Commie Core repeal and replace – more GOP smoke and mirrors

by Eric Holcombe

http://rockytoppolitics.com/2015/04/28/part-three-barbarians-at-the-gate/
wolf_in_sheeps_clothing12This is the only realistic positive spin on the rebranded TN Commie Core that I have seen. Unfortunately, it also is one of the first pieces from RTP that makes them look like controlled opposition. Lipsticking the pig is not a victory no matter how you slice it. Republicans getting more say in the crooked “Tennessee Standards” review committee that shouldn’t even exist isn’t much of a win. Kind of like how we can no longer elect the judicial branch because they are better at picking them than us. Because they took the federal Race To The Top bribe and then Haslam took the NCLB waiver (which requires adherence to Commie Core), we are still shackled to following the fed direction on standards copywritten by two Washington DC corporations and Pearson “aligned” testing (and therefore “aligned” curriculum). They will not do anything to jeopardize the flow of their federal sugar daddy dollars.

There were real, actual, stick-a-fork-in-the-pig bills available for “conservative Republicans” to pass this session regarding Commie Core  – and they wimped out. Lots of conflicts with those bills, like Achieve Inc. board member Haslam couldn’t be a member of Achieve Inc. and (continue to) get paid by Bill Gates. Education Commissioner and illegal, no-bid-contract PARCC liaison, Candice McQueen would have to sever that relationship. The Commie Core whores at TNSCORE would be out of business, etc. Any future actions by state level actors of this sort would be prohibited. That means B. Fielding Rolston and the state board signing promissory notes to implement Commie Core before they can even read it (again).

I still am not convinced the state legislators who really understand the state’s rights issue here is much more than a handful. Anybody that has the mindset they will just do a better job of handpicking the oligarchs than Haslam doesn’t get the fundamentals of self-governance and liberty, or true diversity of thought across the state’s communities. They still believe we all are to be whitewashed widgets, they just want to choose the bucket of whitewash. The state has already shown it cannot be trusted. Rather than going to prison for accepting federal bribes in exchange for testing & curriculum contracts, personal data sales to foreign companies and standards adoption, they are put in charge of making the new standards. What could possibly go wrong?

But it isn’t just education, though that is a major financial chunk of business – about 45% of all state spending last I checked. You could look at the failure to repeal the Hall Income Tax (again) – even with the Republican “super” majority.

Or the failure to reinstate true 2nd Amendment rights according to the US Constitution (which appears to apply some of the time when they want it to: for overriding state laws). What did the “super” majority do with Constitutional Carry?

Or maybe “school choice” vouchers? Another failure. I only see Teach For America still in business under the Commie Core formed ISD – and the other public school choice parents had, Tennessee Virtual Academy, being closed. However Shelby and Davidson counties remain open at more than twice the cost with the same poor academics.

In case you have forgotten, this was all stuff that was promised when Republicans were in the minority. And just like Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America, they haven’t delivered a bit of it. Like Newt, I suspect they would use the excuse he did: “we only said we’d bring it to a vote – not that we would actually vote for it”.

They are still clinging to the same political club that just made Pigeon Forge liquor referendum king Ryan Haynes (not a Representative of Sevier County) their chairman. This is like some kind of battered wife syndrome. If there really are 50+ “conservatives” in TN legislature why are you still with this club?

You don’t need them.

Mayor Ed Mitchell flexing his muscles by vetoing EPA Stormwater Repeal Resolution

flexingmuscles

See page 522 for the resolution that Ed Mitchell vetoed.

Statement on Mayor’s veto of Resolution No. 15-04-007, “A Resolution Asking Federal Legislators To Stop The Expansion of EPA Regulations over water and to Repeal Stormwater Regulations.”

Unfortunately Mayor Ed Mitchell has taken the Washington DC approach to government, deciding that decisions should be made behind closed doors for the benefit of a few at the expense of all. We just learned that the Sheriff stands to gain from the sale of property that will have a road run through it. Who benefits from the Mayor’s veto? It’s certainly not the taxpaying property owners of Blount County who have repeatedly voiced legitimate property rights concerns for many years about EPA mandated regulations.

