Posts Tagged ‘vermont attorney general’

I do not consider myself to be a politician, but I do abide by the unwritten rule of not speaking ill of an opponent. That said I must express my disgust with both state and federal government:

• Lawmakers have enacted a health care bill federally that purports to compel folks to purchase health insurance to be funded by others, unlike Medicare which is available only to people who have paid for their social security. It is pretty clear that the scheme will drive out many practicing doctors and no law can force them to practice medicine. What kind of nonsense is federal legislation and the state knock off of that legislation? Doctors may refuse to treat such patients lacking either regular insurance or Medicare. That is useless a division of the people as senior citizens are denied Medicare benefits they paid for and younger folks are taxed more heavily to support the schemes of the lawmakers.

 

• When Mexican President Calderon spoke to a joint session of Congress roundly condemning Arizona for passing a law to help protect their citizens, I was appalled to see my president and most of the congressional members applaud him. It particularly upset me to discover that all three of our congressional members were among those rising to applaud. It is outrageous that any member of congress would applaud a foreign leader attacking one of our united states. While it is not treason, and might be tough to make a case that it is seditious, it is certainly in very bad taste not befitting a Vermonter as well as unethical.

 

• The energy bill congress is currently considering will cause a dramatic increase in costs to all of us for heating, transportation, and electric power. And then, we have the current off shore well in the Gulf with the oil spewing from the sunken drill rig. Shockingly, those very deep well rigs are not being allowed to explore in the shallower off shore areas because environmental groups oppose such safer drilling. Clearly, the environmental groups deserve a share of the blame. In Vermont the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is denied an operating license renewal by renegade legislators. Why, when that will increase the cost of electricity for Vermonters? Would it not be smarter to continue using Yankee until there are inexpensive alternatives? In fact, there are at least two viable alternative small scale nukes that would comport with distributed generation, thus reducing the need for high voltage power lines running over the mountains while providing GREEN energy for communities seeking lower costs.

 

• Vermont has a swarm of unelected boards, commissions, and advisory entities that seem to stand athwart any opportunities for businesses to provide opportunities. Indeed, the courts seem to support these groups when they block any development. In the early 1960’s there was only one book of Vermont Statutes, but today there are three bookshelves of “Vermont Statutes Annotated”. The annotations are the comments of unknown editors citing Supreme Court decisions as if they were law, (case law the lawyers call it). In fact, the court does not make law for that is the job of the legislators, yet reading court documents one finds them peppered with citations to court rulings on the thin claim that they are persuasive. That is patently false. The founders accepted the court having the power to declare a statute unconstitutional, but that is the extent of their law making and unmaking powers. Why should Vermont accept this nonsense which flies in the face of a government of, for and by the people? It is our government, not belonging to the lawyers union, but to the people and it is causing terrible hardship in the Green Mountains.

Q: Why isn’t the Vermont Attorney General in the Vermont Constitution as a state-wide office?

A: That is a fair question, for which there is no provable answer. It has been speculated that after the state supreme court did the updates to the constitution, they either felt it was outside of their mandate or consciously determined to keep that office under the thumb of the court. It is only possible for the court to control the AG if he or she is a member of the bar, which Karen is not.

Q: Isn’t our constitution a living document?

A: Only that amendment by ratification is possible, but otherwise the constitution is a fixed set of laws refered to as the supreme law of the land. See US Supreme Court rulings.
“All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.” Marbury v. Madison
“A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally guaranteed right.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105
“The Court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured rights.” Boyd v. US 116 US 616
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abbrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436

There is precious little genuine justice for the victims of crime apart from a very few who benefit from the paltry funds raised by the victims compensation funds of the courts and the very small amount raised by interest on attorney’s escrow accounts. All too often, victims are victimized a second time as they obtain no restitution. While there is no possible restitution in cases of homicide, in most matters government imposes punishment as a cost to the taxpayers without compelling restitution for the victim. It makes little sense that victims are an afterthought. Karen will seek to have statutes provide for perpetrators to make supervised restitution rather than jail time. It has a much more lasting salutatory effect than a perpetrator sulking in jail and it is far less expensive for taxpayers.

Nothing in our federal or state constitutions suggests or much less authorizes that government owns and we merely rent what we own. Yet, we have an incredible array of laws, and the consequent regulations which intrude on the liberty of using our property as we see fit. Legally, if we do something with our property that harms someone else, we are responsible for making full restitution. So there is clearly no need for the enormous bureaucracy involved with trying to control our property rights.

Similarly, government has no legitimate power to regulate what we may choose to ingest. That was adequately proven with prohibition and its subsequent repeal, when it became obvious that it was a driving force for crime. It has come to the point of some parts of government wanting to regulate the amount of salt, sugar and fats we ingest. Neither the nation nor the state has been given such powers by the people.
It has always been true of Americans and Vermonters in particular, that telling us what to do does not work. But, telling us why we should do something does persuade most folks if, and only if, the desired change has real merit.

Regulatory reform has particular value for the business community; the employers that provide jobs for people. Curbing the excesses of regulation will serve to invite business to relocate into Vermont, rather than chasing it out of Vermont. This is vital to keeping our young folks in Vermont and important to providing the tax base for the necessary government functions without unduly burdening taxpayers and property owners.