Friday is New Year's Eve. Some Americans make New Year's resolutions for the coming year. These resolutions range from bettering a person's finances to bettering a person's health. Most of those who make these resolutions admit they do not keep their resolutions.
As I was contemplating my own possible resolutions, an idea crept into my thoughts: what if instead of choosing to improve my own self, how about working to improve my relationship with others? And then that thought expanded to wondering if we all could work to improve our relationships with others. As I was thinking about how to express the ways to improve relationships, the Ten Commandments came to mind. So I've adapted the Ten Commandments for some simple rules to improve human relations. A new style of resolution. One I hope to keep.
1. Respect other people's views of religion.
You believe what you believe; this does not mean I have to believe the same. Throughout history, many wars and battles have been fought in the name of some "God." Blood has been spilled because someone did not respect another's religious view. Even those who do not believe in God refuse to respect a religious person's view.
I've heard (and seen) many atheists who have called faith in God "stupid." Listen up atheists: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it; no one asked you for your opinion. And listen up religion advocates: no one is going to go to hell because they don't follow your religion. If that statement is true, then everyone is destined for hell.
Think about it. If Catholics say only Catholics will make it to heaven and if Protestants say only Protestants will make it heaven and if Islamists say only Islamists will get rewarded after death, then who will actually make it to heaven?? Can we please stop with the war of words?
Respect another person's view, even if different, and move on. I'm sure each of us will be judged by our interactions with fellow human beings and not by the religion we chose or was chosen for us.
2. Do not speak to others in vain.
How often do people wish they could take back something they said? In those cases, they spoke in vain to another. Try not to speak to others while mad. And when the situation is so impossible you must speak while mad, take a deep breath before actually speaking. We should chose our words carefully. Again, the respect element comes into play. Respect an other's point of view. If you do, then the task of not speaking in vain will come easily.
Also, do not speak bad about others behind their back. You might as well be speaking in vain to them. Feel free to speak to them about to their face. (This is one I MUST follow!).
3. Take a day of rest each week and share the day with your family.
How often do we allow the daily grind to get in the way of our most important support structure: our family. All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy. Such a true statement. If we don't stop and enjoy the company of the people around us, our company will not be desired.
Even if you don't have any family, share the day with friends. Relax. Unwind. Allow the stress of the week to ebb before wading back into the stream.
Your mind, your health, your sanity will all improve by taking a day off each week.
4. Honor your mother and your father.
These people brought you into the world. At the moment of your birth, at least one of them welcomed you into the world with love and affection. Return the same, no matter the cost. I am saddened whenever I hear stories of dead beat dads. The joy both the father and the child could've enjoyed has been wasted by the choice of the father. (I'm sure there are dead beat moms with the same results.) Even the dead beats deserve a tiny iota of respect. To give love where no love is deserved will make the giver a better person. How could you not respect someone who loves another when that love is not deserved? The giver of love must be a special person to do what they are doing. I would gladly surround myself with these people.
Most happy people exude love and friendship to those around them.
5. Do not commit murder.
Human live is sacred (even if you're not religious). Respect an other's right to live so that other's will respect your right to live.
6. Do not commit adultery.
This includes those not married. The respect element comes into play again. Respect your partner. Even during troubled times. An open relationship is better for the both of you. If you can't be honest with your partner, who will you be honest with?
7. Do not steal.
What is not yours is not yours. Leave it that way. How much respect do thieves show to others by taking what is not theirs? Should we show the thieves the same respect?
8. Do not accuse anyone falsely.
Lies hurt. How much respect does someone who lies deserve?
9. Do not covet other's belongings.
This leads to jealously and broken relationships. Enjoy what you have. Fate is not kind to everyone; but, if we can thumb our nose at fate by enjoying our lot in life, society will be for the better. Coveting leads to stealing...
10. Do not worship wordly goods.
Those who work hard to keep up with the Joneses most likely are violating some of the other commandments. Work to stay alive. You'll live longer than those who are working to amass "things." People and relationships are more important than the new-fangled 3D television. Refer to commandment #3.
These are my New Year's resolutions. The element of respect is the cornerstone of each of the commandments. I will strive to respect the people around me more this upcoming year. I hope you do the same.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Christmas is the Reason
Two weeks ago, I saw a news story on television relating how the ACLU sent out warnings to local school districts to say "Holidays" vice "Christmas." One of those school districts is in Tennessee. The ACLU and all of the other "holiday" people are in the wrong. It is time to set the record straight.
First, what is a holiday? Consulting the dictionary, holiday can be used as a noun or an adjective. Since the phrase advocated is "happy holidays," the use of 'holiday' is as a noun and not an adjective. Therefore, we will only parse the noun definition of 'holiday'.
From dictionary.com:
1. a day fixed by law or custom on which ordinary business is suspended in commemoration of some event or in honor of some person.
2. any day of exemption from work ( distinguished from working day).
3. a time or period of exemption from any requirement, duty, assessment, etc.: New businesses may be granted a one-year tax holiday.
4. a religious feast day; holy day, esp. any of several usually commemorative holy days observed in Judaism.
5. Sometimes, holidays. Chiefly British . a period of cessation from work or one of recreation; vacation.
The variations of the individual meanings have one thing in common: a day or days off. This means a holiday is a day from which one refrains from work or other requirements. One of the key elements exists in the first definition: "a day fixed by law or custom." So boiling down the definition of holiday to its essence, three elements rise to the top: (1) a day recognized by the law or by custom (2) which is a day off (3) from regular duties or work.
Thus if a so-called 'holiday' does not meet all three elements, the day cannot be classified as a holiday.
Let's evaluate some of the "holidays."
Christmas: December 25th is a day set aside by law (federal and all 50 states) as a holiday. While the United States does not have an official national holiday, several dates are set aside as federal days off. Most states recognize those same dates and may add or subtract from the dates according to customs in the state. But, Christmas is a day set aside by law and custom as a day off from regular duties or work. Thus Christmas is a holiday.
New Year's: Just like Christmas, January 1 is a federal and state day off from work. Thus, New Year's is a holiday.
Hanukkah: Is not set aside by law, but is set aside by custom. Jews celebrate Hanukkah around the world as a celebration of the eight days one day's worth of oil lasted. Unfortunately, the days are not the same every year since the day is set by the lunar calendar and not the Gregorian calendar. Also, Hanukkah is an eight day celebration which does not include a day off from regular duties or work (except for the day one of the eight falls on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath). Thus, Hanukkah only meets the first element and not the other two. Therefore, Hanukkah is not a holiday.
Kwanzaa: Is another week long celebration. Again, this celebration is not recognized by law. It is hard to say if it is even recognized by custom. The celebration was founded in 1966. Although the official website touts the celebrations as being celebrated around the world, the number of people celebrating do not raise the celebration to one of custom. First, the celebration is totally made up. While a celebration of "African" heritage, until Kwanzaa was dreamed up, not a single country or tribe or people of Africa celebrated anything similar to Kwanzaa. Much like Hanukkah, Kwanzaa does not include any official days off from work or other requirements. Kwanzaa does not satisfy any element of a holiday; thus Kwanzaa is not a holiday.
The Winter Solstice: Do I really need to go through this one? Not recognized by law, not recognized by custom (although aspects have been included in Christmas), does not have a day off. Thus, the winter solstice is not a holiday.
This means only Christmas and New Year's can be classified as holidays. Thus to say "Happy Holidays" means "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year." Any attempt to say otherwise signifies a lack of understanding of what a holiday is.
The big reason the ACLU hates Christmas is the religious flavor of Christmas. What a farce on the short-sided and small-minded part of the ACLU! When I was growing up there were two aspects of Christmas: the religious portion and the commercial portion. Merry Christmas was more than wishing someone a good day on the day of Christ's birth. Christmas included Santa Claus and gift giving and Christmas trees and wreaths. Christmas encompasses more than just the birth of Christ.
You must realize that as Christianity spread across Europe, the religious leaders of the time made concessions to "include" the pagans. This made conversion to Christianity easier for the pagans. For example, no one can actually pinpoint the exact date of Christ's birth. (How many shepherds actually tend sheep at night in the winter?) December 25 was chosen in the 800's as the date of Christ's birth. This date occurs around the winter solstice (pagan) and during the celebration of an Egyptian (pagan) celebration. Thus Christmas was an inclusion of other belief systems in an effort to convert to Christianity.
Does that mean the same today? Of course not! With the commercialism of the Christmas season, Christmas encompasses more than just the celebration of Christ's birth. Christmas, while a religious day, is also an American and English tradition. This means saying "Merry Christmas" is not a promotion of a religious day but an acknowledging of good tidings and cheer (attributes the ACLU lacks).
Also, through the years of establishing the tradition of Christmas, Christmas has taken on a different flair than only the religious portion. Christmas has become "generic" to the country (and half the world). By becoming generic, Christmas has lost the religious overtones and become a word for the masses. I bring this up for a reason.
The ACLU is composed of lawyers. To become a lawyer, one has to attend law school. One of the courses in law school is property. One of the subjects of property is the creation of intelligent property, such as trademarks. Companies trademark their slogans (ie California Western School of Law's slogan "The Way Law School Aught to Be" is trademarked) and the symbols which set them apart from their competition. But the law recognizes that after sometime the trademark becomes generic and thus no longer a trademark. For example, Xerox is not a trademark anymore. People can say they xeroxed a document, even on a non-Xerox copier. Other terms fall into this category: aspirin, elevator, and a host of others. The point here, is once something becomes generic, it no longer is owned by one group; it is owned by the society. Lawyers, at least competent ones, should know this. Christmas has become generic. The term no longer belongs to Christians. The term belongs to all of us. Thus the ACLU lawyers are arguing with a weak basis. Obviously, the ACLU has forgotten law school.
Saying Merry Christmas does not promote Christianity. It promotes a season of putting up a pagan Christmas tree and exchanging gifts while spreading good tidings and cheer. It is a season of celebration with the culmination in a legal day off from work. Christmas is the true holiday.
Next time someone says "Happy Holidays" respond with "Merry Christmas to you too." When they try to explain what they mean, instruct them on what a true holiday is. And if you're unlucky enough to encounter an ACLU lawyer, remind them that competent lawyers know property rules and how they seem to have forgotten the essence of property law with respect to generic terms.
Christ may have been the genesis of the season. But, in reality, Christmas is the reason for the season today.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Mike
Some references not listed in the text:
Annual secular and religous celebrations near Christmas time: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_other.htm
The True Origin of Christmas: http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooc.html
The Origin of Christmas: http://www.origin-of-christmas.com/
The Real Story of Christmas: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm
Kwanzaa from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa
Christmas from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
First, what is a holiday? Consulting the dictionary, holiday can be used as a noun or an adjective. Since the phrase advocated is "happy holidays," the use of 'holiday' is as a noun and not an adjective. Therefore, we will only parse the noun definition of 'holiday'.
From dictionary.com:
1. a day fixed by law or custom on which ordinary business is suspended in commemoration of some event or in honor of some person.
2. any day of exemption from work ( distinguished from working day).
3. a time or period of exemption from any requirement, duty, assessment, etc.: New businesses may be granted a one-year tax holiday.
4. a religious feast day; holy day, esp. any of several usually commemorative holy days observed in Judaism.
5. Sometimes, holidays. Chiefly British . a period of cessation from work or one of recreation; vacation.
The variations of the individual meanings have one thing in common: a day or days off. This means a holiday is a day from which one refrains from work or other requirements. One of the key elements exists in the first definition: "a day fixed by law or custom." So boiling down the definition of holiday to its essence, three elements rise to the top: (1) a day recognized by the law or by custom (2) which is a day off (3) from regular duties or work.
Thus if a so-called 'holiday' does not meet all three elements, the day cannot be classified as a holiday.
Let's evaluate some of the "holidays."
Christmas: December 25th is a day set aside by law (federal and all 50 states) as a holiday. While the United States does not have an official national holiday, several dates are set aside as federal days off. Most states recognize those same dates and may add or subtract from the dates according to customs in the state. But, Christmas is a day set aside by law and custom as a day off from regular duties or work. Thus Christmas is a holiday.
New Year's: Just like Christmas, January 1 is a federal and state day off from work. Thus, New Year's is a holiday.
Hanukkah: Is not set aside by law, but is set aside by custom. Jews celebrate Hanukkah around the world as a celebration of the eight days one day's worth of oil lasted. Unfortunately, the days are not the same every year since the day is set by the lunar calendar and not the Gregorian calendar. Also, Hanukkah is an eight day celebration which does not include a day off from regular duties or work (except for the day one of the eight falls on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath). Thus, Hanukkah only meets the first element and not the other two. Therefore, Hanukkah is not a holiday.
Kwanzaa: Is another week long celebration. Again, this celebration is not recognized by law. It is hard to say if it is even recognized by custom. The celebration was founded in 1966. Although the official website touts the celebrations as being celebrated around the world, the number of people celebrating do not raise the celebration to one of custom. First, the celebration is totally made up. While a celebration of "African" heritage, until Kwanzaa was dreamed up, not a single country or tribe or people of Africa celebrated anything similar to Kwanzaa. Much like Hanukkah, Kwanzaa does not include any official days off from work or other requirements. Kwanzaa does not satisfy any element of a holiday; thus Kwanzaa is not a holiday.
