Showing posts with label Constitutional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitutional. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

I Oppose Government Education By Eric Herrera

Re-Blogged with permission by the Author.
For more check out http://www.ericherrera.com/ 

I am an opponent of Common Core(2009+) [1], Race to the Top(2009) [2], No Child Left Behind(2001) [3], and all prior federal action in education [4], because Congress has no Constitutional authority to intervene in education, government action always disrupts the voluntary interactions of individuals (the free market) [5], and learning requires inspiration not standards. The teacher motivates and inspires. The student is ultimately responsible for learning.

I believe that individuals taking responsibility for their own learning is far superior to imposed education.

I believe compulsory education is immoral.

I believe that good standards do not have to be forced on people(government action is always coercive). Being in the software field, computing is full of standards that were voluntarily adopted. HTTP for example was not imposed on everyone, yet it is now a nearly ubiquitous standard. I do not believe it requires coercive action to make thousands of professors and teachers agree that the pythagorean theorem is a relation in Euclidean geometry among the three sides of a right triangle.


I included a list of video resources that have had an impact on the way I think about government education.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Government Seizures Part 2

The case of the Body Snatchers was to the working title of this piece. This is the second in my series on the ways in which our government uses its power of seizure to harm its own as well as the world's citizenry. Over the years the Government has gotten good at kidnapping. Don’t believe me? Let’s discuss it a bit. The Federal and State Governments have the ability to “legally” kidnap anyone from anywhere for any reason they dictate. From Child Protective Services taking kids from their parents to profit from foster placement to the federal government’s “decreed” ability to detain anyone from anywhere indefinitely with no reason or charges given.


Child Protective Services
CPS has gotten really good at taking children from their parents for multifarious reasons. Parental rights have taken a backseat to the will of bureaucrats and their henchmen in the Child Protective Services.
 {The Adoption and Safe Families Act, set in motion by President Bill Clinton, offered cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses,” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sells and you must have plenty of them so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000.00 bonus for each child adopted and an additional $2,000.00 for a “special needs” child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998, reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety,” these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population.}- Senator Nancy Schaefer 50th District of Georgia November 16, 2007

This shows that the CPS or DFCS will conduct these seizures in the interest of their own departments. This is a sad state of affairs in this country as well as others around the world. The name of these departments seems to imply that they are enacted on the pretense of being in the interest of the children, innocent and helpless, their name signals these emotions in the general populace but is certainly contradictory to their actions and their records.

NDAA Indefinite detention
The National Defense Appropriations Act has given the Federal Government and its military arm of violence the ability to capture and incarcerate anyone at any time for any reason they dictate. In sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 edit the US Congress reinforced this ability by refusing any language to protect American citizens from these seizures. Standing language brought in from previous versions of the bill was unchanged and allows the seizures according to existing US law. Multiple instances of this ability being utilized by the Government have included the cases of Bradley (Chelsea) Manning and Brandon Raub. Both of these cases were covered by national and international media agencies, yet no change in policy or even change in attitude in the populace has taken place.

This doesn't just affect US citizens, the abuse of the US government to snatch whoever they want has gone worldwide. The US base in Cuba, Guantanamo Bay has been a cage for these people picked up for various charges around the world. It is used by the US military and other federal agencies as a torture and rendition place outside of the “law” of the US or any other countries borders. As it is a military installation it enjoys complete immunity from Cuba’s laws and seemingly from any other international laws. 

Local Police
As of 2009, the incarceration rate in the United States was 743 per 100,000 or 0.743% of national population. And while the US has only 5% of the world population it houses 25% of worldwide prisoners, costing taxpayers nearly $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60.3 billion in budget expenditures. Doesn’t really sound like the home of the free, does it?

A contributing factor to United States' spike in the number of prisoners is the War on Drugs, formally initiated by Richard Nixon with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and avidly pursued by Ronald Reagan according to a Wikipedia search, and I would have to agree. Also noted is the fact that America has longer sentencing than any other nation. This leads to more people incarcerated for longer periods of time. To add to this are the multitude of ludicrous laws and restrictions we have in the States leading to non-violent “offenders” being placed in cages with violent ones.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

And the young will take the mantle of liberty...

This is a letter to the editor of "The Citizen" a newspaper in Peachtree Georgia. It is written by a 15 year old in response to her high schools practice of infringing on inherent rights of individuals. Her understanding of private property rights and the no victim no crime principle is encouraging to me. 

[Editor’s note: The following email is from a 15-year-old freshman girl at McIntosh High School. Although she provided her name and address, we are not printing that information.]
Many students might have and should have signed the “Student Code of Conduct” in the beginning of the year. This “contract” had to be signed for students to attend classes.
Most students, me included, did not read the Code of Conduct. It was just another silly form students had to sign to please the administrators.
As it turns out we should have read the 30-page “rule book.” When I signed my name at the bottom of the green slip of paper, I did not realize I was signing away my basic human and constitutional rights.
I have been told by multiple teachers and upperclassmen, “You’re a freshman, you’ll learn that in high school you have no rights.” I nodded in agreement and thought it was just another made-up stereotype of high school.
Recently I experienced this absolute lack of rights. Only the other day I was out in the hall before school started, showing my friend a picture on my phone. A staff member I didn’t recognize, later identified as [name omitted], approached me and asked for both our phones.
How was I to know she was a teacher? I had never seen her before and she was not wearing a badge, only a name tag.
While my friend handed hers over, I politely declined, stating that it is my private property, which it was. Not only had school not started yet, but she had no valid reason to ask for the phone.
It’s not as if I was showing something explicit (it was my dog) or that my phone was an explosive device. She then asked for my name which I also refused to give. In defense of this, I did not know who she was. When a random stranger approaches you and asks for both your phone and your name, do you just hand it over?
I later find myself with three days of ISS (in-school suspension) for “Insubordination: failure to comply with the directions of a staff member.”
There was no insubordination, only a student acting on the rights she believed she had as not a citizen of the United States but as a human.
In the agenda on the first page it states, “Positive relationships and mutual respect among students and staff enhance student learning.” While I showed respect, I received none from [name omitted]. She behaved as if I had committed a crime when I refused to hand her my phone, when in actuality it was the other way around.
According to [a school official], students are not permitted to have devices out unless supervised by a teacher.
We all know that at least half of the students are always on their phones, yet not all of them are punished. According to administrators this is because there is not a large enough staff to enforce it on every single student.
If you can’t enforce it on all students equally, you should not be picking out certain students. This is a form of bullying, and as I remember McIntosh has an “anti-bullying” policy.
We are also not allowed to have the devices unsupervised since the moment we step foot on campus. I’ll admit, I didn’t know this, but what troubled me most was that McIntosh is the only high school in the county with that rule.
My argument was that I have basic human rights to my own property, and as I was not violating anybody else’s right, there is no room for any type of punishment. [The official] then informs me that as soon as students step foot on campus theoretically they do not have rights.
Again on the first page of the agenda right under the bolded word “Belief Statements,” it states, “Public education is the foundation of a free society.” How is this true if we are treated with no rights whatsoever?
Students are not only bullied by teachers, but also have their rights taken away. Learn from my mistake; logic and human rights will not defend your case against the administration acting like children.
Name withheld at editor’s discretion
Peachtree City, Ga.

Originally published at http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/03-18-2014/freshman-decries-loss-rights

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

If you like your gold you can keep your gold…Or can you?

Originally Published by and Written for TorchMedia.org


Remember when you were a kid and would find something, you would yell out “Finders Keepers!” Yeah, that doesn't work anymore.

A family in California is finding this out the hard way. The couple found a stash of 8 cans filled with gold coins while on a walk on their property in what is known to Californians as “Gold Country”. For the couple the location truly lives up to its name. The cans contain a total of 1,427 coins dating from the mid to late 19th century, with face value of $27,000. What is being called The Saddle Ridge Hoard could possibly be “one of the greatest buried treasures ever unearthed in the United States”.

But the story isn't likely to bring tears of joy for very long, as tax experts are claiming the couple could have to claim their finding to the IRS. Another story coming out of this is that these coins may have been part of a series of bank robberies and heists in the California area in the late 1800’s, while a Mint Spokesman, Alan Stump has stated, “We do not have any information linking the Saddle Ridge Hoard coins to any thefts at any United States Mint facility”. He went on to say that all the surviving records from the agency have been retired to the National Archives and Records Administration. This will likely be a long drawn out affair between the couple and the Federal Government
This brings to mind a similar case involving lost gold coins and the government dictating what should be done with them.

In 2003 Joan Langbord and her two grandsons took 10 coins they had found in an inherited safety deposit box to the Philadelphia Mint for authentication. The Mint seized the coins and refused to return them to the Langbord family. The Mint claimed that these coins were removed from their possession illegally. The coins in question are 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagles and were originally valued at $20 each. After the US abandoned the gold standard, Executive Order 6102 signed by President Roosevelt, a majority of the 445,000 double eagles were melted into gold bars by the Treasury. How they came to be in the possession of the Langbord family is by Joan’s father Israel Swift who had received them from a Mint cashier after the Executive Order was signed and the cashier, not identified, knew they would be destroyed. Israel Swift was a coin collector and dealer in the Philadelphia area.

Skip ahead to 2011, where a jury decided that the coins belonged to the government as they were illegally removed, the family decided to appeal this decision. Hearing the appeal Judge Legrome Davis of the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed the jury’s decision and reasoning.

