Regarding the Supreme Court's decision on a lack of standing for TX et Al. to challenge election practices in other States:

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the USC states that States may not "keep troops or ships of war..." or "engage in war".  When the States entered into Union with one another, they relinquished the right to settle differences by force of arms.  If a dispute arose on the execution of Federal law within another State, there was no recourse but appeal to the Government, which falls squarely in Article III, Section 2.  To state it clearly, States gave up this sovereign right with the promise that the Supreme Court would adjudicate disputes.

For a modern example, consider the Ukraine.  After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine was an independent sovereign nation, armed with Nuclear Weapons.  In exchange for relinquishing those weapons, the promise was made that the United States would guarantee its sovereignty and security.  So when a conflict did arise with the nuclear armed Russian neighbor, they had no recourse but to hope for relief and protection from the United States.  But after Russia annexed the Crimea, we did nothing.  So to with the Supreme Court; when an act of egregious violation of sovereignty occurs, the USC mandates that the only recourse and redress is through the Supreme Court.  When they reject a hearing on that dispute they have violated the promise made.  This is also not unlike the philosophy of Gun Control on a smaller scale:  if you turn in your weapons, the State will be your protection; until it isn't, and you find yourself at the mercy of corrupt and evil men.

That is the general reasoning that this case should have been heard.  But what of this specific case?  Is there really a "dispute" here between States, or is it just a disagreement about how one State chooses to resolve its own internal affairs?  There is in fact one, and only one, caveat to the manner in which States conduct their affairs, guaranteed and therefore mandated by the USC.  Article IV Section 4 states that "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government..."  Most States in this Union would not join together to be governed by a President if any or most of those States were governed by a Monarchy, or by a Socialist Dictatorship, or a Despotic Junta.

When a State begins acting by Executive Fiat, it is no longer a "republican form of government".  When it no longer requires legislative authority, it is no longer a republic.  When it stops following its own Constitution, it is most definitely no longer a republic.  The Constitution envisions that the State's government would be besieged from within by anti-republican forces, and would require rescue from without.  But it is equally the case that the State government itself becomes corrupt, and will not seek Federal relief for its own violations of that guaranteed form.

Therefore, in that the other States of the Union will not be joined in government with a despotic oligarchy that denies a republican form of government to its people, they have the absolute standing to call into question the results of any vote taken by those several states.

We all agreed to lay down our arms, to not fight the petty border skirmishes of Medieval European fiefdoms, and to let peaceful adjudications occur through a Supreme Court.  We all agreed to form republican style governments, governed by Constitutions that lent authority through the consent of the governed.  Both of these essential pillars have been attacked, and the injured victim is the general consent of the people of this nation and its several States to be governed in Union.

Natural Born Citizens

February 13, 2016

Since Donald Trump is still pushing this line of attack, I think I'll weigh in with my two-cents.  For context, I dug into this issue pretty heavily during the '08 campaign.  I'm actually pretty frosted that it's come up again, after I tried and failed spectacularly at having a satisfactory engagement with anyone, from any side, on the merits for or against.  I was willing to be convinced, no matter what the consequence and effect on my personal desires.  So, in the absence of engagement in discussion when it mattered in '08, I've just had to figure it out for myself, and I'll state my findings, and position.  Also, to be fair to Donald Trump, he was virtually the only person in the public eye to not give up the "debate", until a copy of Obama's birth documents were posted (but he did not actually further the discussion of the salient points of the debate).

Here's a summary of the issue:  When the Constitution was written in 1787, a clause was added for the qualifications for holding the office of the President:  "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"  There is no iron-clad definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution or supporting documents, or this would not be an issue.  So, everyone's been left to scour antiquity for original intent, precedent, etc. 

I thought I had encountered a clue as to the original intent of this clause when, in 2010, Kenya adopted a new constitution.  It went something like this:  Under the Kenyan Constitution, Barack Obama was considered to be a natural born citizen of Kenya, since his father was Kenyan.  That is, he would be entitled to citizenship in Kenya; Kenya would not have to *decide* to admit him as a citizen, and he could be claimed to be a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.  It struck me that perhaps the concept of the clause was to prevent any possibility of foreign allegiance of the President, and any entanglements such Dual Citizenship might cause.  This would argue for the Natural Born clause to be applied as "born of citizens who themselves were not dual citizens (and maybe even could not claim natural citizenship from another country), in the United States".  This would prevent any possibility of either the candidate or the foreign country from making a claim of citizenship.

I've rejected this theory, because it relies completely on a third party's determination about claims of citizenship.  For example, Britain could decide to extend natural citizenship to all descendants of it's former colonies, or some other strange thing.  The only thing that makes sense is to rely on a criteria not controlled by another country.

This invalidates Trump's claim about birth place as the sole criteria.  As I discovered with Obama, another country could still claim citizenship for you, for the most basic reason that one of your parent's was from that country.  The only thing that matters is whether or not you can claim to have been born a citizen of the United States, regardless of any other claims.

To that end, it is nonsensical to say that being born abroad instead of at home to a legitimate citizen of the united states *does not confer natural citizenship*.  When we travel to a foreign country, not a single person would assume that having a child while in that country would deny that child the automatic and natural rights of a citizen of our own country.  That would be as if to say that we cease to exist as citizens of the United States once we cross the virtual boundary of the country.

My conclusion then is that anyone born to a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. Citizen by birth.  The location of birth may also invoke arbitrary claims by other parties, but they are immaterial to the fact that that child is a Natural Born Citizen.  Furthermore, since it is a natural right, it cannot be undone by paper work, or lack of paper work.  We don't assume our natural rights (life, liberty, etc.) are only in effect because of a document, they are in effect *by nature*.  If your paperwork is not *in order* then it's a problem for the Bureaucracy, not for the natural citizen to whom the Bureaucracy must answer.