This resolution expressed what the citizens have expressed to the Commission for years. Apparently their grievances have fallen upon deaf ears with Mayor Mitchell. He should be focusing on how to solve the $16 million budget deficit instead of silencing the concerns of the people through their elected representatives.”
Tona Monroe
Blount County Commissioner – District 7 Seat B

It’s a ‘fine’ day and night in Blount County and throughout Tennessee

Well the Tennessee General Assembly just voted to raise the seatbelt fine from $10 to $25.  This is a great way for Republicans to enrich public treasuries without ‘raising taxes’.  It’s no surprise that Blount County’s 3 nanny $tati$t $upported the tax… err fine.  Good Ole’ Big Government Bob Ramsey, Art Swann and Doug Overbey.

Here in Blount County the Commi$$ion just took an unconstitutional grant for nighttime $eatbelt demo.  Buckle up, or you will find out what a ‘fine’ place Blount County is to live, especially since the federal government and the Tenne$$ee General A$$embly made $ure that you’ll be adding more to the public trea$ury if you don’t.

Most federal grants are unconstitutional

Tonight the Blount County Commission is being asked to vote on six federal grants, one for equipment for a school and five traffic grants.  All six grants are unconstitutional; therefore, I will be voting no on all six even though the equipment is for a school in my district.

The first thing that I did when taking office was raise my right hand and affirm that I would obey the federal and state constitutions.  Thus even though we might need equipment for schools, I am constrained by my oath of office and must vote no.  I would support a constitutionally authorized source of funding for food equipment for schools but not a funding source that violates my oath of office and the supreme law of the land.

Conservatives like to talk about the federal government having no role in education and some will even campaign on abolishing the federal Department of Education but that quickly becomes empty campaign rhetoric after the election.  Having read the constitution many times, finding nothing in it to authorize these grants and having made a solemn affirmation to uphold the constitution, I will be voting no.

Additionally, there has been some talk about the DUI road blocks being unconstitutional.  They are but that misses the greater point for the county funding body.  The funding for all 5 five traffic grants is unconstitutional.  There is no authority in the federal constitution for the feds to tax us (gas tax) and use the money to fund a police state.  Thus, voting no on one or two and voting yes on the rest is inconsistent with the supreme law of the land, the constitution.

In case anyone has any doubt, I will leave you with a letter that President James Madison wrote when he vetoed a public works bill (think roads and water ways, what we are dealing with tonight).  He said he was constrained by the constitution to veto the legislation because there is no authority for it in the constitution.  He should know, since he was the primary author of the constitution.

Let freedom ring!
Tona

March 3, 1817

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

President James Madison

Source: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

 

Traffic grants are federally funded not state funded

At the Agenda Committee meeting, I asked the Director of Budgets and Finance if the traffic grants before the commission are federally funded or state funded.  He said he would find out.

Jarrod Millsaps of the the Sheriff’s Office responded saying that the grants administered through the Governor’s Highway Safety Office (GHSO) are state funded.  (see page 503)  However, a quick internet search revealed that state is not the funding source.  The State DOT website says that programs administered through the GHSO are 100% federally funded.

http://www.blounttn.org/comm/cc150416.pdf

http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/ghso/

To hear or not to hear: Failure to move forward

Eight Commissioners decided it was time to move forward on the jail overcrowding situation by hearing from the jail consultant and looking to see what we can do in the community to reduce the jail population and get people back to work as productive members of society.  Bryan Daniels of the Blount Partnership is always talking about moving “forward” an being “positive”.  Eight Commissioners voted to do that.

One Commissioner lacked the guts to even vote on the matter.

To hear Not to hear Abstained
Mike Akard Andy Allen Jerome Moon
Archie Archer Brad Bowers
Sean Carter Rick Carver
Tom Cole Grady Caskey
Jamie Daly Mike Caylor
Karen Miller Dodd Crowe
Tona Monroe Gary Farmer
Tom Stinnett Ron French
Jeff Headrick
Mike Lewis
Kenneth Melton
Steve Samples

Aiming at the wrong target

The Mayor’s response to the jail consultant pointing out that the criminal justice system assessment report has been ignored shows that the Mayor is aiming at the wrong target.  The goal is to do what is best for society, which includes everyone: the taxpayers, the jail employees and the inmates.  Instead of working toward solutions the Mayor is using the age old tactic of attacking the messenger by threatening to sue.

It is good to see Joel Davis at The Daily Times be factually correct in his reporting.  Craig Garrett is the attorney for the mayor, not the county attorney.  Blount County doesn’t have a county attorney, despite the mayor referring to him as the county attorney.

The drama should stop.  As elected officials it is our responsibility to now work together to implement solutions that are productive for all of society.  The taxpayer funded study provides several solutions.  Let’s get started putting those solutions to work.