Democracy is explained, the Constitution evaluated, and the writer leaves out the 2nd amendment.

Joesph Filco has taught economics and American government. Joseph writes commentary for the Williamsburg Gazette. The gentleman is relatively well-versed. Sometimes, I disagree and write my discourse here because the local Williamsburg Gazette and Daily Press refuse to print the discourse. When writing about the Constitution in his recent article dated February 10th, 2024. " Did they (meaning our founding fathers) mean to elevate material needs into rights? Or did they envision a system of ordered liberty and limited government whose proper function was to protect the rights of self-reliant people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Democrats will, of course, look to Article One, section 8 of the Constitution, to say the federal government can impose a tax for the general welfare of the people. But then, what is general welfare? General welfare, in my opinion, is limited to the power of the Constitution as written. To provide for a standing army or defense of our country as an example, but not welfare, food stamps, or school funding for the individual as an example. These needs would be the responsibilities of the states and not the federal government. 

Democracy is explained, the Constitution evaluated, and the writer leaves out the 2nd amendment.

Excellent article, albeit a bit 5th-grade, but then you are writing to an ignorant class of people who mostly do not understand our Republic anyway. It was, after all, our founding fathers who did not trust the majority to elect a president. Democracy or pure democracy is, of course, "rule by mob," and Democrats like Hillary Clinton maintain the idea she was robbed of an election because she won the popular vote. I have to ask, is that treason not accepting an election? 

According to some, one of the most hotly debated parts of our Constitution, the Second Amendment, is a single sentence that leaves much to interpretation, or does it? Passed in 1789, along with the other amendments you mentioned in your column today, known as the Bill of Rights, I found it odd you left out the 2nd amendment in your list of amendments. 

In my research of historical grammar, we find that at the time of our founding fathers, our founding fathers used run-on sentences or the use of commas to separate ideas. It is one of the reasons people today find the Constitution so hard to read and understand. When we use today's English grammar to look at the 2nd as a list using commas, we associate the list with a well-regulated militia that has the right to bear arms and shall not be infringed as meaning a state military right to bear arms and shall not be infringed, but that is wrong. Each is a separate idea; we have the right to a militia, and we have a right to bear arms, and those rights shall not be infringed. If we look at this from the founding fathers' use of commas in 1789 and other aspects of the Constitution, we see our founding fathers' use of run-on sentences. I proposed this idea to the James City County Police Constitutional  Officer during my time in the citizens' police academy. He has been trained to help other officers as a Constitutional resource when dealing with our laws. He agreed. 

Yet, your liberal friends want to take from the individual the right to bear arms, and we are seeing this today in the general assembly in Richmond as I write this. The same liberals are ignoring sound legislation to deter the use of inanimate objects for harm by imposing minimum sentencing guidelines when a gun is used to commit a crime. 

Democrats want control of all of us, and that is clear to this writer. The conservative Democrat of my youth is gone. We are fortunate enough that the Supreme Court released opinions on the topic in 2008, and they found the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual right to bear arms, a "right" left-wing haters of America want to take from me. 

January 6th: The people's power has diminished over time, proven by the expanding federal government in our lives. Where the federal government picks and chooses which federal laws they want to enforce, or do we need to talk about drugs and the border? The Civil War settled the idea of state rights and mandated federal law over state rights. This is why the federal government sued Texas after Texas decided to enforce federal laws on our border. January 6th was nothing more than a peaceful protest when compared to other peaceful demonstrations defined by Democrats across our nation in 2020. Where the federal government and some state governments looked the other way as cities burned and people died. Yet the Democrats are now throwing people in jail for long periods of time for protesting peacefully, mind you, after a protest came to Washington and their front door steps.  

Nitrogen Tax, Carbon Tax offsets should be reconsidered

Skip Stiles wrote an article in the Daily Press Sunday, 2-4-2024; Skip advocates a carbon tax, much like our nitrogen tax in Virginia, to help "in theory" offset carbon emissions. I offered my experience with nitrogen credits to offset nitrogen loads to our waterways and how this tax, and that is what this is, has actually adversely affected our rural communities in Virginia, and he should reconsider.

Skip, 

I read your article in the Sunday paper today. 

I have to disagree with your approach to carbon reduction. I would point to the nitrogen offset credits program that came to us in the Obama era, designed for wastewater treatment plants, both centralized and decentralized, and the protection of the environment. In reality, these same types of credits have caused more harm to the environment than have helped. Offset nitrogen credits are expensive because only some large treatment plants will sell credits when new wastewater treatment is needed. Overall, the nitrogen offset credit program adversely affects our state's rural population but not so much the urban centers. Urban centers produce the most nitrogen and phosphorus discharge in stormwater runoff. However, local leaders are looking for the state to do something like you are. Local communities are reluctant to raise taxes on their urban communities to deal with these issues you are concerned with. Why? Leaders are leaders because they want power and fear being voted out. You blame the governor when you should point the finger at local leaders. 

The nitrogen offset credit program needs to be dismantled to address aging communities built before 1960 with decentralized wastewater treatment. We can now set the end-of-pipe limits of 10 bods, 10 tss, and a TN in the neighborhood of 15-20mgl. But then these same communities have to buy credits to get to zero and a recurring charge for credits. Rural communities with newer technology will not happen because large urban WWTPs are unwilling to sell credits as they want to keep them for themselves, and when they do sell credits, most cannot afford them. So, in the end, VDH's and DEP's hands are tied, as local community leaders look the other way, and we continue to pollute. Trust me, I know. This past October, I presented a paper on this subject at the 2024 NOWRA conference in Hampton, VA. 

Our issues in the world are significant, but America has generously reduced its carbon footprint while China and India continue to build coal-fired plants at a record pace. If America went carbon neutral tomorrow, our impact on the planet would be near zero. To help you understand the actual cost of a carbon tax, you are regulating our average consumer to a life of costly taxes the state government will no doubt have to implement to pay for the credits, and one has to ask from where these credits will come from. Solar farms? Wind farms? Even solar farms and wind farms hurt the environment, as some believe shore wind farms could be killing Right Whales as the structures attract food Right Whales eat, and the traffic of boats to and from these offshore wind farms is hitting and killing whales. Solar farms destroy the environment by reducing vegetation and trees. Whose job is it to what?

Come on, you know this one! Remove carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. Where the left misses the boat altogether is found in Earth wobble. Removing groundwater from certain parts of our Earth has shifted our polar axes. Nasa confirms this. The tilt of the Earth is moving partly due to groundwater withdrawal, and when this happens, I speculate, as a keen observer of life on this planet, that we produce climate changes. It comes down to the Earth's tilt, whereas some parts of Earth now tilt more towards the sun today than in decades past, thus warming and climate change. 

If you want to get a cup of coffee, I can share my expertise and help you develop solutions where my expertise fits the ongoing saga of climate change. I do care, but our approach is based on greed for money in the form of carbon and nitrogen credit exchanges.