Justin Jelincic

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for the ‘Constitutional musings’ Category

And now we know – you can tax folks for not following instructions

leave a comment »

And now we know – you can tax folks for not following instructions.

Congress called it a penalty, but the Supreme Court says they over reached on Commerce Clause, but were completely constitutional to tax non conformity.  Even though they did not call it a tax, and went out of their way to say they were not creating a middle class tax on the young and healthy, the Court said, its okay, because it really is a tax, and Congress can tax non conforming behavior.  Wow!

I only wonder what non conformity Congress will choose to tax next.  If the socialist gain control of Congress I expect them to tax any behavior they do not like.   I can imagine a tax on failure to attend a public school, and choosing any alternative like  home schooling or private school educations.

Advertisements

Written by Justin Jelincic

June 28, 2012 at 8:48 pm

Do some government programs violate the first amendment?

leave a comment »

2 Corinthians 12: 14 …”For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.”

Do some government programs violate the first amendment?  I think when the government puts in place policies that are contrary to the religious texts, one must at least ask the question.

Our underfunded social programs, that tax children and grandchildren to provide for parents and grandparents, seem to be in violation of principles the scriptures have put forward. The programs themselves seem to place the government, instead of the family and religion, in the place of safety net.

I believe “The Great Society” has weakened the strength of the religious institutions.  Religious leaders now look to the government to fund social programs, rather than their members.  The widows mite is no longer given to the temple, but rather it is sometimes taken by the government.

How far is too far?  When does the government involvement in charity programs, become a religious activity that is prohibited by the first amendment? 

I know we have slid slowly down the pathway.  Step by step, the government has done more, and the houses of worship have done less.   If the current state of government charity, was put forward in ONE package, in 1792, would the founders, who understood their intent in the words of the Bill of Rights, have soundly and clearly said: “This violates the Bill of Rights we just adopted.”?  

I think they might.  I think we all at least need to ponder the question, even if it is an uncomfortable question.

 The anti-Federalist were concerned that without a bill of right to limit the Federal powers, the Federal government would trample their rights.   As one site says: http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ 

“The House approved 17 amendments. Of these 17, the Senate approved 12. Those 12 were sent to the states for approval in August of 1789. Of those 12, 10 were quickly approved (or, ratified). Virginia’s legislature became the last to ratify the amendments on December 15, 1791. The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power.”

Without the courts upholding the Bill of Rights, the Federalist can, and will, use excess government power.  We need to ask, “have they exceeded their power and authority?”  and if we think they have, we need to elect others who are willing to represent US, not special interests, and restore our God-given freedoms.

 

Written by Justin Jelincic

April 22, 2012 at 9:10 pm

Our right to be free – is not our right to do what is “right in our own eyes”

leave a comment »

I like to think that in America we began an experiment for the world, to show what happens when we allow citizens to be free from government control of their thoughts, religious choices, priorities, careers, family, education, life style.   However, the American experiment is not one of anarchy, where everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. 

Society establishes boundaries, and consequences.  Governments, are employed by men, and established by God, to enforce the consequences of violating civil boundaries.   The American experiment was to see how limited that government could be, and how expansive freedom could be, without drifting into anarchy.

Far from drifting into anarchy, I think the current body politic, has drifted away from the American experiment, and has become ever more intrusive into the lives and choices of citizens who would be free.  

What is the FEDERAL issue that caused Congress to decide what equipment my car must have?  What is the FEDERAL matter that is involved in what type of baby crib my daughter can buy?  What is the FEDERAL matter involved in ….. you get the idea.  The nanny state has taken away freedom, rather than addressing consequences of choices.

The people and interests that buy politicians and their votes, are interested in national standards, because it serves their purposes.  It allows them to grow, without needing to worry about State variations.   Such FEDERAL standards allows companies to become national, and “too big to fail”. 

