What Should Be the Age of Adulthood? Part 1

Nearing the 10^th anniversary of the arrest of the twin daughters of then president George W. Bush Jennifer and Barbara Bush for underage drinking in Texas on April 29, 2001, I want to explain my feelings about laws that restrict freedom based on your birthdate alone. It’s hard to determine a fixed age of adulthood without basing it on a single birthdate alone. This could be impossible for some people to prove who don’t even have a clear birth certificate or ID. Keep in mind that these chronological age based laws not only affect those underage, but those who look underage in terms of having to show ID to purchase alcoholic beverages possibly until you look old and somewhat grey, can affect for example people who provide alcohol and/or guns to those considered by law “underage” regardless of the provider’s age, the parents or caregivers are also affected because they could be forced to be responsible for their youth’s behavior regardless of the youth’s state of competence and ageist laws against youth can make it more difficult and even impossible to teach their kin about responsible habits such as handling alcohol and weapons responsibly. With attempts at a highly sophisticated big-brother style national ID system it would be even more difficult to buy alcohol unless you looked old which could not happen until you’re possibly near 30 or even 50 years old. Thanks to state nullification of Real ID throughout the past few years, Real ID is considered De Facto null and void. How do we determine who is an adult without basing the fact on an arbitrary age?

            The age of majority in almost every state in the United States is 18 with exceptions being alcohol, handgun purchases, sometimes gambling, etc. at 21. Believe it or not, there used to be times in America’s history where most of aged based laws restricting liberty and justice were non-existent and even unheard of. There were very few laws restricting youth under 18 during the American Revolution of the 1770’s and 1780’s with one notable exception being the voting age of 21. Before the mid 19^th century, prohibition anyway in the United States of America was non-existent. A handful of states by 1855 including Maine banned the entire sale of alcoholic liquors. The only state to have a drinking age before the ratification of the 18^th amendment in 1919 was Wisconsin which set its drinking age at 18 for most alcoholic beverages in 1839 and 21 for all alcoholic beverages in 1866. Drinking ages are scars of prohibition that were not repealed in 1933 although left to the states. In fact, Americans drank 1.7 bottles of hard liquor per week on average in 1830, three times the average in 2010. "Drunkenness was condemned and punished, but only as an abuse of a God-given gift. Drink itself was not looked upon as culpable, any more than food deserved blame for the sin of gluttony. Excess was a personal indiscretion." There’s no doubt to my mind that alcohol abuse needs to be condemned harshly. Constitutional rights apply to all persons regardless of race, gender, creed, nationality, age, etc. and the drinking age is just like prohibition only applying to those under their 21^st birthdays. In 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled that due process and natural rights could not be infringed because of youth or old age (In Re Gault). Two years later in 1969, the US Supreme Court ruled that free speech may not be infringed for age based reasons and cannot be unreasonably infringed inside the school gates (Tinker v. Des Moines School District). I do acknowledge that schools have a duty to protect the youth inside the schools; however schools should not be enclaves of totalitarianism and should not be involved in student and teachers private lives. The next year in 1970, the US Supreme Court would rule in favor of youth rights for the third and possibly final time that no matter the age of defendant whether in juvenile or adult court that the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases (In Re Winship).

            In 2008 DC v. Heller and 2010 McDonald v. Chicago the US Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, the right to keep and bear arms is still not kept to the same protection standards as for example the 1^st and 4^th amendments protecting free speech and bans on unreasonable search and seizure. The right to keep and bear arms is still infringed on draconically and the example I will talk about in this blog is the restrictions based on age. The infamous and evil Gun Control Act of 1968 created a broad range of gun control laws and regulations on the gun manufacturing industry and created a list of prohibited purchasers. The age to purchase a rifle or shotgun from a Federal Firearms Licensee is 18 and for handguns and semi-automatics and items on the National Firearms Act of 1934 the age is 21. In 1791, there were very few gun control laws at the state level and no gun control laws at the federal level, though bans on concealed carry probably existed but our founding fathers would oppose these bans because of the need to protect ourselves outside of our own homes. The right to keep and bear arms is not only for sportsman and hunters and even for self-defense but a safeguard against tyranny and ageist youth crushing laws are tyranny! Ageist politicians don’t want youth to have guns because it would be a threat to their power and the power of tyrannical government forces who’s activities are more than equivalent than activities of the mafia and street gangs nearly combined. Difference between government and organized crime is that government is the legal version of organized crime. Youth are already vulnerable due to the fact they have no means of self-protection on our streets in a legal sense and the criminals regardless of the law. Carrying weapons assures us that we can feel safe by arming ourselves and fending off criminals and tyrants who try to harm us.

            Other laws that are bad policy include laws against running away from home and moving out on your own will because such a law deprives you of liberty and liberty is freedom from being under legal custody, curfews violate the right to travel, child labor laws infringe on your ability to make a decent living and achieve financial freedom and independence, compulsory education laws only slow down progress and waste time and 1^st amendment rights to believe what you want.

  “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”-Thomas Jefferson

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” –Thomas Jefferson

It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father. – Thomas Jefferson

            Government exists to protect and enforce the rights and contracts of the people. No rights are protected or enforced when someone else’s rights are infringed. Punishing someone for certain activity for the reasons of “protecting” them from harm not only fails to protect but also victimizes them to being arrested, fined, jailed and branded with a criminal record. Nobody is a hero when they are the aggressors regardless of whatever reason it may be. Being aggressive is never the answer to individual and social and economic problems. I realize what people may think about what I believe about why there should be no age of majority. It is arbitrary and unreasonable to discriminate someone based on their date of birth and I also believe that the 14^th amendment prohibits such discrimination under the equal protection clause. Youth are not livestock and property and no human being is. Responsibility comes with rights and for those judged incompetent to make their own decisions and know right from wrong then the parents and/or caregivers are the ones responsible for their judged incompetents in their care. America’s had a history of trying people as young as 12 as adults for serious crimes so let’s stop treating youth like children yet punishing them like adults. Freedom is a birthright and not a reward that you must earn and with aged based laws you have to attain an arbitrary age in order to exercise certain inalienable rights. America’s supposed to be the freest country on earth. I’ll write some more on this matter in another blog later on this week.

Why Gun Control is a Cowardly Pre-Crime Measure

Tragedies such as Columbine and Virginia Tech have sparked debates over gun control. However, gun control never works. I do believe it is reasonable to prohibit carry of firearms and weapons in government buildings and facilities that are likely targets of terrorist attacks such as the White House. The reason some gun control advocates feel they way they do is because of a tragic event that occured with gun violence. For example, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy became a gun control advocate after the December 7, 1993 mass shootings on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train by 35 year old Jamaican-American Colin Ferguson. McCarthy's husband Dennis was killed in the attacks. McCarthy ran for congress in 1996 defeating Republican Freshman Dan Frisa who was against federal gun control. Emotions can be powerful and people can do things that injure the rule of law and the constitution and harm others. For example, David Olofson was a Wisconsin gun owner convicted of knowingly possessing a fully automatic rifle when in fact it was semi-automatic and jammed. Olofson was ultimately defeated by a not so kind criminal justice system. After lower court appeals, the US Supreme Court in the fall of 2009 declined to hear Olofson's appeal. Olofson was recently released from prison and has opened up a business called Joules of Nature. Another example is a young adult from Colorado named Brian Aitkin in New Jersey. He was tried for "illegal" possession of firearms, convicted and eventually his prison sentence was commuted by Governor Christie just before Christmas time of 2010. Will putting these two good men through legal hell make people any safer. I couldn't disagree anymore! Emotions get so powerful that sometimes people will blame others who've harmed nobody and were not even involved in awful tragedies. Another gun control crony I wish to mention is one of the Virginia Tech shooting victims Colin Goddard who was then 21 years old. Ever since the tragedy, he's become a gun control monster working for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence or Gun Ownership as I call it. Jim and Sarah Brady pushed for a background check bill and obviously won was because Jim Brady was shot in the head during an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagans life 30 years ago by an obsessed fan of Jodie Foster named John Hinkley. Hinkley knew right from wrong at the time of the shootings which he shouldn't have been acquitted on insanity defense. The people who abuse the right to keep and bear arms by harming someone else in a violent way should be punished accordingly.

A week of anniversaries of Infamous Tragedies

From April 16-20 marks a few anniversaries of tragedies that occured over the past few to eighteen years. In order include:

• April 16th, 2007: Virginia Tech Shooting
• April 18th, 1993: Victory of the BATFE in the Waco Seige
• April 19th, 1995: Oklahoma City Bombing
• April 20th, 1999: Columbine High School Shooting

I will not comment on all of the tragedies individually on one blog but I will say that all of these tragedies could have been avoided by adressing the root causes for them. I will address my thoughts on each tragedy in seperate blogs.

Why the Department of Education is unconstitutional

The general welfare clause is not a seperate clause used to create programs of it's own. The general welfare clause is the power for the federal government to collect taxes and spend to benefit an enumerated power.
 “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”-Thomas Jefferson
 Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." The general welfare clause is mostly the power to tax, not to tax and spend as they please. Federal funding for state jurisdicted activities is out of federal jurisdiction.

Budget Battles: A Libertarian's Solution

On Friday night, congress reached a budget deal which was like a compromise bill between Democrats and Republicans. However my biggest concern is what to eliminate in terms of saving money. I feel that a government shutdown would allow Americans to regain their liberty and job oppertunities would blossom and multiply, education would be liberated from the unconstitutional Department of Education, Peace would prosper as military intervention will be limited, the war on drugs would die and crime would plummet as the black market would dry up and the prisons would have more space, welfare programs would be demolished as the poor will become independent, and the good people would not have to battle the Byzentine and tyrannical IRS every April. The government should have shutdown permanently and shame on congress for putting on this political show and compromising this great nation.

Government Shutdown: There's got to be a better way

Budget issues are becoming a real pain in congress. Government is set to shut down on Friday and budget cuts are urgently needed. Reforms to entitlement programs such as social security, medicare and medicaid must be met before those who paid into them recieve little. But what I really want to share with you is federal funding of domestic programs such as education, transportation, agriculture, etc. Such spending is unconstitutional because the spending clause was originally meant to restrict congressional spending to spending to excercise an enumerated power. This restriction of the federal governments power is to ensure that congress and even the president do not spend however they feel like spending. James Madison, one of our founding fathers of America and 4th president of the United States remarked that spending at the federal level must be limited to spending in the exercise of an enumerated power. President Grover Cleveland vetoed many bills passed by congress during his tenure as president such as financial recovery to farmers in drought stricken lands such as in the state of Texas. Cleveland vetoed such relief on the grounds of limited government and the US constitution. He also said that such measures would eventually turn into a paternalistic nanny used to enslave recipients. The government could also use coercive methods that are not on it's face coercive but when government imposes a tax and reimburses it to the people who paid them and imposes a mandate, then it is considered theft, legal or not, which in fact is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. FDR's New Deal included a variety of tax payer funded public works projects and high taxes that were unconstitutional. From the Start of the New Deal until 1937, the US Supreme Court struck down much of FDR's New Deal until 1937 when FDR threatened to 'pack' the court with more justices who would agree with the New Deal. Such federal spending has been upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1937 and reaffirmed in 1987's South Dakota v. Dole decision despite the fact that the people of the states pay federal taxes and most often are compelled to accept the money regardless of strings or mandates attached because they pay more in taxes than recieve in reimbursements. This is a method of extortion which first they are forced to pay taxes to the federal government so they can be reimbursed with it on certain conditions. That's like stealing somebody's car and requiring they pay it back. Taxes are needed for a government to function, however, that doesn't mean government can just tax anything it wants to spend on whatever it pleases. That's an example of totalitarianism and tyranny! These federal funding programs are like social security. First the feds demand you pay a payroll tax and force you to trust them, second, the crooks known as the government who stole from you take that forced "trust" money away from you and either give you a fraction of what you paid in or nothing. Whether the government can repay you is irrelevent because regardless, the government illigitemately stole from you in order to use the money for coercive and unconstitutional purposes. Another brand of domestic spending programs would be created under Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. Such programs included Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, federal funding for education, food stamps and more. "Republican" president George W. Bush dramatically increased domestic spending more than LBJ did in the 1960's with for examples a federal takeover of education The No Child Left Behind Act and funding for the War on Drugs, which of course began under president Richard Nixon and escaladed under president Ronald Reagan. Taxpayer funded bailouts to banks and auto companies and to people with mortgages in 2008 were praised and signed into law by president Bush. Obama was bad for America even before he was elected. Both major presidential candidates in the 2008 election Democrat Barack Obama and "republican" John McCain praised and voted for the bailouts. When Obama took office, he started to break much of his campaign promises and increased spending and our national debt even higher with the Democratic congress in 2009-2010, much higher than George W. Bush. Just a few weeks after entering office, president Obama signed a major New Deal style "stimulus" package set to create jobs. Such a measure was a waste of taxpayer dollars and created almost no jobs at all. Cap and Trade was voted on in July of 2009 which is not a real tax and just a wasteful job-killing bill full of spending and vague statures.  The biggest spending monstrosity of all called Obamacare includes a communist government takeover of healthcare. I said communist because congress was and to a certain degree still is a communist congress. Obamacare cannot be properly upheld and that's why federal judge Clyde Roger Vinson struck down the entire Obamacare bill two months ago. Obamacare was passed last year. Even after the 2010 elections and Republicans taking majority of the house, this isn't the end. The debt is over $14 trillion and deficits exceed $1.7 trillion in 2011. And congress believes that 20 year olds and younger are too irresponsible to handle alcoholic beverages, handguns, and credit cards regardless of the person's abilities and only bases it's rationale on a mere number called age. Congress has proven itself irresponsible with people's money for decades considering wasteful spending, massive deficits and alarming national debt that congress is too out of their minds to pay for and cut spending on wasteful, unconstitutional programs. I believe that congress likes to use 20 year olds and younger as scapegoats to feel good about their irresponsible spending with taxpayer money. Keep in mind, we young people use OUR OWN money or our parents money. However, our parents are not forced to subsidize us when we want to buy non-necesseties.