Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/139639
6A Daily News – Tuesday, June 25, 2013 Opinion DAILY NEWS RED BLUFF TEHAMA COUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U NTY S I N C E 1 8 8 5 Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes letters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submitted will be considered for publication. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong community newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehicles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its communities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the residents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 The last of the Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution was sent to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17, 1787. The AntiFederalists supported it but the Federalists felt that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication. In 1788, the Virginia Ratifying Convention attempted to solve the problem by proposing a constitutional amendment specifying that those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress, but that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution. Their proposal ultimately led to the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This explicitly bars denial of rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but does not so deny them if based upon certain powers in the Constitution. It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have pointed, in order to determine the extent of the rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. The tenth amendment further clarifies the application of Consti- tutional powers to wit: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." When James Madison introduced the amendment in Congress he explained that many states were eager to ratify this amendment, despite critics who deemed the amendment superfluous or unnecessary: "Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated." The states decided to ratify the Tenth Amendment, and thus declined to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to un-enumerated rights. In modern times, the Commerce Clause made legal by the Tenth Amendment has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress' power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government. In the 20th century, complex economic challenges arising from the Great Depression triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court of the use of Commerce Clause powers to maintain a strong national economy. The Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision to deny relief to a California woman whose medical marijuana plants ism. Examples of this include were destroyed by federal agents. federal educational funds may Medical marijuana was explicitly not be accepted without implementation of special made legal under Calieducation programs, fornia state law by and the .08 legal blood Proposition 215; howalcohol limit, and the ever, marijuana is still nationwide state 21prohibited at the federal year drinking age were level by the Controlled imposed since the states Substances Act. Even would lose highway though the woman funding if they refused grew the marijuana to pass such laws. On strictly for her own this topic Libertarians, consumption and never Tea Party Patriots and I sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growRichard are in agreement - federal powers should be ing one's own marijuarestricted, particularly na affects the illegal those granted by the interstate market of excessively expansive marijuana. The theory Commerce Clause was that the marijuana exception to the Tenth could enter the stream Amendment. Barring a of interstate commerce, patient from growing even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and that their own medicine as permitted was unlikely ever to. It therefore by state law is an unconstitutionruled that this practice may be reg- al overreach into freedoms that ulated by the federal government should be reserved to the states under the authority of the Com- and people, as is the institution merce Clause. Indeed the constitu- of national school curricula and tionality of the entire federal war public safety laws. on drugs and Controlled SubRichard Mazzucchi is a retired stances Act rest upon the interstate commerce clause exception to the research engineer specializing in energy efficiency and renewable tenth amendment. Much to the chagrin of the energy. He has travelled Tea Party Patriots, Congress extensively and now makes his often seeks to exercise its powers home in Los Molinos, where he is by offering or encouraging striving to manifest a sustainable States to implement national and spiritual lifestyle and operate programs consistent with nation- a BBQ equipment and supply al minimum standards; a system business. He can be reached at known as cooperative federal- living-green@att.net. Mazzucchi Positive Point Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Dan Logue, 1550 Humboldt Road, Ste. 4, Chico, CA 95928, 530-895-4217 STATE SENATOR — Jim Nielsen, 2635 Forest Ave., Ste. 110, Chico, CA 95928, (530) 879-7424, senator.nielsen@senate.ca.gov GOVERNOR — Jerry Brown, State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; Email: governor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Doug LaMalfa 506 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, 202-2253076. U.S. SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (510) 286-8537. Fax (202) 224-0454. Commentary Lies, the presidency, lawyers and nation Plan to attend tonight's Tea Party