Tolerance is accepting people are different than you.

If Tolerance is not the Social-Political “Catch Phrase” of the 21st Century, I do not know what is! Tolerate this, tolerate that, you have to tolerate this thing or situation. What is tolerance? The American Heritage Dictionary (4th Edition) defines tolerance as:

• “The capacity for respecting the beliefs or practices of others”

What does this mean, “the capacity for respecting”? Does this mean you have to “respect” things you do not believe in? No, it does not. What tolerance REALLY is, is accepting other people may be different from you, AND these differences do not inherently make them bad and even wrong people. Tolerance does not mean you have to agree with them, but an understanding that the disagreement or difference does not make the other a bad person simply because of this difference.

I am routinely called a racist, a radical, a homophobe, a “nut case” simply based on my philosophical beliefs [many of which you see on this blog] by people who have never met me or read anything I have written. I have been threatened, some have tried to be bully me because of my political identity,  even though they have never listened to me, and can never describe what my beliefs are. Rather they would insist they “know” what my beliefs are and tell me “how” I believe despite how I actually am. This is not tolerance this is prejudice, and talking about me is NOT what I am writing this.

I have a friend I have known for the better part of two decades, and they have found themselves in a bind. Unfortunately, the nature of their work falls into the public interest, and perceived indiscretion may be made to the public as is this case here. I have every bit of confidence in my friend in that they will be cleared of any potential wrongdoing, since I know this is not in their character. While trying to understand the situation in hopes of helping them out I read some local periodicals on the situation. As with many online newspapers, public can be made on the article at hand, and this was the case for one I came across.

What struck me about the comments was not the hard conclusions drawn be very little information on the situation, but another post that drew a damning conclusion not based off the case, but off of their perception of my friend. This individual without any knowledge or having ever met my friend, assumed the nature of my friend and with this conclusion, drew another conclusion on the motive of my friend in the situation as a whole. This individual who commented was not basing his perception of possible guilt or innocence on the limited merits of the case, but on their perception of who my friend was (not by name but as a person), this is intolerance.

Tolerance is accepting not all of us are of the same cloth. We all do not believe in the same God, so do not at all. we do not have the same color of skin. We are not the same gender, we may live our personnel lives different than the next person. We may look at the same tree from two different perspectives, and notice two different things that stand out. Because we have these differences, does not make the other person wrong and be disposed of a certain nature. We do not have to agree with the other person in all or any question or topic, but we do need to understand this disagreement does not indicate the other person is bad.

Tolerance is not assuming because a person is different than you or may feel the opposite of that they have to act in a certain way. People may be natured to act in a certain way, based a large variety of factors, but certainly not one.

The only way we will be able to fix our society and rid it of its ills is to get together and understand our differences. We do not have to agree with each other, but we need to be able to listen to each other, and the only way this is possible is Tolerance.

The Repeal Amendment

Virginia may be the first of many states to propose an Amendment to the Constitution that empowers the States to repeal any Federal Statute or Law. A rough draft of the possible Amendment reads as follows.

• “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Simply put, Two-Thirds of the States [Presumably through Legislative Acts] to repeal can vote to repeal ANY Federal Law or Regulation. This would be an important step back toward a Federal System, by limiting Federal Power through State Actions.

This may sound like a radical idea, but it is not a new concept at all in our Government. Originally the Senate fulfilled a similar role of speaking and representing the states prior to ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Before the 17th Amendment Senators were appointed by the states Legislatures to represent State interest, while the House of Representatives was elected by the people to represent he Peoples interest. The states currently have no direct voice in the Federal Government, though they may be compelled to adhere to its laws.

The important aspect of this is it directly limits Federal Power without resorting to the courts, and it also reintroduces the States back into the Federal system of Law making directly. The States still have a part of the Federal System in that they can challenge laws, but have no say at all in what laws are made that they may be compelled to follow. This gives the states as a whole the ability to prevent themselves being overburdened by Federal mandates, or allowing Laws and Regulations to carry which may be against the interest of many of the States, or simply repeal laws that two-thirds of the states do not agree with.

