Shocker!

.... and in other news the United Nations once again declared themselves irrelevant.

Arizona Law - Constitutional?

Before we get into this immigration law I'd like to take a moment and give my personal thoughts on immigration. My solution to the Hispanic illegal alien problem is very simple. Armed troops with authority to shoot anyone crossing the border at any place other than an authorized check station. We do this in other police actions to control movement half way around the world. Surely our own borders should be no less a priority. This would be very effective. You only have to step over a few dead bodies before you reconsider your method of entering this country.

Second, we need to make it MUCH easier for immigrants to enter this country to work as productive members of society. I am not against immigration. It is what makes this country strong. I am against illegal aliens crossing our border damaging our social services and creating a drain on our nation.

Now to the Arizona law.

I have two issues with this law that I believe violate your constitutional rights.

1. The law allows police officers to stop and question anyone they "have reason to believe" may be in the country illegally. What could this possibly mean in Arizona other than a hostile environment for anyone of Hispanic dissent. It is very plausible that a single individual driving to work could be stopped multiple times for simple having brown skin. This is the Hispanic version of "driving while black". This is not acceptable.

2. This law requires all individuals to carry on their person documentation showing their immigration status. This could mean a green card for an immigrant, or a social security card or birth certificate for a citizen. The problem with this is that it places the burden of proof on the accused. Rather than the principle accepted by the Supreme Court since the very inception of our country as a the standard of guilt.

This second point brings to mind the gestapo asking you for your papers. You have a right in this country under the 4th amendment to a reasonable degree of privacy and security in your person. In my opinion this law is a clear violation.

Some have criticized my opinion as hypocritical as I want to shoot people crossing the boarder with out due process. Depriving them of their life without a trial constituting a violation of their 5th amendment. To these people I retort that those crossing the border are not citizens of the United States, and therefore not protected by the bill of rights. However I will concede that it may be best to claim a few hundred feet this side of the border as military base property, thereby making a trespass an invasion.

Selling My Home in the New Government Era

About a month and a half ago my wife and I listed our home with a real estate agent. We have been renting for the last few years as we waited for the market to improve. In the mean time we had renters in our home to assist us pay the mortgage. We signed the papers with our realtor on a Friday morning. Friday afternoon she placed the sign in our yard. The house was shown Saturday morning, and that afternoon we had an offer in front of us. Wow, we were happy. While it wasn't quite full asking price, it was close.

{cue the "Imperial March" music}

Enter the government. The buyer of our home is doing so through a government guaranteed loan, so of course there will be an inspection to ensure the house meets minimum requirements. The inspector asked that we:

Replace a few shingles - No problem. I have extras.
Repair flashing around Chimney - Not a big deal.
Update outlets - Sigh. Okay.
Repair cracked window in basement. Fine.

Enter bank appraiser who asks for a vapor barrier under the addition. (This is a 10'x8' room. - Why do they care. It was fine when we bought it 5 years ago.

Enter City inspector who demands we:

Replace all smoke detectors. - Why? They still work! The city just wants new ones.
Replace 60amp electrical box with 120amp. - At this point I'm pulling my hair out. The city is requiring more than even the federal government. Oh by the way, if you don't make all repairs they will not allow the transfer of the deed. UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY?

Of course you have to use their "approved" electricians. (There are only two.) You can't do the work on your own. How can this be constitutional?

It is no wonder the housing market is hurting. The government forces so many regulations that it eats up all your equity, if you are lucky enough to have some.

Is it Time to Repeal the 17th Amendment?

The 17th amendment to the constitution states that United States Senators will be elected by a vote of the people in the states. What else would we do? Well prior to the 17th amendment Senators were chosen by state legislators to represent the state at the federal level. They had control over the U.S. Senator in that they would even tell them how they were expected to vote on various bills.

Originally the people of the states would vote for their U.S. House representatives every 2 years, and the state legislators would appoint a U.S. Senator every 6 years. This gave the people representation in the government, but also allowed the state, as a state, to be represented.

In 1835 8 U.S. Senators were forced by their states to resign from their posts after not following the states will in their voting regarding President Andrew Jackson's war against the Bank of the United States. So you can see that consequences to Senators under this system are swift and severe. Contrast that with today where U.S. Senators only face voters every 6th year.

The 17th amendment was ratified in 1912. It took more than 85 years to become law since the first time it was introduced.