The question of political secession from the Union was fully settled shortly after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. However, a number of communities across the United States have engaged in a different form of rebellion: ignoring the basic Constitutional, cultural and philosophical tenets that are the essence of America.
To be clear, the federal system wisely provides for a substantial amount of local autonomy. Indeed, far too often, Washington exceeds it appropriate authority in dealing with the states. However, the basics of American governance, including free speech, the central government’s control of international borders, the concept of citizenship, fair elections, and the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, have come under attack in a number of jurisdictions.
New York City is a prime example. Moving to the Big Apple’s five boroughs bears more resemblance to leaving the U.S. entirely than merely transferring from one American community to another.
Adding to the hard-left bent of the City’s own politicians is the similar inclination of the state leadership. Taken together, the two governments have produced an environment that is barely recognizable as an American jurisdiction.
The NY state government has introduced a number of measures, some of which have been enacted and others which remain pending, that seek to discourage citizens from participating in the electoral process.
Last year, The November Team, a public relations firm sounded an alarm concerning free speech rights in New York.
In his 2016 State of The State speech, NY Governor Cuomo, who became rather notorious for stopping the Moreland Commission which was designed to attack the Empire State’s rampant corruption issues (both the former Democrat Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, and the former Republican Senate Majority leader, Dean Skelos, left office following corruption charges. Numerous other elected officials have also left office in disgrace) complained that “Political consultants who advise elected officials while also representing clients before government do not currently register as lobbyists…”
Why Cuomo believes those private conversations should be recorded by the government remains unclear. However, New York Democrats have a significant history of abusing the public’s concern about ethical issues to shore up party bosses and attack free speech. The New York City Campaign Finance bureaucracy has been accused of attacking candidates not favored by Democrat party leaders. In 2014, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, currently the Senate’s Minority Leader, introduced a measure in the U.S. Senate to limit the First Amendment in regards to paid political speech during campaigns.
Cuomo’s plan would mean that phone calls between public relations offices and members of the press would have to be reported to a government agency, the state’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics, which has expanded its Advisory Opinion to include PR-type firms.
Below is the description of all these forms and users can levitra without prescription take any of them for making the genital intercourse more pleasurable. Lakers are surviving without Pau Gasol, buy viagra wholesale needing overtimes to win in Oklahoma and Houston this week. Malaysian ginseng is one among the best used herbal cures for treating weight gain due to hypothyroid function. http://deeprootsmag.org/author/david-mcgee/page/9/ viagra 100mg generika S., the anti snoring mouthpiece is actually widely utilized in both European viagra price india countries and Canada as a means for preventing the allergies from recurring, and I haven’t had another attack since.
In another anti-free speech move, Assemblyman David Weprin,a Democrat who represents part of NYC in the state legislature, has introduced legislation that is such a broad attack against the First Amendment that it has attracted national attention, garnering substantial criticism. This is how the Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh describes Weprin’s measure:
“…under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was “no longer material to current public debate or discourse”…And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was “no longer material to current public debate.” Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent business people and others.But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law.” A failure to comply with a request to remove material from articles, search engines or other places would make the author liable for, at a minimum, a penalty of $250 per day plus attorney fees.
Not content to only violate the First Amendment, NYC has unilaterally repealed Second Amendment rights as well.
A New York group concerned about the Second Amendment recently noted: “After the cases of Heller and McDonald were decided in 2008 and 2010, respectively, it appeared that we now had a firm ‘right to keep and bear arms’ in our homes. Except if your ‘home’ happens to be located within the five boroughs of New York City: in that case, you are hampered by a police department and trial courts that hold themselves above the United States Supreme Court…the NYPD has virtually ignored the Heller case in every sense of the word…To make matters worse, the lower courts in NY is filled to the brim with anti-gun judges who act as though Heller does not even exist…the law in NYC vis-a-vis the Rules of the City of New York demonstrates that the right to keep and bear arms is not recognized as a right within the five boroughs.”
The absurdities of life in NYC are not restricted to huge issues such as Constitutional Rights or fair elections. Intrusions into everyday life also are a factor. In 2012, NYC became the first city to impose a ban on the sale of some sugary drinks. The move was overturned by the state Court of Appeals, but only on the grounds that the Mayor lacked the authority to enact the ban on his own.
The City government is also attempting to go a step beyond in regulating garbage. In addition to a mandate increasingly common throughout the nation to separate paper and plastic from “regular” garbage, NYC also demands residents return old electronic equipment such as TVs and monitors in a specialized manner. The garbage issue is now taking a seriously weird turn, as a plan to mandate that food scraps also be separated from other garbage is being test-run. When residents objected to the requirement to store these insect and rodent-attracting items until specialized collection days, they were advised to put the scraps in their freezer!
There are some rights that NYC seems to care about—but only if you are an alien or an illegal immigrant. City politicians, reports the NY Observer, “are urging Mayor Bill de Blasio to allocate upwards of $23 million from his city budget to help immigrants in danger of arrest and expulsion under President Donald Trump—including $12 million to ensure those battling deportation receive legal counsel. The needs and fears of New York City’s half-million undocumented immigrants were a constant theme of the budget response Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and Queens Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras-Copeland, chair of the influential Committee on Finance…”
Additionally, reports The NY Post NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer wants to set up a public-private partnership to provide payments for legal fees incurred by aliens seeking to become U.S. citizens.