A National Approach….Sometimes

[PoliticalChic]

Is it a ‘principle’ if it doesn’t apply all the time?



1.NY Governor Cuomo is in the news for arguing that the federal government should be more aggressive in setting a national approach to the rules of engagement in the war against the novel coronavirus.

“I make sure all the rules are the same in my state. New York City can’t do anything different than Nassau County or Suffolk County or Westchester County because if that happens people will just shop among the different locales. You close a bar in Nassau but you leave it open in New York City, all you’re doing is having people drive from Nassau County to New York City, which is the last thing we want to do.

“It’s also true among states. If I take certain actions, or Governor Lamont takes certain actions, we’re all in the same area, any one of our residents can get in the car and just drive to the neighboring state to do whatever they want to do. So we have agreed to a common set of rules that will pertain in all of our states. So don’t even think about going to a neighboring state because there’s going to be a different set of conditions.”



2. I’m not a fan of the governor, but it makes sense in the case of the pandemic. But, to support that view that the principle of national rules for every issue and subject, is appropriate and correct, one must be a totalitarian. On other occasions Cuomo has provided this blanket approach:

“Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life, pro-gun conservatives 'have no place' in New York” Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life, pro-gun conservatives ‘have no place’ in New York

So if Cuomo’s sort, a Democrat, had a national power that he wields in NY State…..conservatives, pro-lifers, gun owners, would be exiled or arrested. And, as the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party there’d be a whole lot of persona non gratia.

Or maybe the Democrats would do what they did once before, and open concentration camps.

We see the same sort of refusal to allow difference of opinion in Bolsheviks, Nazis, and Democrats.


There is only one situation where, in America, all the rules are the same: the Constitution.



3. Let’s remember the context: this tin-pot dictator is a governor…. a really important state, New York…but still, only a governor. There is a set of rules that is supposed to apply throughout the nation, and it’s called the ‘law of the land,’ the United States Constitution.

Democrats feel that they are the equivalent to the Constitution. In fact, in juxtaposition, a recent Democrat President said he could do what he wanted ‘cause he had ‘a pen and a phone.’




In America, “setting a national approach to the rules of engagement” is only under the auspices of the Constitution.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yet they only follow the law of the land when it suits them.

*****SMILE*****

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet they only follow the law of the land when it suits them.

*****SMILE*****

Couldn't be more true.


Here, from the Socialist Savior of the Democrat Party:

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
Letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill on H.R. 8479. | The American Presidency Project


Roosevelt set the tone, and it has been ever so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. While this one of the Cuomo boys [ CNN has Fredo ] claims to favor some ‘national approach’….it is only when it favors his views.


“And how does Mr. Cuomo himself behave in the face of a clear national regulation, even foundational law, applying to the whole country — like, say, the Second Amendment? The Founders certainly intended that to apply to the whole country. They wrote it directly into the Bill of Rights.

Well, yo, ho, ho and a bottle of rum. It turns out that this view of the Second Amendment is not favored by the governor of America’s most progressive state. He defies the Second Amendment. He wants to regulate guns. Plus, too, he turns his back on the First Amendment — free speech, right to petition — and sics his financial regulators on the National Rifle Association for trying to defend the Second Amendment in the State of New York.” The Cuomo Constitution





5. I’ve just agreed with this Democrat vis-à-vis the virus, and would agree if the argument was about a factory pouring noxious gases into the atmosphere, but when he picks and chooses his ‘constitutional’ program, we are at odds.

“Either have the federal government step in and, in respect or the coronavirus, set the rules for all the states and then enforce the federal format. Or Mr. Cuomo could adjust to the prospect that Connecticut and New Jersey might pursue different approaches to danger…. put into relief the fork Mr. Cuomo is facing. If he wants a uniform rule, the Second Amendment would be a terrific place to start.” Ibid.




If government school actually had a mission to teach, instead of demand lock-step agreement with the Democrat Party, this might be an interesting discussion, as it hinges on the ratification of our Constitution, and the creation of our nation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a reason why Democrat/Liberal Cuomo's call for "a national approach to the rules of engagement in the war" on every subject and issue, should be ignored, and it is in our history.



6. A key element of American History is left out of the education provided by government schooling.

Federalism.

The Constitution was ratified by the colonies with the proviso that the concept of 'federalism' would be the basic doctrine of the new nation.



Federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That's America. We didn't vote for a king, even if you call it 'the federal government,'' or 'the Supreme Court,' or 'the President.'

The only rules we agreed to be governed by is the Constitution.
Either amend it, or obey it.



Based on the concept of federalism, there was no need for a Supreme Court making certain that every locality had the very same view of culture, custom, tradition, and values.

Ronald Reagan used the phrase ‘voting with your feet,’ meaning move to where you are more comfortable with the rules. This nation was founded on individualism, not on collectivism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. One of the most fundamental of the principles that our Founders promulgated was separation of powers.

Who doesn’t agree with that concept? Even Liberals and Democrats will claim to support it.



What they fail to recognize is that it apples to the states versus the federal government as well as the branches of government. But today, the states are no more than agencies to carry out the federal government’s dictates.

The Founders envisioned a decentralized political arrangement, one which empowers individuals because it dispersed power, rather than amassing it in one place. Read the Tenth Amendment, ratified in 1791:

a. 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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to the state legislatures as "laboratories of democracy" willing to tackle new and innovative approaches in meeting the needs of society.

The suggestion was that each state might deal with issues and problems differently.....exactly what our Founders envisioned.



Referred to as ‘federalism,’ it was a relationship between the central authority and states, discussed in Federalist #39, by Madison.
Citizens of each State had a duty to insure their States retained their constitutional sovereignty, a duty to support legislators who put a check on general power, who interposed on the citizens behalf. It is for this reason James Madison words make sense when writing, in Federalist 39, Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.Even those who disagreed agreed on federalism.
Tenth Amendment Center




9. If every state is ‘sovereign,’ outside of the dictates of the Constitution’s article 1, section 8…then why can't each state have different rules for, say....abortion????

"Kentucky House Passes Constitutional Amendment Specifying There’s No Right to Abortion
The Kentucky House of Representatives passed two pro-life bills, including legislation that seeks to amend the state constitution to specify that it provides no legal right to an abortion.

"To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion," the amendment proposed in the bill states. The bill received bipartisan support, passing in a 71-21 vote on Tuesday.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Fischer (R.), said it would "end the slaughter of unborn children in Kentucky," according to the Courier Journal."
Kentucky House Passes Constitutional Amendment Specifying There's No Right to Abortion



The party of death will fight it tooth and nail!