The President has declared his National Emergency. The Speaker of the House has announced her intentions and things she is “considering” in response.
There are plenty of “i’s” to dot and “t’s” yet to be crossed. We already know that the Democrat’s in Congress will Judge shop to find an agreeable Bench to issue an injunction and declare that the President’s declaration is invalid. There remain arguments as to whether or not such a declaration can even be used in the manner proposed.
Some very intelligent and knowledgeable people whom I hold in high regard have said that it is not. Others have said that it is not only legal but exactly what Congress intended when they wrote the laws in question.
So let us presume that it is legal and Constitutional. Just a presumption, not an established absolute… what happens not next, but long term? If we presume that the Courts do or do not shoot the legal challenge down, with what kind country are we left?
There are possibilities here which could be restorative to liberty, but I doubt that any of the so-called “Leaders” involved have any clue about those possibilities. And so we watch the drama play out on our televisions and wonder whether or not any of this will make any difference?
After the regular show today, Dave talks about some personal stuff that will be impacting the show over the next few weeks…
The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance that requires all contractors to “disclose” all of their contacts and sponsorships (whatever that means) with the National Rifle Association. In Delaware, a man wants to apply to be a Judge on the State Bench. But, Delaware has a law that says that he is not qualified to be a Judge. Why not? Because he chooses to not associate with certain “approved” groups.
At the end of the day, the real question is why do governments continue to pass laws that they KNOW are not Constitutional. These Governments pay (with tax dollars) for legal advice, so it’s not at all possible that they don’t know this.
But even were we to be charitable and assume (yes, I know what it means) that they don’t know, why do they keep proposing and passing laws that restrict liberty?
It’s Day 4 of Snowmageddon 2019. Schools are closed. Banks are closed. McDonald’s is closed. Starbucks is open. It’s full of beautiful scenes and long ago memories of my misbegotten youth.
But it’s Day 4… and I am ready for this to be over…
One of the things about being cooped up in a snowstorm is that I have time to read stuff that I would otherwise ignore. Because of this, I learned that Jeff Bezos and I have something in common. Unfortunately, it isn’t our tax bracket. But ultimately we did decide to handle it (so to speak) in different ways…
And so it begins… Snowmageddon 2019, the Storm of the Century is upon us here in the PACNORWEST!
Major League Baseball has announced a change in nomenclature. Traditional words are now verboten, as it is believed that I am too much of a snowflake to handle the traditional verbiage.
The DAV (Disabled American Veterans) was there for me when I needed them. My Grandfather had been a life member of the DAV, and it was they who showed up to his funeral to deliver the 21 gun salute to a Veteran who had passed on. My experience in making my original claim was completely positive and I was deeply impressed with my VSO’s (Veteran’s service Officer) knowledge and ability to navigate the system.
As I sat in the main meeting hall at the Chapter 5 DAV on Saturday my thoughts traveled back over the years. The DAV was a “no brainer” for me, but what about the other Veterans Service Organizations? As a ‘younger” Veteran myself, why was it that I was not at all interested in participating or being a part of these worthy organizations? and why do they continue to struggle to attract younger Veterans today?
Under no circumstances will I discuss anything that I might directly know about what I believe to be CLASSIFIED information.
That said, there are a great number of open sources of information from which we can draw inferences if not outright facts. So when it comes to the INF Treaty and the Trump Administrations announcement that the United States will pull out of the 1987 Treaty, what can we infer?
Did the neo-Soviet Russians violate the INF treaty? Does the US leaving the INF treaty actually make war more likely? Does the demise of the INF treaty make atomic warfare more likely?
In Baltimore last week, Marilyn Mosby, the Prosecutor for the City of Baltimore, MD, announced that she will no longer pursue cases for marijuana offenses. Now… the BPD disagrees with the new policy and have made it clear that the arrests will continue. This disagreement seems to call the entire purpose of the policy into question, but it also raises bigger questions. One of which hearkens back to one of the most sensational trials of the mid-1800s.
Back in 1865, something happened in Springfield, Missouri that had not really happened before. And frankly, really didn’t happen as much as Hollywood and Zane Gray make it seem that it did. William Hickok and Little Dave Tutt found themselves face-to-face in the street. Somebody drew first and when the dust settled, Little Dave Tutt was dead.
Mr. Hickok, “Wild Bill,” as you know him, was charged with murder based on the twenty-two witnesses to the fight. A few days later, as stories changed, the charges were reduced to Manslaughter and the trial began. The witnesses seemed all over the place. Was there one shot, or two? Did you see who drew first? You were behind one of the men so you really couldn’t see what happened? Wait… you say he never fired but you admit that there is an empty chamber in his pistol?
At the time, the State of Missouri had no “self-defense” law on its books. Which meant that either Hickok shot Little Dave Tutt or… well… he did shoot Tutt. The law won’t recognize his self-defense claim, so there’s no way to instruct the jury to accept it. Or… is there?
Which has me wondering if there isn’t a better way for We the People to let our wishes be known than to have DA’s with more political aspirations than an understanding of their oaths telling us what they will and won’t do?