As I write this article, the presumed candidate for the Republican Party, Mitt Romney and President Obama squared off in speeches in Ohio. There was one shared theme in their remarks: both candidates addressed the sad state of the economy, as they well should. It is clear that the economy and jobs are the main issues in this battle for the presidency. In fact, they are practically, the only challenge.
The Bold Pursuit is pleased to present JWT's Journal, a column by John Wayne Tucker, former candidate for U.S. Congress (Missouri), Minister and Teacher.
Summary: This article explains the Arizona Law SB1070 and the conflict between Arizona and the federalgovernment regarding the enforcement of existing immigration laws. It also describes a history of State’s Rights and the nullification controversy that has concerned and continues to provoke the Republic. Once again, we are faced with the question of whether the federal government can force a state to comply with its laws when the state finds violation of its rights as a result of those laws.
This week, the Supreme Court began deliberating the Arizona Law SB1070. Basically, the United States Government has laws against illegal immigration. The Executive Branch which is charged with executing the laws refuses to enforce the law. Therefore, Arizona has said, if the Federal Government won’t enforce the law, the state will do it for them. As simple and reasonable as that sounds, it is not that easy in the real world of government and politics.
This approach is not considered reasonable and is very complex because:
- The states would not ratify the Constitution until they the guarantee of State’s Rights was preserved (in The Bill of Rights).
Millions watched (with awe, I would hope) as the President gave a speech on the White House lawn last week in which he decried the possibility that the Supreme Court might strike down all or part of his Health Care Bill (known to much of the country as Obamacare). The President chastised, with genuine anger, the very notion that a body of people who …”are not even elected officials of the people”… should have the audacity to overturn a bill that was duly passed by the Congress of the United States. This kind of angry sentiment and outright disrespect for the very work of the Supreme Court conjured up all sorts of images about the kind of president we have in Mr. Obama. This supposed Constitutional Law Professor and former Senator does not know about the separation of powers? Our president does not know that determining the constitutionality of laws passed by the Congress of the United States and by states themselves has been the single most important and consistent job and power of the Supreme Court since John Marshal instituted the power of Judicial Review in the issue of Marbury v Madison during the Thomas Jefferson presidency? Is it possible that our President does not know these things that he, the entire Congress and the government of each state in the union has declared that every high school student MUST know before graduation from high school?
At this point, the outrage over the discovery that members of Congress are not held accountable under the laws of insider trading has apparently given way to other issues. When this “perk” to being a member of Congress was first discovered, the protest was enough to warrant the United States Congress to take some action to clean up their act a little bit. After all, the public approval rating for members of Congress is at an all-time low (only 15%). So, the development of a “feel good” bill seemed the least they could do.
Why call The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act a “feel good” bill? Because it is one of those laws that addresses an issue that has people upset, but does not really have any teeth. An example of such a bill is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon while driving by a school in Missouri unless you carry a Missouri carry permit as opposed to another state’s permit. While this law appeases those who want more regulation on guns, it is apparent that such a law is almost unenforceable and does little real good.
It is with reserve and considerable trepidation that I approach this topic of great concern both for today’s issues as well as for the message it sends regarding the very nature of our Republic and the viability of our entire system of government. However, the issue of oil and energy is one of the most critical issues of our time.
There is a tax deduction issue known as depletion accounting whereby an industry such as oil, timber or mining can declare a sort of depreciation such as you might count the loss of value for the vehicles that you use in your business. The money you invested in vehicles, for example depreciates with time, therefore, you can declare that as lost value in calculating income taxes. However, in this case, it the depreciation is counted toward the reduction of your reserve product, such as oil from your well, ore from your mine or timber from your forest.