Extra Mile Family Media

Back in 2009 Web Blogger Dick Morris of dickmorris.com published an article titled "HOW MUCH WILL YOUR STATES’ TAXES GO UP IN OBAMACARE?". While the article, on the first read, appears to be specualtive with respect to the spending increases that would be necessary by each state to meet the required 133% for Medicaid, I am inclined to believe that the Author may be correct but more research would need to be conducted to be sure.

That isn't what caught my attention in this post however. My attention was, instead, captured by one of the reader's comments; "Fu-fu2" who wrote:

"States are not Slaves to the Federal Government, States are not Agents of the Federal Government, The Federal Government is an AGENT of the States. No State is Required under our Constitution to abide by any Federal Law not rooted within the enumerated powers section. When A state wakes up and reads a little history with regards to their proper role in a Representative Republic we will be on the road to recovery.

The Federal Gubmint has no AUTHORITY over ANY STATE unless the State ALLOWS it. JUST SAY NO"

So I did some digging and apparently this reader may in fact be correct. What I am saying is that this reader seems to have naturally stated the factual rights of the citizens to decide the final fate of the health care bill commonly referred to as simply "Obamacare" or any other bill up for a vote simply by allowing or disallowing their state representative(s) to speak a yeah or neigh on their behalf. A fact regarding "Enumerated Powers" that many citizens and voters do not seem to be aware of.

Enter the catch phrase: "Enumerated Powers"…

According to wikipedia.org "The enumerated powers are a list of responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which enumerates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text."

The wikepedia article goes on to say that "strict Constitutionalists believe that Congress's power should be limited to only those duties listed in the Constitution". but yet "On the other hand, liberal interpreters of the constitution allow for powers more tangential to those duties." Many of those liberal interpreters usually citing the "Necessary and Proper clause" and the "Commerce clause" as grounds for their argument.

 According to wikepedia, The Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause[1]) is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18 states:
 
 
 “ The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Conservatives however will most often cite the "Tenth Amendment" as grounds for their argument.
 
 Also according to wikepdia, The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.
 
 According to a document at phanara.com The Tenth Amendment in the original constituion reads:
 
 Article X
 
 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 
 and in  fact shows that it is acutally the Twelfth Amendment of the original amendments that reads:
 
 Article XII
 
 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.
 
 The Twelfth Amendment? Wait a minute! I thought there were only ten Amendments!
 
 
 – Here is a quick side lesson about the Bill of Rights –
 
 To present this accurately I give the following account of the events that lead to the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution (which became known as "The Bill of Rights").
 

According to MSC, Inc (http://msc-inc.net/documents/bill_of_rights.html)
 
 As Washington was inaugurated as America's first president and the infant nation set about to establish a strong government, memories of civil rights violations during the colonial period were still vivid. However, in the draft constitution submitted to the states for ratification relatively few basic rights were included.
 
 A number of prominent Americans were alarmed at the omission of individual liberties in the proposed constitution. George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, refused to sign the document, as did Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts.
 
 Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Minister to France at the time, wrote James Madison that he was concerned about "the omission of a bill of rights….providing clearly….for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."
 
 Aware of the lack of these provisions, George Washington urged Congress in his first inaugural address to propose amendments that offered "a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for public harmony."
 
 Motivated by these leading Americans, Congress responded by submitting Amendments to the Constitution providing for essential civil liberties. They were officially proposed on September 25, 1789. Of the original twelve, Articles 3-12 were ratified. Accordingly, in 1791 these articles became the first ten amendments to the Constitution…..known collectively as The Bill of Rights.
 
 Here are the original twelve amendments as they appear in The Laws of The United States of America, printed by Richard Folwell, Philadelphia, in 1796.
 
 Here is the complete text of the original twelve amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
 
 
 
 The Bill of Rights:
 
 Article I (didn't get ratified)
 After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.
 
 
 
 Article II (didn't get ratified)
 No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
 
 
 
 Article III (Was ratified)
 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
 
 
 Article IV (Was ratified)
 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
 
 
 Article V (Was ratified)
 No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
 
 
 
 Article VI (Was ratified)
 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
 
 
 Article VII (Was ratified)
 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
 
 
 Article VIII (Was ratified)
 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
 
 
 
 Article IX (Was ratified)
 In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
 
 
 
 Article X (Was ratified)
 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 
 
 Article XI (Was ratified)
 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
 
 
 Article XII (Was ratified)
 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.
 
 
 Source: The Laws of the United States, printed by Richard Folwell, Philadelphia, 1796.

 
So as it turns out the Tenth Amendment was actually the Twelfth Amendment originally submitted for ratification but had to be renumbered after the ratification of the proposed amendments since Amendments 1 and 2 didn't make the approved list.

So in closing, it looks as if it may well be up to "We The People" after all.

Also I might add, according to current opinions this blogger is aware of regarding the campaign promises presented by the President whose slogan was "Change we can believe in"; "Obamacare" isn't a very welcomed "change" worth believing in…
 
 

Documentarian tossed from public meeting in Delaware's House of Representatives

"Legislative Hall."

So what was so horrible about being video taped during this session? Why are these representatives so opposed to having their meeting publicized? It seems to this reporter that those people have something to hide. Apparently they were about to make decisions which they feel are none of our business even though the decisions they made affected all of us.

Is this what America has come to? Since when did America become a Nazi state? The time has come to clean house in our government! We can no longer abide these criminal types in our Halls of Justice. These people are not serving justice! They are simply serving their own selfish interests and they were afraid that Dr. Daddy Justice was going to expose them.

Men Loved Darkness Rather Than Light, Because Their Deeds Were Evil

Job 24:12 Men groan from out of the city, and the soul of the wounded crieth out: yet God layeth not folly to them.
13 They are of those that rebel against the light; they know not the ways thereof, nor abide in the paths thereof.
14 The murderer rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a thief.
15 The eye also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, saying, No eye shall see me: and disguiseth his face.
16 In the dark they dig through houses, which they had marked for themselves in the daytime: they know not the light.
17 For the morning is to them even as the shadow of death: if one know them, they are in the terrors of the shadow of death.

Psalms 74:19 O deliver not the soul of thy turtledove unto the multitude of the wicked: forget not the congregation of thy poor for ever. 20 Have respect unto the covenant: for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty.

I often wonder just how many "fit" parents in Pennsylvania would be delighted to share their children 50/50 in an unfortunate situation such as separation and/or divorce. Thirty-seven other states, plus the District of Columbia, have statutes that explicitly authorize joint custody as a presumption or strong preference. When responsibility falls equally upon both parents, child support becomes a non-issue. There are no “losers”, who are often looked down upon or treated unfairly because they are labeled “noncustodial”. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard a parent brag, “Well, I have primary custody.” What message does that send? And the support paying parent is often suddenly in a financial crisis. For all the financially strapped, fit, noncustodial parents, equality is not a dream. Access Pennsylvania Families Association (www.PFA.me). House Bill 463 is pending, with 60 representatives backing it. Want shared custody? Join us, and contact your representatives.

Gail Bodish

Lancaster, PA

When is this horrible nightmare going to end? When are Fathers Right's going to be upheld and given the importance they deserve? Why are these mothers allowed to break the law and commit these crimes against humanity? When will this InJustice System be brought to JUSTICE?!?!?

I don't know about you but this story makes me mad enough to chew nails and spit rivets!

Fathers of the world must unite to fight this hate crime against Fathers and Children! Who gave that mother the right to deny that child his inalienable right to have his father in his life. As Daddy Justice had correctly phrased it in this video, the Father is being thrown out with the placentia! Since when are Fathers a disposable commidty to be used up and thrown away because they might be an inconvenience to the mother? Or worse, what if she did this just so she can collect the child support award. Is she simply doing this just to ensure she has a steady income?

I should also point out that this is not just a violation of this Father's Rights but it is a terrible violation of this Child's Rights!

So, I have been asking the question, is spanking in Pennsylvania legal or against the law. Here are some of the answers I was given. When I asked Lancaster Family Children and Youth they said that spanking "with an open hand" is not against the law in PA even if your boyfriend did the spanking. Boyfriend? it's ok if the boyfriend did the spanking? Apparently the answer was a resounding yes "if the mother gave him permission" Huh? what if the Father didn't? If Dad is not the custodial parent then he would have to take the mother to court and tell it to the Judge. OK I said, "Is it against the law to hit a child with a wooden spoon"? The answer was "yes".

Stragely enough though, earlier this year I read a legal brief however that showed a Judge ruled that even though a father paddled his child and left brusies as well as splits in the skin that this was not abuse!

Huh! Either someone in this state needs to answer to curruption charges or the people  who call the shots here are completely FUBAR. How can it be against the law to spank with a wooden spoon but not illegal to beat your child with a paddle and cause briuses and tissue damage (e.g. lascerations).

This really stinks of "Hey, I make the rules up as I go!" I think the legislature in this state has quite a bit of catching up to do to arrive in the 21st century.

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to a question that is such a tender subject to parents?

Can anyone answer this? Leave your thoughts with us in this debate, what do you think?

BTW here is one straight answer I can give you for sure. If the parent is in court and expresses that he or she does not want anyone to discipline their child except for strictly the parents the Judges will almost always order this wish to be honored and it will become a part of the custody order. That is Good News! Maybe not earth shattering but it is still good to know.