The Powerless Power of Congress

                         

     One of the powers that congress holds the rights to is naming post offices. Established in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7, of the American constitution inherently bestows upon congress the ability to name and establish post offices. The exact reason why the framers of the constitution decided to leave this power to congress is beyond me, and to be frank, seems like the substituted nonsensical solution of the power struggle among the three branches. This power needs to be assessed on a more local scale, and applied at a smaller level, rather than overwhelming congress with non-detrimental duties.



         Personally, I feel as if this power, if that's what you wish to deem it as, to entitle and establish Post offices is far beneath that of the responsibilities of congress. A more logical solution would be to leave the decision to a local election to determine names and locations for post offices across America. Understandably, mail is a federal service; so in sense, should be regulated by the federal government. However, despite this being true, I think Congress should hold the power to regulate post offices, but should not be pestered with the bothersome minuscule nature of this duty ratified in the first article of the constitution. It seems to me having a separate clause in the constitution just to dictate the naming and establishing of post offices seems beneath the duties of congress, and would in effect decrease the proficiency at which congress operates by adding more responsibility onto their already stuffed plates.

Response to David Acosta's Blog

               David Acosta writes a very well formulated blog over leglislation regarding the legalization of recreational marijuana consumption that can be found here: http://davetherep.blogspot.com/2015/11/legalize-use-of-recreational-marijuana.html

David touches on a multitude of points that are very logical such as the positive effect it could have on the American economy as a taxable product, the beneficial qualities of cannabis, and the many public representative that support this headstrong campaign for legalization of recreational cannabis consumption. He goes on to further his argument by provoking the question of how tobacco is not under prohibition despite its clearly advertised detrimental health effects.


          Another interesting point Acosta makes his direction towards the amount of Americans currently incarcerated for participating in the usage of a naturally occurring product. I too concur that this full frontal marijuana prohibition is without a doubt ridiculous almost to a comedic level, as legislators of the back end of the generational gap desperately hold onto their archaic values.

     My only contradiction to Acosta's argument is that the full legalization of a mind altering substance is infeasible. Although I do agree with him on the majority of his supporting arguments, there are dangers still associated to the drug, although not directly from consumption. I believe the proper course of action would be for a federal wide decriminalization act on marijuana, removing it from the schedule one drug category. However, much like alcohol and tobacco, the market needs to be regulated. To quote our always entertaining professor, Mr. Seago, "We can't have kindergartners smoking joints during recess." Which can easily be inferred to the fact that if marijuana is not regulated on the market full legalization could in fact be detrimental to the American public. By decriminalizing the product, crime rates would reduce, incarceration rates would reduce considerably, and I guarantee you the number of glossy eyes, foolish grins, and snack food intake would increase exponentially here in America.


Very well written post David.

The legalization of marijuana has come a long way in the past 78 years of cannabis prohibition. In fact, back in 1969 only 12% of Americans supported the legalization of marijuana, whereas today the majority of the population seems to for legalization. ("The next 11 States to   Legalize Marijuana." ) Although I stand as an advocate for marijuana both on the medical and recreational side. Despite this, I do not agree with the full legalization of marijuana. I propose that the best solution to this arbitrary prohibition of a natural growing product would be to decriminalize marijuana.  

Marijuana should be regulated on the market similar to that of alcohol, however I think the age to procure marijuana legally should be 18, rather than 21. Seeing how marijuana has multitudes of health benefits; and no known harmful effects, it shouldn’t be demonized as a schedule 1 drug. I agree that drivers shouldn’t be inebriated, nor should young children be indulging in recreational marijuana, however the punishment does not fit the crime.

Similar to gay marriage, just on a much slower scale, I believe marijuana legalization will be integrated into American society gradually. However, decriminalizing the product with be a much more swift and cleanly executed amendment to the current federal prohibition of marijuana.

Frohlich, Sam Stebbins Thomas C., and Michael B. Sauter, 24/7 Wall St. "The next 11 States to

                         Legalize Marijuana." USA Today. Gannett, 19 Aug. 2015. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

Critique of "Bad Timing?"

A popular story here in Texas, fourteen year old Ahmed Mohamed, was convicted of making a "fake bomb" which was actually a clock. Well according to Fox news, Ahmed had made meeting with an aleged war criminal named Omar al-Bashir. Despite this evidence his invite to the White House has not been recanted, and research into his questionable visits have not been administered. Fox News does do a good job of citing previous evidence such as tweets from president Obama extending this invitation. Despite this evidence that continue to lack exstensive coverage of the boy’s trip to Sudan.Although they do provide a tweet of Ahmed where the boy states, “I am coming home, tell the world I am coming home #Sudan” which in my opinion tags a radical connotation to the boys attitude and who he is meeting in Sudan, his father’s home country. I think this article loses a little bit of credibility without further statements from Obama, or attempts to procure such information from the president in the least. This being said, I must admit it is awfully accusatory to say such slanderous things without substantial evidence to support this, but the boy’s visit to our Nations capital, and obvious terroist target, should in the very least be questioned after meeting with an arguable Islamic terrorist and internationally wanted war criminal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/16/clock-ahead-white-house-visit-after-meeting-with-sudan/?intcmp=hpbt3

What a Time to be Alive: Weed and Work

                Its been a long and enervating battle when it comes to the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana. As said by fox news, "Soon, more americans will be able to legally light a joint." ("New 2015 Laws Tackle Wages and Weed, Pet Tattoos and Tiger Selfies."Fox News. FOX News Network, 31 Dec. 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2015.) 

                    As enlightening as this news may be, an as my position as a marijuana advocate at that, I don't think this is the best way to approach the situation. To quote our always entertaining professor, Professor Seago, "I'm all down for the smoking of weed, I just don't think a five year old should be in kindergarten puffing on a joint during recess."  This sentence alone paradigms my whole argument. Marijuana, as an advocate of it or not, must be recognized a drug that alters your mental state. However, given its beneficial properties, low risk consumption, and the overall readily availableness of this product, I'd say it'd be a wiser decision, as a nation, to decriminalize marijuana rather than fully exonerate it from the law. (Much like colorado did.) 

                 In other, "higher," news , "a number of cities and roughly 20 states are raising their minimum wage next year." ("New 2015 Laws Tackle Wages and Weed, Pet Tattoos and Tiger Selfies."Fox News. FOX News Network, 31 Dec. 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2015.)  So if your mom is nagging you to "get your lazy ass off the couch, and find a job" then there hasn't been a better time before this.

Political Pettiness

Hello to all my classmates, I'd like to share a rather comical piece of election news I found today on USA Today.

Donald Trump, unfortunately promising presidential candidate, made a rather offensive remark to an interviewer for Rolling Stones Magazine saying, "Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?" when referring to Fiorina.

Donald seems to be unshaken of his.... unorthodox, campaign techniques, but later recants his slander with a sly retort, undoubtedly written by someone in his PR department, stating, "I'm talking about persona, I'm not talking about looks."

This desperate appeal to be politically correct was followed up by another statement from Trump where he goes as far as to say, "I think she's got a beautiful face, and I think she's a beautiful woman."

Nevertheless, this is a quick, quirky, and worthy read that you can easily access at http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/09/17/six-takeaways-from-the-second-republican-debate/

Hello to all my classmates, I look forward to learning with you this semester.