The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Should this apply to citizens and non-citizens? According to the law in 1803, yes, yes it does.
To which we may add that the word "persons" in this, and the subsequent articles of the amendments to the constitution, most clearly designate, that aliens, as persons, must be entitled to the benefits therein secured to all persons alike. - St George Tucker, Blackstone's, 1803.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIVs14.html
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Friday, January 22, 2010
Open Primary – Part 2
In my first call for an open primary, I made the philosophical argument for an Open Primary in the Congressional 8th District Republican Primary.
That is a good reason for an Open Primary.
But here is a more practical reason.
There is a grassroots ground swell of limited government citizens who are revolting against more government spending, more government taxation, and more government involvement in our every day lives.
As a Party, we need to embrace these citizens. And I don’t mean just trying to turn them into volunteers for our organization. I mean truly embrace them and their ideals.
How?
Engage them in campaigns and politics by providing an Open Primary for them to participate in.
And they want to participate. But they will react very badly to what they consider back-room coronations of candidates.
We can embrace them, have an open primary, then bring them along into November to work for the eventual nominee.
Or we can put them off, pick a candidate, and guarantee that we will have an independent candidate in the fall election who will siphon votes from our nominee and help re-elect Pat Murphy. And we will have wasted an opportunity to bring new activists into the Party.
That is a good reason for an Open Primary.
But here is a more practical reason.
There is a grassroots ground swell of limited government citizens who are revolting against more government spending, more government taxation, and more government involvement in our every day lives.
As a Party, we need to embrace these citizens. And I don’t mean just trying to turn them into volunteers for our organization. I mean truly embrace them and their ideals.
How?
Engage them in campaigns and politics by providing an Open Primary for them to participate in.
And they want to participate. But they will react very badly to what they consider back-room coronations of candidates.
We can embrace them, have an open primary, then bring them along into November to work for the eventual nominee.
Or we can put them off, pick a candidate, and guarantee that we will have an independent candidate in the fall election who will siphon votes from our nominee and help re-elect Pat Murphy. And we will have wasted an opportunity to bring new activists into the Party.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Call for an Open Primary
Republicans are champions of the free market philosophy. It is the basic building block of all the policy proposals we advocate for.
Competition in health care.
Competition in education.
Competition in energy production.
We know that a small group of experts cannot possibly match the wisdom of the free market.
But when it comes to our own primaries, we become Democrats. We allow a select few “experts” to pick our nominee.
Who can raise money? Who can mount a grassroots campaign? Who can connect with voters? Who can craft a winning message and put in place an organization to effectively win a campaign?
There is only one way to get the best candidate to beat Patrick Murphy. Competition.
Please join me in supporting an Open Primary for the 8th Congressional election this May.
ACTION STEPS:
If you are a candidate;
Will you represent conservative principles in Washington or will you sacrifice those principles when called on to do so by the Party bosses? By taking the following pledge, your principles will be clear;
1. I will run a campaign in the 2010 primary election that allow the Republican voters of the 8th Congressional District to decide whether I will run against Patrick Murphy in the fall election.
2. I will make myself available to the County Committee during the screening process, but will insist all of my supporters vote for an Open Primary during the Endorsement Process.
If you are a committee person;
1. Contact me at (dan.mohn@verizon.net) and pledge to vote for an Open Primary.
2. Contact the County leadership committee and insist that an Open Primary option be included on the endorsement ballot.
If you are an interested 3rd party organization;
1. Contact the County leadership committee and insist that an Open Primary option be included on the endorsement ballot.
2. Contact the Candidates and let them know your support will NOT be contingent upon them receiving the Party’s endorsement.
Competition in health care.
Competition in education.
Competition in energy production.
We know that a small group of experts cannot possibly match the wisdom of the free market.
But when it comes to our own primaries, we become Democrats. We allow a select few “experts” to pick our nominee.
Who can raise money? Who can mount a grassroots campaign? Who can connect with voters? Who can craft a winning message and put in place an organization to effectively win a campaign?
There is only one way to get the best candidate to beat Patrick Murphy. Competition.
Please join me in supporting an Open Primary for the 8th Congressional election this May.
ACTION STEPS:
If you are a candidate;
Will you represent conservative principles in Washington or will you sacrifice those principles when called on to do so by the Party bosses? By taking the following pledge, your principles will be clear;
1. I will run a campaign in the 2010 primary election that allow the Republican voters of the 8th Congressional District to decide whether I will run against Patrick Murphy in the fall election.
2. I will make myself available to the County Committee during the screening process, but will insist all of my supporters vote for an Open Primary during the Endorsement Process.
