On Jul 27, 10:24 pm, Daniel Seigler <danielseig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> i am attempting to get on the ballot for to represent the 2d Congressional District of Oregon, by petition, at the next General Election to be held this November. IF i do not, for some reason, get enough signatures to GET ON THE BALLOT, i would just like to present my ideas here and now on what i see are the major issues of this election. Or rather, what i would LIKE to see as issues.
>
> The Constitution for the United States of America grants the governing bodies thereof certain authorities that said government swears under oath not to exceed. The Constitution grants the government to own land, "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards,and other needed Buildings-AND..." (Article I, Section 8, paragraph 17). There is NOTHING in there saying it can own TREES, or FARMLAND, or PASTURES, or any OTHER STATE RESOURCE. What i would like to see done, and would START the wheels rolling in the direction of, is for the Federal Government to return to DEED owner at time of purchase by Government of any lands within either the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. IF said owner cannot be found, then i would propose that those lands be given back to State Jurisdiction for dispersal, with a stipulation that a plan had to be presented to receive said land within a set number of years or land is put up for homesteading, which would relieve some of the pressure from overcrowded cities.
> Now, before everyone jumps all over me about 'endangered species' and such, or accuse me pushing the COST of managing said lands onto the State without funding the State to manage them, or any other number of things, allow me to continue. If by returning the LANDS CONTROL back to the State, i would also be returning the RESOURCE control back. It would be up to the State how to control the different groups that vie for attention, but it would return to State the monies received by the USE of the resources. IN this way, Oregon's woodland is not being managed by people in the Plains of the Midwest, and WE are not trying to tell THEM how to manage a buffalo herd.
> This returning of State Resources back to the State would possibly open up OUR forests to local loggers to harvest at in a responsible way. LOCAL laws governing how much is needed for fire prevention, how much to prevent erosion, and such, with the differing climates of our State, would be better than one CENTRAL department with too many different situations to give ANY ONE much notice until some disaster strikes it. BUT, THAT would be a STATE issue and the Constitution for these United States of America does NOT authorize the Government any say in STATE ISSUES.
>
> Next, i would like to tackle the 'illegal immigration' problem we are facing. In Arizona, they have passed a law to be used to discover those immigrants that have entered the United States under terms NOT in line with our 'immigration policy'. The FIRST thing we need to do to correct our invasion of illegal immigrants is secure our borders. BUT, to secure our borders, our border STATES must participate. And SOME States along one border or the other are not willing to participate unless forced. THUS, immigration becomes an issue in EACH State. The Constitution for these United States in America clearly authorizes the Federation Government to set a Standard "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the Untied States" (Article I, Section 8, paragraph 4). Now, it says that the Government has the authority to make uniform LAWS, but that is on the subject of Bankruptcies, not naturalization. Therefore, Each State must make it's own LAWS based on the RULE set by Congress. IF a State finds itself in the middle of an 'invasion', (like Arizona presently is where the Federal Government puts up signs warning the citizen NOT TO enter land supposedly within THE STATE due to foreign armies, THAT sounds like an invasion to me) then the State has the Authority to REQUEST and RECEIVE assistance repelling said invasion from the Federal Government "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" (Article I, Section 8, paragraph 15.) The ORGANIZED Militia of the Federal Government is what we call the National Guard. Each State has 'it's own' units, but in time of war, as we are now, they can be called by the Federal Government. Thus, they are the Federal Militia, as authorized by the Constitution. Now, as MOST of the ORGANIZED Militia is off fighting in other arenas, it falls to the State Militia to step up. This is what Arizona is doing. The State Militia, by the way, consists ALSO of the State Law Enforcement units, State Medical persons, State Sponsored Search and Rescue, ect.
> Now, SOME would say that sealing the borders would hurt these United States because of all the immigrant labor that comes across and LEGITIMATELY does work that most people here would not...or the ones that come for seasonal work and leave. THOSE are permitted also within the Constitution for these United States on America. Article I, Section 9 BEGINS with "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Thus, if a State, like Oregon, USES immigrant labor in any of it's ventures, then if the State pays ten dollars a head, then the State can import the migrant workers, distribute them to the areas where the work requiring them is, and keep track of them. They would be here LEGITIMATELY, but it would be up to the State to decide which services would be provided by the State, and by the Contractor. Deciding if this would be a stepping stone to State Citizenship would be up to the state...along Federal guidelines.
> For those illegally here now, many with dependant children that are born within the Borders of these United States of America, deportation is the solution authorized now. As for deporting the CHILDREN, well, either grant the parent full custody of THEIR CHILD, or remove it from the family and put it into adoption care. But also keep in mind that the child would have DUAL citizenship so sending it WITH the 'illegal' parent(s) would NOT be abandoning a citizen.
> As to the DRUG CARTELS...that is an EASY one to fix. Get rid of the FDA. WAIT, don't hang me YET. Hear me out, please. The Food and Drug Administration is supposed to protect the citizens from harmful things on the market that could be injested. RECENTLY, i have heard alot of recalls, outbreaks of bacterial poisoning, discontinuance of certain drugs due to side effects, after they have been available for YEARS. To me, that shows me that the Food and Drug Administration cannot handle the job of being responsible for what an INDIVIDUAL puts in his/her body. Now, you can beat me...but only with ONE wet noodle, al dente.
> People will JUMP all over this one. So here is my rationales for that statement, and select problems i see others using to disagree. IF we get rid of the FDA, who will control the DRUGS? Who will protect us from pushers and those nasty tweekers that are addicted to things? IF you commit a crime, in this country and most others, you go to jail. IN THE United States, in some cases, if you commit a crime while on drugs, you can use that as a defense (impaired judgement) and sometimes it works. BUT, if ALL drugs are legal, and you commit a crime WHILE ON A DRUG, so sorry, you STILL committed the crime. This brings me to the ECONOMIC advantages of getting rid of this department. If drug possession for PERSONAL USES is no longer a FEDERAL CRIME, that would empty out some of the prisons within the Federation of nonviolent offenders in there SIMPLY FOR possession, no matter the quantity. IF ALL drugs are LEGAL, there is no more BLACK MARKET for them, therefore no profit of bringing them across the border any other way than through the system to pay tariff. THIS ALONE would cause SOME damage to the ability of the drug cartels to cause problems.
>
> Now for the Healthcare industry. There is NOTHING wrong with the HealthCARE industry. The problem is the health INSURANCE industry. One of the BIGGEST expenses of Health today is prescriptions. And MOST prescriptions have warnings about 'possible' side effects. And, if your doctor prescribes you something that DOES cause some predicted side effect, and the doctor prescribes you something to counter those side effects...but guess what, THAT will have side effects, etc. This can EASILY eat up the life savings of MOST individuals. EVEN WITH insurance. i would start the idea running to change the recently enacted healthcare package by repealing and replacing with something that would state that if a doctor made multiple prescriptions to defeat side effects, EVERYTHING prescribed after the primary cause of the side effect, the COST would be adsorbed by both DOCTOR AND THE DRUG MANUFACTURER.
>
> daniel karl seigler, born in Ft. Benning, Georgia, son of
> Clarance Roland O'Niel Seigler,born in Ozark, Alabama, son of
> Thomas Malcolm Seigler, born in Alabama
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment