don't forget to legalize marijuana. On Jul 27, 10:24 pm, Daniel Seigler <[email protected]> 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.