“This is a case that raises many novel legal questions, including the limits on the government’s power to confiscate property” Says the family’s attorney Barry Berke.

Personally speaking, I see the reasoning of the jury to determine that the coins were removed in a manner not in accordance to law; theft is still theft and should still be treated as such. Though I have my own question, not to harken a certain politician but at this point what difference does it make if the family possesses these coins. Has the government been hurt by this for 70 years now? Have they searched for them or were they just waiting for them to turn up in time?



Monday, March 3, 2014

Arizona and the Discrimination Law?


Arizona became a hotspot for news earlier this month due to its highly contested “Religious Freedom Bill” or as the opposition calls it “The Anti-Gay bill” or “The Freedom to Discriminate Bill”. What is Arizona Senate Bill 1062[1]? How does it affect the populace? Is it Constitutional? Is it a way for more people to find an excuse to discriminate? Let’s take a look at it from a view angles and you can make up your own mind.

Is Arizona Senate Bill 1062 Constitutional?
The United States Constitution DOES NOT lay out specific stipulations or protections for the lifestyle choices of individuals. Why Not? The US Constitution is a blanket document, meant to encompass every single person regardless of race, creed, nationality, or preference. The only mention of the separation of creeds is the Commerce clauses in regards to Native American Tribes. The Constitution does however lay out some other protections and stipulations. The 10th amendment spells out that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution shall be retained by each individual state, States Rights, but is this issue of state’s rights. Yes and No in my opinion. The Arizona Government should not in any way interfere in the religious or business practices of any individuals or groups. Do they have the power to? Absolutely, that power has been vested to them by the citizens of the state. Constitutionally speaking the entirety of this bill is admissible by the First Amendment , “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is it a discrimination bill?
Kate Kendall [2] of the National Center for Lesbian Rights notes, “It’s a flat out violation of well-established protections against discrimination based on race and gender”.  First let’s define discrimination. Merriam-Webster [3] defines it as: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not
: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing
The latter 2 definitions sound like decision making or comparative value to me. The first definition is a little more complex. Discrimination due to variances of color, creed, nationality, gender whatever is not new, actually it is very old, and it is part of the human condition. To analyze and value each separate thing or person differently is a matter of unconscious thought and conscious action. The ability to differentiate subjective values is what drives everyday human existence. Red car or blue car? Bagel for breakfast or eggs and toast? This job or that one?  All of these and more are small discriminations or choices based on previous knowledge, experiences or beliefs. Is this to say that actions that lead someone to treat others differently for preferences or uncontrollable circumstances are wrong?  Moral thought is to the individual’s subjective value or relative value; you cannot collect nor legislate morality or popular opinion without discriminating or leaving someone out.

Where does religion come into this?
The bill is being touted by some as “The Religious Freedom Bill” and as it is written it would seem this is the driving force behind its existence.  The bill allows business owners, pastors or any individual to assert religious beliefs when refusing service to gay, lesbian, and transgender people; among others. As written can  this bill can be construed to allow discrimination between faiths, as to say that those of Jewish faith could refuse service to any other practitioners of any opposing religion and vice versa.  Religious Freedom is a cornerstone to this country and to millions of people across it. It has been the foundation for numerous civil cases and appeals since its inauguration into the Constitution. It is an inherent right to be able to practice whichever faith one chooses without hindrance. This bill does not in any way stop that right but furthers the right of refusal based on religious beliefs. As written it would only protect those business owners in court who based on their religious beliefs refused service to someone.

Is this a case of Private Property Rights?
When this story first broke this was my assessment. The right of any property owner to refuse or allow whatever actions to take place on such property is the foundation for private property rights. This bill would allow these business owners to thereby escape from any suit in regards to this refusal of service on the basis of religious right. Is this discrimination? Yes and No. It is the sole decision of the property owners on how to handle their business. If a property owner dislikes tall people and makes a policy to not serve tall people he has reduced his marketable share in the economic sector, this is true of any restriction or regulation placed by business owners, on the other hand government does this without regard to marketable shares to very business with their ever increasing amounts of regulations and red tape politics. Private Property is a key element to a free society and as such should be protected by those who strive for free markets and economic prosperity.
What this bill is not.
In reading this bill and its amendments I have found no reference to gays, lesbians, same sex couples, or any other group of people. I have not seen in its pages any regards to any specific lifestyle choice or even religious choice. It is completely ambiguous in its terminology and meanings and would be highly contested if allowed to pass.

Think about this for a moment.
This bill, which was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, was a perfect storm of emotion over logic and fear over reason. Any discrimination that could go on with its passing can still go on after its veto, though the property owners run risk of civil suit if they attempt it. In my mind it is simply a case of property rights and owner’s discretion over religious beliefs or any form of discrimination. But I leave it for you to decide.


Other links: