Remember how things were in high school? If a truth was unpopular, you'd be ridiculed for saying it, no matter how obvious it was. Even people who knew you were right wouldn't defend you, because then they'd be ridiculed too. They might even think they had to speak against you, just to be safe. Politics is like that, but mostly just on one side. The rich and powerful can emphasize the effect when it works for them (by hiring professional ridicule … Read More

via The Weekly Sift

In the interest of full disclosure, I should confess I am a registered Independent in the state of Florida & have been for some time now. I will also tell you what I am about to share has nothing to do with any other party or person. If it did, you would be justified in calling me out since the basis of my retort is my independent voter status, and accordingly I do not act as spokesperson for any other, nor do I request they speak for me. Hence, the moniker “Independent.” As such, I’ve decided to clarify my decision to register as an Independent.

My Declaration of Independent Voter Status:

When in the course of the elections process in the United States of America, a candidate is aligned with the most extreme elements of a party in order to form a more perfect nomination, only to move back to the middle of the political spectrum when faced with the opposing party’s extreme nominee, the people, by virtue of natural rights endowed upon them by their creator to think and act freely, may dissolve and render moot their contract with any party to which they may be allied. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are guaranteed to the individual, therefore it is the individual who must take accountability for actions such as voting that bear direct consequences on the security of these rights. If integrity is of greater importance than the obligation to espouse the shifting stance of a party’s candidate through an election cycle, remaining affiliated with a party becomes a liability rather than an asset to the individual. In such case, the moral obligation is to remove externally manipulated forms of obligation in order to ensure and accept sole responsibility for choices one makes on Election Day.

The results of such divestiture from any party affiliation are and should be sole accountability for one’s choice; an ability to weigh current conditions necessitating government action or inaction and what form they should take; and the freedom to make your final choice as it was intended in the legally protected sanctity of a voting booth.

Today, Republicans are being defined by the most extreme elements of their party. Certainly, the Republican Progressives of the early 20th century are less willing to speak out in the GOP of today. Democrats are currently demonstrating a greater willingness to be more central in their actions, but their is no guarantee they won’t shift to the extreme if given the chance to pursue a greater number of voters inhabiting that portion of the political spectrum. Balance is difficult to find in the disparate and numerous directives from different political strains within the US. Choosing to be Independent puts both parties on notice your vote is not automatic. It requires a reasoned argument and the promise from the candidate to remain reasonable once they reach office, and not to cleave to an ideology when circumstances present themselves requiring contrary actions.

“Patriotism,” despite its obfuscation and manipulation in party rhetoric simply means a commitment to remain engaged in the political process, protecting it from all dangers foreign and domestic. Practicing free speech and dissension is one of the greatest acts of patriotism in America because freedom of expression is this nation’s foundation. Self-empowerment leads to control over one’s own life and future. The liberty to express oneself without conflicting loyalties empowers. Playing a part in one’s own destiny gives meaning and meaning imparts happiness.

Whether or not statistics suggest my choice for independent voter status merely disguises an allegiance to one party or the other, the action itself carries a greater message: I am exercising my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and accepting sole responsibility for my success or failure in maintaining that right.

Earn my vote.

Sit back & hear his story in the context of understanding personal responsibility; that no labor is unskilled; and without the other side, that coin you’re on would be worthless.

Mike Rowe has epiphany with sheep testicles

For that reason, I think it only fair to give 7 reasons why each of his 7 considered conclusions is dead wrong:

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution. Perry’s argument that judges are unaccountable to the people demonstrates his lack of understanding checks & balances built into the Constitution. The judicial branch can interpret law any way it sees fit. In a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, they could literally interpret a law to mean the sky is officially yellow. Seriously. This sounds pretty powerful. However, our system takes this into account by leaving in the hands of the President the responsibility of enforcing these laws. A President may decide to issue an Executive Order countermanding the newly interpreted law, and if the Courts simply re-interpret the Order, he or she may decide against enforcing it altogether. This is actually a common practice at all levels of government as arcane laws remain on the books as a result of negligence and current priority. The Court is powerless to rule on an issue until it is brought before them. In short, they have a powerful bark without the bite. If the Executive proves unwilling or unable to act, the Legislative still wields Articles of Impeachment Powers. The reason for keeping the judiciary out of the direct line of fire from voters is to keep it an apolitical body not subject to the whimsical pandering common in the election cycle.
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote. Uh…that’s a big “no.” Congress already has the power to override an Executive’s veto, now he wants to give the Legislative power over the Judicial? The legislative branch is empowered to write laws & to repeal them. If the Court rules a certain way, it is far easier for Congress to enact new legislation or repeal prior legislation than to gain a 2/3 majority to overrule a decision. As noted above, the checks & balances are already in place. Perry seems to advocate checks & imbalance. Schnook.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. The federal income tax, hated as it is, gives government the ability raise revenue in a progressive manner. Is it manipulated? Yes. Is that fair? No. Still, you don’t remove a tax system that has overseen a broadening of the middle class and made the slope to wealth a gradual one, rather than one divided by large gaps as occurs in regressive tax systems where unfair taxation is built into it. Reform through transparency and simplification is a much wiser approach. Further, whether or not you agree with leadership and the recent wars, there are times when war presents itself, and it is the undisputed duty of government to “provide for the common defense,” something requiring the ability to raise revenue.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Okay, Governor Perry, which do you want: Accountability or not? First, he wants judges held to greater political scrutiny, and Senators to return to the days of state appointment. I have to wonder why he focuses on limiting a judiciary that recognized the state’s rights to allow abortion while consolidating the power of a state over the appointment of Senators, which incidentally has a majority of the opposite party. Is it possible he sees the Constitution as a political instrument rather than document?
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year. Why is this more important than ensuring the government has the means to tackle relevant issues of the time? This falls in the same category as the income tax. There has been enormous abuse of the power to accrue debt, and it is easy to see the attraction of a balanced budget amendment. However, doing so lacks any measure of foresight. History is filled with examples of how being debt-conscious and economically ignorant can lead to longer and more frequent recessionary cycles that lead to depression. Again, the better approach is an active constituency that demands accountability from both their legislative & executive bodies. Laws cannot be a cure for laziness.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states. This one doesn’t need a lot of explanation. Marriage is a ritual begun millennia ago that has been defined and redefined within a single culture many times let alone the vastly different interpretations between many cultures. In a nation known for its multi-cultural background, I highly doubt an amendment to the Constitution defining such an institution is in the best interest of its citizens. Instead, it seeks to install one religion’s values over others’. A better solution is to get government out of marriage altogether & only oversee the contractual obligations to which one commits in a marriage through power of attorney given a spouse, thereby enabling joint property disputes to be more easily resolved.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. Here again Perry allows his personal desires to overreach law, the foundation of government in the United States, and this is actually one suggestion of which I am less constitutionally critical. Stare decisis is the basis for the continued legality of abortion following Roe v. Wade in 1973, nearly 40 years ago. To reverse that decision, the courts would be endangering a tenet of law long-considered to obligatory to honor in many other cases: Precedence. Ironically, by ignoring precedence, it might cause many other cases based upon it to unravel similarly. Therefore, agree with Perry or not on this, pursuing new legislation is the appropriate means. Abortion, however, generates quite a bit of disagreement among the population and research suggests its legalization has contributed to a more stable society over time wherever introduced. To a person running for election, this is not an area where success can be found except for tapping into the emotional impetus to get votes from a reactionary constituency.

My final thought on Perry’s constitutional revisionism: You seem to have a lot of ideas for changing laws. Why are you running for President and not Congress?