Harrisburg, PA- In response to growing scrutiny from the Pennsylvania Freedom Caucus regarding the taxpayer funding of the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, and the Pennsylvania State University, the coalition of lawmakers opposed to funding the institutions continued to grow this week.
Your steadfast efforts to gain support to defund the 3 universities is profoundly appreciated. It's time that Pitt, Temple, & Penn State understand that taxpayers disapprove of their experimentation of the unborn & inappropriate medical treatment of minors. Thank you for being our voice!
This a good example of how to get the governance we want. But a better and infinitely more fair one would be to fund all spending with only the money citizen taxpayers agree to assign to that bill every item every year when they turn in their tax returns. I suspect that some departments, like the NIAID would all but disappear. Others would clean up their act for fear of being defunded. It’s OUR money and OUR government, and those spending that money are answerable to us ... or should be!!
First, a word of caution: The path of lambasting somebody else, for "playing politics" by engaging in practices that "many" can be documented as having engaged in, seems risky.
Yes, it is rumored to be true, that American Courts [in some States and, possibly, at the Federal level] have declared that (for example), "It doesn't matter, how many other cars were speeding down the Interstate, faster than you, and managed to evade the police or avoid arrest, on the same day and time as when you were caught. Yes, their guilt might be as great as your own; but, their having escaped arrest is not the result of the Officers of the Law having 'targeted' you while consciously opening, for them, an avenue of escape. Those Officers issued tickets to as many speeders as they could catch, and you happen to be one. If you're guilty, please pay the fine and accept the 'points' on your license; and be grateful that your recklessness did not yield more serious consequences. For, if you are guilty, you cannot be deemed 'not guilty', simply because the State lacks the money, the will, and the human resources that would be needed, to identify, pursue, arrest, and convict every speeder on the turnpike."
But, the "crime" committed by "The Harper Valley PTA", in the Jeannie C. Riley song that helped to usher in "a new age", in the USA, was hypocrisy.
When "procedural roadblocks" to the "vetting" of Cabinet appointments, were summarily swept aside, during the "transition" process which followed the 2016 Presidential election, the objections that were raised, to the apparent "irregularity", seemed to have been designed to convey the impression that no Legislator could (or would) ever imagine an occasion in which someone might seek a membership or leadership, on a certain Committee, specifically in order to enhance the power inherent in a specific Legislator's VOTE (or other exercise of authority), in some OTHER, often-unrelated aspect of the Legislature and its functions.
Yet, what [Federal] Legislator is NOT affiliated with a "Party" which has, as an entity, embraced the use of tactics such as the use of "refusal to 'confirm' nominees to the [Federal] Judiciary" as a "bargaining chip" in the achievement of that Party's tactical or strategic goals?
(And, truly, what IS the role of the [Federal? State? Local?] Judiciary, other than [or "beyond"] the "interpretation" [i.e., "the application, to the specific events of the specific matter that the Court is being asked to review and consider, in a civil or criminal proceeding"] of "THE [WRITTEN] LANGUAGE OF THE LAW" [i.e., "'the text of the legislation that is (or was) in effect, at the time of the occurrence of the matter being considered', etc."] to "the matter before the Court"? Doesn't "The [written] Law" define that, in the USA (cf. "Marbury v. Madison")? And don't the State Constitutions --surely, "the supreme law of each, respective State (if all State Constitutions must be compatible with the Constitution of the USA)"-- provide "the [written] language of the Law" which it is the function of the Judiciaries within the individual State Governments, to "interpret"?
[NOTE: Knowing the role of the Judiciary seems important, in determining both "THE IMPACT" and "THE IMPACT UPON *WHOM?*" of intentionally leaving Judgeships vacant, for extended periods of time.
(i.e., "What is the result of the number and/or quality of INTERPRETERS of Law being reduced by the WRITERS of Law, from the perspective of the People who [according to a (rumored-to-exist, but uncited) US Supreme Court opinion] 'are covered by the Law and subject to the Law, even if they do not know that the Law exists'"?)
Your steadfast efforts to gain support to defund the 3 universities is profoundly appreciated. It's time that Pitt, Temple, & Penn State understand that taxpayers disapprove of their experimentation of the unborn & inappropriate medical treatment of minors. Thank you for being our voice!
Lol
This a good example of how to get the governance we want. But a better and infinitely more fair one would be to fund all spending with only the money citizen taxpayers agree to assign to that bill every item every year when they turn in their tax returns. I suspect that some departments, like the NIAID would all but disappear. Others would clean up their act for fear of being defunded. It’s OUR money and OUR government, and those spending that money are answerable to us ... or should be!!
First, a word of caution: The path of lambasting somebody else, for "playing politics" by engaging in practices that "many" can be documented as having engaged in, seems risky.
Yes, it is rumored to be true, that American Courts [in some States and, possibly, at the Federal level] have declared that (for example), "It doesn't matter, how many other cars were speeding down the Interstate, faster than you, and managed to evade the police or avoid arrest, on the same day and time as when you were caught. Yes, their guilt might be as great as your own; but, their having escaped arrest is not the result of the Officers of the Law having 'targeted' you while consciously opening, for them, an avenue of escape. Those Officers issued tickets to as many speeders as they could catch, and you happen to be one. If you're guilty, please pay the fine and accept the 'points' on your license; and be grateful that your recklessness did not yield more serious consequences. For, if you are guilty, you cannot be deemed 'not guilty', simply because the State lacks the money, the will, and the human resources that would be needed, to identify, pursue, arrest, and convict every speeder on the turnpike."
But, the "crime" committed by "The Harper Valley PTA", in the Jeannie C. Riley song that helped to usher in "a new age", in the USA, was hypocrisy.
When "procedural roadblocks" to the "vetting" of Cabinet appointments, were summarily swept aside, during the "transition" process which followed the 2016 Presidential election, the objections that were raised, to the apparent "irregularity", seemed to have been designed to convey the impression that no Legislator could (or would) ever imagine an occasion in which someone might seek a membership or leadership, on a certain Committee, specifically in order to enhance the power inherent in a specific Legislator's VOTE (or other exercise of authority), in some OTHER, often-unrelated aspect of the Legislature and its functions.
Yet, what [Federal] Legislator is NOT affiliated with a "Party" which has, as an entity, embraced the use of tactics such as the use of "refusal to 'confirm' nominees to the [Federal] Judiciary" as a "bargaining chip" in the achievement of that Party's tactical or strategic goals?
(And, truly, what IS the role of the [Federal? State? Local?] Judiciary, other than [or "beyond"] the "interpretation" [i.e., "the application, to the specific events of the specific matter that the Court is being asked to review and consider, in a civil or criminal proceeding"] of "THE [WRITTEN] LANGUAGE OF THE LAW" [i.e., "'the text of the legislation that is (or was) in effect, at the time of the occurrence of the matter being considered', etc."] to "the matter before the Court"? Doesn't "The [written] Law" define that, in the USA (cf. "Marbury v. Madison")? And don't the State Constitutions --surely, "the supreme law of each, respective State (if all State Constitutions must be compatible with the Constitution of the USA)"-- provide "the [written] language of the Law" which it is the function of the Judiciaries within the individual State Governments, to "interpret"?
[NOTE: Knowing the role of the Judiciary seems important, in determining both "THE IMPACT" and "THE IMPACT UPON *WHOM?*" of intentionally leaving Judgeships vacant, for extended periods of time.
(i.e., "What is the result of the number and/or quality of INTERPRETERS of Law being reduced by the WRITERS of Law, from the perspective of the People who [according to a (rumored-to-exist, but uncited) US Supreme Court opinion] 'are covered by the Law and subject to the Law, even if they do not know that the Law exists'"?)