The Winter Solstice: Do I really need to go through this one? Not recognized by law, not recognized by custom (although aspects have been included in Christmas), does not have a day off. Thus, the winter solstice is not a holiday.
This means only Christmas and New Year's can be classified as holidays. Thus to say "Happy Holidays" means "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year." Any attempt to say otherwise signifies a lack of understanding of what a holiday is.
The big reason the ACLU hates Christmas is the religious flavor of Christmas. What a farce on the short-sided and small-minded part of the ACLU! When I was growing up there were two aspects of Christmas: the religious portion and the commercial portion. Merry Christmas was more than wishing someone a good day on the day of Christ's birth. Christmas included Santa Claus and gift giving and Christmas trees and wreaths. Christmas encompasses more than just the birth of Christ.
You must realize that as Christianity spread across Europe, the religious leaders of the time made concessions to "include" the pagans. This made conversion to Christianity easier for the pagans. For example, no one can actually pinpoint the exact date of Christ's birth. (How many shepherds actually tend sheep at night in the winter?) December 25 was chosen in the 800's as the date of Christ's birth. This date occurs around the winter solstice (pagan) and during the celebration of an Egyptian (pagan) celebration. Thus Christmas was an inclusion of other belief systems in an effort to convert to Christianity.
Does that mean the same today? Of course not! With the commercialism of the Christmas season, Christmas encompasses more than just the celebration of Christ's birth. Christmas, while a religious day, is also an American and English tradition. This means saying "Merry Christmas" is not a promotion of a religious day but an acknowledging of good tidings and cheer (attributes the ACLU lacks).
Also, through the years of establishing the tradition of Christmas, Christmas has taken on a different flair than only the religious portion. Christmas has become "generic" to the country (and half the world). By becoming generic, Christmas has lost the religious overtones and become a word for the masses. I bring this up for a reason.
The ACLU is composed of lawyers. To become a lawyer, one has to attend law school. One of the courses in law school is property. One of the subjects of property is the creation of intelligent property, such as trademarks. Companies trademark their slogans (ie California Western School of Law's slogan "The Way Law School Aught to Be" is trademarked) and the symbols which set them apart from their competition. But the law recognizes that after sometime the trademark becomes generic and thus no longer a trademark. For example, Xerox is not a trademark anymore. People can say they xeroxed a document, even on a non-Xerox copier. Other terms fall into this category: aspirin, elevator, and a host of others. The point here, is once something becomes generic, it no longer is owned by one group; it is owned by the society. Lawyers, at least competent ones, should know this. Christmas has become generic. The term no longer belongs to Christians. The term belongs to all of us. Thus the ACLU lawyers are arguing with a weak basis. Obviously, the ACLU has forgotten law school.
Saying Merry Christmas does not promote Christianity. It promotes a season of putting up a pagan Christmas tree and exchanging gifts while spreading good tidings and cheer. It is a season of celebration with the culmination in a legal day off from work. Christmas is the true holiday.
Next time someone says "Happy Holidays" respond with "Merry Christmas to you too." When they try to explain what they mean, instruct them on what a true holiday is. And if you're unlucky enough to encounter an ACLU lawyer, remind them that competent lawyers know property rules and how they seem to have forgotten the essence of property law with respect to generic terms.
Christ may have been the genesis of the season. But, in reality, Christmas is the reason for the season today.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Mike
Some references not listed in the text:
Annual secular and religous celebrations near Christmas time: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_other.htm
The True Origin of Christmas: http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooc.html
The Origin of Christmas: http://www.origin-of-christmas.com/
The Real Story of Christmas: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm
Kwanzaa from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa
Christmas from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Get Out and Vote...or Not
Tuesday, November 2, is election day. Voters across the nation will go to the polls to decide if the incumbents in Washington should be replaced. Some states will decide who will lead that state. Other states will consider ballot initiatives, like California, where the state will decide if marijuana should be legalized.
United States citizens cherish the right to vote. A key principle in the founding of our Country was the right to vote. The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is a "thumbing-of-the-nose" at the elitism of the English system. The Founding Fathers believed people were not born with a right to lead, only the populous decides if someone is worthy to lead the government. (I'm reminded of the Monty Python line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail whenever I think about why this Country was founded: A peasant says to King Arthur, "Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!")
But are citizens required to vote? Just because you have the right does not necessarily mean you have to exercise the right. For example, when the police arrest a suspect, the suspect is advised of the right to remain silent. The suspect can forgo the right and speak; the suspect does NOT have to exercise the right. Additionally, all law abiding citizens have the right to keep arms under the Second Amendment. How many actually do so? Some may argue I'm comparing apples to oranges; however, the apple and the orange both spring from the same "thing" - a seed. The principle underlying the right to vote and other rights is the same - the right not to exercise the right.
During the Gubernatorial race for California, Meg Whitman's voting record was highlighted. Meg Whitman did not vote for 28 years. Is this really material? Is voting a required element to run for public office? I say no, as a matter of fact, some votes should not even be made.
Whenever a voting opportunity arises, three types of votes are cast. These votes are not about which party, or about yes or no, or right or wrong. The three types of votes are about the character of the vote. The three types are the informed vote, the non-vote, and the uninformed vote. The first two are worthwhile votes, the latter is inherently worthless.
The person who researches the issues and researches the candidates casts the informed vote. This is the most worthwhile of the three types of votes. The informed voter understands the issues and casts the best vote possible.
The non-voter actually casts a vote. The non-vote is a vote of neither yes or no for any issue or candidate. The non-voter either doesn't know enough, doesn't care, or is willing to allow others to decide the issue. The non-voter's voice is not heard. This means, the non-voter cannot complain about the outcome of the vote. Not exercising the right to vote means not exercising free speech about the vote. (Thus Meg Whitman, while she may think she can govern better, she should not complain about the state of California - she aided in the current state by not voting.) The non-vote is better than the last type of vote.
The uninformed voter is a disgrace to the system. The uniformed voter doesn't know the issues or the candidates. Most often, the uninformed voter casts a vote in-line with the political party to which the uninformed voter belongs. This doesn't mean every person who casts a vote which matches the political party's recommendation is an uninformed vote. Only those who rely on the political party to decide how to vote without researching is uninformed.
An uninformed vote is an abomination. The uninformed vote flies in the face of logic and what is right and wrong. The uninformed vote can influence the outcome of a political race or issue, especially when many uninformed votes are cast. Is this what the Founding Fathers wanted for the Country? I think not.
The Constitution guarantees a republic form of government. Voting others into office to make decisions for the populous is the republic form of government. When those in office do not make decisions the populous feels is correct, the populous votes that person out and a new person in. What the republic form of government is not: voting for someone because someone else says that is who you should vote for. Be your own person. Vote for the best candidate - the best candidate YOU think is best based on YOUR RESEARCH.
Tuesday is voting day. You have the right to vote, or not. Make your vote count....
Mike
United States citizens cherish the right to vote. A key principle in the founding of our Country was the right to vote. The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is a "thumbing-of-the-nose" at the elitism of the English system. The Founding Fathers believed people were not born with a right to lead, only the populous decides if someone is worthy to lead the government. (I'm reminded of the Monty Python line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail whenever I think about why this Country was founded: A peasant says to King Arthur, "Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!")
But are citizens required to vote? Just because you have the right does not necessarily mean you have to exercise the right. For example, when the police arrest a suspect, the suspect is advised of the right to remain silent. The suspect can forgo the right and speak; the suspect does NOT have to exercise the right. Additionally, all law abiding citizens have the right to keep arms under the Second Amendment. How many actually do so? Some may argue I'm comparing apples to oranges; however, the apple and the orange both spring from the same "thing" - a seed. The principle underlying the right to vote and other rights is the same - the right not to exercise the right.
During the Gubernatorial race for California, Meg Whitman's voting record was highlighted. Meg Whitman did not vote for 28 years. Is this really material? Is voting a required element to run for public office? I say no, as a matter of fact, some votes should not even be made.
Whenever a voting opportunity arises, three types of votes are cast. These votes are not about which party, or about yes or no, or right or wrong. The three types of votes are about the character of the vote. The three types are the informed vote, the non-vote, and the uninformed vote. The first two are worthwhile votes, the latter is inherently worthless.
The person who researches the issues and researches the candidates casts the informed vote. This is the most worthwhile of the three types of votes. The informed voter understands the issues and casts the best vote possible.
The non-voter actually casts a vote. The non-vote is a vote of neither yes or no for any issue or candidate. The non-voter either doesn't know enough, doesn't care, or is willing to allow others to decide the issue. The non-voter's voice is not heard. This means, the non-voter cannot complain about the outcome of the vote. Not exercising the right to vote means not exercising free speech about the vote. (Thus Meg Whitman, while she may think she can govern better, she should not complain about the state of California - she aided in the current state by not voting.) The non-vote is better than the last type of vote.
The uninformed voter is a disgrace to the system. The uniformed voter doesn't know the issues or the candidates. Most often, the uninformed voter casts a vote in-line with the political party to which the uninformed voter belongs. This doesn't mean every person who casts a vote which matches the political party's recommendation is an uninformed vote. Only those who rely on the political party to decide how to vote without researching is uninformed.
An uninformed vote is an abomination. The uninformed vote flies in the face of logic and what is right and wrong. The uninformed vote can influence the outcome of a political race or issue, especially when many uninformed votes are cast. Is this what the Founding Fathers wanted for the Country? I think not.
The Constitution guarantees a republic form of government. Voting others into office to make decisions for the populous is the republic form of government. When those in office do not make decisions the populous feels is correct, the populous votes that person out and a new person in. What the republic form of government is not: voting for someone because someone else says that is who you should vote for. Be your own person. Vote for the best candidate - the best candidate YOU think is best based on YOUR RESEARCH.
Tuesday is voting day. You have the right to vote, or not. Make your vote count....
Mike
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Constitution Day - Read the Constitution and Follow It
Yesterday, September 17, was Constitution Day. In 1787 after four months of debate, thirty-nine delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document.
I bring this up because I feel too many US citizens do not understand the Constitution; this includes the members in the Federal Government. It is time for all US citizens to read and understand the Constitution. It is time for the Federal Government to follow the blueprint of the government. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.
The election season has heated up as mid-term elections will occur in two months. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is running for re-election. In one of her campaign ads, she claims she is working to bring jobs to California. This is a typical campaign promise of those running for Federal office. Even Mrs. Boxer's (I refuse to call her Senator because she is a presumptuous and pretentious [censored]. She's the ignoramus who dressed-down a member of the military for calling her "ma'am" vice the title she worked so hard to get, "Senator." Anyone more concerned with his or her title vice performing the job deserves little to no respect.) opponent is making similar claims. Both of them, and everyone else running for office, should read the Constitution.
There is not a single word in the Constitution saying the role of a Senator (or of a Representative) is to bring jobs to the State they represent. This is a ridiculous concept. We do not elect members of Congress on the basis of who will bring jobs to our State. One, they don't have that power. Two, the Constitution does not give them that power. Three, to do so hurts the economy. The unfortunate reality is this is how these people campaign to get elected. Then while in office, they attach pork projects to bills to take money from the Federal Government to give to their State. In essence, they take money from other States to fund projects in their States so they can go back at election time and brag about what they've done for the State so they can elected again. And WE ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE!
Over the years we, as a Country, have eroded the foundation the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution. For example, Senators originally were elected by the State legislatures. There was a reason behind this. The House of Representatives were the people's interests for their individual states while the Senate was the state government interests for their respective state. This is why the President is not tried for impeachment by the House. Recall my discussion on the Electoral College, the President represents the United States not the people of the United States. Thus the Senate, which represents the collective interest of the States, decides the fate of the President and not the House, which represents the collective interest of the people.
In the 1920's, we changed the Constitution so that Senators are elected by the people. This erodes the concept of our government. Every election if you vote for what you believe you will get in exchange for your vote vice voting for the person who will best represent the interests of the State or District in fulfillment of the duties defined in the Constitution, you get what you deserve - exactly what we have today. Congress is more worried about getting re-elected than doing their job. And they muddle too much in the economy.
Let's look at what the Constitution dictates. Article 1states "all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Legislative means having the power to make or enact law. Legislative does not mean the power to make jobs. Legislative does not to take from one group and give to another group. Legislative does not mean to fund pet projects to get re-elected. Legislative means to make law. Law being the substance of our society. Law being the rules by which we interact to ensure justice and fairness. Law means setting boundaries and consequences for exceeding those boundaries. Law does not mean giving people jobs or funding to the state in exchange for re-election.
