rehnquist made a legend out of himself, for he was one of only three justices who were willing to stand up and defend his faithfulness and devotion for states’ rights, (even though the opinion went against the majority of the court). It is even likely that his decision in this case was highly unpopular among the majority of the people living in the United States of America at the time. The chief joined the dissenting opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, which in reality, consisted of the most basic logical principles. They rebutted the claim that Congress cannot just decide to transform the noncommercial possession of homegrown marijuana, on the basis of nothing, not in the abstract nor the law, in attempts to classify it within the same category as “interstate commerce.” Finally, the court concluded that, “Congress has the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana under the power of the commerce clause.”[26] Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas made five or six valid arguments when they dissented this decision. Among them, is that the decision would allow Congress to regulate intrastate activity without audits, so long as there is some indication of a legislative pattern, and if it appears that the regulating of intrastate activity is consistent with the interstate regulatory scheme. The last argument we shall discuss is notable because it uses the substantiated basis for stare decisis.  The dissenting opinion addressed the inconsistencies that come to light when comparing this Gonzales v. Raich with Lopez.  The Court said Lopez’s regulations were not commercial and that Congress should have just said that the crime was “transfer or possession of a firearm,” thus including some commercial activity and making it constitutional. However, this was not the case. Furthermore, The Court also warned that this was clear sign of possible federal tyranny in the distant or not so distant future. The dissenters suggested that if the Court always succumbs to Congress in this way, enumerated powers may eventually lose their substance and thus render the risk of total government takeover on the national scale.

Conclusion:

Throughout America’s history, the Tenth Amendment has had an ever-changing effect on the way American citizens view their government. In contrast, it has also had a substantial effect on the way the government governs their people, and the ways they are allowed to govern their people.  Furthermore, this research paper sought to examine the nature of this transition, and dissect preceding Supreme Court cases and decisions in which the court had previously invoked the Tenth Amendment.  While there were negative connotations involved in the process, the benefits of this cultivation probably outweighed the bad things. The trust of the public is essential in effectively governing a Republic, and it would be scarce if Congress alone decided the boundaries on how to police the limits of its own power, especially because of the serious concerns held by the majority being governed. Further, the idea of “New Federalism” is not only beneficial to the order of American Constitutionalism, it creates a huge benefactor to both the people, and their government, because of the inevitable doubts that arise from the dangers of excessive control by the federal government. Thus, national powers are implicated by the specific issues that the Supreme Court’s federalism cases address. Whatever the perspective, it is generally agreeable that the Tenth Amendment coexists in our Constitution with some of the most important clauses ever enforced. These provisions are what make up the foundation of our nation’s unique constitution. Taking the position of safeguarding and reestablishing foundational principles that had been lost in history. These include the advancement of the concept of equality, the establishment of an effective line between the separation of powers, and overall, the court’s accomplishments in the narrowing of the scope by which congressional authority has the right to rule over the states.

List of Cases

  1. Gibbons v. Ogden: (1824)
  2. Hammer v. Dagenhart: (1937)
  3. National League of Cities v. Usery: 426 U.S. 833, 96 S. Ct. 2465, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245, (1976)
  4. Gregory v. Ashcroft: 501 US 452 (1991)
  5. New York v. United States: 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
  6. United States v. Lopez (1995)
  7. Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996)
  8. Printz v. United States: 521 U.S. 898, (1997)
  9. City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
  10. Alden v. Maine: 527 US 706 (1999)
  11. United States v. Morrison: (2000)
  12. Kimel Florida Board of Regents (2001)
  13. Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

 

Bibliography: List of Additional Sources Used to Complete Research

  1. Hensley, Thomas R., Kathleen Hale, and Carl Snook. The Rehnquist Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2006. Print.
  2. Carp, Robert A., and Ronald Stidham. “Annotated Constitution.” The Federal Courts. Fifth Edition ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 1985. 273. Print.
  3. Lash, Kurt T. “James Madison’s Celebrated Report of 1800: The Transformation of the Tenth Amendment by Kurt T. Lash :: SSRN. Elsevier, 16 Nov. 2005. Web. 22 Nov. 2016. <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=849665&gt;.
  4. Lemieux, Scott. “Law &Amp; Society Review.” Law &Amp; Society Review, vol. 43, no. 1, 2009, pp. 235–237. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29734183.
  5. Parker, Christopher M. “Ideological Voting in Supreme Court Federalism Cases, 1953-2007.” The Justice System Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, 2011, pp. 206–234. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27977524.
  6. Rogers, Henry Wade. “The Constitution and the New Federalism.” The North American Review, vol. 188, no. 634, 1908, pp. 321–335. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25106198.
  7. Siegel, Jonathan R., and David L. Hudson. “Political Science Quarterly.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 122, no. 4, 2007, pp. 688–689. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20202952.
  8. Calabresi, Steven G. “Federalism and the Rehnquist Court: A Normative Defense.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 574, 2001, pp. 24–36. jstor.org/stable/1049052.
  9. Choper, Jesse H., Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Yale Kamisar, Steven Shriffin, Michael C. Dorf, and Frederick Schauer. Constitutional Rights and Liberties: Cases, Comments, Questions. Twelfth ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2001. Print.

 

[1] Carp, Robert A., and Ronald Stidham. “Annotated Constitution.” The Federal Courts. Fifth Edition ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 1985. 273. Print.

[2] Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

[3] Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918)

[4] See Gregory v. Ashcroft,  501 U.S. 452 (1991).

[5] 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1982 & Supp.1987).

[6] United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995).

[7] See Federalist  Papers: http://www.narlo.org/federalist.pdf. The Federalist Papers. Chicago, IL: CALI ELangdell, n.d. Web.

[8] See:  http://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/se/6601/660108.html

[9] United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

[10] City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

[11] See Kimel v.Florida Board of Regent, 528 US 62 (2000).

[12]  See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 US 833 (1976).

[13] See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 US 833 (1976).

[14] New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

[15]   See cases New York v. United States & Printz v. United States (Court Rulings)

[16] Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. In response to the complex disposal issue, Congress passed the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-573), which established that each state was responsible for disposing LLRW generated within its boundaries. http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/governing-laws.html

[17] http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/printz-v-united-states

[18] Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

[19] The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), often referred to as the Brady Act or the Brady Bill,[1][2] is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases, until the NICS system was implemented in 1998.

[20] See– Dual Sovereignty Doctrine: maxim of law which allows the double prosecution of a person by more than one state for the same crime, where both states have jurisdiction for the prosecution, and notwithstanding the double jeopardy rule.

[21] Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999).

[22] Quote from the majority opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy of the Rehnquist Court in Alden v. Maine.

[23] Quote pulled from Chapter LIV. The Suability Of States. 611. A Sovereign State May Not Be Sued Without Its Consent. http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/Chapter-LIV-The-Suability-Of-States-611-A-Sovereign-State.html#ixzz4RbY18Kfb.

[24] See Gonzalez v. Raich, 2005. 545 US 1 (2005).

[25] See 410 ILCS 130/) Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act.

[26] Choper, Jesse H., Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Yale Kamisar, Steven Shriffin, Michael C. Dorf, and Frederick Schauer. Constitutional Rights and Liberties: Cases, Comments, Questions. Twelfth ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2001. Print.

Tis of Thee

Combination of 4 Parts:

Part 1: Foreward

Part 2: How Revolutionary Was the American Revolution?

Part 3: The insanity of the Left’s ‘build bridges not walls’ philosophy 

Part 4: Debunking Popular Propaganda

Continue reading “Tis of Thee”