Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Why have I not posted a report on Monday’s night Special meeting? I think it was covered in such detail by Bernice in her blog that no repetitive account could do justice to the meeting and its implications.
To pass an Ordinance requires a majority of the Council not of the quorum. There are several ways to reject a proposed Ordinance besides voting against it. That includes not attending the meeting which by not being a potential yes vote is in fact a no vote. Likewise, abstaining is in fact a vote against.
Indeed I will continue to maintain that any Council member that cats a negative vote or abstains MUST explain their reasoning.
It was obvious at 7pm Monday with only 5 Council members present that there would not be the 4 yes votes. Rivers’ dictatorial rulings including not permitting Starch (or the Developer) to make a statement because it was not on the “printed agenda” confirmed my gut feeling that Plainfield’s interests would not be a consideration.
Obviously the present Council is not desirous for any improvement in Plainfield. Lip service is given but the truth seems to be that the status quo is beneficial for them and those they listen to.
After all it was Taylor at the previous meeting who said that she (and her colleagues) knew “how to play the game”; and also “Count the votes”.
The inference had to be that unless something was given, nothing would be done. One could extrapolate that there was an exercise in blackmail, although her remarks about “under the table” did not necessarily apply.
Yes Mayor Mapp did suggest that the opposition to this PILOT was in retribution for administration’s resistance to a vague Housing Authority deal involving the turning over of the downtown city owned lots between Central and Madison Aves for an apartment complex supported by Dunn. Could that have been the truth?
Could this disaster be the product of a power struggle between Assemblyman and County Party President Green and Mayor Mapp?
How many Council members themselves or their relatives have positions in government or related authorities and feel free of outside pressure?
How can a Council which has had members that have been delinquent in their own taxes or do not pay taxes honestly position itself as being concerned with the source of income from a developer? Apparently not objectively.
How can Councilors who would turn a meeting into a third world melee show the maturity to be responsible/
These are questions that I can only ponder, but have no answers perhaps the readers do.
Monday, August 31, 2015
We have heard a great deal from Trump and the other Republicans seeking the nomination about the “Anchor Babies”. Most of us are not familiar with the term and its significance. This is how Wikipedia defines the term:
"Anchor baby is a pejorative term for a child born in the U.S. to a foreign national mother who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.There is a popular misconception that the child's U.S. citizenship status legally helps the child's parents and siblings to quickly reclassify their visa status (or lack thereof) and to place them on a fast pathway to acquire lawful permanent residence and eventually United States citizenship".
According to former Plainfielder, Michael Rosin, who has become a Constitutional scholar in an email he wrote: “Donald Trump made a “top men” claim a week or so ago when he said that he had the support of “great scholars” to support a lawsuit he plans to bring claiming that children born here to two aliens, not legally present in the United States, are not birthright citizens. (Here is the relevant text of the Fourteenth Amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
One of the “great scholars “John Eastman, Dean of the Law School at Chapman University and also Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage claims that when the 39th Congress drafted the Citizenship Clause in 1866 it intended to preserve the meaning of precursor text in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.
Eastman’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause goes much farther than necessary to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. with neither parents legally present in the country”.
I further learned that a strict interpretation of the law is that even if the child is born in the United States neither parent should be a citizen of a foreign country. If they are then the child would not be a citizen.
According to Rosin:
"If that were true them neither Barack Obama nor Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) was born a U.S. citizen. Hughes, by the way, was (1) Governor of New York (1907-10), (2) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (1910-16), (3) Republican presidential candidate (1916), (4) Secretary of State (1921-25), and (4) Chief Justice of the United States. In my opinion, he and Henry Clay are the two greatest persons who came close to but lost a presidential election.
Someone else noted that on Eastman’s interpretation Bobby Jindal, who was born in the U.S. shortly after his parents immigrated from India, was not born a U.S. citizen.
Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, IS a U.S. citizen thanks to 1401(g). It gets crazier. Jeb Bush’s wife Colomba was born in Mexico in 1953. She and Jeb married in 1974. Their first two children were born (in the U.S.) in 1976 and 1977. (FYI, I haven’t confirmed the birthplace of the second child.) Colomba did not become a naturalized citizen until 1979. So only their youngest child, born in 1983, was born a U.S. citizen. Could it be that their oldest child, who is the Texas Land Commissioner, is ineligible to hold that office”?