Charles Gillihan 
Member since Apr 17, 2015



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Pick a Side

Nice reverse of guilt by association. Because Duke likes the policies of Trump does not equate with Trump adhering to the views of Duke. Trump has spoken against Duke decades ago and recently. This magazine, being allegedly 'neutral', seeks to integrate Secular Humanism as god of society.

13 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by Charles Gillihan on 08/18/2017 at 7:02 AM

Re: “Defining and Defending the First Amendment

The entire Constitution was written by representatives of the States as a 'chain' upon the Federal Government. It isn't negative sanctions against States at all. A State can even have a so-called State religion. Read all the early Preambles to the State Constitutions? All of them mentioned Jesus Christ, the Bible, God the Father, etc. How many Muslim Churches do you think we had in the early colonies? The First Amendment was based upon a separation of institutional jurisdiction. The First Amendment was a warning against Congress to keep away from dictating a national religious and institutional requirement for the nation. Given the general Christian consensus at the drafting of the Constitution (see the Federalist Papers for examples), the First Amendment was to keep Congress from choosing sides with a particular denomination within Christendom. New York can choose to actually dictate a State religion if it were to so choose by a majority of their representatives; so long as their State Constitution allowed it. the word 'Congress' is in the First Amendment, not the word 'State'. The legal issue is therefore irrelevant to whether a Muslim or any other religion may build in New York. It depends upon the New York State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution in those regards. Since religious 'type' is not a particular duty listed under the category particulars of the General Welfare Clause, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction in a case of this nature. Your appeal to the First Amendment is therefore misguided.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Charles Gillihan on 08/18/2017 at 6:53 AM

Re: “Poverty: A State of Mind?

Healthcare is not a function of the Federal and State Governments. In Art.1, Sec.8, under the category of General Welfare, we have a list of particular functions of the Federal Government, i.e. post office, roads, coin money, military and court systems and a few other duties. If it isn't mentioned there, then it is a jurisdiction of 'We the People' according to the Tenth Amendment. Health care nor any welfare program is listed there. The Conclusion is that health care is not the function of the Federal Government nor State Governments. This makes it theft of taxpayer funds for the Federal Government/State Governments to have jurisdiction over this area, and a violation against one's oath of office to uphold the tenets of the U.S. and State Constitution. There is no easy answer to this dilemma of the high cost of health care. It originates with medical device companies charging exorbitant rates, medical implants and suppliers charging a lot and high salaries due to malpractice insurance. Tons of government red-tape also cause the high cost. The best solution is the '3-C' system: C is for 'cash' for minor care, i.e. flu's, shots, etc. C is also for 'catastrophic insurance' for major surgeries or malignant diseases with high deductibles, and lastly, C is for 'charity, i.e. churches, families, charities in general.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Charles Gillihan on 07/16/2017 at 2:17 PM