Section 8 of Article 1 states the powers the Congress has. For example, "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" and "to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court." Section 8 does not address funding for individual states nor job creation. Paragraph 1 of Section 8 authorizes Congress the power to collect taxes to "pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the US." Maybe Congress thinks pet projects and job creation are providing for the general welfare. I doubt this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The Constitution set the framework for which our great Nation operates. Over the years, the simple building has grown such that what should be a mansion, instead, is a collection of rooms not connected to each other with stairs and hallways which have no purpose. As a Nation, we need to refocus and remember the philosophy on which the Nation was founded.
The Constitution should be read and followed.......
Mike
I bring this up because I feel too many US citizens do not understand the Constitution; this includes the members in the Federal Government. It is time for all US citizens to read and understand the Constitution. It is time for the Federal Government to follow the blueprint of the government. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.
The election season has heated up as mid-term elections will occur in two months. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is running for re-election. In one of her campaign ads, she claims she is working to bring jobs to California. This is a typical campaign promise of those running for Federal office. Even Mrs. Boxer's (I refuse to call her Senator because she is a presumptuous and pretentious [censored]. She's the ignoramus who dressed-down a member of the military for calling her "ma'am" vice the title she worked so hard to get, "Senator." Anyone more concerned with his or her title vice performing the job deserves little to no respect.) opponent is making similar claims. Both of them, and everyone else running for office, should read the Constitution.
There is not a single word in the Constitution saying the role of a Senator (or of a Representative) is to bring jobs to the State they represent. This is a ridiculous concept. We do not elect members of Congress on the basis of who will bring jobs to our State. One, they don't have that power. Two, the Constitution does not give them that power. Three, to do so hurts the economy. The unfortunate reality is this is how these people campaign to get elected. Then while in office, they attach pork projects to bills to take money from the Federal Government to give to their State. In essence, they take money from other States to fund projects in their States so they can go back at election time and brag about what they've done for the State so they can elected again. And WE ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE!
Over the years we, as a Country, have eroded the foundation the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution. For example, Senators originally were elected by the State legislatures. There was a reason behind this. The House of Representatives were the people's interests for their individual states while the Senate was the state government interests for their respective state. This is why the President is not tried for impeachment by the House. Recall my discussion on the Electoral College, the President represents the United States not the people of the United States. Thus the Senate, which represents the collective interest of the States, decides the fate of the President and not the House, which represents the collective interest of the people.
In the 1920's, we changed the Constitution so that Senators are elected by the people. This erodes the concept of our government. Every election if you vote for what you believe you will get in exchange for your vote vice voting for the person who will best represent the interests of the State or District in fulfillment of the duties defined in the Constitution, you get what you deserve - exactly what we have today. Congress is more worried about getting re-elected than doing their job. And they muddle too much in the economy.
Let's look at what the Constitution dictates. Article 1states "all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress." Legislative means having the power to make or enact law. Legislative does not mean the power to make jobs. Legislative does not to take from one group and give to another group. Legislative does not mean to fund pet projects to get re-elected. Legislative means to make law. Law being the substance of our society. Law being the rules by which we interact to ensure justice and fairness. Law means setting boundaries and consequences for exceeding those boundaries. Law does not mean giving people jobs or funding to the state in exchange for re-election.
Section 8 of Article 1 states the powers the Congress has. For example, "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" and "to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court." Section 8 does not address funding for individual states nor job creation. Paragraph 1 of Section 8 authorizes Congress the power to collect taxes to "pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the US." Maybe Congress thinks pet projects and job creation are providing for the general welfare. I doubt this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The Constitution set the framework for which our great Nation operates. Over the years, the simple building has grown such that what should be a mansion, instead, is a collection of rooms not connected to each other with stairs and hallways which have no purpose. As a Nation, we need to refocus and remember the philosophy on which the Nation was founded.
The Constitution should be read and followed.......
Mike
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The End of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
On Thursday, Sept 9, a Federal Circuit Judge ruled Congress' "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about homosexuality in the military unconstitutional. The homosexual community immediately applauded the ruling while those in favor of the policy immediately expressed anger over a single person overriding a majority view. You can see the similarities in the cries for and against the ruling that were made for the overruling of California's Prop 8 last month.
You'll notice I described the policy as Congress' vice the military's - most people would say "the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The key fact which is ignored when labeling the policy "the miliary's" is that the policy was enacted as a law by Congress and signed into law by the President. The military is only following orders - something you expect the military to do.
The question is, is allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military a threat to good order and discipline? In this day and age, there aren't any valid arguments to support that position. Remember these were the same arguments made against allowing unsegregated troops and the same arguments made against allowing women to serve. Since women and minorities have served in the military without any direct threat against good order and discipline, how can anyone justify the same against homosexuals?
First let's address what makes for good order and discipline. Military rules and regulations do not specifically or explicitly define the phrase, "good order and discipline." The totality of the phrase is defined implicitly via individual rules and the traditions recognized by the military. The intent of good order and discipline is to foster a cohesive team. The twentieth edition of The Bluejackets' Manual states, "A well-disciplined crew or team has the right attitude, does its work efficiently, and shows high morale."
For example, fraternization between Officers and Enlisted (and between senior leadership and junior leadership within the Enlisted ranks) is specifically prohibited. Fraternization undermines leadership by fostering an environment of favoritism which will lead to mistrust of the leader. This act is prohibited because it is against "good order and discipline."
Recently, General McChrystal found out first hand something not explicitly written but considered against good order and discipline. The article in Rolling Stone which detailed comments and attitudes by the General's staff led to his resignation (or firing, if you so choose) because the comments seem to undermine the authority of the President. Freedom of Speech is limited in the Armed Forces, and for good reason. The military is at the beck and call of the President to do the President's bidding (within the limits of the law and the Constitution). It would not bode well for the US if the military expressed viewpoints which countered the President openly. Someone speaking ill of his or her leader does not promote "good order and discipline."
Lastly, let's address homosexuals in the military. I entered the military in 1985 during the height of the Cold War. In the 1980's, homosexuality was not mainstream; in other words, homosexuality was not viewed as anything close to being normal. Coming out of the closet was not in vogue per se. A person serving in the military who was homosexual was viewed as a security risk and "susceptible to blackmail." (Bearden, pg115).
Today, 30 years later, homosexuality is more accepted by the mainstream. More and more, people who are homosexual are not afraid of telling the world the true them. Reasoning they could be susceptible to blackmail and security risks is no longer valid. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, they won't be susceptible to blackmail. This reason is removed.
In the 1990's, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came into being. When I enlisted in 1985, I was asked if I had ever engaged in homosexual activity (DD Form 1966, edition 1978). After "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," this question could not be asked. Of course, conversely after the 90's, a military member could not tell.
Realize, the military had an order, "if you are homosexual, do not tell the military you are homosexual." Anyone who violated the order suffered the consequences. This is the Mr. Blue situation. (In Reservoir Dogs, Mr. Blue, during a jewelry store heist, tells the patrons not to sound the alarm. Well someone sounded the alarm, so he began to shoot the customers. His reasoning, "if they had done what I told them to do, I wouldn't have had to do what I did." This is the Mr. Blue situation. When told to not to do something, don't complain when you suffer the consequences after doing what you were told not to do.) Now the consequences for violating the order was discharge. Homosexuals were given the rules. Those that followed the rules stayed in the military. Those that did not were ejected.
I will not address whether the rule violates the First and Fifth Amendments (valid arguments can be made for both sides). I will address whether the rule needs to be repealed. Realize there is movement afoot to repeal the rule anyway. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs both believe it should be repealed. The House has already moved to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Senate has not voted on the issue.
There are still many people who oppose homosexuals in the military. Even if they are in the majority, their viewpoint is a discrimination which makes little sense. How can anyone look another human being in the eye and tell that person he or she is not good enough to defend the Country and to willingly put his or her life on the line for his or her fellow citizens because that person is attracted to members of the same sex? This viewpoint violates logic. It does not have a rationale basis.
Some of the arguments against homosexuals have been "homosexuality is immoral" and "I don't want a gay guy looking at me while I'm undressing." As far as immoral, which deals with right and wrong or lewd behavior, homosexuality is not immoral except as viewed by religions. I've already addressed this viewpoint of religions so I will not repeat it here. And for the person who doesn't want to be possibly ogled by a homosexual, this person is also the same one who wants to ogle members of the opposite sex (for the most part - I've seen it in action!). As I said, the viewpoint against homosexuals in the military is not rationale.
When I reported to one of my commands, the person I relieved told me one of my underlings was a homosexual. "Everyone knows it; you'll be able to tell," he further told me. When I met this young Petty Officer, I immediately could tell he was a homosexual. This Sailor, though, was one of the smartest, most professional, and articulate Sailors you could hope to serve with. Just prior to deploying, he told the command he was gay and was discharged. I lost a good man. This injustice needs to stop. (I should point out my belief that he told the command he was gay not because he was gay, but because he no longer wanted to be in the Navy and this was a way out. This is my opinion.)
The Armed Forces need professionals in the ranks. Sexual orientation, race, religion, creed, or sex of the person does not determine professionalism. The actions of the person determine professionalism. The Armed Forces should discharge those who show unfavorable actions to "good order and discipline" not those who possess certain unchangeable traits. As stated in The Bluejackets' Manual, "it is the goal...to eliminate every vestige of prejudice" (Bearden, pg 65). The Armed Forces need not prejudge homosexuals before proof.......it is time to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Mike
References not linked:
Bearden, B and Bill Wedertz. (1978) The Bluejackets' Manual. Maryland: United States Naval Institute.
You'll notice I described the policy as Congress' vice the military's - most people would say "the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The key fact which is ignored when labeling the policy "the miliary's" is that the policy was enacted as a law by Congress and signed into law by the President. The military is only following orders - something you expect the military to do.
The question is, is allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military a threat to good order and discipline? In this day and age, there aren't any valid arguments to support that position. Remember these were the same arguments made against allowing unsegregated troops and the same arguments made against allowing women to serve. Since women and minorities have served in the military without any direct threat against good order and discipline, how can anyone justify the same against homosexuals?
First let's address what makes for good order and discipline. Military rules and regulations do not specifically or explicitly define the phrase, "good order and discipline." The totality of the phrase is defined implicitly via individual rules and the traditions recognized by the military. The intent of good order and discipline is to foster a cohesive team. The twentieth edition of The Bluejackets' Manual states, "A well-disciplined crew or team has the right attitude, does its work efficiently, and shows high morale."
For example, fraternization between Officers and Enlisted (and between senior leadership and junior leadership within the Enlisted ranks) is specifically prohibited. Fraternization undermines leadership by fostering an environment of favoritism which will lead to mistrust of the leader. This act is prohibited because it is against "good order and discipline."
Recently, General McChrystal found out first hand something not explicitly written but considered against good order and discipline. The article in Rolling Stone which detailed comments and attitudes by the General's staff led to his resignation (or firing, if you so choose) because the comments seem to undermine the authority of the President. Freedom of Speech is limited in the Armed Forces, and for good reason. The military is at the beck and call of the President to do the President's bidding (within the limits of the law and the Constitution). It would not bode well for the US if the military expressed viewpoints which countered the President openly. Someone speaking ill of his or her leader does not promote "good order and discipline."
Lastly, let's address homosexuals in the military. I entered the military in 1985 during the height of the Cold War. In the 1980's, homosexuality was not mainstream; in other words, homosexuality was not viewed as anything close to being normal. Coming out of the closet was not in vogue per se. A person serving in the military who was homosexual was viewed as a security risk and "susceptible to blackmail." (Bearden, pg115).
Today, 30 years later, homosexuality is more accepted by the mainstream. More and more, people who are homosexual are not afraid of telling the world the true them. Reasoning they could be susceptible to blackmail and security risks is no longer valid. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, they won't be susceptible to blackmail. This reason is removed.
In the 1990's, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came into being. When I enlisted in 1985, I was asked if I had ever engaged in homosexual activity (DD Form 1966, edition 1978). After "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," this question could not be asked. Of course, conversely after the 90's, a military member could not tell.
Realize, the military had an order, "if you are homosexual, do not tell the military you are homosexual." Anyone who violated the order suffered the consequences. This is the Mr. Blue situation. (In Reservoir Dogs, Mr. Blue, during a jewelry store heist, tells the patrons not to sound the alarm. Well someone sounded the alarm, so he began to shoot the customers. His reasoning, "if they had done what I told them to do, I wouldn't have had to do what I did." This is the Mr. Blue situation. When told to not to do something, don't complain when you suffer the consequences after doing what you were told not to do.) Now the consequences for violating the order was discharge. Homosexuals were given the rules. Those that followed the rules stayed in the military. Those that did not were ejected.
I will not address whether the rule violates the First and Fifth Amendments (valid arguments can be made for both sides). I will address whether the rule needs to be repealed. Realize there is movement afoot to repeal the rule anyway. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs both believe it should be repealed. The House has already moved to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Senate has not voted on the issue.
There are still many people who oppose homosexuals in the military. Even if they are in the majority, their viewpoint is a discrimination which makes little sense. How can anyone look another human being in the eye and tell that person he or she is not good enough to defend the Country and to willingly put his or her life on the line for his or her fellow citizens because that person is attracted to members of the same sex? This viewpoint violates logic. It does not have a rationale basis.
Some of the arguments against homosexuals have been "homosexuality is immoral" and "I don't want a gay guy looking at me while I'm undressing." As far as immoral, which deals with right and wrong or lewd behavior, homosexuality is not immoral except as viewed by religions. I've already addressed this viewpoint of religions so I will not repeat it here. And for the person who doesn't want to be possibly ogled by a homosexual, this person is also the same one who wants to ogle members of the opposite sex (for the most part - I've seen it in action!). As I said, the viewpoint against homosexuals in the military is not rationale.
When I reported to one of my commands, the person I relieved told me one of my underlings was a homosexual. "Everyone knows it; you'll be able to tell," he further told me. When I met this young Petty Officer, I immediately could tell he was a homosexual. This Sailor, though, was one of the smartest, most professional, and articulate Sailors you could hope to serve with. Just prior to deploying, he told the command he was gay and was discharged. I lost a good man. This injustice needs to stop. (I should point out my belief that he told the command he was gay not because he was gay, but because he no longer wanted to be in the Navy and this was a way out. This is my opinion.)
The Armed Forces need professionals in the ranks. Sexual orientation, race, religion, creed, or sex of the person does not determine professionalism. The actions of the person determine professionalism. The Armed Forces should discharge those who show unfavorable actions to "good order and discipline" not those who possess certain unchangeable traits. As stated in The Bluejackets' Manual, "it is the goal...to eliminate every vestige of prejudice" (Bearden, pg 65). The Armed Forces need not prejudge homosexuals before proof.......it is time to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Mike
References not linked:
Bearden, B and Bill Wedertz. (1978) The Bluejackets' Manual. Maryland: United States Naval Institute.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Restoring Honor
Today Glenn Beck held his "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Of course, the loons who do not like Mr. Beck railed against his rally, especially the choice of date. Fifty-seven years ago today, Martin Luther King, Jr, gave his famous "I have a dream" speech. You can make your own determination about the choice of date. I will use these loons' message to make my own.
Even if you disagree with Glenn Beck's political views or his choice of venue and date, you should at least agree with his message today. At least I hope you do. "Restoring Honor" is a message many people need to hear and to understand. Too often nowadays, people are not treating others with any honor. We need to restore honor to our society and to our Country.
The last year we have seen a myriad of issues thrust into the national spotlight. The illegal immigration debate, the proposed Muslim Community Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, and healthcare are some of issues which have divided the nation. Some of the words utilized by people on both sides of the issues call into question the honor of the people who have spoken those words.
One of the principles our Country was founded on was principle that the people should be allowed to speak freely about their government. The concept of free speech is included four times in the First Amendment. First, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Second, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Third, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Lastly, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Four different statements which affirm the right of the people to speak their mind about the government. This fact should resonate loudly how important the principle was to the Founding Fathers. Yet, everyday, someone tries to stifle the speech of someone else. And the manner of doing so is very nefarious.
This past week I saw some pictures from demonstrations over the proposed Muslim Community Center in Manhattan. Some of the signs called those who oppose the building are "racists." The demonstrations over illegal immigration included the same signs. Rep. Grayson (how anyone could vote for this guy is beyond me) said the Republicans who opposed President Obama's takeover of healthcare wanted those who are sick to "die quickly."
This rhetoric of labeling opponents as "haters" or "racists" or whatever other despicable term can be chosen needs to stop. Healthy debate over topics, even decisive ones, is needed. The airing of opposition based on facts and viable opinions is needed. Defaming the opponent is not needed.
It should be viewed as dishonorable to label your opponents for disagreeing with you, especially when the labels of "hater" and "racist" are utilized. These labels do not add to the debate. As far as I'm concerned, the labels are a covert method of abridging free speech. I think it is reasonable to expect, the reasonable person might not speak up if the person is afraid of being labeled something despicable. This is no different than the fear of speaking up because there is a law against it.
Bringing emotion into the debate has only one purpose - to incite violence. Loathe the person who decides to label an opponent so that violence happens in the hopes the person's viewpoint wins. The labeling of opponents with spiteful words needs to end!
We need to view honor in the same light as trust and integrity. When someone loses trust or violates his or her integrity, that person does not get those attributes restored for a long time, if at all. The Japanese used to commit suicide over losing honor. I don't think we need to go to those extremes, but it would behoove us to have a similar view - losing honor is not desirable. If someone violates honor, that person should not be treated like someone who possesses honor. We should shun them and treat them different.
America needs to restore Her Honor. We need to respect the viewpoint of each other and not rely on name calling to make our point. Glenn Beck is right. Take the honorable route.....
Mike
Even if you disagree with Glenn Beck's political views or his choice of venue and date, you should at least agree with his message today. At least I hope you do. "Restoring Honor" is a message many people need to hear and to understand. Too often nowadays, people are not treating others with any honor. We need to restore honor to our society and to our Country.
The last year we have seen a myriad of issues thrust into the national spotlight. The illegal immigration debate, the proposed Muslim Community Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, and healthcare are some of issues which have divided the nation. Some of the words utilized by people on both sides of the issues call into question the honor of the people who have spoken those words.
One of the principles our Country was founded on was principle that the people should be allowed to speak freely about their government. The concept of free speech is included four times in the First Amendment. First, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Second, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Third, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Lastly, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Four different statements which affirm the right of the people to speak their mind about the government. This fact should resonate loudly how important the principle was to the Founding Fathers. Yet, everyday, someone tries to stifle the speech of someone else. And the manner of doing so is very nefarious.
This past week I saw some pictures from demonstrations over the proposed Muslim Community Center in Manhattan. Some of the signs called those who oppose the building are "racists." The demonstrations over illegal immigration included the same signs. Rep. Grayson (how anyone could vote for this guy is beyond me) said the Republicans who opposed President Obama's takeover of healthcare wanted those who are sick to "die quickly."
This rhetoric of labeling opponents as "haters" or "racists" or whatever other despicable term can be chosen needs to stop. Healthy debate over topics, even decisive ones, is needed. The airing of opposition based on facts and viable opinions is needed. Defaming the opponent is not needed.
It should be viewed as dishonorable to label your opponents for disagreeing with you, especially when the labels of "hater" and "racist" are utilized. These labels do not add to the debate. As far as I'm concerned, the labels are a covert method of abridging free speech. I think it is reasonable to expect, the reasonable person might not speak up if the person is afraid of being labeled something despicable. This is no different than the fear of speaking up because there is a law against it.
Bringing emotion into the debate has only one purpose - to incite violence. Loathe the person who decides to label an opponent so that violence happens in the hopes the person's viewpoint wins. The labeling of opponents with spiteful words needs to end!
We need to view honor in the same light as trust and integrity. When someone loses trust or violates his or her integrity, that person does not get those attributes restored for a long time, if at all. The Japanese used to commit suicide over losing honor. I don't think we need to go to those extremes, but it would behoove us to have a similar view - losing honor is not desirable. If someone violates honor, that person should not be treated like someone who possesses honor. We should shun them and treat them different.
America needs to restore Her Honor. We need to respect the viewpoint of each other and not rely on name calling to make our point. Glenn Beck is right. Take the honorable route.....
Mike
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Wizard, the President, and the Mosque
Last Friday, 8/13, President Obama spoke at a Ramadan dinner. During his speech he did what most politicians love to do: state the obvious. On Saturday, he had to clarify what he meant when he spoke the obvious. Of course, since Friday, the talking-heads have been having a field day with the topic. The constant barrage about this subject can be nauseating. Now I am going to wade into the muck.
For some time there has been debate on the proposed cultural center and mosque to be built in lower Manhattan. The news media (including FOX) likes to spin the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque." This three word phrase, at least to me, seems to imply that a mosque is to be built in the very location where the Twin Towers and other buildings once stood prior to their destruction in a cowardly terrorist attack 9 years ago. Of course, the fact is that the mosque is to be built on property two blocks away from the location known as "ground zero." Using Google Maps, one can see that when one walks some steps from the building, one can look down the street and view the hole which is ground zero. The mosque is not planned to be built at Ground Zero; therefore, the news media should not refer to the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque."
Another misnomer is that the building is not a mosque per se. The building will contain a mosque. However, most of the building will consist of a cultural center which will encompass most of the building. So in reality, the building should be considered a Muslim Cultural Center. When I was young, I attended church in a converted grocery store. I don't think people not associated with the church called the shopping center, "the Church." Therefore, we should not call the cultural center a mosque.
The President on Friday expressed the fact that the people who desire to build the cultural center have every right under the Constitution to do so. This is a fact. No one, not even those against the project, has ever suggested otherwise. Of course, the talking heads began ranting that because the President did not object to the center's location, his comment was support for
"a mosque at ground zero."
The ranting resulted in a clarification which only further muddled the issue. The President said that he was only commenting on the right not the "wisdom" to build the mosque. Here the President weighed in on an issue with a statement of fact not in question without actually taking a stance. Some could argue this is wise because he is allowing the issue to be handled at the local level where it should be handled. Others could argue that his statement without his opinion is not wise because he only fuels the political fire without offering any support.
I like what Charles Krauthammer on FOX said yesterday. He called the actions of the President "cowardly." Just like the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz, the President runs from confrontation. Of course, the President does not have any trouble stoking the fire while he does so.
First, the President, in front of Muslims, says they have a right to build a mosque on private property. But he does not address the apparent "wisdom" of the decision. Second, a day later and hundreds of miles from the Muslims he spoke with on Friday, while speaking to someone who just might not support the plan, he asserts the "right" without commenting on the "wisdom." Cowardly on both fronts.
Muslims have every right to build their cultural center with a mosque wherever they choose, INCLUDING ON THE VERY CENTER OF "GROUND ZERO." Our Constitutional principles state as such. However, to build the cultural center anywhere near "ground zero" is not a very wise decision.
One can argue all day long that Islam does not play a part in the opposition. That would be a fallacy. Let's face the facts: the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers were Muslims who believed in Islam. The terrorists who attacked the US on that day did so in the belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for their actions. This belief comes directly from their religion. Thus Islam played a major role in the attacks which occurred on 9/11.
Now the viewpoints of the terrorists are not shared by all Islamic followers - one hopes the the views aren't shared by most either. The fact remains though that Islam played a role and the Muslims who desire to build the cultural center should take that into account. If they want to be blind to this fact, then they, themselves, are not very wise. It would the same as saying the Catholic and Protestant faiths did not play a factor in the conflict surrounding Northern Ireland's political state. The Catholics desired independence, the Protestants did not. However, the underlying reason was that the Protestants desired to remain with Protestant England vice self-rule or merging with Catholic Ireland. Politics drove the issue, religion underlined the issue. Same with the Twin Towers. The politics of US-Israel drove the attacks. Islam underlined the attacks. An acknowledgement upon the part of the supporters would go a long way to healing the wounds of the families involved in the attacks of 9/11.
Yesterday, I told my girlfriend that it would behoove the opponents of the cultural center to provide a counter-proposal. It is not enough for the opponents to stand on the sidelines and whine and moan about the atrocities of the decision to build the cultural center so close to "ground zero." The opponents need to show they are willing to support the right to build the mosque by helping the proponents choose another site. I was taught as a young Sailor not to go whining to the Chief about a problem unless I had some solutions. The opponents would do well for their side to provide alternative locations, with incentives, to the proponents so that the cultural center is built elsewhere. I applaud Governor Patterson for opening such a door.
Of course, the question is now begged, "how far away is enough?" The answer is simple. Such that anyone in the building or leaving the building cannot see "Ground Zero" from a window or other vantage point from or within one block of the building. I think that would satisfy the opponents.
The President waded into the muck of this situation. He did so in a cowardly manner again showing his total lack of leadership skills. The advice he gets from behind the curtain is not doing well for his performance for the masses. The President needs to learn that a leader does not need to take the middle of the road. Why he is so afraid to say whether the decision for the cultural center is wise or not is beyond me. It is also beyond me how he could say one thing to one group and then allude something else to another. When someone, especially a leader, does this, they begin to lose the confidence of the people they lead and the people around them. (I speak from experience.)
The Cowardly Lion was awarded a medal for bravery in the movie. I think the President needs to drink the potion (book version). He might do a better job at addressing the issues and talking frankly with those around him; instead of doing what he so accustomed to doing: being a pitch man. Oh my, the President is the Wizard.....
Mike
On another note, I recommend everyone look up Ramadan and learn about this holy month for Islam and Muslims who practice Islam. Understanding other's belief systems can go a long way to bridging any gap....
For some time there has been debate on the proposed cultural center and mosque to be built in lower Manhattan. The news media (including FOX) likes to spin the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque." This three word phrase, at least to me, seems to imply that a mosque is to be built in the very location where the Twin Towers and other buildings once stood prior to their destruction in a cowardly terrorist attack 9 years ago. Of course, the fact is that the mosque is to be built on property two blocks away from the location known as "ground zero." Using Google Maps, one can see that when one walks some steps from the building, one can look down the street and view the hole which is ground zero. The mosque is not planned to be built at Ground Zero; therefore, the news media should not refer to the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque."
Another misnomer is that the building is not a mosque per se. The building will contain a mosque. However, most of the building will consist of a cultural center which will encompass most of the building. So in reality, the building should be considered a Muslim Cultural Center. When I was young, I attended church in a converted grocery store. I don't think people not associated with the church called the shopping center, "the Church." Therefore, we should not call the cultural center a mosque.
The President on Friday expressed the fact that the people who desire to build the cultural center have every right under the Constitution to do so. This is a fact. No one, not even those against the project, has ever suggested otherwise. Of course, the talking heads began ranting that because the President did not object to the center's location, his comment was support for
"a mosque at ground zero."
The ranting resulted in a clarification which only further muddled the issue. The President said that he was only commenting on the right not the "wisdom" to build the mosque. Here the President weighed in on an issue with a statement of fact not in question without actually taking a stance. Some could argue this is wise because he is allowing the issue to be handled at the local level where it should be handled. Others could argue that his statement without his opinion is not wise because he only fuels the political fire without offering any support.
I like what Charles Krauthammer on FOX said yesterday. He called the actions of the President "cowardly." Just like the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz, the President runs from confrontation. Of course, the President does not have any trouble stoking the fire while he does so.
First, the President, in front of Muslims, says they have a right to build a mosque on private property. But he does not address the apparent "wisdom" of the decision. Second, a day later and hundreds of miles from the Muslims he spoke with on Friday, while speaking to someone who just might not support the plan, he asserts the "right" without commenting on the "wisdom." Cowardly on both fronts.
Muslims have every right to build their cultural center with a mosque wherever they choose, INCLUDING ON THE VERY CENTER OF "GROUND ZERO." Our Constitutional principles state as such. However, to build the cultural center anywhere near "ground zero" is not a very wise decision.
One can argue all day long that Islam does not play a part in the opposition. That would be a fallacy. Let's face the facts: the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers were Muslims who believed in Islam. The terrorists who attacked the US on that day did so in the belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for their actions. This belief comes directly from their religion. Thus Islam played a major role in the attacks which occurred on 9/11.
Now the viewpoints of the terrorists are not shared by all Islamic followers - one hopes the the views aren't shared by most either. The fact remains though that Islam played a role and the Muslims who desire to build the cultural center should take that into account. If they want to be blind to this fact, then they, themselves, are not very wise. It would the same as saying the Catholic and Protestant faiths did not play a factor in the conflict surrounding Northern Ireland's political state. The Catholics desired independence, the Protestants did not. However, the underlying reason was that the Protestants desired to remain with Protestant England vice self-rule or merging with Catholic Ireland. Politics drove the issue, religion underlined the issue. Same with the Twin Towers. The politics of US-Israel drove the attacks. Islam underlined the attacks. An acknowledgement upon the part of the supporters would go a long way to healing the wounds of the families involved in the attacks of 9/11.
Yesterday, I told my girlfriend that it would behoove the opponents of the cultural center to provide a counter-proposal. It is not enough for the opponents to stand on the sidelines and whine and moan about the atrocities of the decision to build the cultural center so close to "ground zero." The opponents need to show they are willing to support the right to build the mosque by helping the proponents choose another site. I was taught as a young Sailor not to go whining to the Chief about a problem unless I had some solutions. The opponents would do well for their side to provide alternative locations, with incentives, to the proponents so that the cultural center is built elsewhere. I applaud Governor Patterson for opening such a door.
Of course, the question is now begged, "how far away is enough?" The answer is simple. Such that anyone in the building or leaving the building cannot see "Ground Zero" from a window or other vantage point from or within one block of the building. I think that would satisfy the opponents.
The President waded into the muck of this situation. He did so in a cowardly manner again showing his total lack of leadership skills. The advice he gets from behind the curtain is not doing well for his performance for the masses. The President needs to learn that a leader does not need to take the middle of the road. Why he is so afraid to say whether the decision for the cultural center is wise or not is beyond me. It is also beyond me how he could say one thing to one group and then allude something else to another. When someone, especially a leader, does this, they begin to lose the confidence of the people they lead and the people around them. (I speak from experience.)
The Cowardly Lion was awarded a medal for bravery in the movie. I think the President needs to drink the potion (book version). He might do a better job at addressing the issues and talking frankly with those around him; instead of doing what he so accustomed to doing: being a pitch man. Oh my, the President is the Wizard.....
Mike
On another note, I recommend everyone look up Ramadan and learn about this holy month for Islam and Muslims who practice Islam. Understanding other's belief systems can go a long way to bridging any gap....
Friday, August 13, 2010
Electoral College: Essential to Our Governmental System
A friend of mine asked me to write about the Electoral College. Of the many items I wish to write about this is actually one of those topics on my list. A few years ago as I moved out west, I had a conversation with one of my Aunts discussing the importance of the Electoral College. She had never though about the purpose behind the college and was appreciative of my explanation. I hope you are too.
As usual, I've researched this topic to expand my knowledge of the process and the reason behind the process. I don't remember being taught about the Electoral College specifics during any class while in high school or in my US History college class. This does not mean I wasn't taught the subject; it does mean, though, that the emphasize placed upon the topic, if taught, was not significant enough to be retained by my memory cells.
Every election year, one group or another proposes ending the Electoral College system of electing the President and the Vice President. One of those is a bastion of liberty ideals, one Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who in 2004 proposed an end to the "out-dated" system of electing the heads of the Executive Branch of our Federal Government. The problem these people have with the system is that the populous does not actually vote for the President and the Vice President of the United States. (If you thought you did, I'm sorry but you do not.)
Under the Electoral College, on November 4 of the every 4th year election year, when the citizens of the Country vote for President and Vice President, they are actually voting for the electors of their state. The electors then in December will cast their vote for President and Vice President. Only the electors actually vote for a President and a Vice President; the citizens do not. Thus when you look at our system, the citizens of a state vote for the electors who will represent them in the vote for the President and the Vice President. Thus a majority of a state's voters will decide the allocation of a state's electors. The majority of state's then decide who are the President and the Vice President.
There are pros and cons to both sides of the issue. (I will include several links at the end of my blog for your leisurely review. The most informative link will be the pdf file from a FEC administrator.) One of the loudest arguments against the system is that a person could win the Presidency without a majority of the popular vote - which has occurred four times in our history: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and most recently, George W. Bush (2000) (Downey, pg E-96). This aspect is crucial to the system and my arguments. I will only discuss my thoughts on why the electoral college is important and why it should remain in place. I will admit up front, I believe the majority of those who wish to change the system are progressives who wish to destroy the US - see the link above, Sen. Feinstein is a liberal and a progressive.
My arguments for why the electoral college is important rely on the name of our Country and the substance found in Article II of the US Constitution. I do not rely on any of the arguments which state the populous is not informed enough to vote (although it might be biased in its vote). I do not believe in that aspect of the Electoral College. I hope to sway you to my side.
First, what is the name of our Country? Is it America? No. Although we are incorrectly, I believe, referred to as Americans, we do not belong to the Country of America. We belong to the United States of America. Our Country is actually, the United States. We each are citizens of our respective states which then belong to a union of said states to form our Country, the United States. Every four years, the country gets together to elect a President who represents the UNITED STATES. This is the key to the argument. The President does not represent the citizens of the country; instead, the President represents the union of the States. Thus the President (and the Vice President) should be elected by a majority of the States and not by a majority of the citizens. This is what the electoral college accomplishes.
As already stated, the majority of the populous could vote for a single person who actually will not become President. The essence of the electoral college ensures that the most populous states do not then elect the President and the Vice President. For example, Texas, California, and New York account for 26% of the total population of the country. This means that 1/16th of the total number of states has 1/4th of the population of the country. If you add in the next 6 states for a total of 9 states, the percent of the total population reaches 51%. This means that if those 9 states ALL voted for the same candidate and the rest of the country voted for the opposite candidate, 1/10th of the states would choose the President. (Granted this argument relies on the fact that the approximate number of voters in each state is directly related to the total number of people in that state and that everyone of the voters in each state votes the same. Realize, this is for the argument.) However, by the electoral college method, those nine states would amass only 241 electoral college votes which is an insufficient number (270 is needed) for President. Instead, the other 41 states (plus DC) would have chosen the President. Again, the President is the President of the United States; not the President of the people of the United States.
(It should be noted, that if two more states all do the same as the nine states above, the President would be decided by 11 of 50 states. However, in the reality of the situation, most states seem to be united by different factors. For example, the South has usually been referred to the "Bible Belt" and tend to vote Republicans. The West and the Northeast tend to be more liberal and usually votes Democratic. When you look at the populous of Florida, it is 50/50 with respect to ideology between the two parties. Thus their vote can sway from one party to another as evidenced by their vote for Republicans in 2000 and for Democrats in 2008. The Electoral College allows the little States to join together to have their voice heard in the election of the President vice having the larger States always dominating the election results.)
Second, we look to the Constitution. Section 2 and 3 of Article II list the duties and responsibilities of the President. One of those responsibilities is the power to make treaties with other nations. Another the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States. The President appoints Ambassadors and Judges. Every appointment is for the benefit of the United States. Each of the duties and responsibilities in some way benefits the country as a whole. Additionally, the President is the person who is selected to interact with other countries.
Some might argue these also benefit the citizens as much as they do the states. However, the benefit bestowed on the states is more substantial to the union than any benefit which may or may not be bestowed on the citizens. Think of bestowing benefits on a company. The company benefits more than the individual employees of the company. The President represents the States to the world for benefit to the States which will then be indirectly beneficial to the people.
We stand alone in the world with this form of election. However, we stand alone in many aspects of our government. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I think not. Argentina elects their leader by popular vote. Russia elects their leader by popular vote. Iran elects their leader by popular vote. They are "democracies." We are a Republic. China elects their leader by a selection process which relies on a lower level of bureaucracy to elect the members of the next higher bureaucracy until you have an overall leader. It would be the same as if the Congress elected the President (one of the original proposals for election of the President). Which would you prefer, our system or the system of any of the countries mentioned?
I will offer a disadvantage to the system which is near and dear to my heart: political parties. I am disenfranchised with the ideologies of the two big political parties. The Electoral College maintains the two-party system making it difficult, actually out-right impossible, for a third political party to win the Presidency. However, the need for the voice for the President to be the States vice the populous overrides this disadvantage in my opinion.
We are the United States. As such, we elect our leader by ensuring that the individual states have a say in the leader vice a majority of the population. The Electoral College is essential to our Republic form of government and should continue to exist....
Mike
References not linked above:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Kimberling, William. (1992). The electoral college. Retrieved 12 Aug 2010 from http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf (This is a well written dissertation on the Electoral College!)
National Archives and Records Administration website: http://archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html
Wikipedia for how nations mentioned elected their leaders.
US Census Bureau for population numbers: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
US Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/
As usual, I've researched this topic to expand my knowledge of the process and the reason behind the process. I don't remember being taught about the Electoral College specifics during any class while in high school or in my US History college class. This does not mean I wasn't taught the subject; it does mean, though, that the emphasize placed upon the topic, if taught, was not significant enough to be retained by my memory cells.
Every election year, one group or another proposes ending the Electoral College system of electing the President and the Vice President. One of those is a bastion of liberty ideals, one Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who in 2004 proposed an end to the "out-dated" system of electing the heads of the Executive Branch of our Federal Government. The problem these people have with the system is that the populous does not actually vote for the President and the Vice President of the United States. (If you thought you did, I'm sorry but you do not.)
Under the Electoral College, on November 4 of the every 4th year election year, when the citizens of the Country vote for President and Vice President, they are actually voting for the electors of their state. The electors then in December will cast their vote for President and Vice President. Only the electors actually vote for a President and a Vice President; the citizens do not. Thus when you look at our system, the citizens of a state vote for the electors who will represent them in the vote for the President and the Vice President. Thus a majority of a state's voters will decide the allocation of a state's electors. The majority of state's then decide who are the President and the Vice President.
There are pros and cons to both sides of the issue. (I will include several links at the end of my blog for your leisurely review. The most informative link will be the pdf file from a FEC administrator.) One of the loudest arguments against the system is that a person could win the Presidency without a majority of the popular vote - which has occurred four times in our history: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and most recently, George W. Bush (2000) (Downey, pg E-96). This aspect is crucial to the system and my arguments. I will only discuss my thoughts on why the electoral college is important and why it should remain in place. I will admit up front, I believe the majority of those who wish to change the system are progressives who wish to destroy the US - see the link above, Sen. Feinstein is a liberal and a progressive.
My arguments for why the electoral college is important rely on the name of our Country and the substance found in Article II of the US Constitution. I do not rely on any of the arguments which state the populous is not informed enough to vote (although it might be biased in its vote). I do not believe in that aspect of the Electoral College. I hope to sway you to my side.