With 50 states two-thirds would require 34 States to vote to repeal, while only 17 would have to vote NOT to repeal to prevent the law from being repealed. By putting this this type of check in place, it gives the States the ability to claim back power which belongs to them and do not which to have Federal involvement in. It would take a significant majority of the states to repeal ANY Federal Law or Regulation. Congress could not be stopped and would have the power to once again pass the same legislation if desired.

This Amendment would once again give the States a direct voice in the Federal System, something it has lacked since 1913. Currently States can only challenge the Constitutional validity of a law or measure passed by Congress as being outside the scope of power granted to Congress. This process is used often by states, but it is also a cumbersome process, where cost and gain are factored in to place. Is the provision enacted by Congress worth the costs of a challenge to have it repealed? An example may be.

Congress requires stoplights to be put at a certain intersection in a state. Congress is not granted the power to do this. The cost of the state to install these lights may be $100,000 but the cost of a Challenge in the courts may cost $1,000,000 to have the law struck down. Though the state would probably win the challenge, it is burdensome to do so over one simple provision. The state has no other means to either prevent the law from being passed since it has no voice in the Congress, or to express any challenge in the courts that is not prohibitive to the state. This is only one example, but multiply this by many scores, and it can be seen how the states are powerless in some respects to the whim of the National Government.

Another issue with Court Challenges is how very few make it to the Supreme Court and how long it may take them to reach that point. No guarantees are in place that the High Court will hear their case, or that they may even receive a temporary block of the law until it is heard. If a block is not put in place, the state is still required to follow the law until it is ruled invalid. The Congress or the United states is not required to defend it action nearly as vigorously as the States must prove they are wrong, since it is the burden of the State to prove the measure invalid, not the Federal Governments to prove it IS valid. This entire situation leaves the Federal Government a greater freedom to enact laws that are not in accordance to the Constitution since it is not responsible to defend if it is, and that the system for a State to challenge a law is burdensome and almost assures only the most egregious offenses will be heard by the Supreme Court. The end result is the States are left virtually powerless to check Federal abuses of power.

It is far too easy for the Congress to require States to do or act certain ways as a means to appease the people or special interest, and require the States to carry the burden of the measure, while the members of Congress are separated from its effects after it is passed. If States a required by unfunded mandates to enact certain programs or actions, the states must find the funding to ensure this, not the Congress. The state will be the one required to find additional revenues or cut other costs and suffer the political burden of the measure, while the members on Congress may take credit for the enactment of it, without the political costs of funding it.

The repeal Amendment gives the States a voice in the Federal system again, as it was originally designed in 1787 by way of the Senate. The Congress was intentionally designed to represent two sovereign bodies. The first being the people, they are Represented in the House of Representatives. The Second body was the States they were represented by the Senate. The reason for this is it was these two bodies, the People and the States were the sovereign bodies that made up the common government, the National Government, and that each should have a voice in its conduct.

The Repeal Amendment restores that voice of the States in the Federal Government. It does not give them the voice they once had in the creation of Laws as they did in the Senate, but it does allow them to voice their dissent to laws that affect all or maybe even one of them in the ability to repeal that law. This ability will require Congress to once again consider the impact of its laws on the states, and also act as a real check on the Congress overstepping its power. This Amendment does not mean the Congress is at the whim of the States, since it would still require 34 to repeal just one law, but it does mean Congress will know it is being watched, and if it does not consider or act in the best interest of the States as well, there is a chance its law is DOA.

Capital Punishment

When you hear Capital Punishment, you a probably thinking about the death penalty. Well I am going to talk about the other certainty of life, taxes. The tax burden in the US is not the heftiest in the world, but that does not mean it is small. It is most of it you just don’t see, but you pay it none the less. A good chunk of your taxes are paid before you have the chance to feel the money, in payroll deductions. So how much are you really paying? The average tax burden in 2008 was 28.2%¹³. What does this mean? In short nearly 1/3 of what you earn goes to taxes, lets see how.

Say you want to buy a new TV. You find a nice flat screen at a local retailer, just what you where looking for. It cost $999.99 dollars for the TV, but you know you have to account for sales tax, thinking it will only minimize the overall increase of your purchase you get it. But how much did it really cost you? How much Tax did you just pay to get this new TV? Well it was not just sales tax, it was not just taxes at all. Lets look at what it REALLY cost, and how much tax you really just paid to get this treat!