Patriots' meeting for a DVD presentation called "Whistleblowers of the National Security Agency." It promises to be timely and eye opening. I ran across an insightful column by Dr. Thomas Sowell, "The Loss of Trust (subhead: Every untruth damages the presidency, not just the president)". He began: "Amid all the heated crosscurrents of debate about the National Security Agency's massive surveillance program, there is a growing distrust of the Obama Administration that makes weighing the costs and benefits of the NSA program itself hard to assess." As I pointed out, a CNN/ORC poll found half of Americans say they don't believe Obama is "honest and trustworthy and 61 percent disapprove of" the NSA spying on Americans. When the little boy cried "wolf" without cause, people doubted when he saw a real wolf; Americans have—in spite of their hopes for President Obama to bring about whatever "change" meant to them—found instead a prevaricating, disingenuous pol from the ends-justifies-the-means, "bring a gun to a knife fight" school of Chicago hardball politics. The NSA programs may well have thwarted terrorist attacks; I believe it's likely, just as the anti-terror policies under President Bush stopped attacks. However, Democrats had crass political motives to never give Bush credit. Republicans extend a bit more benefit of the doubt to Obama, even while reserving judgment over whether the programs may become abusive of essential American liberties. Thomas Sowell recalls the trust, from all sides of politics, when President John F. Kennedy "took this country to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union," without backlash or second-guessing. Sowell bemoaned losing acceptance that those in high positions knew much more than we did and would make righteous decisions. "Whatever happened to that feeling? Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon happened, and both were shameless liars. They destroyed not only their own credibility, but also the credibility of the office. Even when Lyndon Johnson told us the truth at a crucial juncture during the Vietnam War—that the Communist offensive of 1968 was a defeat for them, even as the media depicted it as a defeat for us—we didn't believe him. "In later years, Communist leaders themselves admitted that they had been devastated on the battlefield. But by then it was too late. What the Communists lost militarily on the ground in Vietnam they won politically in the American media and in American public opinion. More than 50,000 Americans lost their lives winning battles on the ground in Vietnam, only to have the war lost politically back home. "We seem to be having a similar scenario unfolding in Iraq, where soldiers won the war, only to have politicians lose the peace, as Iraq now increasingly aligns itself with Iran. When Barack Obama squanders his own credibility with his glib lies he is not just injuring himself during his time in office. He is inflicting a lasting wound on the country as a whole. But we the voters are not blameless. Having chosen an untested man to be pres- ident, on the basis of rhetoric, style, tors with the term "lawyer" or and symbolism, we have ourselves "attorney" in the occupation field, "a list of 20 federal to blame…." agencies with at least Dr. Thomas Sowell 20 employees conhas academic achievetributing to either ments from Harvard, Barack Obama or Mitt Columbia, and the UniRomney in the 2012 versity of Chicago, has election." IRS lawyers taught economics at gave "95 percent" to numerous esteemed uniObama; while previous versities and has, since reporting showed a 41980, been a Senior Felto-1 Obama slant, the low of the Hoover Instituactual number was 20tion at Stanford Universito-1, and when the dolty. He also served in the lar amounts were United States Marine Don counted, IRS lawyers Corps in the Korean War, and is African-American. Polson gave 32 times as much to Obama as Romney. I made short mention Moreover, IRS of the pro-Obama slant to The way lawyers were only the political donations by varI see it 10th most slanted in ious federal employees contributions. From the last week. The law FTC, the EPA, the requires donors beyond a certain amount to state name and FERC (energy), Public Defender, employer, which can reveal much FINRA, Dept. of Labor, Education, of the political leanings of those in UN and the NLRB, over 500 various agencies. As I recall, dona- lawyers gave up to 100 percent to tions from identifiable IRS the Obama campaign. It's a "sympemployees heavily favored tom of a larger disease—the rule by Obama. When the donations of the career bureaucrat lawyers." GovIRS employees union were exam- ernment employees, lawyers in parined, that rose to 100 percent for ticular, are not politically represenObama—meaning your taxes paid tative of the country as a whole, and IRS employees, whose mandatory utterly devoid of the political diverunion dues you paid for, from sity required to serve Americans. which political donations were You have a right to a trial by a jury skimmed to the benefit of one can- of your peers; when agencies can didate, the candidate advocating act as prosecutor, judge, jury and for bigger government, and whose executioner, you are facing an health care law specifically called adversary, not a servant. More in for many thousands more IRS future columns on declining constiemployees. He might as well have tutional rights and protections. run as B. K. Rupt (D.C.) but his Don Polson has called Red Bluff real name was Barack Obama. Robert Anderson of Pepperdine home since 1988. He can be by e-mail at University found, when he reached searched the database for contribu- donplsn@yahoo.com.