Now THIS is important: Scotland must secede from the EU immediately! Or perhaps some of you clever folks out there could make an EU compliant 87dB Bagpipe to replace the older tech 90dB model? Betcha then there would be a black market in 'conversion kits' to turn the 87dB models to full-yell 90dB types. You know the type: they sell the parts unassembled with an instruction sheet with a disclaimer that it's illegal - blah blah... put some ads in Soldier of Haggis Magazine... ****** Real Audio ****** Ok, maybe it's time for bed. Peace.
Two words for the European Union States' Rights The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Very simply, the Amendment prevents the federal government from usurping the individuality of the states. Many modern Confederates still refer to the American Civil War as The War for States' Rights, and are, in some senses, correct in this. In the modern mindset, it is harder to justify the divisions 'twixt people this fostered, but until the abolition of slavery, those people didn't count in civil liberties issues and were only 3/5 of a person in financial matters (e.g. taxation & apportionment). Toward the debate in terminology, it is true that the Civil War does not meet the definition of a "civil war". To the other, States' Rights cannot usurp the individual. Thus, under the notion of States' Rights, the EU would have little power to regulate pipes in Scotland, yet the passage of a properly-written law would give other member states of the EU the power to set new noise regulations. Case in point: speed limits in the USA. We should not look to the actual speed limit debate of the late 1980s and early 1990s for philosophical insight; the Reagan Administration frequently touted States' Rights (a traditionally GOP issue) in the form of a bribe or threat--You have the right to comply or we will go out of our way to deprive you. Public funds were often threatened to achieve cooperation with seemingly unrelated laws. (e.g.--Some states resisted the lifting of the 55 mph speed limit; those that did not comply might see the loss of some federal road-construction and maintenance funds.) The best modern American drama of States' Rights is currently playing out in Attorney General John Aschroft's office, as the AG prepares to prosecute medicinal marijuana and assisted suicide. In both cases, the government usurps the powers of the state. For instance, when the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-Op was voted by the _______ County Council (Alameda?) to be an official medicinal marijuana outlet for the County, the object was to place the county government as an obstacle between the feds and the co-op. The idea being that before the feds shut down the co-op, they would have to do battle with the County Government. The effort to stop the states from exercising their rights is an extension of a commercial fight that Congress has undertaken. In interests of federal policy, Congress, regulating at best through its commercial endorsement in the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8), usurps the right of the States to respect the wishes of their people to explore and implement marijuana as medicine. Thus it was the federal government that arrested Peter McWilliams and contributed to his death, and not the California state government. (It should be noted that in addition to the note about McWilliams needing to smoke marijuana to prevent him from vomiting his medications, even denying his legal medications--e.g. refusing necessary medical care). There's any number of pieces out there about the McWilliams travesty; it is, in its own, shocking that our government would treat a human being this way. Even more repugnant, though, is the issue of States' Rights, which says that the fed shouldn't have done this at all. It was an unnecessary demonstration of force against a human being that contributed to his death. And all of this because the government wants to suspend one of the safeguards against tyranny in quest of a commerce-centered outcome. More is available on Peter McWilliams at the website dedicated to his memory. In the case of assisted suicide, the issue is less barbaric. What, for instance, would be the point of killing a terminally ill patient to make your point? Yet let's review: Oregon passes Measure 16, authorizing doctor-assisted suicide. Opposition forces--coincidentally disgruntled Christian legions beaten back in their anti-gay crusade--file suit against the new law, claiming it violates the rights of patients everywhere. The law muddles around in court, and is eventually upheld. A second ballot measure arises, sponsored by the Christian opposition, to revoke Measure 16. The people reject this measure, reaffirming their support for the right of the suffering individual to exeunt gracefully. Oregon reply memorandum (note, all documents linked from target page are pdf) World Right-to-Die page of articles related to Ashcroft's crusade in behalf of suffering. In each case, what is happening is that the Congress and/or Executive are attempting to circumvent the Constitution of the United States and achieve an effect that they find desirable but are unable to foster through legal channels. Quite simply, the underlying notion of American rights is that our government exists by the consent of the governed. Essentially, the feds are gambling that nobody will secede from the Union over such issues, and that they will eventually establish legal precedent to regularly circumvent the Constitution in this way. As pertains to the EU: what will the Germans say when the beer-purity laws must be revoked in favor of "fair trade"? (Presently, I'm told that Budweiser, in Germany, is real beer. Who would have thought? Then again, serve the swill some call beer in this country in Germany, and you'll be lucky if all they do is hang you.) French wine? Olive oil, cheeses (the