A Bargarian View on DC Voting Rights (Taxation without Representation)

Congrats to Lisa for having her first segment on Fox TV for a monthly feature. While she needs to work on her teleprompter skills (her words, not mine), she did well. Well, except for the fact that she should be looking at the viewer, not the screen.
:)


Speaking of Lisa, her blog Liberal Common Sense has a complaint; apparently, she doesn't like how Whalertly writes/argues his points in the previous two posts on DC and voting that he did. With that in mind, I decided that I am going to go ahead and take a crack at it myself: Here goes nothing.



As a starter, I want to say that I agree with Whalertly's main argument. The Constitution is clear on this issue, and it clearly says that only states can have a say in Congress. To me, this should mean that they have a vocal voice in congress, but no non-state entirety has a vote, even if it doesn't count. Nor should they be part of any committees at all. The Founding Fathers intended this to be, as they clearly worded this in the Constitution. Our government doesn't follow the Constitution enough, maybe it is time that they started here.

There is no way that you can interpret the Constitution to say something that it clearly says it is against. There is room for interpretation in privacy, in freedom of speech, and in freedom of the practice of religion. All of these are not fully defined, and they are all set up to adapt. However, there is no logical wriggle room in the statement:
”hall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states “. Additionally, as you need to be a citizen of the state that elected you, there is no way to get around this. Arguably, if the State of Ohio were to decide who represents DC then you have an interesting loophole. keep in mind, this would probably not hold up in court.

So, we know that there is no real way to get representation CONSTITUTIONALLY to DC or any of our islands, but there is a bigger issue here: That of taxation without representation.

A common argument brought up by those arguing for sovereignty is the concept that there should be no income tax unless they have representation. In fact, this is a point that Lisa brought up a few times. This believe stems from the assumption that the Boston tea party was a main factor in the revolution. This is a faulty belief, as most of our issues stemmed from the fact that we believed that the king was our leader, no parliament. We can safely assume that tax with no rep. Was simply the straw that broke the camels back. There is no backing what-so-ever to this argument historically based.

Furthermore, this argument falls apart when it comes to practice. We tax anybody who buys anything, tourists, kids, adults, yet most don't have representation. Taxes are covered on products and services, yet the people who end up paying them (consumers) do not always have representation. Obviously, they believe that only one tax matters...

Several groups pay income taxes and have no vote. Kids with jobs, felons in certain states, and illegal immigrants all pay income tax. Hell, those with a green card that are permanent residents also pay income tax. We don't want these groups to vote, but they are being deprived of the same 'right'. Obviously when you use selective enforcement you have an issue.

Overall, I believe that DC should not have the vote Constitutionally. This also applies to all of our territories and islands. Furthermore, I do not believe that the argument about taxation holds any water, as it is selective and not really historically based, regardless of how people argue it. If we amend the Constitution then I will support them having the vote, but, until then, they should not have it.

for the smart readers out there, you might have noticed that I never actually posted my own opinion on this issue... :)
Read more ...

Enfranchisement on the Hill: Part 2

So just like my post from Wednesday, this one comes from the same post over on Mr. Keelers Report... Well, Ben discusses that the city of Washington D.C. Is probably going to get some representation in the House on Congressional Hill. He points out the issues with this in the Constitution, and I am simply going to further his arguments. Enjoy...



Let me start off by saying the CITY of Washington D.C., again, CITY is probably getting a vote. CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY
Keep that term in mind for the rest of this post...

Anyways, for the last few years various entities that are not states have been gaining rights in the House of Representatives. Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Somalia have all had delegates in Congress on their behalf. While these people were never allowed to make a deciding vote, they were allowed in committees and to cast figurehead votes. This, to me, is absurd.

The Constitution is clear that only States are to have any form of voting in Congress... Hey look, here is a quote for you:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”
see, notice the bolded section? See, there should be no voting, even if it doesn't matter, by any member that is not from a state. Additionally, they should have no position on any, and I mean any, committee. To have the American territories in congress, except as watchers or speaker, is a blatant violation of the Constitution.

What else would you expect from these politicians?

Now, what is to stop the government from giving them votes in the Senate, or in the presidential elections? It is bad enough that they can vote in primaries (that is the right of the party to decide), but having any say anywhere else is wrong... Our government should not be working violate the Constitution, it should be trying to tape it back up after Bush violated it...

As an Ohio resident, I am concerned about the implications this has for my state. Instead of a proper say, we would have less of one then we should. I think that our state should have not voted on this bill as they did, and I am ashamed of Voiny and Brown for voting for it. Those two should be ashamed of themselves, they only harmed their state. Ohio deserves 18/435 reps, not 18/440 or so that they would plan on. Ohio is being screwed over by this, and we need to fix that

Anyways... By allowing this to happen, Congress is violating the rights of every citizen of the actual America. I truly believe that it infringes my 14th Amendment right to due process if they let this happen. I believe that all Americans should be pissed off by this sort of thing, as it violates our individual rights and will violate our most precious document.

Part of me thinks that if this passes, I might challenge the law, or maybe call up the ACLU to get them to help me take it to court

What do you guys think?
Read more ...

Enfranchisement on the Hill: Part 1

Hello all, and welcome to the first real post on this site in the last week or so. Sure, Barga posts fun little stories and history, but they are all shit. RMB.reviews posts reviews, who the hell wants to read those? I know you are all here for me, so let's get started.

Oh, and Barga wanted me to let you all know, there is a poll on the side of the blog, respond to it...



This post is a direct post to one from Ben over at his political report. On THIS POST, Ben mentions, slightly, the fact that Minnesota still does not have a senator, well, a second one. I want to address this fact (go comment on his site, it is cute when he thinks that people care)
--On a side note, have your blog posts in their own pages, that way I can link directly to your post, not to the comments part... jackass--

Currently, Minn. Has 1/99 votes in the senate, instead of the 1/50 that they should constitutionally have. This, to me, is a travesty and something that we should address ASAP. The population of MINN is currently being deprived of due process (via the 14th) and thus are being harmed with such bullshit as the stimulus bill and other things that the left-wing congress is doing. Minn should attempt to filibuster all votes until they have the constitutional amount of say, or demand that congress doesn't convene until they get a new senator. After all, congress only needs to convene once a year

So, what should a citizen in Minn do? Well, logically they should start to protest this sort of system. They should sue congress to get them to stop meeting until they get a representative, or something along those lines. They should also sue the state government for allowing this sort of bullshit to happen and thus costing them their rights. Somehow, they need to get this solved, and get it done soon.

FYI, I might hate liberal commies, but I still want Franken to win... I mean, why not have a real clown in congress, instead of those only pretending to be



Now, as this blog likes to focus on Ohio, only because the glorious Barga seems to want some sort of following, I need to talk about how this is important to the state. So, how the hell does this effect Ohio? On the surface, it looks like it helps Ohio out. We get 2/99 votes, instead of 2/100, see how much better we are? We should work on some system to take out the senators (so the SS out there, I am joking about this part) so that Ohio gets all of the votes...

So how the Hell does it harm Ohio?

Well, it harms Ohio simply because of the precedent that it sets. If we allow Congress to meet without an attempt to ensure equal enfranchisement to all that deserve it, and are granted it via the constitution, then we have a problem. We should not let states not have their rights, and we need to do something about this. What if we had a problem getting Brown or Voiny to the Senate? Well, according to this reasoning, we should just forgo the vote. At this point, all states should be attempting to give Minn's one senator two votes, to keep this from happening...

Part 2 will be here on Friday, see you then Suckas
Read more ...

Ohio's Suggestion Box

Do suggestion boxes at work actually work? How about the anonymous letters you turn in to your teacher? I don't think that any employees or students think that they do, but I am sure they are used for a reason. Nevada has decided to use this idea to help their citizens get in contact with their representatives.



The plan behind this website is that Nevadans will send in their complaints and suggestions and the law makers will look them over and respond to them. Basically, it is a giant suggestion box for the entire state, and it has the goal of ensuring that all good ideas and suggestions are vetted.

This is an interesting idea, as it makes sure that there is accountability in the system. More importantly, it ensures that all good ideas will be heard. How often do citizens write in great ideas to the newspapers and then they are never used? All the bloody time. This system takes all of the good ideas, vets them, and then gives them to congress to use as they need to. Great idea.

Let's think for a second on how it would work in Ohio. We would take suggestions for any issue in the state submitted to one website. We could probably break them into 5-7 categories, and have staffers for each category. Those staffers serve to take out the obvious Spam suggestions and then use them to remove copies. We count the popular ones and look at them first, then we look at the rest. The good ones get used, the rest are kept in a searchable database for future use. All suggestions will be looked at by a person prior to any decision rendered on them.

I believe that we could run this system through Brunner's office and use her to move the stuff to the appropriate groups. The State House could even create a committee to look and analyze these positions, and then they could move the good and viable ones further up the system. All suggestions, those from that plumber named Joe and those from people like myself would be looked at. Any good ones (i.e. any from myself) will be good enough for our government to look over. I only hope that they are modest enough to use other people's ideas.

I am all for this sort of system. Seriously, it is about time that the state representatives and the like start to pay attention to what the little person wants. We have people in congress who are just sitting around doing nothing, or saying they represent us when they are acting opposite of how we want, this sort of system will make sure that they are not able to avoid the big issues or argue that they didn't know how the citizens actually felt.

So, guys, what do you think? Would you write into this system? Do you think that it would work?
Read more ...

Signs Signs, Everywhere are signs...

Post 61

See, and none of you thought that the last sentence in my last post meant anything. Look, I was giving you all a hint, enjoy it...

I drive down any street and see signs in every yard. From signs about certain landscapers to signs about roofers to signs about painters to signs telling me that something is art (a Worthington thing, the item is not art, and we should have no art building here). All of these signs exist to capture my attention, to get me to use the product next time I need that sort of product, or to get me to support another cause. These signs are colorful, have 'catchy' slogans, and they sometimes even have pretty little pictures. Yep, you agree to advertise for companies, politicians, and organizations for free. Don't you feel used?

Signs appear more often during this time of year, especially, on the even years. We have signs for Kilroy, signs for Strivers, signs for Obama/Biden, and signs for McCain*Palin. All of the signs have small text and disclaimers, they all have websites, yet the only thing you can usually read is the candidate that is running. These signs, of course, give you only a brief view into the house owners psyche. Did they just like the colors? Do they support all of the policies or only more than the other persons? Why McCain over Obama? Why Obama over McCain? You know absolutely nothing about these people.

Wait, but you actually know a lot more about people then you thought. Say I have a sign that says I support Obama as well as a sign that I support Kilroy; clearly, the assumption is that Kilroy is similar to Obama. Now, this seems obvious, unless you get signs for Strivers and signs for Obama. Yep, a rather-right candidate with a rather-left candidate. Hmmm, see a problem here? Certain good candidates could be lost by their grouping with the bad candidates. This sort of thing is common, and has cost several persons and issues their passing. If I see a sign for Issue 6 with a sign for McCain, odds are I will vote against Issue 6. When you start dealing with undecideds (as I am for most state based issues, not federal or local) then you need to be cautious of what signs you put out.

Now, you are all probably asking where this all came from; well, the other day I was following a car that had bumper stickers galore on it. From “make love not war” to “Obama/Biden” to “no more Bush in the white house until we elect a woman” it seemed like a typical left-leaning (far) car. This is all fine and dandy to me, as I already associate Obama with anti-bush. The problem was the oldest and biggest bumper sticker: “Free Leonard Peltlier”. You know what, he shot and killed two federal agents, WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE FREE HIM. If I knew nothing about the candidates they supported, the positions on the stickers, and Mr. Obama, then I would never would support those people after reading these crazy bumper stickers. Keep your stickers rational if you want to help somebody mainstream get into power.

