You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Vermont’ tag.
Vermont has always had a “special take” on things, and if it weren’t for it being so far-fetched liberal, it is one of the most beautiful and quaint places where one could say “I could live here”! But every now and then, something positive flows from Vermont (besides Maple syrup and Cold Hollow Apple Cider):
U.S. Constitution as well as Vermont’s own Constitution very carefully,
and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some
eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.
Maslack recently (?) proposed a bill to register non-gun-owners and require
them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first
state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and
assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.
Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only
affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a
clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was
advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a
“monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals.
Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right
to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those
persons who “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be
required to “pay such equivalent.” Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters
have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves so that they are
capable of responding to “any situation that may arise”.
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required
to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s
license number with the state. “There is a legitimate government
interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be
asked to do so,” Maslack says.
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least
restrictive laws of any state – it’s currently the only state that
allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This
combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted
in a crime rate that is the THIRD lowest in the nation.
From commenter CornDawg, the links to the 2000 Vermont Legislative Seesion where these laws were discussed::
The State of Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles has refused to issue a personalized license plate to a resident. The grounds: The tag may be offensive to others.
The plate requested is: JN36TN
First, while driving, how quickly would someone be able to determine what the tag says. But more importantly, why is a RELIGIOUS personalized plate deemed OFFENSIVE. If an atheist were to request “NO GOD”, would it be denied!
Shawn Byrne has been fighting this battle in Vermont for THREE YEARS. While I attempt to understand the state not manufacturing and selling license plates depicting religious icons, citing separation of churh and state, I find no basis to deny someone this license plate, particularly in claiming it to be offensive. What next, no church signs in front of the place of worship, or no church listing in the phone book?
It seems that the legal advisors and strategists surrounding President-Elect Barack Hussien Obama II may be using a playbook of strategies and lies that are more than 100 years old to perpetuate the President-Elect’s eligibility to be the President of the United States.
While running for the Vice-Presidency, Vermont native Chester A. Arthur was plagued by numerous factions stating that he was ineligible for the office because of the dual citzizenship that he held as a result of his father’s immigration status. Arthur’s father immigrated from Great Britain, and became a United States citizen in 1843. However, President Arthur was born in 1829, and therefore was both a United States citizen and a British citizen.
It was understood in the legal circles that our Constitution granted the initial founding fathers “grandfathered” status to be eligible to be President because they were all born as British subjects. All the Constitutional scholars agreed that the writings and the careful wording regarding “natural born citizenship” in contrast to “naturalized citizenship” was the means by which the framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that EVERY future PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT were NOT DUAL-CITIZENS with any other country. The SOVEREIGNTY of the United States was immensely important to our founding fathers.
Chester Arthur went to great lenghts to lie, to hide facts, to make sure that his dual citizenship did not stop his quest for the White House. Now, Barack Obama is trying to circumvent the Constitution by hiding his birth certificate, his academic records, and anything else that shows either that he might not have been born in Hawaii, and/or that he is a dual citizen of Kenya, as his website had acknowledged. The Obama team have gone so far as to “cleanse” YouTube of the videos they had posted that allegedly had footage of Obama and his staff acknowledging that he potentially is ineligible to be the President, and that at all costs, the Constitution cannot be applied in a literal interpretation.
For those who have commented to me in the past that it doesn’t matter, even if he was born elsewhere, because he will lead us “to the promise land” so to speak, I say that it is important that we stand by our Constitution, and hold even Barack Obama to the standards and requirements within it. If we fail to do that, then we will surrender every right and privilege we are accorded by that Constitution, including our freedom of sppech, our freedom of religion, and our right to have guns. Then God help us all.