Vatican once banned certain cheeses for their alleged aphrodisiac qualities), good heavens, what if the tea in England isn't proper? And there's one: the Crown actually sent out regulators to survey pubs; you see, sometimes in the US, a "pint" of beer is usually exactly 1 fluid ounce short of a proper pint; put the glasses next to each other and you'll see. Thus, they get to sell pints and save an ounce every time. In England, this doesn't fly, obviously. So what was apparently happening was that the barkeeps were pulling bad draughts, giving excess head in the pints, in order to save stock. And so the Crown sent regulators into the field to cite offenders for pouring a bad beer. Now, I raise several glasses to this. But what happens when fair competition between the member states means Brittany has to change its beer standards? Can you imagine getting only 12 ounces (I don't even know what that glass is called; the classic sharp hourglass) of Newcastle Brown? And why? Hence, States' Rights. I admit I'm a fan of the US Constitution despite my criticisms of this country. It's fairly simple. The Preamble sets the tone; Article 1 defines the legislative, Article 2 the Executive, Article 3 the Judicial; Articles 4-8 are procedural. But in each article, the government is specifically empowered. Then comes the Bill of Rights, which secures the people against their government, and so commands that if it's not in the Constitution for what the government can do, then the government cannot do it. We have engaged a seemingly eternal battle (220+ years) trying to find a way around the Constitution. The federal exists for the benefit of the states, and the states for the people. The whole of government should be for the benefit of its subjects, else that government is not fit to rule. It is my hoity-toity American opinion, then, that the EU ought to back off the bagpipes and write responsible legislation. And in this country, that's why we sometimes obsess over seeming trivia. For instance, what happens when the EU nakedly oversteps itself? And then everyone converges in court and the angry ones say, "They can't do that." And then the EU whips out a long list of usurpations which have been upheld in court (by virtue of the issue of usurpation being irrelevant to the issues of those trials). You know, perhaps it doesn't seem a big task to empty your pockets when a cop asks you to, even if s/he has no reason for asking. At the same time, refusal to comply for the hell of it usually gets you further harassment. And so we get into court and the guy who was carrying two unlicensed guns and a pound of crack gets to walk away because the cops had no reason to be bugging him. It's like the current x-ray scanner controversy in our Homeland Security issues: yes ... you can see people's genitalia with it. And, yes, that is a little bit of a violation. And then what: Uh-oh, is that dynamite in that kid's pocket? And then a search with probable cause turns up a plastic sleeve of M&M's. So when the police start busting people on the streets for having drugs and paraphernalia, they would present their nudie-evidence and, in response to the obvious search of people beyond probable cause, the state would then provide evidence of convictions upheld in federal court from airport-terrorism issues. It's gone so far in this country that we argue over dog searches. Honestly? Make "incidental" contact with the dog. Presently the dogs are authorized to search the air molecules around your person, but not your person itself. Once the dog touches you, it's searching you. That's how nitpicky we are in this country. But the point is that precedents are built to be exploited in many cases. The EU can pass what noise regulations it wants, but they ought to leave the bagpipes alone. To the other, I lived in Oregon for a while; we used "bird cannons", which generated small propane explosions to scare birds away from crops with the sound. I lived on the other side of a hill from Highway 22 and the Willamette River. Ten miles down the Highway and on the other side of the river these cannons were guarding the fields. I could hear them in my house. Local noise ordinances in Tacoma and Seattle, Washington, for years, were aimed at young people with loud stereos. Fifty feet was the rule. Unless, of course, you were a business blaring bad elevator music onto the sidewalks as "courtesy". If you were a white business owner, you could be as loud as you wanted in Tacoma. So, no, don't give the EU precedent. One day you'll be sitting around with an American mate, listening to tunes and drinking bad tea, and your buddy will say, "Cool song, turn it up." And you'll reply, "Sorry, I can't. This is as loud as the EU allows stereos to be manufactured for sale in Europe." And then you'll realize that the reason you can't hear your song is that the store across the street and four stories down is blaring "O Britannia" with the volume notched to sixty in a show of hostility against the rabble, namely,insofar as I can tell, Muslims and Scots. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wow. Bet you didn't think I'd get all that from two words. As a last notion on States' Rights, check out Britain's famous (and infamous) Lord Acton. One of the greatest thinkers in European and world history, Acton has lost credibility among some of this nation's academia because when he weighed up all the factors, his opinions supported the Confederacy during the American Civil War. Insofar as I've ever understood, it wasn't the idea of human bondage that was at issue for him--human bondage was in evidence everywhere--but the idea that the (Union) government had definitively overstepped itself in seeking this resolution. Acton might have some wisdom to offer the EU; perhaps some to its citizens. Okay, that's it. I promise .... thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