Re: “A Call to Arms on Health Care

Places that can replace Planned Parenthood without Robbing Tax Payers to Murder Babies
Two leading pro-life organizations released a map today intended to showcase the thousands of community health care clinics that could step in for Planned Parenthood if it were to lose federal funding.
The map adds to a heated conversation about whether stripping Planned Parenthood of its $500 million annual taxpayer dollars would hurt womens health care in America, or if women would be better off without it.
Alliance Defending Freedom and Charlotte Lozier Institute, the education arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, identified the different Planned Parenthood locations and community health care clinics across America.
The two groups argue there are plenty of health centers that also can receive federal funding to absorb Planned Parenthoods patients should the organization be defunded by Congress.
According to data collected by the two groups, there are currently 13,540 clinics providing comprehensive health care for women, versus 665 Planned Parenthood locations.
Community health centers primarily exist to provide comprehensive care to millions of uninsured, working poor and jobless Americans.
If Planned Parenthoods federal funding went away tomorrow, Mattox argues, the money would be better used by community health centers and other places around the country that can provide a fuller range of services to women without the ethical challenges that Planned Parenthood presents.
The effort to defund Planned Parenthood comes after the Center for Medical Progress, a group that opposes abortion, released a series of damaging videos.
The videos show high-ranking Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of tissue from aborted babies and changing abortion procedures to harvest these organs.
The issues raise a host of legal questions and have sparked both state and federal investigations.
Some healthcare experts warn that lawmakers should be careful in punishing Planned Parenthood. These supporters argue community health clinics cant fulfill the services that Planned Parenthood provides.
The notion that you could literally overnight defund providers serving a couple million people and think that health centerseven if theyre right nearby, which is not always the casecould just magically absorb patients, I think shows an astounding naivet in healthcare, says Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University.
You can map all you want and the fact of the matter is health centers are not magicians and health care doesnt work this way.
Rosenbaum, in an interview with The Daily Signal, argued that banning Planned Parenthood funding would create an immediate health care access crisis for millions of women.
Texas, she says, is the smoking gun in the debate.
In 2012, Texas stopped funding abortion-providers like Planned Parenthood. Instead, in 2013 it created the Womens Health Program, which provides low-income women with family planning services, health screenings and birth control.
According to a study by George Washington University, this resulted in community clinics increasing their womens health care services by an average of 81 percent.
Between 2011 and 2013, after Planned Parenthood was excluded, the study found that the program experienced a nine percent decrease in enrollees, a 26 percent decrease in Medicaid claims and a 54 percent decline in contraceptive claims.
Eventually, community health care clinics replaced Planned Parenthoods services, Rosenbaum said, but not without consequences.
Yes, health centers eventually ramped up. Yes, they offer more family planning services than they did before because they had to respond to a crisis and health centers are remarkable at responding to crises. But the states own data show that the actual number of patients served dropped. She added:
Were talking family planning, cancer screenings, things like that. You certainly do not want people who are seeking family planning to have to put it off at all. Otherwise, you wind up with unplanned pregnancies, half of which will turn into an abortion. This is exactly what we dont want so why would you shut down a point of access for contraceptives? And why would you shut down cancer screen sites? It makes no sense.
Mattox, with Alliance Defending Freedom, argues the Texas example paints an entirely different pictureone that actually appears to be a success story.
According to state data, in 2012, the pregnancy rate in Texas remained relatively the same, falling from 82.2 pregnancies per 1,000 women ages 15-44, to 81.1 in 2013.
Abortions dropped during the same period, from 65,547 in 2012 compared to 61,513 in 2013.
The data belies the claim that Planned Parenthood was necessary to womens health care in Texas, Mattox said.
In 2013, right after Texas ousted the organization, Planned Parenthood clinics in the state agreed to pay $4.3 million to settle a federal civil suit brought by the Justice Department under President Obama.
The suit claimed the organization fraudulently billed Medicaid for womens health care services such as birth control from 2003 to 2009.
The massive drop in Medicaid and contraceptive claims, Mattox said, may be evidence that Texas cleaned up a lot of false claims.
In addition, Mattox argued the drop in program enrollees could be attributed to a bump in the economywith more people enrolling on employer-provided health care plansand the creation of the Affordable Care Act, which compelled free coverage of contraceptives.
It seems some of our friends on the left conveniently forget that they created Obamacare and compelled free coverage of contraceptives when that is inconvenient to defending the need for Planned Parenthood, he said.
Taking in these broader factors, Mattox argued the Texas example might actually be good news and further proof that taking away Planned Parenthood wont hurt women.
It seems like there may be other factors that explain what happened to women during this time period in Texas. That might actually be good newswe may have solved problems rather than found new ones.
If Congress defunds Planned Parenthood, the country will have to wait and see if the Texas model will be tested on the national level.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Charles Gillihan on 07/16/2017 at 2:15 PM

Re: “Quagmires in Syria and Nashville

"...The problem with the state action is embedded in what is known as "the supremacy clause," which mandates that, in instances where state law and federal law conflict, the federal writ is the overriding authority. This is a doctrine that has prevailed in case after case since the most glaring example of a clash between regional and national authorities, that of the American Civil War...."

The Editor here has taken this out of context. The Supremacy Powers do not give a blanket power by the Feds to trump any State law. IT MUST BE WITHIN ART.1, SEC.8. or one of a few listed functions of the Federal Government ONLY. It can't be universal with any State law.

when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law. Whether out of ignorance or convenience, they fail to look at the Supremacy Clause in its proper context—that which establishes the U.S. Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and U.S. Treaties as “the supreme law of the land.”

Hence, the Supremacy Clause only applies if an act of the Federal Government is in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. In other words, Federal laws are valid and are supreme, only to the extent that those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution.

Hence, the Supremacy Clause only applies if an act of the Federal Government is in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. In other words, Federal laws are valid and are supreme, only to the extent that those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution.

To read the Supremacy Clause as big government proponents would have you—that ALL FEDERAL LAWS ARE SUPREME—would render the remainder of the Constitution meaningless. Why would there be a need for anything other than a Supremacy Clause? Why would the Constitution’s Framers have deliberated throughout the summer of 1787 over the other 4,500 words in the Constitution if their intent was to make the Federal Government supreme in all areas it unilaterally decided to act? But the opposite applies to the states—absent a Constitutional restriction on the states, state governments do not need constitutional authorization to act, specifically because it was the intent of the Framers that the powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were to remain the jurisdiction of governments more local and more accountable to the people. Therefore, the general power of governing the health, safety and welfare of the people, generally referred to as the “police power,” was reserved to the states and not delegated to the Federal Government. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, U.S. Supreme Court (2012) (aka the Obamacare decision).

James Madison explained the nature of our dual sovereignty structure in Federalist No. 39: “the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Printz v. United States U.S. Supreme Court (1997).

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Charles Gillihan on 02/26/2016 at 7:26 AM

Re: “The “Entitled” Generation

Education is not listed as one of the roles of the Federal Government. If it is not listed in Art.1, Sec.8, then it is the role of the States and/or 'We the People' (Tenth Amendment); or privatized if you will. Bernie has no legal right to even discuss college debt, which is not his business as a Presidential candidate.

2 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Charles Gillihan on 02/26/2016 at 7:16 AM

Re: “I’m Not Sexist, But ...


I never said that the Constitution says, 'no guns for felons'. It is a law by most, if not all States. How is the 5/8 clause relevant to the variety of topics I addressed? A red herring I suppose.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Charles Gillihan on 04/17/2015 at 9:27 AM


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
© 1996-2017

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation