I’m undecided…

There are three statewide races that I have no clue as to who vote for. The races are Attorney General, Labor Commissioner and Insurance Commissioner.

In the AG race…I’m not a fan of Thurbert Baker. I believe he lied to the people of Georgia after the Kelo ruling. Baker said, “Fortunately for Georgians, our state constitution and state judiciary have consistently held that condemnation for private purposes is not acceptable under state law, a position that will be unaffected by today’s federal court ruling.” Though I believe that Constitutional amendment passed last session wasn’t strong and it leaves a truck sized hole for future abuse, the statutory law that was passed was adequate.

But Perry McGuire is wanting to go after the ACLU. I despise the ACLU, mainly because of their socialist progressive interpretation of the Constitution on the 2nd Amendment and scores of other issues. But I do see them as doing good work against the PATRIOT Act and the NSA spying. Privacy is a natural right and it’s one of the few things I can agree with them on.

Considering my profession, I should probably keep my mouth shut about the Insurance Commission race. But any suggestions would be welcome.

I’m leaning toward Brent Brown in the Labor Commission race, but it’s a branch of state government that shouldn’t exist in the first place. Then again…Michael Thurmond wants to reach out to Libertarians.

Any advice? Who are you voting for in these races and why?

22 comments

  1. griftdrift says:

    As a former employee of the Labor Department I probably shouldn’t be commenting. Well, actually I probably should.

    I don’t agree the Labor Commissioner should be abolished but it sure as hell shouldn’t be elected. It’s as administrative as an administrative position should get.

    And the fact is that Thurmond has administered it pretty well including one of the largest tax cuts to employers in God knows how long (actually I’m going to have to check that last one, it could have been Poythress).

    With administrator’s, I believe they should be re-elected unless they have been caught conducting human sacrifices. And then only if they have down a bad job administrating.

    The fact is if you have a ideological objection to a Labor department in general you should punish the policy makers, not the administrators. Policy makes make the policy. Administrator’s just execute it.

  2. Chris says:

    Bill, thats the point. they claim to defend our constitutional rights, but the seem to stop reading the bill of rights when they hit “establishment of religion”.

    Actually, in fairness, they do have a decent track record on 4th amendment issues too.

    For 5th Amendment issues I perfer the Institute for Justice

  3. heroV says:

    Right, because gun owners are extremely oppressed and have only one of the 2 or 3 largest lobbies in Washington looking after their interests.

    I think the NRA does a good job by itself of defending the interests of gun owners.

  4. Demonbeck says:

    That’s not the point heroV. The point is that the ACLU only defends certain civil liberties provided by the Constitution.

  5. griftdrift says:

    There’s very little to defend on the 2nd amendment since gun regulation has pretty much been settled law since the Supreme Courts 1939 case US vs Miller. So it’s a bit of a strawman.

    And if you insist that the ACLU chooses to ignore the 2nd amendment, I will insist on pointing out that most gun right absolutist ignore the words “well regulated”.

  6. griftdrift says:

    And if there was a complete ban on firearms, I would be right there next to you Jason marching on the capitol. However, that is not the case. I don’t necessarily agree with the ACLU’s position that it is a “collective right” however we are still able to bear arms as individuals. For over 60 years it has been established that this is not an unlimited right. We can accuse each other of ignoring the minutae and semantics of the 2nd all day long but it’s very hard to overlook the fact that it is the only of the first ten that actually contains the word “regulate”.

  7. griftdrift says:

    So if the amendment is about state militia maybe the ACLU isn’t so far off with viewing it as a state right and no solely an individual one? Interesting that the founders used, in your view, the diametrically opposed terms “regulated” and “infringement” in the same amendment. Look, I think 90% of gun laws are stupid but stupid doesn’t make them unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled pretty clearly on this in 1939. It doesn’t mean that stupid laws should be fought. They should just be fought in the right venue. The legislative branch. And that is also pretty much how I read the ACLU’s position.

  8. Jason Pye says:

    The word “regulated” has to do with the militia, it is allowing states to keep armed militias.

    However, it reaffirms the right of the individual to keep and bear arms as a protected right of the Constitution, as is consistant with natural law (self defense and so on).
    It clearly separates the two.

  9. griftdrift says:

    And we can keep and bear arms as evidenced by the several fireams I have in my house. But just as we can’t yell fire in a theater, this right is not without limits. The fact that the founders actually took the time to mention the potential need for government interference in this amendment sticks out like a sore thumb. There is no such mention in the first regarding speech yet the concept of inciting or harmful words is settled law. So is government regulation of firearms. But Jason if your position is an absolutist of non-regulation, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I just have a problem with making the argument thatthe “progressive nee socialist” ACLU wants the government to take away your guns. If you read their full position it’s apparent that they consider it a legislative issue, not a judicial one, therefore they usually just stay the hell out of it.

  10. Jason Pye says:

    But just as we can’t yell fire in a theater, this right is not without limits.
    That is a poor example for your argument.

    You have the right to own gun, but it doesn’t mean you can go around shooting people. You have infringed on their rights at that point.

    If you read their full position it’s apparent that they consider it a legislative issue, not a judicial one, therefore they usually just stay the hell out of it.
    That is the problem. It is a Constitutional issue simply because it is a protected individual right.

  11. griftdrift says:

    I disagree that my analogy is bad. Maybe I didn’t explain the perspective very well. My point is the First plainly states no law prohibiting the exercise of free speech yet the courts have interpreted that despite no language inherent in the clause this right is not absolute. The Second, although it clearly states the individual right should not be infringed, it does go so far to mention government regulation. We accept some level of regulation within the absolute position of the first so it’s not so unreasonable to see how some level of regulation would be accepted in the less absolute position of the second.

  12. Jason Pye says:

    although it clearly states the individual right should not be infringed, it does go so far to mention government regulation.
    In my take is if it is not a specifically attributed in the Constitution, then government has no power to do it.

    If you yell fire in a theater, you are infringing on another individuals rights, you can’t do that. I understand that. However, the Constitution specifically says that you cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

  13. griftdrift says:

    Unless I’m misremembering the consitution, there’s nothing in the construction about individual’s infringing on the indivdual rights of others. Only the government. 🙂

    Anyway, interesting conversation and I don’t disagree with you on the concept that as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others should be the guiding force. In fact it’s a rule I try to follow. It would be have nice if the founder’s had made that more explicit beyond “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” but they didn’t. So we are left with these interesting arguments.

  14. Jason Pye says:

    Unless I’m misremembering the consitution, there’s nothing in the construction about individual’s infringing on the indivdual rights of others. Only the government.

    The 9th Amendment, my friend. It points back to natural rights, which the manifesto of natural rights is the Declaration of Independence.

  15. JAC1975 says:

    So we should allow people to carry weapons into bars, nightclubs, courthouses, legislature and other government buildings, etc. It sounds pretty absolutist to me. I think different measures work for different areas. Hunters, rural folks, gun enthusiasts…have all the guns you want. But I have trouble allowing felons, thugs, and others have guns with no attempt to prevent it.

Comments are closed.