Posts Tagged ‘Constitutional Protections’

Obama for “change”? He’s Got My Vote!

January 27th, 2010

Have you heard the good news? Barack Obama is for change! Well, that seals it! He’s got my vote!

Why you ask? Isn’t he a liberal Democrat? Well yeah, but he’s for change! So let’s look at the status quo which he will be looking at changing shall we?

First up is McCain/Feingold which is a horrible restriction on free speech despite the constitutional provision prohibiting Congress from making any law that restricts our freedom of speech. Elect Obama and he will “change” this and end this horrible law.

Next are the constant infringements on our second amendment rights by the myriad of gun laws on the books which do not punish criminal activity but rather simply infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to own arms. Elect Obama and he will “change” this.

Then there is the horrid income tax which basically allows the government to take money you worked hard for before you get a chance to spend or save it unless you put it in one of their approved forms of investment. Since I firmly believe that the money earned by people in compensation for their labor belongs to them first and not the government I have to vote for Obama because he will “change” this.

Moving on, there is that pesky problem of unborn children who are both alive (see basic definition of life if you disagree) and human being denied their constitutional protections and being murdered. That is definitely something that needs changing. So Barack Obama appears to be our man!

Oh, and then there is the constant treasonous messages coming from our elected officials during a time of war which continually go unpunished. Personally I’m tired of the claims that our troops are cold-blooded murderers and that the war is lost being echoed by terrorists around the world to give aid and comfort to their followers. With his campaign promise of “change”, President Obama will undoubtedly correct this and start prosecuting the offenders.

And what about Social Security? After all it is clearly above and beyond the limited powers of the federal government to tax and spend. Just read Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (including his Federalist 41) and any other of a myriad of founding fathers that actually wrote the Constitution. So apparently with Barack Obama in the White House we can expect this massive mortgaging of our future to be ended in the name of “change”.

Along those same lines we can obviously expect an end to Welfare.

War on Poverty? Gone – ended in the name of “change”. We’ve spent trillions and still have “poverty” so it apparently hasn’t worked. Elect Barack Obama and we can get away from this failed policy and save us billions.

Then of course Barack Obama will obviously terminate the Department of Education which is also specified nowhere as a power of our government. Can you feel the winds of “change” blowing yet?

Ah! I’m swelling with pride at knowing that there is a candidate that is going to help “change” America for the better! But wait, more “change” would be on the way if Obama is elected!

How about policies and laws that classify people by the color of their skin, ethnic background, sex, and so on and grant them special rights and privileges based on that classification? Gone! All in the name of “change”!

Huh? What’s that? That’s not the sort of “change” Barack Obama is talking about? Well, of course it’s not. And I’m not really going to vote for him either because I know that.

What I was demonstrating to you was how many people will vote for him based on his broad based message of simply “change”. Every speech Barack Obama gives he makes sure that the center point of it is this one word and repeats it as often as he thinks he can get away with it because to claim to be for “change” gives people a blank slate upon which to project their own hopes and desires.

Don’t like a certain policy? Well, Barack Obama is for “change”. So he hopes that you will consider voting for him in the hope that when he talks about simply being for change. He’ll only talk about specifics of his policy for “change” when he has to. No need to give people willing to believe what they want to believe anything to not like after all.

But when he does talk about specifics we really see that what he calls “change” is not much more than the status quo; bigger government and less liberty on a greater scale than we already have.

The only question is how long he can ride this wave of nebulousness before he actually has to start delving a little deeper into what changes he actually proposes. And how much longer until people figure out that when he is talking about “change” he really means more of the same failed policies that have put America in the precarious situation it is in today? And will people even care?

I shudder to think that they will not.




By: J.J. Jackson

Are the DWI Laws Unconstitutional in 2008? – A Review of Minnesota’s Statute

December 18th, 2009

It would seem that the fabric of Minnesota’s DWI laws is slowly unraveling as new challenges are made to the laws and how they comply with constitutional protections. As a result, persons charged with DWI offenses in Minnesota have a number of viable defenses at their disposal and should ALWAYS consult with an attorney before entering any plea.

One of the major issues presently being litigated is whether Minnesota’s laws unconstitutionally coerce persons arrested to provide breath, blood or urine samples for alcohol testing. As many Minnesotans are aware, when a person is arrested for suspicion of drunk driving, they are read an implied consent advisory which is a short statement of their rights. That advisory informs the driver that they have a right to consult a lawyer before submitting to any testing. However, if they refuse to submit to breath, blood or urine testing, they can be charged with a criminal offense. In fact, the criminal offense charged, which is a refusal to test, often has more severe consequences than being charged with a DWI. Specifically, a refusal may turn a misdemeanor DWI into a gross misdemeanor refusal. The former carries with it up to 90 days in jail and a $1000 fine, where the latter may be punished by up to 1 year in jail and a $3000 fine. Moreover, the license revocation for most first offense DWI’s is generally 30 to 90 days. For a refusal, that revocation period is one year. » Read more: Are the DWI Laws Unconstitutional in 2008? – A Review of Minnesota’s Statute