If you are a committee person;
1. Contact me at (dan.mohn@verizon.net) and pledge to vote for an Open Primary.
2. Contact the County leadership committee and insist that an Open Primary option be included on the endorsement ballot.
If you are an interested 3rd party organization;
1. Contact the County leadership committee and insist that an Open Primary option be included on the endorsement ballot.
2. Contact the Candidates and let them know your support will NOT be contingent upon them receiving the Party’s endorsement.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
Marseglia: Freeze reassessments
Though she doesn't realize it, underlying her plan is the idea that a decrease in taxes will put more money into people's hands, which is good for the economy.
What she doesn't understand is that moving the tax from one home owner to another, doesn't actually put any more money into the taxpayers' hands. Any money put into a specific home owner's pocket, is just coming out of another home owner's pocket.
If the County spends $10 and $5 comes from each of two taxpayers, then changing one taxpayer's amount due to $4, will only then require that the other taxpayer pay $6, because in the end, the County needs to collect $10.
So in the end it won't work, the home owner who now needs only pay $4 may be more likely to add an addition, but the home owner who now owes $6 will be less likely.
It's a wash. It only works if the County spends $1 less.
Though she doesn't realize it, underlying her plan is the idea that a decrease in taxes will put more money into people's hands, which is good for the economy.
What she doesn't understand is that moving the tax from one home owner to another, doesn't actually put any more money into the taxpayers' hands. Any money put into a specific home owner's pocket, is just coming out of another home owner's pocket.
If the County spends $10 and $5 comes from each of two taxpayers, then changing one taxpayer's amount due to $4, will only then require that the other taxpayer pay $6, because in the end, the County needs to collect $10.
So in the end it won't work, the home owner who now needs only pay $4 may be more likely to add an addition, but the home owner who now owes $6 will be less likely.
It's a wash. It only works if the County spends $1 less.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Local Supervisors Responsible for Energy Price Increases
Supervisors appeal board's ruling on gas drilling
It's about responsible drilling and following procedure.
Well, actually, it's about stopping resource development. The State law allows the drilling to be done in a responsible manner. The Supervisors just don't like that they can't control the private property of the owners.
Ironically, I am sure as energy prices go up, the Supervisors will increase taxes to pay for it. And point out how energy prices are out of their control.
Of course they don't realize that through their actions, they are contributing to the higher prices.
It's about responsible drilling and following procedure.
Well, actually, it's about stopping resource development. The State law allows the drilling to be done in a responsible manner. The Supervisors just don't like that they can't control the private property of the owners.
Ironically, I am sure as energy prices go up, the Supervisors will increase taxes to pay for it. And point out how energy prices are out of their control.
Of course they don't realize that through their actions, they are contributing to the higher prices.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Opposing Common Sense
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times/courier_times_news_details/article/28/2009/february/17/flood-plain-tree-block-development-proposal.html
In typical fashion, politicians making a good sound bite over-rides a common sense decision by a land owner.
Yes, I don't want to pay for flood damage to people who live in the flood plain.
But the truth is, if the owner would be allowed to elevate the properties, I won't.
Instead, with no other financial choices, the owner will keep rebuilding without elevating, and we will all pay every time it floods.
In typical fashion, politicians making a good sound bite over-rides a common sense decision by a land owner.
Yes, I don't want to pay for flood damage to people who live in the flood plain.
But the truth is, if the owner would be allowed to elevate the properties, I won't.
Instead, with no other financial choices, the owner will keep rebuilding without elevating, and we will all pay every time it floods.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Founding Fathers were Cowards
"Smith, though he favors letting residents continue to pick their own trash haulers, called the site "cowardly" at a recent meeting."
Apparently, our Founding Fathers were cowards. One of America's most famous writings, "Common Sense" was written anonymously.
There are several reasons why someone would want their anonymity protected.
1. Fear of reprisal. Those in power like to know who is opposing them. It makes their job easier when it comes time for intimidation tactics.
2. Focus on the message. Why is it so important who wrote the words? The words themselve should be the subject of debate. But those wishing to be able to attack the messenger when they can't effectively attack the message, need a person to attack.
Anytime I hear someone complain about an anonymous writer, I know the writer's message has won, and all that the opponents have left is to hope they can find out who wrote it, so they can attack that person in an attempt to win the debate.
Apparently, our Founding Fathers were cowards. One of America's most famous writings, "Common Sense" was written anonymously.
There are several reasons why someone would want their anonymity protected.
1. Fear of reprisal. Those in power like to know who is opposing them. It makes their job easier when it comes time for intimidation tactics.
2. Focus on the message. Why is it so important who wrote the words? The words themselve should be the subject of debate. But those wishing to be able to attack the messenger when they can't effectively attack the message, need a person to attack.
Anytime I hear someone complain about an anonymous writer, I know the writer's message has won, and all that the opponents have left is to hope they can find out who wrote it, so they can attack that person in an attempt to win the debate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