Guys, if you want to help somebody, make sure you don't alienate everybody else.

*MAP UPDATE*

I have finally resigned to the fact that every week is going to be poll after poll. While Ohio is still standing in the Obama category, the most recent poll gave McCain a 2 point lead; Ohio is a state to watch. Surprisingly, Virginia is now strongly in the Obama category (+8 average) which is far above the hidden racism issue. New Hampshire, which was considered one of the must wins this year, now has a +10.3 average for Obama.

Some good news for McCain, not only is he gaining in Ohio, but he is also regaining in Florida and holding in Missouri.

Overall, Obama is winning the EC 353 to 185 which is a strong lead. In the general polling, Obama is winning with a 49.7 to 42.4 point lead (7.3 points overall). When Barr and Nader are added to the equation, Obama is winning by only 4.2 points. Nader is pulling 2.5 points where as Barr is pulling 1.3 points. No wonder more Republicans donate to Nader than democrats. While the polls do not include the hidden racism, he seems to be outside of that margin in most states. With these constant leads, it seems more and more that Obama has this in the bag... barring a October Surprise...

*END OF MAP UPDATE*

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...

An Elitist Leader

Post 54

As I am sitting here typing this at a local coffee house I happened to look up and notice a group of young teen girls. Just wondering, but of the mothers who read this, have you taught your kids how much makeup to wear? If not you should; these girls looked like clowns.

When did it become a political attack to call somebody smart? When did it become acceptable to vote against somebody because they have more experience than you, because they are smarter than you, because they know how to handle money better than yourself? Why is it suicide, politically speaking, to admit that you are superior in mental abilities, in financial logic, or even in governing than the rest of America (especially because at the same time you are trying to argue that you are above the opponent)? Why is it such a crime to be an elitist in American politics? Isn't it more logical that we take these people and place them far above us?

I have never understood why we want somebody who would be a good golf buddy as our president. As Hamel on Trial put it: "..You see a guy from a bar emerging and think, hell, he'll be fuck of a surgeon..." The logic is inescapable, we place a person in charge of us based on the fact that we can be good friends with them, but not because they would be a CEO; this is an illogical move on our parts, but one that we seem doomed to repeat over and over.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think that our leaders should be willing to not know everything. They should know what they are experts in and what they are not. If they get proper advisors, then that is all they need. Yet, any person of average intelligence will not know based on their own experiences what to do in every situation. Our leader should be smart enough to know what to do without advisors, well, to at least know kinda what to do. Do keep in mind, that I mean elitist as a form of intelligence or true superiority (including like Michael Jordan in Basketball), not as favoring the elite. Our president and congressional members should be our leaders, not members of the pack.

So, when you hear Obama going on about McCain owning 7 houses (keep in mind that Cindy owns all 7, 4 of which are used be other members of the family) or McCain explaining that Obama talks down to the US citizens (he should, half of them think we are doing okay right now) take it with a grain of salt. Realize that they are both above the masses (both in social hierarchy positions, their financial independence, and their intelligence). While they might not be above you, they are above the masses. That is where they should be, that is where we want our leaders to be. It is high time that we start electing real leaders, not our beer bringers (this is not an attack on John McCain.)

*MAP UPDATE*

This previous week seemed to be the week of Polls That Barga Had Never Heard Of. Seriously, like 20 new polling groups showed up, released a poll, and died. One thing I have never understood is why they poll places like California and Alaska; seriously people, these polls are useless and a waste of money as they are already known.

So, for the new polls from last week up until 6pm Sunday Night: Nothing, absolutely nothing. There was no change what-so-ever and yet here I was spending about 15 minutes to sort through the polls. That said, Obama is still winning the GE by 2.2 points and the EC race 273 to 265. Interestingly, one of the closer polls happens to be in Minnesota, which is a tipping state.

*END OF MAP UPDATE*

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...