Sunday, July 22, 2007

Old News; New News

Now and again I'm going to attempt to direct your attentions to some ongoing pursuits that for me can be said to be 'old news,' yet in your case might actually represent something you've yet to hear of for whatever reason. And I'd hope that you'd return the favor if there's something significant out there that I'm missing, which is most certainly extremely likely.

In this case something was brought to mind as I read MT's post over at the AFB yesterday, and though I probably should have mentioned it earlier and in the former post, as you're now aware I neglected to do so. But the thing in question probably warrants a post of its own anyhow.

If you'll go to the link provided here and in Mike's post at the AFB you may notice after having signed the petition aimed at releasing the 'Texas three,' that you'll be taken to a page containing at the bottom a link to 'return to the list of petitions.' If you'll click on that link you will indeed be taken to the page in question. For those of you who have already signed the petition to free the Texas three, just go to the yellow section at the top of the page and click on the "Current Petitions" button provided. If you'll then scroll down the page you'll eventually run across the 'patriot petition' calling for amending the Constitution to halt the practice of 'judicial activism' - The Enumerated Powers Amendment, definately not to be referred to as the 'EPA.' lol

I remember the very first announcement of this proposal way back when. At that time my friends (Mike and Edmund) and I had not yet met one-another. And certainly I had yet to discover the blogosphere. I recall that the actual wording of the amendment proposal itself went through several revisions over the span of about two months if memory serves in that respect. And the reason I recall that aspect of the proposal is that it caught my interest immediately and proceeded to gain my undivided attention over the course of time.

Eventually, though, I stopped keeping regular track of the progress of the proposal as far as numbers of signers is concerned. They were slow to come in, and after the initial surge therein I think the numbers of signers of that particular petition sort of paused more or less around the mid twenties of thousands (24,000 to 25,000 as I recall).

Nonetheless, having now re-read the amendment proposal I'm not seeing that any significant changes to it, if any at all have occured over the course of time between now and then. So it appears that the folks over at the Patriot Post finally got the kinks in the wording worked out. And there were some fairly sizeable kinks in the wording to begin, lemme tell ya. I do note, however, that there are now a significant number of additional signatures added to the measure - quite a happy revelation for me I must admit.

Essentially what attracted my attention to the proposal initially, and still does btw, is that I think this amendment proposal addresses, perhaps better than any I've yet to see, the fundamental, or the root cause of the problem, as well as proposing the most effective means for dealing with a wide range of problems which are either directly or indirectly associated with the ever increasing tendency of our judiciary (particularly the federal) to engage itself in the practice of what has been rightly termed in my opinion 'judicial activism.' And this has been accomplished with at very least tacit consent of the federal Congress, which the measure also addresses in a meaningful way.

By limiting the courts in their ability to 'legislate from the bench' (something the founders never intended!), many of the ills which infect our government may be cut out at their common core. This is my firm belief, and this is the reason that I strongly endorse this amendment proposal.

But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject after having read the proposal itself, as well as its foundation. So y'all post a comment and let's discuss it.

-DW

6 comments:

  1. Thanks for the referral. I think that is an excellent amendment. (As you may have already guessed after reading my "in Loco Parentis" posting at the AFB, I am appalled at the changes that have already been made in our country by an unrestrained judiciary.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mom, thanks for the comment. I agree with you that it is an excellent amendment proposal. Also, thanks for reminding me of your post over at the AFB. Let's see whether I can successfully post a link to it here...

    Anyone wishing to read Mom's AFB post: in Loco Parentis may do so by clicking on the highlighted title here provided as long as I've managed to do everything correctly.

    Still learnin', y'all. :)

    -DW

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well whattaya know! Yet another summit I've managed to conquer. lol

    ReplyDelete
  4. TM,

    You'll have to show me how that one was done. Hyperlinks in a comment, you are indeed hot-dogging now, LOL. ;)

    -MT

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for the link Mr. Morris.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, Mom, it isn't like I didn't have ulterior motives for posting it. But you're welcome anyhow. ;)

    MT, I have learned the hard way that these codings necessary for embedding links are altogether unforgiving. Just the simple neglect of inserting a space between letters where it belongs in the code will result every time in **voice of Adam Sandler's "Cajun Man" here** re-jec-shone. lol

    Like I said, still learnin', but it's all good.

    -TM

    ReplyDelete