First, what is the name of our Country? Is it America? No. Although we are incorrectly, I believe, referred to as Americans, we do not belong to the Country of America. We belong to the United States of America. Our Country is actually, the United States. We each are citizens of our respective states which then belong to a union of said states to form our Country, the United States. Every four years, the country gets together to elect a President who represents the UNITED STATES. This is the key to the argument. The President does not represent the citizens of the country; instead, the President represents the union of the States. Thus the President (and the Vice President) should be elected by a majority of the States and not by a majority of the citizens. This is what the electoral college accomplishes.
As already stated, the majority of the populous could vote for a single person who actually will not become President. The essence of the electoral college ensures that the most populous states do not then elect the President and the Vice President. For example, Texas, California, and New York account for 26% of the total population of the country. This means that 1/16th of the total number of states has 1/4th of the population of the country. If you add in the next 6 states for a total of 9 states, the percent of the total population reaches 51%. This means that if those 9 states ALL voted for the same candidate and the rest of the country voted for the opposite candidate, 1/10th of the states would choose the President. (Granted this argument relies on the fact that the approximate number of voters in each state is directly related to the total number of people in that state and that everyone of the voters in each state votes the same. Realize, this is for the argument.) However, by the electoral college method, those nine states would amass only 241 electoral college votes which is an insufficient number (270 is needed) for President. Instead, the other 41 states (plus DC) would have chosen the President. Again, the President is the President of the United States; not the President of the people of the United States.
(It should be noted, that if two more states all do the same as the nine states above, the President would be decided by 11 of 50 states. However, in the reality of the situation, most states seem to be united by different factors. For example, the South has usually been referred to the "Bible Belt" and tend to vote Republicans. The West and the Northeast tend to be more liberal and usually votes Democratic. When you look at the populous of Florida, it is 50/50 with respect to ideology between the two parties. Thus their vote can sway from one party to another as evidenced by their vote for Republicans in 2000 and for Democrats in 2008. The Electoral College allows the little States to join together to have their voice heard in the election of the President vice having the larger States always dominating the election results.)
Second, we look to the Constitution. Section 2 and 3 of Article II list the duties and responsibilities of the President. One of those responsibilities is the power to make treaties with other nations. Another the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States. The President appoints Ambassadors and Judges. Every appointment is for the benefit of the United States. Each of the duties and responsibilities in some way benefits the country as a whole. Additionally, the President is the person who is selected to interact with other countries.
Some might argue these also benefit the citizens as much as they do the states. However, the benefit bestowed on the states is more substantial to the union than any benefit which may or may not be bestowed on the citizens. Think of bestowing benefits on a company. The company benefits more than the individual employees of the company. The President represents the States to the world for benefit to the States which will then be indirectly beneficial to the people.
We stand alone in the world with this form of election. However, we stand alone in many aspects of our government. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I think not. Argentina elects their leader by popular vote. Russia elects their leader by popular vote. Iran elects their leader by popular vote. They are "democracies." We are a Republic. China elects their leader by a selection process which relies on a lower level of bureaucracy to elect the members of the next higher bureaucracy until you have an overall leader. It would be the same as if the Congress elected the President (one of the original proposals for election of the President). Which would you prefer, our system or the system of any of the countries mentioned?
I will offer a disadvantage to the system which is near and dear to my heart: political parties. I am disenfranchised with the ideologies of the two big political parties. The Electoral College maintains the two-party system making it difficult, actually out-right impossible, for a third political party to win the Presidency. However, the need for the voice for the President to be the States vice the populous overrides this disadvantage in my opinion.
We are the United States. As such, we elect our leader by ensuring that the individual states have a say in the leader vice a majority of the population. The Electoral College is essential to our Republic form of government and should continue to exist....
Mike
References not linked above:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Kimberling, William. (1992). The electoral college. Retrieved 12 Aug 2010 from http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf (This is a well written dissertation on the Electoral College!)
National Archives and Records Administration website: http://archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html
Wikipedia for how nations mentioned elected their leaders.
US Census Bureau for population numbers: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
US Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/
Monday, August 9, 2010
Marriage Is Not a Fundamental Right
On Aug 4 a Federal Judge for the Ninth Circuit ruled California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was a state initiative to add to the State Constitution the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. The proposition passed by a slight majority vote of 52%.
It was amusing to listen to the talking heads scream about how one judge overruled the decision of millions of voters. Do they (the talking heads) not realize this is how our system of government is supposed to work? Under our system of government, the wolves and a lone sheep sit down to dinner together and decide what's for dinner. And it won't be the sheep. If majority ruled every time, the rights and privileges of the few would be trampled upon every time. This is not a principle upon which our Country was founded. There will be, no there has be, that one person who stands up for the minority when they are being over run by the majority. In other words, there must be a balance between what the majority wants and the rights of the minority. As long as what the majority wants does not infringe on the rights of the minority, then what the majority wants they'll get. Only when the rights of the minority are infringed will the majority's will get pushed back. This is the reason for judicial review. As I've stated before, even when we don't agree with the ruling, we must support the ruling; to do otherwise would be to fail the principles of our Country.
The ruling is an interesting read. The judge was very thorough in his ruling and at the same time, he was very strategic and very intelligent in the manner in which he rules Prop 8 unconstitutional. The issue before the court was whether a proposition which defined marriage as between a man and a woman infringed upon a same-sex couple's right to marriage under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
When confronted with a constitutional right question, the court must first decide if the right is a fundamental right. In this case, the court ruled that it is. His ruling, though, is not a stand-alone ruling. This right has been decided by several past court cases. One of the cases not cited by the judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (I do not know if this is how the case will be known, but, by convention, this is the most likely name) is Skinner v. Oklahoma, a 1942 case I've written about in a previous blog.
In Skinner, Justice Douglas said, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Unfortunately, he did not explain his reasoning for the marriage portion. Procreation, logically, can be seen as a fundamental right. If we were to limit the procreation of a race or group of people, the limitation could spell the end of said group or race. Marriage on the other hand is not necessarily a fundamental right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not ruled this way.
Once a right falls into the "fundamental" category, it must satisfy strict scrutiny. As stated in an earlier blog, to pass strict scrutiny, a law or regulation must fulfill a compelling State interest and must be narrowly drawn to satisfy that interest. In this case, Judge Walker did not review Prop 8 under strict scrutiny. This is his strategic and intelligent ploy used in his decision. Instead, he used the rational basis test.
Under the rational basis test, a law or regulation only has to fulfill a legitimate state interest and be rationally based to do so. Judge Walker failed Prop 8 under this test, the lower of the two tests. Thus, on appeal, a higher court will be less likely to overrule his decision because he utilized a lesser test to fail a law aimed at a right the Supreme Court has ruled fundamental. Brilliant!
So the question now is how is marriage not a legitimate state interest? Marriage is a legitimate state interest. The advocacy of stable families and households aids in the promotion of stable societies. Thus the real question is how is preventing gay marriage related to a legitimate state interest? Unfortunately, it is not. And this is where the defendants (Prop 8 supporters) fell awry of the law.
The defendants' arguments in every aspect of the case were weak and ill-formed premises and conclusions. The plaintiffs' arguments were far superior. For example, the defendants argued that studies show children raised by a mother and a father are more apt to be productive members of society than children not raised in that situation. The flaw in the defendants argument is that the studies they relied on compared families to single-parent households. If you compare a child raised in a same-sex family to a child raised in an opposite-sex family, the results are very similar. Thus, the defendants' argument fails. I'd like to point out, that a child raised by a couple not married is apt to follow the trend of the children of two parent households also. So what does that do to the defendants' argument?
Another argument utilized by the defendants was that marriage is supposed to promote procreation which obviously a same-sex couple cannot do together. This is another severely flawed argument. If you say that marriage is for procreation thus we will not allow same-sex marriages because they cannot procreate, then you MUST ALSO force those opposite-sex couples to DIVORCE (if married) or NOT TO MARRY when one of the pair is found to be sterile. Additionally, you would not be able to allow the marriage of the elderly as their child production days are either numbered or finished. Be careful of the unintended consequences of decisions!
So just what is marriage? To answer this question, you have to look to history. When communities first formed, a man took a woman and they lived together to form a family. The fact that the couple was together was enough to satisfy the marriage aspect. In other words, the basic right of everyone is a right to co-habitate with a person of their choosing. This is the fundamental right. Marriage is only a societal recognition of the basic right of co-habitation. (At the end of my blog will be links to three websites on the history of marriage. It is highly recommended to review this websites. Marriage rituals have changed over the years based on the interjection of religion into the customs of society and also on the changing of the customs of a society.)
The defendants in the Prop 8 debate contend that they cannot tell homosexuals not to co-habitate. The State of California went so far as to allow "domestic partnerships" which recognize the same legal rights as a marriage. The only exception is the use of the word marriage. So, if the Prop 8 defendants acknowledge that homosexuals can life together, and that the same may have the legal rights that a married couple possess, why are they so opposed to the word marriage for same-sex couples? (This was the essence of Prop 8: a fight over the use of a word!)
Many of the opponents of same-sex marriages are religions. The religious people point to the religious doctrine which governs their religion. For example, in the Bible, Leviticus 18:13 states "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that." Additionally, in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death." This is the basis behind the shunning of homosexual couples. I would like to point out that both of those passages relate to MAN and not to WOMAN. In the book of Romans, which is a letter by Paul, there is a reference to female homosexuality but it is not as strong as the passages from the old testament. Thus, the Bible is against male homosexuality and not necessarily female homosexuality. (The Qur'an a similar passage exists, 7:81 "Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather you are a transgressing people.")
The pro-religion people will argue that the passage in the New Testament is an extension or acknowledgment of sin to female homosexuality. They will say that all homosexuality is a sin. To which I retort: 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, "In the letter that I wrote you I told you not to associate with immoral people. Now I did not mean pagans who are immoral or greedy or are thieves, or who worship idols. To avoid them you would have to get out of the world completely. What I meant was that you should not associate with a person who calls himself a brother but is immoral or greedy or worships idols or is a slanderer or a drunkard or a thief. Don't even sit down to eat with a person." This is another letter by Paul, except this time to the Corinthians. Look closely at that passage. God is acknowledging the existence of homosexual people along with other nefarious people and is also acknowledging you CANNOT ESCAPE THEM. Paul is also saying that as long as they don't purport themselves to believe in God the Christian way you can associate with them. Just don't associate with homosexuals who say they believe what is in the Bible.
The right of association is a fundamental right. The First Amendment gives us this right, "Congress shall make no law...abridging..the right of the people peaceably to assemble." This right is explicit in the Constitution. Thus religions do not have to admit homosexuals or assemble with homosexuals. It is their right. So, homosexuality is a sin in most religions. Granted. However, most religions are tolerant of the sins of others. If you are religious and you don't like homosexuality, don't associate with homosexuals. This does not give you any power to tell the rest of society who they can associate with!
Another argument by the religious groups is that by acknowledging marriage can be between same-sex couples means that in public schools this will be taught as an alternative to opposite-sex marriage. To which I retort, so what? Even if that happens, you cannot teach homosexuality into a heterosexual person. I, for one, have known I like girls (I'm a boy) since puberty. This was not taught to me. This attraction I feel for females I have no control over. It's instinctual. Thus, you cannot say that by teaching an alternative lifestyle as normal will turn a heterosexual into a homosexual. I'm sure there is a small probability that it could happen but the percentage will be so small as to be inconsequential to the argument. I can acknowledge that some homosexuals are instinctively heterosexual but choose to be homosexual but I cannot support the argument that ALL homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. That argument fails logic.
History shows us that marriage is nothing more than the recognition of a couple's commitment to one another. Is that such a bad thing, even if you find homosexuality repulsive, to acknowledge that two people want to be committed to each other when they are of the same sex? If society is willing to allow same-sex couples to co-habitate, why not extend the word marriage to that relationship?
I was against using marriage for homosexual couples. As a matter of fact, my proposition was to only use the word marriage for couples joined together in a church and to use "civil unions" for couples, including same-sex couples, joined together by a Justice-of-the-Peace or court. After researching marriage and reading the ruling in the Prop 8 case, I changed my mind. In our Country, at one time, some States refused to acknowledge interracial marriages because of the same faulty logic used to not acknowledge same-sex marriages. To not extend the recognition of marriages to all couples who are devoted to each other violates logic. If we are to do that (not recognize a devoted same-sex couple), why don't we all become like the Sneetches in the Dr. Seuss book?
Marriage is not a fundamental right, but maybe to protect a class of people from unwanted vilification by State power, it should be. Which is what the Supreme Court has ruled......
Mike
(Note: I spent four days researching and contemplating this subject. I do not intend to insult anyone so if I did, that was not my intention. For those against same-sex marriages, I hope to show you a line of thinking you might not have thought about.)
