Mediaboss Marketing

Q: Many dont know the difference between a county commissioner and a county council member. Briefly explain the difference in responsibilities, and what you hope to accomplish as a commissioner if elected.

A: The council is responsible for setting tax rates and budgets for all county departments, such as the sheriffs office, or the county highway department. The commissioners act as the county executive. Theyre responsible for the daily management of the countys business. They also act as the legislative branch, creating or amending ordinances. One of the many things I love about the office, is that its made up of three people, so no one person has unilateral power. They must work together to reach agreement on issues. This appeals to me, as I believe in consensus building. As commissioner, I will work to bring a fresh approach to the business of Bartholomew County. As we have seen through the pandemic, technology has become vital to delivering and receiving information and services. I will bring an understanding of the efficiency and value of embracing new technologies. Also, I would work to expand our incredible veterans office to create a true outreach to our military heroes.

Q: One remark often heard from first-term elected county officials is that they had no idea how much time the job required until after being sworn into office. What have you learned to be the lesser-known responsibilities of a commissioner, and are you confident youll be able to make the necessary time commitment?

A: I have had many in-depth conversations about the responsibilities of the office with the current commissioners, and I have a strong grasp of the time commitment. Along with the scheduled meetings, there are work sessions, board appointments, and special meetings that I will attend. I also know that there will be citizens who will need some of my time as issues arise. I not only understand the commitment, I look forward to it. I have spent my entire life looking for ways to help others, and I have given freely of my time when it was needed. Also, having been a business owner for 30 years, my staff is quite supportive of the idea that I wont be in the office as often, which Im not quite sure how to take.

Q: If city and county officials had agreed last winter to a proposal to become a Second Amendment sanctuary, local governments could have claimed the right to refuse to cooperate with any state and federal firearm law they deemed unconstitutional. Did you agree or disagree with the proposal introduced in January to become a Second Amendment sanctuary?

A: I fully support the Second Amendment, and a persons right to protect themselves. I would not, however, vote for sanctuary status for several reasons. First, due to Indianas limited home rule status, commissioners, who are the keepers of home rule powers, do not have the authority to pass laws that are in conflict with state law. Second, our fore-fathers, in their infinite wisdom, anticipated these types of challenges, and vested the third branch, the courts, with the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. And third, in my opinion, the most important thing an elected official must understand is the limit to the authority of their office. I believe declaring sanctuary status of any kind, and saying there are laws we will not enforce, is government overreach.

Tony London

Age: 52

Education: Columbus North High School Class of 1986. Received bachelor of arts degree in political science, history and religious studies from Indiana University in 1990.

Career: Founder and president of the Tony London Co. since 1991.

Community activities: Columbus Area Planning Commission; Columbus Board of Zoning Appeals; Columbus Area Career Connection Board of Advisors; Taylorsville Bears/Bartholomew County Bears Youth Football and Cheer Board; Columbus Indiana Scottish Festival.

Family: Wife, Amy. Son, Charlie, 16 and daughter, Kate, 12.

View original post here:
Tony London: Candidate looks forward to serving in public office - The Republic

With the ReOpenNC group planning protests in five North Carolina cities on Memorial Day including Greensboro, the husband of one of the groups founders published a Facebook video that says violence shouldnt be ruled out.

Are we willing to kill people? Are we willing to lay our lives down? We have to say yes, Adam Smith said in a Facebook Live video posted on Friday.

Later in the 17-minute video, he said, If you bring force, were gonna bring force. If you bring guns, were gonna bring guns. If youre armed with this, were gonna be armed with this.

Smith, husband of ReOpenNC founder Ashley Smith of Morganton, took the video down after it was first reported by the Raw Story website. But Ashley Smith reposted the video Sunday afternoon on the ReOpenNC Facebook page.

Maybe you agree with him and maybe you dont, but we have nothing to hide, Ashley Smith wrote on Facebook. This group is built on the Constitution and that includes free speech and the second amendment. He is simply stating to protect his family and our freedom he is willing to take up arms like our forefathers did.

Reached late Sunday night by the News & Record, Ashley Smith said that her husbands comments have nothing to do with the rallies occurring today.

"In no way was it in any context with any rallies," she said.

Weve done five events in Raleigh ... and theres not been firearms at any of them, she said. Its going to be very patriotic, very family friendly.

The Greensboro rally will be at 11 a.m. at the Phill G. McDonald Plaza, 110 S. Greene St.

Ashley Smith said her husband is an ex-Marine who remains willing to die for all of you too, as he was when he was enlisted.