Small companies, delivering product to one State, under State regulations, are not “too big to fail”.  Congress and the Executive Branch enabled enterprises to get “too big to fail” and then had to bail them out when they failed.  The Courts did not protect us from the abuse of the interstate commerce clause.  The Courts did not use the Bill of Rights to protect us from Federalist abuse of power that the Bill of Rights was passed to protect us from.  The US Constitution, without the Bill of Rights, allows citizens to be turned into slaves of the FEDERAL state.   Far from anarchy, we are more likely to lose our freedom, than be overly free.

I just finished a study of the Old Testament book of Judges.   In it “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”  The book is a cautionary warning of the harm that comes from anarchy.  I do not want anarchy, but I do want the freedoms the authors of the Bill of Rights meant to preserve for The People.

That’s my thought today.

Written by Justin Jelincic

April 15, 2012 at 8:42 pm

Barack smack down on the Supreme Court, round two.

leave a comment »

Wow ….  http://news.yahoo.com/obama-confident-health-care-law-upheld-183033288.html

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said. “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint.”

“That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step,” Obama said.

I hope these words work to create a 9-0 vote to strike down Obamacare.  If I were a justice this would make me think twice about the power that the Democratic Party exercised, and abused.  When Barack thinks that a bare minimum, one vote margin, is “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” it is clear that his opinion of its constitutionality is fogged by the same self assessment.

The courts were given power to protect the citizens from a government that trampled on their rights.  Even a 100% vote in the Congress could be an abuse of the rights of The People.  Majority votes, near party-line votes, do not mean the bill was constitutional.   Given the strange brew that was cooked up to get the votes to pass Obamacare, it is harder to think this is constitutional, than it will be to see that it is a flawed bill, that violates the rights of free citizens to remain free from government abuse.  

I am not the only Democrat to want to yell  “Don’t tread on me”.  I hope some of the Democrats on the Supreme Court find the courage to tell Congress and Barack that they violated the citizens rights to be, and remain free, from Federal abuse.

That’s what I’m thinking tonight.

Written by Justin Jelincic

April 2, 2012 at 10:53 pm

Check out the new page ===> Principles for Taxation, and tax policy

leave a comment »

Just wanted to draw your attention to the new page.  My Principles for Taxation, and tax policy call for: Democracy, and responsiblity, not class warfare.

Let me know what you think.

Written by Justin Jelincic

March 4, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Added PAGE ====> Abuse of Federal power

leave a comment »

Just a quick post to draw your attention to the new page.  Let me know what you think of the four page Powerpoint (pdf) showing what the relationship of Citizens Rights were to the Government agencies under the  Confederation of States, the new United States, before the protections of the Bill of Rights,  the United States after the corrections and protections offered by the Bill of Rights, and lastly what happens when the Federal Courts fail to apply the 9th and 10th amendments in the effort to protect Citizens from abuse of Federal powers.

Written by Justin Jelincic

February 26, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Looks like I will end up running again

with one comment

With Pete announcing that he will run again:

STARK TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION

FREMONT— Today, Rep. Pete Stark (CA-13) announced his candidacy for Congress in 2012 by releasing the following statement:

“I am pleased to announce my candidacy for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. As a result of reapportionment, I will be running in the 15th Congressional District in 2012.

“I look forward to continuing to serve the people I represent today and gaining new constituents to the east.  I’m committed to representing my new district with the same level of service, responsiveness and representation my constituents have come to rely on during my tenure in Congress. 

“I’ve been honored to represent the citizens of the East Bay in Congress and I hope I’m granted the chance to do so once again.”

**************************************************************

I am guessing the Progressive Socialists of the central committee will discourage full-time politicians from running, and that will then ensure that I need to run to keep my pledge to not let Pete run unopposed.  He is opposed, and must have someone on the ballot to allow non Progressive Socialists to have someone to vote for that represents them.

It will cost some money, but we deserve better.   Pete has worked to establish Federal religion, of his own liking.  The Bill of Rights, established to protect our God given rights, must be protected from Federalists like Pete who think the Federal Government has the power to do what it wants.

Count me in as opposed to Pete, and willing to stand to protect the Rights of citizens,  and defend the Bill of Rights.

Written by Justin Jelincic

August 4, 2011 at 10:06 pm