More important than the “debate”

Tuesday night when I tucked Dawn in for the night my first words were, “I'm sorry.” I was sorry she had to suffer through the least funny come-dy routine ever produced.

I hadn't watched a campaign debate since Al Gore “debat-ed” Dick Cheney as vice pres-idential candidates. I just prefer to read. The important issues are passed over in favor of childish name calling that is an insult to the intelligence of the audience.

Donald Trump interrupting and carrying on was like he was trying so hard not to swear, he forgot the subject. Joe Biden was a perfect exam-ple of ineptness yet greatness at forgetting the subject. Chris Wallace; did he get paid for that?

It's an accidental conspira-cy, getting lost in the conver-sation so that the important issues are glossed over and forgotten.

Forgotten is the Tenth Amendment and Article One, Section Eight of the Constitu-tion, obliterated by tantrums of large children.

Take the gas car ban in California. Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered that no new gas or diesel-powered cars can be sold in California be-ginning in 2035.

• It is correct to question mandating what people can buy and produce.

• It is correct to question how power will be supplied to all these cars when California can't keep up with demand for electricity with only 6 percent of their cars now being electric.

• It is OK to question whether a state with a legisla-ture of elected representatives should tolerate an executive branch that acts like a monar-chy.

All these things are legiti-mate concerns. But buried in the story is the speculation about the nomination of a re-placement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If it makes the Su-preme Court solidly conserva-tive, they say, then Trump's EPA will prevail in overriding California's emissions rules.

Let's get something straight. On the so-called conservative side we constantly hear about the Constitution. We hear the nominee to the court should be a “constructionist” or an “originalist.” Why would an originalist uphold an EPA override of the rules of a state? Is it that the Bush legacy of an oil based economy prevails and would be hurt by a mass exo-dus to electric cars? As Cali-fornia goes, so goes the na-tion. Or are they posing as trying to save us from a threat to a logical supply and demand economy?

The problems with New-som's order are so obvious and numerous that it would seem unnecessary for the federal government to intervene. All the problems that anyone cites across these once united, yet independent states, are rooted in a transfer of power from the states to the central govern-ment. The risks and bad policy are more likely to occur be-cause the central government is always there to steal from the careful and give to the careless.

The Electoral College along with the parts of the Constitu-tion mentioned above should allow states to make mistakes without dragging down the rest of us. With the President taking responsibility for Cali-fornia's seemingly crazy affairs, he's involving the less crazy among us. But nobody pays attention because of all the noise from the trivial schoolyard banter.

Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis said it best in 1932:

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic ex-periments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Kings are not elected. They are chosen. The fog of the chatter hides this fact. There must be some explanation for the inconsistencies.

Any responses to The Alternative may be sent as a letter to the editor or to Fritz’s email address 4selfgovernment@gmail.com. His blog, www.alternativebyfritz.com, is now being updated regularly. It's diverse, like the universities claim to be.