References not linked:
Google answers: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=468306 (Homosexuality and the Bible)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/gay/long.html (Homosexuality and the Qur'an)
History of Marriage:
about.com: http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
psychologytoday.com: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history
essortment.com: http://www.essortment.com/all/historyofmarri_rimr.htm
It was amusing to listen to the talking heads scream about how one judge overruled the decision of millions of voters. Do they (the talking heads) not realize this is how our system of government is supposed to work? Under our system of government, the wolves and a lone sheep sit down to dinner together and decide what's for dinner. And it won't be the sheep. If majority ruled every time, the rights and privileges of the few would be trampled upon every time. This is not a principle upon which our Country was founded. There will be, no there has be, that one person who stands up for the minority when they are being over run by the majority. In other words, there must be a balance between what the majority wants and the rights of the minority. As long as what the majority wants does not infringe on the rights of the minority, then what the majority wants they'll get. Only when the rights of the minority are infringed will the majority's will get pushed back. This is the reason for judicial review. As I've stated before, even when we don't agree with the ruling, we must support the ruling; to do otherwise would be to fail the principles of our Country.
The ruling is an interesting read. The judge was very thorough in his ruling and at the same time, he was very strategic and very intelligent in the manner in which he rules Prop 8 unconstitutional. The issue before the court was whether a proposition which defined marriage as between a man and a woman infringed upon a same-sex couple's right to marriage under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
When confronted with a constitutional right question, the court must first decide if the right is a fundamental right. In this case, the court ruled that it is. His ruling, though, is not a stand-alone ruling. This right has been decided by several past court cases. One of the cases not cited by the judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (I do not know if this is how the case will be known, but, by convention, this is the most likely name) is Skinner v. Oklahoma, a 1942 case I've written about in a previous blog.
In Skinner, Justice Douglas said, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Unfortunately, he did not explain his reasoning for the marriage portion. Procreation, logically, can be seen as a fundamental right. If we were to limit the procreation of a race or group of people, the limitation could spell the end of said group or race. Marriage on the other hand is not necessarily a fundamental right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not ruled this way.
Once a right falls into the "fundamental" category, it must satisfy strict scrutiny. As stated in an earlier blog, to pass strict scrutiny, a law or regulation must fulfill a compelling State interest and must be narrowly drawn to satisfy that interest. In this case, Judge Walker did not review Prop 8 under strict scrutiny. This is his strategic and intelligent ploy used in his decision. Instead, he used the rational basis test.
Under the rational basis test, a law or regulation only has to fulfill a legitimate state interest and be rationally based to do so. Judge Walker failed Prop 8 under this test, the lower of the two tests. Thus, on appeal, a higher court will be less likely to overrule his decision because he utilized a lesser test to fail a law aimed at a right the Supreme Court has ruled fundamental. Brilliant!
So the question now is how is marriage not a legitimate state interest? Marriage is a legitimate state interest. The advocacy of stable families and households aids in the promotion of stable societies. Thus the real question is how is preventing gay marriage related to a legitimate state interest? Unfortunately, it is not. And this is where the defendants (Prop 8 supporters) fell awry of the law.
The defendants' arguments in every aspect of the case were weak and ill-formed premises and conclusions. The plaintiffs' arguments were far superior. For example, the defendants argued that studies show children raised by a mother and a father are more apt to be productive members of society than children not raised in that situation. The flaw in the defendants argument is that the studies they relied on compared families to single-parent households. If you compare a child raised in a same-sex family to a child raised in an opposite-sex family, the results are very similar. Thus, the defendants' argument fails. I'd like to point out, that a child raised by a couple not married is apt to follow the trend of the children of two parent households also. So what does that do to the defendants' argument?
Another argument utilized by the defendants was that marriage is supposed to promote procreation which obviously a same-sex couple cannot do together. This is another severely flawed argument. If you say that marriage is for procreation thus we will not allow same-sex marriages because they cannot procreate, then you MUST ALSO force those opposite-sex couples to DIVORCE (if married) or NOT TO MARRY when one of the pair is found to be sterile. Additionally, you would not be able to allow the marriage of the elderly as their child production days are either numbered or finished. Be careful of the unintended consequences of decisions!
So just what is marriage? To answer this question, you have to look to history. When communities first formed, a man took a woman and they lived together to form a family. The fact that the couple was together was enough to satisfy the marriage aspect. In other words, the basic right of everyone is a right to co-habitate with a person of their choosing. This is the fundamental right. Marriage is only a societal recognition of the basic right of co-habitation. (At the end of my blog will be links to three websites on the history of marriage. It is highly recommended to review this websites. Marriage rituals have changed over the years based on the interjection of religion into the customs of society and also on the changing of the customs of a society.)
The defendants in the Prop 8 debate contend that they cannot tell homosexuals not to co-habitate. The State of California went so far as to allow "domestic partnerships" which recognize the same legal rights as a marriage. The only exception is the use of the word marriage. So, if the Prop 8 defendants acknowledge that homosexuals can life together, and that the same may have the legal rights that a married couple possess, why are they so opposed to the word marriage for same-sex couples? (This was the essence of Prop 8: a fight over the use of a word!)
Many of the opponents of same-sex marriages are religions. The religious people point to the religious doctrine which governs their religion. For example, in the Bible, Leviticus 18:13 states "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that." Additionally, in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death." This is the basis behind the shunning of homosexual couples. I would like to point out that both of those passages relate to MAN and not to WOMAN. In the book of Romans, which is a letter by Paul, there is a reference to female homosexuality but it is not as strong as the passages from the old testament. Thus, the Bible is against male homosexuality and not necessarily female homosexuality. (The Qur'an a similar passage exists, 7:81 "Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather you are a transgressing people.")
The pro-religion people will argue that the passage in the New Testament is an extension or acknowledgment of sin to female homosexuality. They will say that all homosexuality is a sin. To which I retort: 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, "In the letter that I wrote you I told you not to associate with immoral people. Now I did not mean pagans who are immoral or greedy or are thieves, or who worship idols. To avoid them you would have to get out of the world completely. What I meant was that you should not associate with a person who calls himself a brother but is immoral or greedy or worships idols or is a slanderer or a drunkard or a thief. Don't even sit down to eat with a person." This is another letter by Paul, except this time to the Corinthians. Look closely at that passage. God is acknowledging the existence of homosexual people along with other nefarious people and is also acknowledging you CANNOT ESCAPE THEM. Paul is also saying that as long as they don't purport themselves to believe in God the Christian way you can associate with them. Just don't associate with homosexuals who say they believe what is in the Bible.
The right of association is a fundamental right. The First Amendment gives us this right, "Congress shall make no law...abridging..the right of the people peaceably to assemble." This right is explicit in the Constitution. Thus religions do not have to admit homosexuals or assemble with homosexuals. It is their right. So, homosexuality is a sin in most religions. Granted. However, most religions are tolerant of the sins of others. If you are religious and you don't like homosexuality, don't associate with homosexuals. This does not give you any power to tell the rest of society who they can associate with!
Another argument by the religious groups is that by acknowledging marriage can be between same-sex couples means that in public schools this will be taught as an alternative to opposite-sex marriage. To which I retort, so what? Even if that happens, you cannot teach homosexuality into a heterosexual person. I, for one, have known I like girls (I'm a boy) since puberty. This was not taught to me. This attraction I feel for females I have no control over. It's instinctual. Thus, you cannot say that by teaching an alternative lifestyle as normal will turn a heterosexual into a homosexual. I'm sure there is a small probability that it could happen but the percentage will be so small as to be inconsequential to the argument. I can acknowledge that some homosexuals are instinctively heterosexual but choose to be homosexual but I cannot support the argument that ALL homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. That argument fails logic.
History shows us that marriage is nothing more than the recognition of a couple's commitment to one another. Is that such a bad thing, even if you find homosexuality repulsive, to acknowledge that two people want to be committed to each other when they are of the same sex? If society is willing to allow same-sex couples to co-habitate, why not extend the word marriage to that relationship?
I was against using marriage for homosexual couples. As a matter of fact, my proposition was to only use the word marriage for couples joined together in a church and to use "civil unions" for couples, including same-sex couples, joined together by a Justice-of-the-Peace or court. After researching marriage and reading the ruling in the Prop 8 case, I changed my mind. In our Country, at one time, some States refused to acknowledge interracial marriages because of the same faulty logic used to not acknowledge same-sex marriages. To not extend the recognition of marriages to all couples who are devoted to each other violates logic. If we are to do that (not recognize a devoted same-sex couple), why don't we all become like the Sneetches in the Dr. Seuss book?
Marriage is not a fundamental right, but maybe to protect a class of people from unwanted vilification by State power, it should be. Which is what the Supreme Court has ruled......
Mike
(Note: I spent four days researching and contemplating this subject. I do not intend to insult anyone so if I did, that was not my intention. For those against same-sex marriages, I hope to show you a line of thinking you might not have thought about.)
References not linked:
The Good News Bible: Today's English version. (1976). NY: American Bible Society
The Qur'an: Arabic text with corresponding English meanings. (1997). Saudia Arabia: Abulqasim Publishing House
Google answers: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=468306 (Homosexuality and the Bible)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/gay/long.html (Homosexuality and the Qur'an)
History of Marriage:
about.com: http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
psychologytoday.com: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history
essortment.com: http://www.essortment.com/all/historyofmarri_rimr.htm
Friday, August 6, 2010
Today We Remember the Destruction of Hiroshima
In reality, yesterday was the 65th anniversary of the day we, the United States, dropped one of the most destructive weapons in the history of man on the city of Hiroshima - Japan is 16 hours ahead of Pacific Standard Time. At about 08:15 in the morning of Aug 6, 1945, "Little Boy", the nickname of the first atomic bomb dropped in a war, was released from the B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay. President Truman had made the ultimate decision to wipe out a semi-strategic city. Death toll numbers are varied based on the source. Anywhere from 68,000 to 200,000 died in the blast along with the destruction of most of the city (Downey, pg H-179).
There is much debate about whether we needed to drop the bomb in the first place. Those who are in favor of the decision believe the bombs hastened the end of the war thus saving more lives than those lost in the two atomic bombs (Nagasaki was bombed Aug 9 with "Fat Man"). Those who oppose the decision believe the war was coming to an end anyway and Japan would've surrendered; they call attention to the dissenters in our own government. Obviously there are counter-arguments to both sides of the issue.
On July 26, 1945, the "Potsdam Declaration" was issued. This declaration was, in effect, a "surrender or face utter destruction" ultimatum. The problem with the declaration, from the Japanese standpoint, is that the declaration did not address the status of the emperor. Many Japanese wanted to retain their emperor and were afraid a surrender would end the emperor. (Even today, Japan has an emperor.) On July 29, 1945, the Japanese officially rejected the declaration. Eight days later the Japanese lost one of their cities along with many women and children as collateral damage.
For years the Japanese have been holding a memorial ceremony on this date, Aug 6, to remember those who died in the bombing and to call for total nuclear disarmament of the world. Today, or yesterday for them, was no exception. However, for the first time America sent a delegate to the ceremony. U.S. Ambassador John Rios attended the ceremony as the American representative.
There has been talk that we should apologize for the bombing. Of course, many Americans see this as ridiculous. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor first, and without provocation. Additionally, they have never officially apologized for the attack. Japan came close in 1991 when they released a statement saying they had meant to declare war on the US just prior to the attack.
I, for one, have never subscribed to the theory of apologizing for events or actions from the past with which one did not have direct involvement. I find it a ludicrous premise. How can anyone apologize for the actions of another? No one in our government today played a role in the decisions of 1945. Why should we apologize? I think it silly.
However, as I was contemplating my position on this matter, a strange concept came to mind. When we were growing up, anytime we got into an argument or a fight or a scuffle with someone else, what did our parents do to solve the situation? They made us apologize, even when we weren't really sorry. We apologized not because we were sorry; instead, we apologized to begin the road to atonement, to offer that hand of friendship to begin a conciliation. Maybe, just maybe, our parents were onto something.
Some might say we don't have to apologize because we helped rebuild what we destroyed. Some might say we will apologize only after Japan officially apologizes. Some might say we shouldn't apologize because it is a sign of weakness. However, how often have we ever said, "boy Mom and Dad were right" when recollecting some episode from our youth?
Well, maybe Mom and Dad were right. Maybe it's time for us to be the upstanding one and extend a hand in friendship and forgiveness vice a hand connected to the blunt end of a weapon or poised to push a button.....
Mike
References not linked:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
There is much debate about whether we needed to drop the bomb in the first place. Those who are in favor of the decision believe the bombs hastened the end of the war thus saving more lives than those lost in the two atomic bombs (Nagasaki was bombed Aug 9 with "Fat Man"). Those who oppose the decision believe the war was coming to an end anyway and Japan would've surrendered; they call attention to the dissenters in our own government. Obviously there are counter-arguments to both sides of the issue.
On July 26, 1945, the "Potsdam Declaration" was issued. This declaration was, in effect, a "surrender or face utter destruction" ultimatum. The problem with the declaration, from the Japanese standpoint, is that the declaration did not address the status of the emperor. Many Japanese wanted to retain their emperor and were afraid a surrender would end the emperor. (Even today, Japan has an emperor.) On July 29, 1945, the Japanese officially rejected the declaration. Eight days later the Japanese lost one of their cities along with many women and children as collateral damage.