We continue to approach a point of irreconcilable differences.  This one is the reverse problem of federalism, when the laws of one state to another are so diametrically opposed that national continuity becomes a major issue.  Of course, the dramatic expansion of power from the Judiciary via the 14th ammendment should have at least fixed these kinds of situations.  According to that decision, a citizen of the United States has rights that are universal at the State level, as reaffirmed recenty by the Supreme Court.  So, you are permitted to own firearms as a federal citizen, no matter what State you live in, but apparently not in the manner you carry it.

This should at a minimum be a huge warning and caution for everyone buying firearms in states neighboring those with draconian gun laws, given at time of purchase.  There should also be some leeway built into NJ law for the obvious, inevitable, and predictable case of people accidentally crossing the invisible line of a State boundary.  Frankly, if this kind of thing stands, then we really ought to have immigration and customs checkpoints entering NJ to explain the rules of the State, or most common rules, etc (like California does with its Fruit inspection checkpoints).  Also, it would really drive home the atmosphere law abiding citizens live under in NJ.

And last but not least, it's also a good lesson in what you do and do not need to state to a police officer at a traffic stop.  He had no probable cause for inspecting her vehicle for a firearm, and she had no obligation to answer any questions about it.  Whether she had an obligation to offer it up morally is another Post.

http://www.my9nj.com/story/25996007/nj-gun-permit-problems

A Fundamental Divide: Innocent Until Proven Guilty

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/04/06/MSNBC-Children-Are-Not-Yours-They-Belong-To-The-Community

This video gets at the root of a fundamental divide:  "innocent until proven guilty", or "guilty until proven innocent".  Your answer as to which philosophy you hold, and the degree to which you hold it, will greatly influence your political position.  Progressives seem to basically hold to the latter, as it applies to individuals, and to the former as it applies to government.  Conservatives hold to the former for individuals, and to the latter as it applies to government.

Libya, the Other Good War?

I must admit to being confused on several points about the “conclusion” of the Libyan conflict / war. In the first place, the confusion begins with what to call it. Since the Iraq conflict was labeled a War, it seems only right to label Libya a War as well.

The next point of confusion comes from my experiences in the early 2000’s, when I was brow beaten, and savaged, for daring to defend the President at that time, and his conduct of the Iraq War. At the time, Afghanistan was still considered a Good War, since Al Qaeda was directly acknowledged to be supported by the government there. I was told Iraq was secondary, and that there was no national interest, and that if we had stop every mad man dictator in the world we’d have to attack half the world’s countries, etc. But now it seems that for even less justification than was used for Iraq, we allowed, supported, and participated in the efforts to remove Qaddafi, dead or alive, from rule of Libya. Hilary Clinton says “we came, we saw, he died” with a smile on her face (put a cowboy hat on her, and she’d have a good likeness to the parody of George Bush, no?).

I also remember when Pat Robertson was condemned for suggesting that the way to deal with a South America Communist dictator involved possible assassination. But now have we not done precisely that in Libya? Are we not in fact going after the world’s bad actors, as it was painfully and exhaustively declaimed to me that we should not? But that’s the problem, isn’t it? Which leaders do we get to call bad actors and strong men? Which ones are deserving of death? The left complained when George Bush was making what they considered to be arbitrary judgments on this matter. But is it now okay to make those same arbitrary judgments with Obama at the helm?

I write this not to argue with the death of the mad man Qaddafi. I was in Liberia, and saw and heard first hand the destruction wrought by his meddling in the affairs of his continent (he financed and supplied many an insurrection in his day). Good riddance. But I cannot believe I am seeing this come from the same people who so vigorously attacked George Bush for essentially the same activity. If everyone is going to try to take credit here and say it is a good thing, then I want an apology (tongue in cheek), or at least an acknowledgement that there’s some serious soul searching that needs to be done in figuring out exactly what our role is in the world today, and the extent and use of our armed forces and diplomatic service in carrying that out.

(Re) Building a PC (part II)

Video Cards

So, I bought a new video card. Why? Well, I never could get the drivers on the old card to work right with Vista. And after digging into it and fiddling around enough I decided hacking Vista to make it work wasn't worth the effort (and did I mention Civ5 is a real video hog?). Also, my backup computer (thanks cousin Keith!) turns out to have a PCI-express slot, so I can re-use my current card. No brainer, buy a new card, move the old one, done!

wait

(time passes)

wait

(time passes)

the sword from the junction appears in your hand!

Sorry, old Zork joke. So the new card arrives, and while I'm waiting an eternity for Vista to shutdown, I pop the side off my old computer. That's when I notice that the proprietary Dell configured 305 measly Watt power supply does not have any extra PCI-e power adapters! Darn, well, I'll pick up another supply later and suffer for now. Right, Vista finishes shutting down, so pull out the old card, and... That's when I notice the new card requires not ONE but TWO extra PCI-e power adapters! ...Aaaaaggghhhh!!!!

So, back to TigerDirect to pick up a new supply with two adapters, and because I'm in a bad mood I pick up a copy of Windows7, since it's the only thing that supports DirectX11, and if I don't use a DirectX11 video card with a DirectX11 OS, than what's the point, right? RIGHT?!?

(from the vault of the Idiot Build-it-yourself Computer Geeks)

Quote of the Day

I'm not worried about the things I don't understand, these are confusing and someday I may understand them, or I may not. If I'm worried about anything, it's the things I think I understand, that tomorrow I may consider confusing. Fortunately, I have successfully arrived at the knowledge that nearly everything is confusing to me, and so I worry about very little.