Utahs Republic

Standards

At the Republican state convention a few months ago I had the chance to speak with Utah Governor Gary Herbert for a few minutes and so I brought up the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The governor assured me they weren’t a prelude to a national takeover of education (which by some measures we could conclude that already happened years ago). The governor said the CCSS was the product of states getting together and collaborating to improve the standards.  That is true in part. The states got together. However, some states had better standards than what was produced in the CCSS documents. Rather than 50 experiments in education, we will now have 1. Success and failure is now 100% for our country in either direction, rather than 2% per state. Will the CCSS work? Nobody knows. They’ve never been used. They weren’t even complete when they started being adopted by states. Assessments weren’t ready to look at, but “don’t worry, everything necessary for this system to work 100% is in process…”

When the evidence is examined as a whole, it is difficult to not see the CCSS as the prelude to a national melding of education into a giant pot.  It’s not like everything is isolated and we certainly can’t say that the standards are independent objects for the states to manipulate. If a state signs on, they can’t modify the standards except to add a little to them. So lets look at what else we know is happening that is pushing forward to compliment the CCSS.

Curriculum

Article: Common Core Writers Craft Curriculum Criteria

What? The people that wrote the standards are now telling curriculum designers how to design the curriculum? That sounds like a national curriculum in the works. But that’ll never happen so don’t worry about that.

Assessments

Article: State Consortium Scales Back Common-Test Design

So you have these “state” standards which are being pushed with the odd national anticipation that very soon all the states will adopt them (even if the standards are worse than their current successful standards such as in MA and CA). Shown on this SBAC timeline, that will be by late this year (2011). By 2013 they will be pilot testing the assessments, field testing in 2014, and 2015 will be when we have “final achievement standards.”  The SBAC is one of a couple of consortia that have received massive amounts of federal funding to develop a set of assessments that will match the CCSS. SBAC’s senior researcher is Linda Darling Hammond, proponent of social justice in the classroom, and constructivist extraordinaire. Anyone want to guess what these assessments will be asking and how they will influence the “final achievement standards?” Does anyone think the CCSS might change by 2015 based on these tests and developing “final” standards?

Tracking

Once you have the standards, curricula to teach them, and assessments to measure student progress, the next thing you’ll want to know is information about the students to see how they are progressing (and of course you’ll want to track the teachers so you know who the ones are that most successfully get students to answer the correct questions on the SBAC social justice tests).

https://www.utahsrepublic.org/education/common-core-database-intrusion/

Connections

If you didn’t read the post the other day on Marxism and CCSS, here’s the flowchart from page 20 of that pdf someone produced.  Everything fits nice and neat together. I haven’t looked into it myself, but from the title on this map, these relationships all seem to get identified in the Race to the Top grant.

Financial Cost

I have read estimates that in California alone, implementing these new standards will entail spending several hundred million dollars. Nearly every state was hoping to get Race to the Top funds but only a handful did. Not surprising, Utah got nothing and so implementation of these new standards will be a significant new expense for our state. It will involve teacher training in the new standards, new textbooks written to the standards, and additional costs for switching out assessments and such. Why on earth would we create massive new costs when we already have pretty good math standards and we have high unemployment and a financial disaster brewing in our country?

Local Control

Everyone’s favorite buzz-phrase but which only a few really cherish. The only local control that is going to exist after this will be for home schoolers and private schools. Accepting this package, and make no mistake it is a package, will terminate local control and allow for Educrats in Washington D.C. to determine what is taught, how it’s taught, what’s tested, and what’s tracked. If we’re lucky, they’ll share a little bit with us at the local level.

Science Standards

Here’s a great piece from Ze’ev Wurman on the newly proposed CC science standards. His conclusion as an engineer and educator who has served on the California Academic Content Standards Commission that reviewed the adoption of Common Core for California, is that these standards are going to develop students who appreciate science rather than actually learn science. You can read his article here entitled Education to Raise Technology Consumers instead of Technology Creators. These standards will only serve to dumb down our children and allow for further deteriorating our scientific prowess (if we can even call it that anymore).

Conclusion

There are many people who believe the CCSS are good standards. No doubt they may be better than what some states were using, but that’s no reason to kill innovation between the 50 states, nor to allow for all these separate components to join together. It’s out of our hands though. The only way to avoid this is to reject the CCSS and be a state that is free to innovate and educate as we see fit.

For more information about the CCSS, check out the Truth in American Education website.

“So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat…” (Joshua 6:20)

I started writing this post months ago but set it aside as other things became more pressing. With the recent 4th Circuit ruling upholding a terrible lower court ruling that saying “Jesus” during a public prayer is unconstitutional, I thought it was time to finish this post off. If you were unaware of the ruling, please read Ken Klukowski’s piece in his blog at the Washington Examiner where he concludes:

“As I explain in my law review article, “In Whose Name We Pray,” published by Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, not only does Marsh v. Chambers allow “sectarian” prayers (i.e. mentioning Jesus), it would violate the Establishment Clause for any government official—including any federal judge—to censor the content of anyone’s prayers.

Under our Constitution, every American can pray in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, and government never has a right to interfere with religious beliefs.

This is the latest in a string of disappointing lower court decisions on public prayer. It’s time for the Supreme Court to revisit this issue.”

I agree. Further, lets examine what Jefferson meant when he wrote his oft-quoted letter to the Baptists in Connecticut.

In October 1801, President Thomas Jefferson received a letter from a committee of individuals at the head of the Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut, including the minister who was a friend of Jefferson’s, on the subject of religious liberty. Both their letter and Jefferson’s reply can be read on this page:

David Barton has written a wonderful article analyzing this church and state issue which I highly recommend.

I will quote from it and then share some other thoughts:

“Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.”

The truly amazing thing that nobody seems to talk about is that when Jefferson wrote his letter, 2 states HAD STATE RELIGIONS. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut had written into their constitutions establishments of religious practices. They did away with them in 1833 and 1818 respectively. When I heard David Barton mention this on Glenn Beck’s TV show a year or so ago, I had to go look it up myself to make sure.

In 1639, Connecticut created its Fundamental Orders, which were the first written constitution in this country (causing Connecticut to nickname themselves the “constitution state”). In this document they established themselves as a Christian state in these words:

“…do, for ourselves and our Successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation to gather, to maintain and pressure the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practised amongst vs;…”

In 1662, the Connecticut Colony Charter was granted by Charles the 2^nd which continued this belief in this language:

“And for the directing, ruleing and disposing of all other matters and things whereby our said people, Inhabitants there, may bee soe religiously, peaceably and civilly Governed as their good life and orderly Conversacon may wynn and invite the Natives of the Country to the knowledge and obedience of the onely true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our Royall intencons and the Adventurers free profession is the onely and principall end of this Plantacon; WILLING, Commanding and requireing, and by these presents, for vs, our heires and Successors, Ordaineing and appointeing.”

Clearly, Connecticut was a Christian state dedicated to being based upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Massachusetts on the other hand, went much further. Drafted in 1779 by John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin, and ratified in 1780, this document contained several provisions that clearly establish the Christian religion.

In the first part of the constitution declaring the rights of the people, the 2^nd and 3^rd articles read (emphasis added):

“Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe…”

“Article III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

Provided, notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right and electing their public teachers and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.

And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.”

This is nothing short of stunning! At the time Jefferson wrote his private letter to the Danbury Baptists, Massachusetts was forcing the citizens to pay taxes to support churches whether or not those citizens attended a church. Jefferson never said a thing about this practice! There was no cry from him of a problem in Massachusetts but he was most certainly aware of this practice which had been codified into supreme law by John Adams, Sam Adams, and James Bowdoin.

Before moving onto the next part of their constitution I must point out article 4 which follows.

“Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.”

This will be taken into account below, but it’s clearly an indication that Massachusetts was identifying itself an independent state and upon joining the federal body would only delegate certain powers to the federal body.

In Massachusett’s “Part the Second: The Frame of Government” we see how they would elect officers also took into account an establishment of the Christian religion.

“Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.”

They further required anyone taking office to make this oath:

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

“I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected.”

They even openly declare in chapter 5 of the constitution that Harvard university was established for the “advantage of the Christian religion.” I wonder how they might feel about Harvard fulfilling that mission today?

Clearly Massachusetts had established a religion and even required its office holders to declare a firm belief in Christianity.

So what did Jefferson mean in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists? Clearly it wasn’t to prevent a church from influencing government, or to prevent invoking the name of “Jesus” in a public prayer. Jefferson understood 3 things very clearly as they were written into the U.S. constitution.

1) Article VI: “[legislators and officers must support this constitution]… but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

2) Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

3) Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The first, Article VI, was clearly written in response to the Framer’s distaste for the Church of England’s influence to prescribe the beliefs of an individual before allowing them to hold national public office. (The difference in MA was they did not hold people to a specific sect but just mandated they must be Christian. Another factor is MA is not the United States as specified in this article.)

The second specifically forbids the federal government from medling with religion or interfering in the free speech of anyone else.

Neither of these items forbids religious leaders from making statements regarding politics, but they prevent the establishment of a national religion or any kind of litmus test to hold office. The religious pastors of the Revolutionary era stirred the souls of the people to rise up and cast off England and nobody condemned them in those actions (except perhaps the pro-England factions). It was clearly within the freedom of speech rights of religious leaders to participate in civic affairs, but not vice-versa for the federal government to meddle in religious sects.

The third element, the 10th Amendment, Jefferson clearly understood when as governor of Virginia, he called for a day of thanksgiving and prayer, but as president of the United States, he was hesitant to do so because he recognized the differing roles of state versus federal involvement.

Said Jefferson to the Reverent Samuel Miller on Miller’s recommendation for a national day of fasting and prayer:

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. …But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from…civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.”

So Jefferson signed the state level observance, but felt he didn’t have the right or ability to do it at the federal level because it was reserved to the states through the Constitution.

Dallin Oaks, a well respected judge for many years and now a General Authority in the LDS church, recently said this at a speech he gave at Chapman University:

“The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to forbid a national church of the kind found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the First Amendment’s direction that the United States shall have “no law [prohibiting] the free exercise [of religion].” For almost a century this guarantee of religious freedom has been understood as a limitation on state as well as federal power.”

As he notes, for the first century or more of our nation’s history, states had the power and authority to establish religious tests and even force citizens through taxation to support Christianity, deeming it in the public good and for the benefit of morality and even the preservation of the civil government. It was only after progressive elements came into power in the courts that these views were overturned and stripped from the states.

Now before someone jumps on me and says “Oak wants to establish the LDS faith as the Utah state religion” lets just put that to rest. My purpose in writing this post is to point out the fallacy of the “church and state” argument that is created by those that uphold a single quote from Jefferson’s private letter, and then ignore all his other writings which would clearly explain what he was talking about.

Religious leaders should have every right to speak out on any political matter without fear of losing their tax-exempt status. People can pray and speak in public and public schools and invoke the name of Jesus in the course of doing so. These are first amendment rights. It is a violation of the constitution for anyone, especially a national official, legislator, or judges to proscribe people in those practices, or to establish a particular sect to the exclusion of others (ex. The Church of England).

This nation was founded upon the principles of Christianity and ensuring people had the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. Today’s vocal minority is stripping that right from those that worship God with the blessing and collusion of the federal government to establish their religion, secular humanism, and in the process, laying flat Jefferson’s wall of separation they claim as their ensign.

And you thought “The Onion” only did fake news stories…

When John Taylor Gatto was given the teacher of the year award in New York City, the gathering got more than they bargained for in his acceptance speech. He lambasted the public education system and took it to task for destroying education in this country. Gatto’s concluding paragraph here hits the nail on the head by bringing education back to where it should be…centered in the family.

https://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html (read the whole excellent speech here)

“Family is the main engine of education. If we use schooling to break children away from parents – and make no mistake, that has been the central function of schools since John Cotton announced it as the purpose of the Bay Colony schools in 1650 and Horace Mann announced it as the purpose of Massachusetts schools in 1850 – we’re going to continue to have the horror show we have right now. The curriculum of family is at the heart of any good life, we’ve gotten away from that curriculum, time to return to it. The way to sanity in education is for our schools to take the lead in releasing the stranglehold of institutions on family life, to promote during school time confluences of parent and child that will strengthen family bonds. That was my real purpose in sending the girl and her mother down the Jersey coast to meet the police chief. I have many ideas to make a family curriculum and my guess is that a lot of you will have many ideas, too, once you begin to think about it. Our greatest problem in getting the kind of grass-roots thinking going that could reform schooling is that we have large vested interests pre-emptying all the air time and profiting from schooling just exactly as it is despite rhetoric to the contrary. We have to demand that new voices and new ideas get a hearing, my ideas and yours. We’ve all had a bellyful of authorized voices mediated by television and the press – a decade long free-for-all debate is what is called for now, not any more “expert” opinions. Experts in education have never been right, their “solutions” are expensive, self-serving, and always involve further centralization. Enough. Time for a return to democracy, individuality, and family. I’ve said my piece. Thank you.”

Amen. Time to decentralize and bring local control and pro-family oriented education back in vogue.

Last month a friend of mine sent me a link to a document which I knew I had to read. The title of this document is “Common Core State Standards and Race to the Top – An Introduction to Marxism 101.” The manuscript was prepared by Jenni White, Lynn Habluetzel and Jo Joyce, part of the Restore Oklahoma Public Education project (website).

With 179 footnotes in 19 pages of text, this is a document that needs to be read and then put into the hands of every school board member to help them understand that what they’re being told about CCSS not being part of any national agenda, is false. This paper does an excellent job of pulling everything together from a history of education as it used to be, to the corruption brought into the system by John Dewey and company.

After the paper concludes on page 19, several appendices follow comparing traditional and progressive education (including specific pages on differences in the approaches to math and English education). Specific contrasts are also made between Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson, and John Dewey to Ben Franklin. There is also an amazing chart on page 20 of the document which shows the flow of money and cooperation between Race to the Top and a huge assortment of entities, many of which are mentioned in the document.

You can access the document at the link above, or get the pdf here. Please send a copy of this to your school board members.

Common-Core-State-Standards-and-Race-to-the-Top-An-Introduction-to-Marxism-101

I was invited to present on the topic of Republic vs. Democracy at Patriot Camp last week and it was a lot of fun. There were 6 groups of children moving through the camp and on my day we started with those going into 6th grade in my first session down to those going into 1st grade in the last. The children were great and seemed to have a good time and actually learn something.

The funniest line of the day was when I announced the topic, a little boy of perhaps 9 years old muttered, “I haaaaate that word” (democracy). Another funny line from a child was when at the end of each session we were choosing to elect 2 representatives. One had a platform of giving everyone free ice cream and the other says I’ll let you keep your money and buy your own ice cream. I asked the children, “what would be a good question to ask the candidates.” The older children came up with the right question very quickly, “how are you going to pay for the ice cream?” But in one younger group, when I asked the question, one child said, “is your ice cream organic?”

We were all pleasantly surprised that even the children going into 1st grade were able to figure out which candidate to vote for. They all wanted free ice cream until they figured out the candidate would tax them to give them the ice cream. This showed that children are quite capable of learning basic principles and making decisions even at a really young age.

Jed Norwood provided this information on water storage and preparing containers to hold water and agreed to let me post it.

********

-Water is the universal solvent
-It is heavy at 8# per gallon
-If you don’t have it you will have to leave that area and food to find it.

In the 1960’s the Israeli Military tested how much water was needed each day to keep their troops in top condition.  They found that 15 gallons per person per day.  This includes all uses.  During the heat of summer they found a person will need for drinking alone 5 gallons.

In our climate, an individual needs to reserve a gallon a day just for drinking. With all other uses such as cooking, flushing, and hygiene, a person would need about 5 gallons a day. This would mean that a family of five would need 75 per day to maintain a comfortable standard of living.

In the Utah region a 1000 square foot roof will receive 30 to 40 tons of water in an average year.  Rain and snow are the softest water you can find and the easiest to treat. This equates to 7,500 to 10,000 gallons. Capturing this water source is crucial.

Have a supply of water filter socks that will filter down to 1 micron.

After socking the water to catch the large debris then run it through a ceramic filter.

With this type of a set up you can filter 30,000 to 40,000 gallons of rain water.  Or 10,000 gallons of pond , river or lake water.

Store all water filtering socks and filters in ziplock mylar bags.

After filtering the water treat it with a biocide. Here are some types of biocides you can use.

Chlorine
Hydrogen Peroxide
Vitamin C
Activated Charcoal

Here is the complete procedure for water management.

Procure the water

Filter the water with sock

Filter water with ceramic filter or a towel filter

Chlorinate water

1 of the following

l

Hydrogen peroxide

Vitamin C

Activated Charcoal

Treating the water storage containers

Here are the cleaning instructions. with the barrel up right fill the barrel and let it sit for 24 hours.  Then empty and place it up right again. Fill the barrel again and let the hose run for 15 minutes. Once it starts over flowing check for debris. If it is clear then pour 1/2 cup of chlorine into the water and cap the barrel. Let it sit out in the sun for two weeks. After this dump it out and fill with treated water.  Store barrel on blocks of wood, or carpet or both to keep barrel from touching the ground or concrete directly.

*To obtain the diagrams for making your own towel filter, instructions on making low cost activated charcoal, or obtaining (through a group purchase) filter socks, ceramic containers, or ziplock mylar bags, email Jed Norwood at getgungho@gmail.com.

Someone recently sent me this video and it’s got a great message I wanted to share here. The problems America faces are staggering. There is only one way out.

2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Do you know how the pledge of allegiance came about? Judge Napolitano explains. One pet peeve I have had for a long time is that there is no comma in “one nation under God.” It should be said without a pause in the middle.

Last week someone back East sent me this link and it’s turning me on my head the way I’ve understood the notion of a Republic. Being as far removed as we are from the Founding Fathers, I’m not sure when the last time this notion was taught. I’m not even sure it’s true, though I find the concept satisfying. In essence, the government has no ability to do anything that would violate our natural rights. When it does by passing a law, it’s really only a suggestion to us the sovereigns. In a Democracy you have civil rights because the majority gives and takes away from your rights, but in a Republic, you have natural rights the government can’t violate even by law, because WE THE PEOPLE delegated to government officials only to do those things we can do ourselves, so any laws that would trample on our natural rights are advisory only. Here’s one paragraph from the article, but I would ask that you read the whole article and leave your thoughts below. I would enjoy hearing other perspectives on this. (https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)

“The people did ‘ordain and establish this Constitution,’ not for themselves, but ‘for the United States of America.’ In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the ‘Great Experiment in self government.’ The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, ‘Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?’”

One link in the article goes to another page which explains the difference in being one of the “people” of the United States vs. a “citizen” and how being classed as a citizen removes some of your natural rights.

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm

Interesting stuff. Imagine if everyone understood this version of what a republic is… Still, it’s quite a foreign concept to some level because I’ve always accepted that if I elect representatives, they can pass laws binding me through government threat of force. Please leave your thoughts below.

After-note: I just heard someone started passing a rumor that I was suggesting in a Republic the laws are only advisory. NO, that’s not what I said. Law governs, but my point above or rather this new thought from the other website is that since sovereignty is at the individual level, then laws that violate our natural rights would be advisory instead of binding. It’s something I’m chewing on, but certainly not something I’m going to put into practice! I’ll be keeping all the laws that have been passed. :)