Adam Smith was also present along with other armed Blue Igloo demonstrators in downtown Raleigh on May 16. Blue Igloo is likely a play on the word Boogaloo, which the Anti-Defamation League describes as a slang term for a coming civil war.

The ReOpenNC group formed on Facebook on April 7, quickly growing to its current 78,900 members. The group has held numerous protests in downtown Raleigh, near the Legislative Building and the Governors Mansion, in opposition to Gov. Roy Coopers executive orders aimed at slowing the coronavirus spread.

State Capitol Police arrested Ashley Smith at one of the ReOpenNC rallies in Raleigh for disobeying an executive order. In a video of the incident, Adam Smith calls police little thugs for arresting her. Look at these thugs, people, arresting her for walking on the sidewalk, Adam Smith says.

Even as Cooper relaxed social restrictions on Friday, moving the state into Phase Two of his reopening plan by allowing more businesses to open and restaurants to resume indoor dining at reduced capacity, the group planned Memorial Day Freedom Rallies today. In addition to Greensboro, rallies are planned in Charlotte, Asheville, Raleigh and Wilmington at 11 a.m., according to the groups Facebook page.

The group seeks an end to all social restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has infected 23,222 people and led to 744 deaths in the state since March.

In the Facebook Live video, Adam Smith calls suggestions to wear masks and practice social distancing as part of an indoctrination test.

It is a test run to see how much liberty were willing to give up without a fight, Adam Smith said. Boy, you know what I say? Not an inch. Not an inch, Mr. Cooper.

While calling anyone who took issue with her husbands comments disgraceful, Ashley Smith said Sunday that he maybe could have chosen his words better.

Could he have said it better? Ashley Smith said on Facebook. Maybe, but thats not for anyone to decide how a free person should speak their mind. Our founding fathers would not be pleased that we gave up so much for so little. Look how hard we are having to fight to get our freedom back!

The News & Observer reached out Sunday to police departments in the five cities where ReOpenNC plans protests today.

Ron Glenn, public information officer for the Greensboro Police Department said: Im not sure if anyone is aware of that video, but the group has a permit to use the space (for the rally).

We have officers assigned to work that event and enough resources in place to handle that event," he said. "Were not expecting any issues from that group. The organizers have followed the protocol required to be in that area.

Police from the other four cities have not responded to the News & Observer.

Walt and Stephanie Emery of Winston-Salem were on hand for the protests in Raleigh on Tuesday, where demonstrators demanded restrictions be lifted on businesses in North Carolina.

Protesters gather at the corner of Jones and Wilmington streets across from the legislative building in Raleigh on Tuesday. Most called for North Carolina to reopen businesses shuttered due to the COVIID-19 pandemic.

Staff writer Jonas Pope IV and News & Record reporter Kenwyn Caranna contributed to this report.

This article is published through the N.C. News Collaborative, a partnership of Lee Newspapers, Gannett and McClatchy newspapers in North Carolina that aims to better inform readers throughout the state.

See the original post:
Husband of ReOpenNC leader says hes willing to kill people to fight government control - Winston-Salem Journal

We live in a country where the right to buy a gun is more sacrosanct than the right of a black person to not be shot and killed by someone with a gun.

On Feb. 23, Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man was out jogging in a Georgia neighborhood when he was chased down, shot, and killed by Gregory and Travis McMichael, a white father and his son. Despite having a video of the killing and knowing the identities of the two suspects, it took Georgia authorities more than two months to arrest the McMichaels, which finally occurred on May 7.

Also in the past month, a group of gun shop owners, would-be gun owners, and gun rights advocates filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal District Court challenging an order signed by Governor Charles D. Baker '79 that mandated non-essential businesses, including gun shops, remain closed during the pandemic. On May 7, less than one month later and the same day the McMichaels were finally arrested United States District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock issued an order allowing gun shops to reopen because, even in an emergency, we dont surrender our constitutional rights. Judge Woodlock found that the plaintiffs Second Amendment right to bear arms deserve[s] respect and vindication.

It took a federal judge in Massachusetts less time to uphold the right to buy a gun than it took officials in Georgia to arrest two white men who were captured on video shooting and killing a black man. Maybe this says something about the differences between our federal and state judicial systems, between our civil and criminal law institutions. Maybe it says something about the differences between Massachusetts and Georgia, between north and deep south. Undoubtedly, it says something about who we are and what we value.

The Constitution sets the parameters for the relationship between the people and their government. It does not really govern the way ordinary citizens interact with each other. Judge Woodlocks decision rests on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, meaning the government cannot interfere with a persons right to buy, own, or carry a gun. Apparently, government officials in Georgia also didnt want to intervene when two white men used their guns to kill a black man for no reason the case has now been overseen by four different prosecutors.

The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, does not create rights. Rather, it was written to inspire colonists who felt increasingly oppressed by the British government. The words are aspirational and, unlike the Constitution, do not carry the force of law. Still, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the first draft, wanted his words to be an expression of the American mind. The preamble states, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What may have been self-evident in the 1770s are only half-truths today.

No matter how one feels about the Second Amendment, we should take comfort that, at least in this one instance in Massachusetts, our judicial system worked the way it should: a group of people who believed their constitutionally-protected rights were violated filed a lawsuit, a judge heard them, and their rights were protected.

But Second Amendment rights only go so far. The Second Amendment grants the right to own a gun; it is not a license to kill. The murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia should shock our collective conscience not only for its brazenness but because it proves, yet again, that our system of justice does not work for everyone. It should not take hashtags and marches over two months to prompt government officials to arrest two men for murder, particularly when the crime was captured on video.

The Constitution protects the rights of Gregory and Travis McMichael to own guns. Yet for Ahmaud Arbery and countless black people across the country, the Declaration of Independences recognition of our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apparently doesnt apply.

The time for us to get our priorities straight as a country is long overdue.

Jennifer A. Serafyn is a graduate student at the Harvard Kennedy School and a Zuckerman Fellow at the Center for Public Leadership.

Originally posted here:
America's Two Kinds of Justice | Opinion - Harvard Crimson

Remember civics class ... and not paying attention? These days, we need that civics lesson more than ever. The Civics Project is a fact-based, nonpartisan weekly column meant to answer your most basic questions about how the American government and political system are supposed to work.

Question: Why do courts need to interpret the U.S. Constitution? Why dont they just follow what it says?

Answer: Some provisions of the U.S. Constitution are very clear. For example, Section 1 of Article Two of the Constitution requires that the president must be at least 35 years old. However, the Constitution has provisions that are much less clear. For example, the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. What is cruel, and how unusual does it need to be?

The Second Amendment provides that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But, few would argue this means we cannot keep felons from owning assault-style rifles. Many of the most important provisions of the Bill of Rights use broad language like unreasonable search and seizure and due process of law. We rely on courts to give these phrases meaning.

Further, even in the case where the provision is relatively clear, the world around us is changing. The Constitution doesnt change much, but the society it governs changes a great deal. So how do you apply the Constitution when the language is expansive or to situations that were not even imagined when the document was written?

Judges use different methods to settle these conflicts. They look at the meaning of the words, the intentions of the framers, and precedent. You have probably heard buzz words like Strict Construction, Original Meaning, Living Constitution, or Textualism. Those are just some of the strategies that judges use to discern the meaning of the Constitution.

Some argue that the Constitution should only be interpreted based solely on the text. Others argue we should look to the original intent of the drafters. Yet, others contend that judges should be more pragmatic, and the Constitution must be interpreted in light of our current society and not just based on what was known years or even centuries ago.

The cynical would claim that these strategies are just defenses for judges to reach the conclusions that they would have reached anyway. Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has been the most popular of our federal branches of government, largely because it has been seen as outside regular partisan battles. Its role is purportedly to neutrally interpret the law. Current Chief Justice John Roberts has tried to reinforce that view by asserting that judges are not defined by the president who appointed them. Yet, increasingly people see the court as partisan. And that is unfortunate.

As Congress and the president are unable to reach compromises and legislate, many issues are being decided in the courts. As a result, judges play a greater role in the U.S. than in other constitutional republics with more detailed constitutions that specify individual rights and government powers. Our political fights become legal fights. Issues such as abortion, immigration and health care are currently being litigated.

I suspect the deciding issue for many voters in this years election will be which candidate is more likely to appoint judges and justices who will issue decisions which will align with their values.

Kevin Wagner is a noted constitutional scholar, and political science professor at Florida Atlantic University. The answers provided do not represent the views of the university.

The professor wants to hear from you. Keep in mind that no question is too basic; but it can be too partisan. So if you have a question about how American government and politics works, send us an email at rchristie@pbpost.com.

Read this article:
The Civics Project: Like it or not, much of the Constitution is subject to interpretation... and increasingly, partisanship - Palm Beach Post

As part of his May Budget Revision (the May Revise), Governor Newsom proposed several revenue raising solutions. The Governors Department of Finance has just released the proposed budget trailer bill language to implement this revenue raisers. The first proposal is a 3-year suspension of the net operating loss (NOL) deduction and the second proposal is a 3-year cap on the use of business tax credits. The following is an explanation of the proposed budget trailer bill language.

The proposed trailer bill would add a new code section to both the personal income tax (PIT) and bank and corporation (B&C) tax law sections of the California Revenue & Taxation Code (CRTC). In the PIT law section, proposed new Section 17276.23 would be added as follows:

Subdivision (a) provides that notwithstanding all of the current law CRTC sections dealing with the NOL deduction, no net operating loss deduction shall be allowed for any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2020 and before January 1, 2023 (thereby covering three tax years). This section applies to both a loss and a carryover of a loss.

Subdivision (b) provides that the carryover period is extended for each year that the deduction is suspended. For example, for a loss generated in 2019, the taxpayer will have three additional years added to the carryover period because the taxpayer cannot use them for the next three years.

Subdivision (c) provides the following exemptions: (1) taxpayers with net business income of less than $1 million for the taxable year. Business income is defined as income from a trade or business; income from rental activity; or, income attributable to a farming business. (2) taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income of less than $1 million for the taxable year.

In the B&C tax law section, proposed new Section 24416.23 would be added as follows:

Subdivision (a) provides that notwithstanding all of the current law code sections dealing with the NOL deduction, no net operating loss deduction shall be allowed for any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2020 and before January 1, 2023 (thereby covering three tax years). This applies to both a loss and a carryover of a loss.

Subdivision (b) provides that the carryover period is extended for each year that the deduction is suspended. For example, for a loss generated in 2019, the taxpayer will have three additional years added to the carryover period because the taxpayer cannot use them for the next three years.

Subdivision (c) provides the following exemption: taxpayers with income subject to tax of less than $1 million for the taxable year.

The proposed trailer bill would limit business incentive credit use to $5 million per year. This language contains four CRTC section changes. First, in the sales and use tax law section, existing CRTC Section 6902.5 would be amended as follows:

Existing law allows a claim for refund for specified taxpayers who claim the film tax credit and who have been issued a credit certificate by the California Film Commission. The first amendment would add new subdivision (c)(1) to read:

(c) (1) The limitations under Section 17039.3 and 23036.2 shall not apply to the credit amount eligible for an irrevocable election under this Section. (2) For returns filed on or after January 1, 2020 and before January 1, 2023, the credit amount eligible for an irrevocable election under subdivision (b) shall not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000) per calendar year. While the first clause exempts this claim for refund from the general $5 million cap applicable to tax credit usage, the second clause creates a standalone $5 million cap per calendar year.

The second amendment would add new subdivision (j) to read: (j) The amendments made to this section by the act adding this subdivision shall not apply to irrevocable elections made before the enactment date of the act adding this subdivision. This provision excludes irrevocable elections for the sales/use tax claim for refund from the credit cap.

Second, in the insurance tax law section, existing CRTC Section 12206 would be amended. This code section deals with the states low-income housing tax credit. The amendment would add new subdivision (a)(4) to read:

(4) For each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2023, the amount allowed as a credit against tax (as described by Section 12201), including the carryover of any credits under this section, shall not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000). This section creates a standalone cap of $5 million for the low-income housing tax credit that insurers can claim.

The third amendment would add new Section 17039.3 to the CRTC, which is in the personal income tax law, as follows:

17039.3. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of this part or Part 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401) to the contrary, for taxpayers not required to be included in a combined report under Section 25101, Section 25110, or authorized to be included in a combined report under Section 25101.15, for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2023, the total of all business credits otherwise allowable under any credit under any provision of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 17041), including the carryover of any business credit under a former provision of that chapter, for the taxable year shall not reduce the net tax, as defined in Section 17039, by more than five million dollars ($5,000,000). This section caps the use of all business credits to $5 million per tax year, for three years, for those not required to be included in a combined report.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this part or Part 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401) to the contrary, for taxpayers required to be included in a combined report under Section 25101, Section 25110, or authorized to be included in a combined report under Section 25101.15, the total of all business credits otherwise allowable under any provision of Chapter 2 (commencing with section 17041), including the carryover of any business credit under a former provision of that chapter, by all members of the combined report shall not reduce the aggregate amount of tax (as defined in Section 23036) of all members of the combined report by more than five million dollars ($5,000,000) for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2023. This section caps the use of all business credits to $5 million per tax year, for three years, for those required to be included in a combined report.

