Will Quasi-Nullification work?

There has through the course of the history of United States been a continually increasing regulatory web beating weaved. One area in which this has been prominent is in the field of firearms restrictions and registration. Even though the second amendment states that the right of the people “shall not be infringed” there seems to have been a significant amount of infringing by way of the government.

Regardless there appears to be a certain amount of push back from the states themselves. Mississippi is considering a Bill that would deny state assistance to the federal government. Specifically in matters regarding firearms. The bill says that the actors for the state directly or indirectly shall not enforce any federal statute that violates the Constitution of the United States or that of the state of Mississippi.

This bill falls short of explicitly nullifying federal provisions but is a nudge toward the use of nullification. It is possible that the state could completely go a bit further and completely disregard any legislation or regulation that it feels is in violation. There is a certain amount of utility in this form action. We have seen that with the legalization of marijuana across the country the federal government has began caving in and loosing its restrictions and enforcement with in the drug war.

Is There a New Era in the Two Party System?

While the primary season is far from over it is interesting to note the dynamics that have been playing out. A democratic socialist so far has managed to keep pace with a well established candidate. On the other side a business man and reality television star is dominating the conversation. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are making waves and have been producing viable results from their campaigns. With Trump finishing only slight behind in Iowa and Sanders effectively tieing Hillary Clinton in Iowa they proved that there is a growing dissent among the voters. Additionally, they both won in New Hampshire by sizable margins. It is an facsinating play that is unfolding. Each of hem energizes different sectors of the electorate.

Reason wrote a piece alluding to the possibility of why these two are driving the election cycle. Stating that the country as a whole is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This means that Sanders has a draw because of his stance on gay marriage, drug legalization, and various other aspects of free life. Trump supporters follow him because they believe in his message of stronger borders and ” calling it like it is” brand of political incorrectness.

Ultimately, there is clearly a divide within each of the parties. The members don’t feel as if they are being served and that the political class is out of touch. A call for new ideas and policies is coming. There may even be room for a third party to move in start carving out part of the demographics.

Do feminist support feminism?

  In a recent New York Times article by Alan Rappeport the lack of support for Hillary Clinton by younger women was demonized. Gloria Steinem discussed with Bill Maher that young women who support Bernie Sanders ,vice Clinton, they were simply chasing after boys. There is something to be said that young people generally pursue various activities and have different priorities than older people. However, these women appear to be following the candidate they think aligns with their views. Madeline Albright stated that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other out”, this was also in regards to women who are not Hillary Clinton supporters. A woman should be able to choose her own political candidates regardless of who they are. This action of demeaning those who exercise their own political freedom to select a candidate they prefer seems to be the antithesis of feminism. 

It is because of female pioneers like these women that the younger generation has the freedom and is as politically active as they are today. It is a bit hypocritical to say that you fight for women and women’s choice then when they use those freedoms in a way that is contrary to your personal views to say they are going to hell or are only after the affections of men. There should be an acceptance of a varying viewpoint that just because someone believes that one candidate is more suited for the position than another is not to say they are shallow. A discussion of policies, ideas, and stances could be more productive than diminishing the believes of a group of potential supporters. 

Does Selective Service Serve a Purpose?

The Freedom for Economic Education recently ran a piece about military generals who have called to open the registration for selective service up to women. Now that all combat roles have been open to women in the military they argue that in the name of equality everyone should be required to register. This is by no means the first time this argument has been presented but it is now a bit more of a hot button issue.

But why not remove the requirement all together? As FEE mentions that it would produce the desired equality and increase freedom. The government forcing citizens into military obligation is on its very basis immoral. They maintain an entire department whose sole purpose is to maintain a list of eligible men who can be sent to war at the whim of the state. The Selective Services System has a budget of $21,500,000 for FY15.

 

There have been attempts to eliminate the unnecessary office by Rep. Peter DeFazio and Rep. Mike Coffman. However, they proved to be fruitless in their endeavors. Women being required to register was brought up again at the GOP debate again last night. Each candidate that answered the question answered poorly and awkwardly. Most mentioning some series relating to that women should be made to register in the name of equality. Again as has been consistent through out the GOP debate series there was a lack of any mention to liberty.

 

It has been over 40 years since the last draftee was conscripted into the military. It would be much more economical to disband the Selective Service System and reinstate it when the time comes.

The Question is, Why?

Why do regulatory agencies need such heavy firepower? The Federal Government has been amassing large amounts of arms, ammunition, protective wear, and other items used by military and SWAT level organizations. Agencies such as the Department of Education (DoE), National Oceanic and Atmosopheric  Administration (NOAA), Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Post Office are just a few of the groups that have been arming themselves. Moon Battery has a list of these and other agency request for munitions. 

There are law enforcement agencies that need ammunition and riot gear. The agencies that should be the endorsing the law. The regulatory agencies do not have a need to maintain such a large, or any, amounts of firearms and munitions. The Federal Government is building a police force within agencies that should have no law enforcement functions. 

This can only be seen as a move to create an auxiliary to the established police force. A force that is under the direct control of the Federal Government. One that is immediately available for use as the Federal Government deems appropriate. 

The U. S. Forest Service says that they carry fire arms to carry out their mission. Their primary mission is to protection of natural resources, employees, and visitors. Which natural resources are firing guns at the Forest Service? I was unaware of the severe threat to the employees and visitors that would require Submachine guns

The Nation Review points to issues of conspiracy theory and overzealous antigovernment naysayers. Hey, in the same article they point out that the DoE has conducted its own raid, independent of legitatment law enforcement, where they put children in a squad car. That an innocent man was detained in a police car for hours.

These genies conduct their own raids on citizens. They are at the disposal of the Federal Government to act as its police outside of the normal policing function. We should question what ever it is that they are up to by creating a vast underground network of police.