I admit that Governor Herbert has quite a bit more background knowledge and resources than I have on the SB 11 states' gun rights issue. That being said, I have read the bill and it seems exactly something that we need to start getting the federal government off of our backs and out of our pockets.
The last I've heard from online buzz and radio buzz, this bill has passed both houses (Senate: 19-10-0; House: 56-17-2) and now it's on Governor Herbert's desk to sign. I've also heard that he is getting a TON of persuasion to veto it, based on fears of a court challenge, etc.
So, finally this morning I figured I needed to let my voice be heard and I emailed our Governor about this specific issue. Here's the email I wrote:
********************************************
Dear Governor Herbert,
As a citizen of Utah and an active leader in the Utah County Republican Party, I ask you to please sign SB 11 Utah Firearms Freedom Act. This is a time to act out of faith, not react out of fear.
Please consider the following chorus to a song you may recognize:
Do what is right;
Let the consequence follow.
Battle for freedom in spirit and might;
And with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow.
God will protect you;
Then do what is right.
("Do What Is Right", Hymns No. 237.)
I know that God will not only protect you but Utah as well if you choose to act out of faith and principle instead of reacting out of fear and expediency. May God bless you in your service to our state and country.
Sincerely,
Wendi J. Baggaley
Leg. 56 Education Officer
Vice Chair, UCRP Constitution & Bylaws Committee
************************************************
If you want to learn more about this issue and email or call Governor Herbert yourself, please check out the following links:
SB 11 main page from the Utah State Legislature website
Governor Herbert's email: gherbert@utah.gov
Governor Herbert's answering service: 801-538-1000
A place to compile and review my political thoughts on current events, personal experiences, scriptures, etc. I encourage respectful and thoughtful discussions of these topics.
Friday, February 26, 2010
States' Rights Bills in the Utah State Legislature 2010
For those of you who haven't followed the Utah State Legislature much, there are a whole bunch of bills this session addressing our states' rights that have been taken over by the federal government.
The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution 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."
Unfortunately, over the last several decades or more, Congress has used both the "commerce clause" and "necessary and proper clause" in the Constitution to justify micromanaging everything from transportation and agriculture to the water flow in our shower spigots. It's hard to find a part of our lives that hasn't had the hand of the federal government in it. No wonder our country is in such debt - the government is trying to do too much and then give us the bill for it!
Thanks to the efforts of a fairly new movement called "The Patrick Henry Caucus", some of our state legislators (including mine, Representative Ken Sumsion - Go Ken!!!!) have joined with legislators from other states to write bills that directly challenge this usurpation by the federal government. Yes, these bills are designed to get challenged by the US Supreme Court. But what else is going to stop the federal government from consistently overstepping its bounds?
So, here's a few of the state's rights bills/resolutions in this legislative session with links to find more about them on the state legislative website:
SB 11 Utah State-made Firearms Protection Act
HCR 2 Concurrent Resolution on States' Rights
HCR 17 Concurrent Resolution Opposing the Use of Presidential Power to Create New National Monuments in Utah
HJR 11 Joint Resolution Regarding Federal Health Insurance Reform
Since I don't have time to write about all of these, please post a comment if you have a question and I'll try to answer it in a fairly timely matter.
The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution 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."
Unfortunately, over the last several decades or more, Congress has used both the "commerce clause" and "necessary and proper clause" in the Constitution to justify micromanaging everything from transportation and agriculture to the water flow in our shower spigots. It's hard to find a part of our lives that hasn't had the hand of the federal government in it. No wonder our country is in such debt - the government is trying to do too much and then give us the bill for it!
Thanks to the efforts of a fairly new movement called "The Patrick Henry Caucus", some of our state legislators (including mine, Representative Ken Sumsion - Go Ken!!!!) have joined with legislators from other states to write bills that directly challenge this usurpation by the federal government. Yes, these bills are designed to get challenged by the US Supreme Court. But what else is going to stop the federal government from consistently overstepping its bounds?
So, here's a few of the state's rights bills/resolutions in this legislative session with links to find more about them on the state legislative website:
SB 11 Utah State-made Firearms Protection Act
HCR 2 Concurrent Resolution on States' Rights
HCR 17 Concurrent Resolution Opposing the Use of Presidential Power to Create New National Monuments in Utah
HJR 11 Joint Resolution Regarding Federal Health Insurance Reform
Since I don't have time to write about all of these, please post a comment if you have a question and I'll try to answer it in a fairly timely matter.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Loss of Sovereignty in England - Ouch!
This obscure article in today's Daily Herald intrigued me today:
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/world/europe/article_3e6ab7db-5eb1-57f6-b3ec-106ea6259360.html
It's about a guy who constructed a castle without going through the local planning authorities and kind of tried to hide it. The local guys claim that he should take down the castle because of the shady beginnings. The castle guy says he's lived in it for enough years to claim protection under another law. The High Court sided with the local planning people, but of course that ruling is under appeal.
In any case, this is the part that caught my eye:
I don't know about you, but I'd be kind of scared by this if I were an English citizen. But what if this situation was applied to America? Those who receive a ruling they don't agree with will naturally want to keep pursuing the issue if there's any chance of a reversal. Regardless of whether a ruling is "right" or "wrong" (a lot is probably based on perceptions and the justices making the best judgment they can given the evidence available at the time) there has to be an end, a place where the buck stops once and for all.
The main question is: Do we want to make a multi-country court or an international court the last word on arguments? If we do, bye bye to our sovereignty!
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/world/europe/article_3e6ab7db-5eb1-57f6-b3ec-106ea6259360.html
It's about a guy who constructed a castle without going through the local planning authorities and kind of tried to hide it. The local guys claim that he should take down the castle because of the shady beginnings. The castle guy says he's lived in it for enough years to claim protection under another law. The High Court sided with the local planning people, but of course that ruling is under appeal.
In any case, this is the part that caught my eye:
Fidler's lawyer, Pritpal Singh Swarn, said the decision would be appealed at the Court of Appeal because it raised important planning issues. A further appeal to European courts is possible if British courts again reject Fidler's bid to legitimize his castle.
I don't know about you, but I'd be kind of scared by this if I were an English citizen. But what if this situation was applied to America? Those who receive a ruling they don't agree with will naturally want to keep pursuing the issue if there's any chance of a reversal. Regardless of whether a ruling is "right" or "wrong" (a lot is probably based on perceptions and the justices making the best judgment they can given the evidence available at the time) there has to be an end, a place where the buck stops once and for all.
The main question is: Do we want to make a multi-country court or an international court the last word on arguments? If we do, bye bye to our sovereignty!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)