(c) For purposes of this section, business credit means a credit allowable under any provision of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 17041) other than the following credits: (1) The credit allowed by Section 17052 (relating to credit for earned income). (2) The credit allowed by Section 17052.1 (relating to credit for young child). (3) The credit allowed by Section 17052.6 (relating to credit for household and dependent care). (4) The credit allowed by Section 17052.25 (relating to credit for adoption costs). (5) The credit allowed by Section 17053.5 (relating to renters tax credit). (6) The credit allowed by Section 17054 (relating to credit for personal exemption). (7) The credit allowed by Section 17054.5 (relating to credit for qualified joint custody head of household and a qualified taxpayer with a dependent parent). (8) The credit allowed by Section 17054.7 (relating to credit for qualified senior head of household). (9) The credit allowed by Section 17061 (relating to refunds pursuant to the Unemployment Insurance Code). This section provides an exemption for nine credits as specified above.

(d) Any amounts included in an election pursuant to Section 6902.5, relating to an irrevocable election to apply credit amounts under Sections 17053.85, 17053.95, 17053.98, 23685, 23695, or Section 23698 against qualified sales and use tax, as defined in Section 6902.5, are limited to five million dollars ($5,000,000) per taxable year, but are not included in the five million dollar ($5,000,000) limitation set forth in subdivision (a) or (b). This section is a separate cap of $5 million per tax year for the film tax credit.

(e) The amount of any credit otherwise allowable for the taxable year under Section 17039 that is not allowed due to application of this section shall remain a credit carryover amount under this part. This section provides that credits not allowed during the three-year limitation can be carried over.

(f) The carryover period for any credit that is not allowed due to the application of this section shall be increased by the number of taxable years the credit or any portion thereof was not allowed. This section provides that, for each tax year a credit is not allowed, it can be carried over the same number of year(s) that it was not allowed.

(g) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this part or Part 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), the credits listed in subdivision (b) shall be applied after any business credits, as limited by subdivision (a), are applied. This section has an incorrect reference subdivision (b) should actually be subdivision (c) but is intended to allow the nine credits listed in subdivision (c) to still be utilized by taxpayers. They will claim those any of those credits after they claim up to the maximum of $5 million in business credits.

(h) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to any standard, criterion, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board pursuant to this section. This section exempts any written issuances by the FTB from Californias Administrative Procedure Act.

The fourth amendment would add new Section 23036.3 to the CRTC, which is in the bank and corporation tax law. This section is identical to the new section in the personal income tax law set forth above as the third amendment. To understand the extend of the credit usage cap, the following is a listing of the business tax credits that are subject to the credit usage cap contained in this budget trailer bill:

CHAPTER 3.5. Tax Credits [Sections 23604 23698]

Sec. 23604 Qualified enhanced oil recovery project credit

Sec. 23608 Credit for transports of any agricultural products donated

Sec. 23609 Research and development tax credit

Sec. 23610.5 State low-income housing tax credit

Sec. 23621 Hiring credit

Sec. 23624 Joint venture program through agreement with the Director of Corrections.

Sec. 23626 Hiring credit for employees in designated census tracts

Sec. 23630 Qualified contributions approved for acceptance by Wildlife Conservation Board

Sec. 23636 Joint Strike Fighter hiring credit

Sec. 23642 Expenditures to provide access to disabled individuals

Sec. 23685 Qualified expenditures for production of qualified motion pictures

Sec. 23687 Credit for taxpayer contributions to the College Access Tax Credit Fund

Sec. 23688.5. Credit for qualified donation items to a food bank

Sec. 23689 GO-Biz hiring tax credit

Sec. 23691 Qualified rehabilitation expenditures with respect to a certified historic structure

Sec. 23695 Expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture

Sec. 23698 Expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture

On May 21, both the Assembly Budget Subcommittee # 4 and the Senate Budget Subcommittee # 4 heard presentations by the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst Office regarding these revenue raising proposals. The budget subcommittees also took limited public comment. The Assembly did not take any formal action, while the Senate held the items open, perhaps for a vote in the next week or two.

Both of these provisions, if agreed to by the Legislature, will be placed in a budget trailer bill (which has not been identified at this point). Because these provisions raise revenue from taxpayers, they will require a 2/3 majority vote in both the Assembly and Senate. These two tax law changes are estimated to raise nearly $2 billion each during their first year of implementation.

If adopted, they will apply retroactively to January 1, 2020 and taxpayers claiming an NOL deduction and/or business tax credits will need to make adjustments to their quarterly tax payments to recognize the loss of the deduction and/or the limitation on credit usage.

Chris Micheli is a lobbyist with Aprea & Micheli, as well as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

More:
Overview of Gov. Newsom's Retroactive 'Revenue Raising Proposals' in the May Budget Revise - California Globe