For years the Japanese have been holding a memorial ceremony on this date, Aug 6, to remember those who died in the bombing and to call for total nuclear disarmament of the world. Today, or yesterday for them, was no exception. However, for the first time America sent a delegate to the ceremony. U.S. Ambassador John Rios attended the ceremony as the American representative.
There has been talk that we should apologize for the bombing. Of course, many Americans see this as ridiculous. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor first, and without provocation. Additionally, they have never officially apologized for the attack. Japan came close in 1991 when they released a statement saying they had meant to declare war on the US just prior to the attack.
I, for one, have never subscribed to the theory of apologizing for events or actions from the past with which one did not have direct involvement. I find it a ludicrous premise. How can anyone apologize for the actions of another? No one in our government today played a role in the decisions of 1945. Why should we apologize? I think it silly.
However, as I was contemplating my position on this matter, a strange concept came to mind. When we were growing up, anytime we got into an argument or a fight or a scuffle with someone else, what did our parents do to solve the situation? They made us apologize, even when we weren't really sorry. We apologized not because we were sorry; instead, we apologized to begin the road to atonement, to offer that hand of friendship to begin a conciliation. Maybe, just maybe, our parents were onto something.
Some might say we don't have to apologize because we helped rebuild what we destroyed. Some might say we will apologize only after Japan officially apologizes. Some might say we shouldn't apologize because it is a sign of weakness. However, how often have we ever said, "boy Mom and Dad were right" when recollecting some episode from our youth?
Well, maybe Mom and Dad were right. Maybe it's time for us to be the upstanding one and extend a hand in friendship and forgiveness vice a hand connected to the blunt end of a weapon or poised to push a button.....
Mike
References not linked:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Time for a Constitutional Amendment to Oust the Congress
In the Declaration of Independence the words "all men are created equal" are written. There has been much debate on the meaning of these words. Even Vice President Joe Biden once told a gathering of like-minded democrats that they should all remember they are equal. Not sure what "equality" he was squawking about, but, we should all be clear about what the words in the Declaration of Independence don't mean which is what he was hinting at: we are all equal in ability or we are equal such that we should be paid the same, or any of those other ridiculous social justice issues he and his ilk use to seduce the electorate.
I can catch a football. I can run rather fast. Does this mean I have the same ability as Chad Ochocinco? Of course not. Chad and I are not equal in ability. He will best me every time. No matter what practice I may undergo, I will never be on the same level as Chad. Also, if I was his age, I, even with extensive coaching, would not be on his level. We are not equal.
The question becomes then, should we be treated differently as human beings based on this difference? No. To quote Temple Grandin, "different but not less." These are powerful words. We are all different from each other, but from a human being standpoint, we are all "equal." Each of us are not less than the other because of our strengths and weaknesses.
This is what the Founders were saying in the Declaration of Independence. They were railing against the "nobility" concept of European law - a concept which declared some people were some how better than others and therefore are entitled to make the rules, to make decisions regarding everyone else. Nobility is based on birthright and the Founders did not believe people were born with a right to rule others. Instead, the Founders said we are all equal. They believed that together we could make laws which respected others. No one is entitled to rule - it must be earned. And thus was born our Country and our Constitution.
But, the Founders left something out of the Constitution. The populous realized what was missing and passed Amendment XXII in 1951. Unfortunately, the 22nd Amendment only fixed one half of the problem. We should now stand together and fix the Constitution for good.
The 22nd Amendment limited the President of the United States to two terms. After FDR had been elected to a fourth term, the people realized that someone in power too long was not a good idea in accordance with our Country's principles. A person could, theoretically, be elected for life unless term limits were set. Even with the balances of power in our Constitution, someone in power is corrupted by power. A President for life is too akin to a King. This is not what we want or need in this country. It is now time to extend that same philosophy to the Congress.
Two months ago, Senator Robert Byrd passed away. He had served from 1958 until his passing. He served 52 years at our expense. In 2003, Senator Strom Thurmond passed away after serving in the Senate since 1956. He served 47 years at our expense. In the Congress there are numerous professional politicians who are reelected, not because they are good at their job; they are reelected because they spend all of their time trying to get reelected. Instead of doing the job description found in the Constitution, they worry more about what they have to do stay in a job at the taxpayer's expense. Additionally, there are people who do not vote with intelligence. Too many people vote in the hopes they get something in return. Hmm, a vote for something in return is that not an element of corruption? Instead of voting who will or could do the best job in the Congress, the electorate continue to vote the same people into the Congress and then complain about the rules and laws which come from those people. And instead of voting them out of office, which is a principle of our Republic, they make the "easy vote."
Should not the same premise to limit the President's term in office (corruption of power, King thinking, etc) also apply to those in Congress? Should they not be limited to serve in the Congress? Should they not be returned to the populous so that they can live like the rest of us under the rules they set up? This is not a strange premise - we only have to go back to the beginning of our country to find it in writing.
The Virginia Bill of Rights , which were based on the English Declaration of Rights and were used to write our Bill of Rights, has a provision which eludes to this premise. "That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct."
I repeat, "that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station." Unfortunately, we do not reduce to a private station the members of Congress such that they feel the burdens with which they have bestowed upon us. It is time for this to occur.
The other day, Glenn Beck showed footage of Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA). This guy feels he is better than everyone. He is in Congress, not because we gave him that honor, but because he is a great man who should rule the rest of us. His pompous and elitist attitude is prevalent in everything he says. Just visit to see for yourself: http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/story/pete-stark-raving-mad-strikes-again/.
Rep. Pete Stark has served since 1973. He is up for re-election this year. Something tells me, that even though many of the people in the videos are against Stark, he will get reelected because there are more voters who have no clue about the meaning of their vote and they'll vote him back into Congress.
It is time to remove the Pete Starks and the Barbara "I worked hard to be a Senator so could you please call me Senator vice ma'am?" Boxers and the Nancy Pelosis of the Congress and return them to the populous. It is time to amend the Constitution. We need term limits in the Congress much like what we have for the President.
Now some might argue that some in Congress are good leaders and might be replaced with bad leaders. Uh, that happens under a Republic. We then vote them out. Our government is of the people, BY THE PEOPLE. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should have a go at government. But I will agree with those who argue against term limits that we should balance the term limits such that our good politicians can still provide sound leadership.
With the balancing in mind, I propose the following:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to:
a. The Senate of the United States for more than two consecutive terms, and no person who has held a Senate seat for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected shall be elected more than once.
b. The House of Representatives for more than four consecutive terms.
c. Either House of Congress if they have served at least one term in the other House of Congress such that the terms they would serve in both Houses would be consecutive terms with each other.
Section 2. For anyone who has fulfilled the term limits of Section 1 of this article, after having not served in the Congress for an amount of time equal to 1/2 of the total time they served consecutively, may be elected to either House of the Congress to again to be subject to the limits of Section 1 as if they had not served previously.
The essence of this amendment would be to:
a) limit Senators to 12 years of consecutive service followed by a 6 year break before they could serve again.
b) limit House of Representatives to 8 years of consecutive service followed by a 4 year break before they could serve again.
c) ensure no one could jump Houses of Congress in an attempt to avoid the consecutive term limits.
This amendment would ensure those in government are returned to the populous such that they live under the very rules which they have passed. Additionally, the taxpayers could save money by ensuring not a single member of Congress gets a pension for their service to the people.
I like my proposed amendment to the Constitution. It's time for term limits. I hope you agree....
Mike
I can catch a football. I can run rather fast. Does this mean I have the same ability as Chad Ochocinco? Of course not. Chad and I are not equal in ability. He will best me every time. No matter what practice I may undergo, I will never be on the same level as Chad. Also, if I was his age, I, even with extensive coaching, would not be on his level. We are not equal.
The question becomes then, should we be treated differently as human beings based on this difference? No. To quote Temple Grandin, "different but not less." These are powerful words. We are all different from each other, but from a human being standpoint, we are all "equal." Each of us are not less than the other because of our strengths and weaknesses.
This is what the Founders were saying in the Declaration of Independence. They were railing against the "nobility" concept of European law - a concept which declared some people were some how better than others and therefore are entitled to make the rules, to make decisions regarding everyone else. Nobility is based on birthright and the Founders did not believe people were born with a right to rule others. Instead, the Founders said we are all equal. They believed that together we could make laws which respected others. No one is entitled to rule - it must be earned. And thus was born our Country and our Constitution.
But, the Founders left something out of the Constitution. The populous realized what was missing and passed Amendment XXII in 1951. Unfortunately, the 22nd Amendment only fixed one half of the problem. We should now stand together and fix the Constitution for good.
The 22nd Amendment limited the President of the United States to two terms. After FDR had been elected to a fourth term, the people realized that someone in power too long was not a good idea in accordance with our Country's principles. A person could, theoretically, be elected for life unless term limits were set. Even with the balances of power in our Constitution, someone in power is corrupted by power. A President for life is too akin to a King. This is not what we want or need in this country. It is now time to extend that same philosophy to the Congress.
Two months ago, Senator Robert Byrd passed away. He had served from 1958 until his passing. He served 52 years at our expense. In 2003, Senator Strom Thurmond passed away after serving in the Senate since 1956. He served 47 years at our expense. In the Congress there are numerous professional politicians who are reelected, not because they are good at their job; they are reelected because they spend all of their time trying to get reelected. Instead of doing the job description found in the Constitution, they worry more about what they have to do stay in a job at the taxpayer's expense. Additionally, there are people who do not vote with intelligence. Too many people vote in the hopes they get something in return. Hmm, a vote for something in return is that not an element of corruption? Instead of voting who will or could do the best job in the Congress, the electorate continue to vote the same people into the Congress and then complain about the rules and laws which come from those people. And instead of voting them out of office, which is a principle of our Republic, they make the "easy vote."
Should not the same premise to limit the President's term in office (corruption of power, King thinking, etc) also apply to those in Congress? Should they not be limited to serve in the Congress? Should they not be returned to the populous so that they can live like the rest of us under the rules they set up? This is not a strange premise - we only have to go back to the beginning of our country to find it in writing.
The Virginia Bill of Rights , which were based on the English Declaration of Rights and were used to write our Bill of Rights, has a provision which eludes to this premise. "That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct."
I repeat, "that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station." Unfortunately, we do not reduce to a private station the members of Congress such that they feel the burdens with which they have bestowed upon us. It is time for this to occur.
The other day, Glenn Beck showed footage of Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA). This guy feels he is better than everyone. He is in Congress, not because we gave him that honor, but because he is a great man who should rule the rest of us. His pompous and elitist attitude is prevalent in everything he says. Just visit to see for yourself: http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/story/pete-stark-raving-mad-strikes-again/.
Rep. Pete Stark has served since 1973. He is up for re-election this year. Something tells me, that even though many of the people in the videos are against Stark, he will get reelected because there are more voters who have no clue about the meaning of their vote and they'll vote him back into Congress.
It is time to remove the Pete Starks and the Barbara "I worked hard to be a Senator so could you please call me Senator vice ma'am?" Boxers and the Nancy Pelosis of the Congress and return them to the populous. It is time to amend the Constitution. We need term limits in the Congress much like what we have for the President.
Now some might argue that some in Congress are good leaders and might be replaced with bad leaders. Uh, that happens under a Republic. We then vote them out. Our government is of the people, BY THE PEOPLE. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should have a go at government. But I will agree with those who argue against term limits that we should balance the term limits such that our good politicians can still provide sound leadership.
With the balancing in mind, I propose the following:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to:
a. The Senate of the United States for more than two consecutive terms, and no person who has held a Senate seat for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected shall be elected more than once.
b. The House of Representatives for more than four consecutive terms.
c. Either House of Congress if they have served at least one term in the other House of Congress such that the terms they would serve in both Houses would be consecutive terms with each other.
Section 2. For anyone who has fulfilled the term limits of Section 1 of this article, after having not served in the Congress for an amount of time equal to 1/2 of the total time they served consecutively, may be elected to either House of the Congress to again to be subject to the limits of Section 1 as if they had not served previously.
The essence of this amendment would be to:
a) limit Senators to 12 years of consecutive service followed by a 6 year break before they could serve again.
b) limit House of Representatives to 8 years of consecutive service followed by a 4 year break before they could serve again.
c) ensure no one could jump Houses of Congress in an attempt to avoid the consecutive term limits.
This amendment would ensure those in government are returned to the populous such that they live under the very rules which they have passed. Additionally, the taxpayers could save money by ensuring not a single member of Congress gets a pension for their service to the people.
I like my proposed amendment to the Constitution. It's time for term limits. I hope you agree....
Mike
Friday, July 30, 2010
I Support the Judge's Decision in the AZ Immigration Law Case
Yes, I support the Judge's decision in the AZ immigration law case. This does not mean that I liked the decision, nor does it mean I fully understand the decision, nor does it mean I agree with the decision, nor does it mean I do not still support the AZ immigration law. It only means I respect the judge's decision and I will stand by the decision.
We are a nation of laws meant to shape a free and ordered society such that we all can live as we see fit without intruding into the domain of others. The only way for this to occur is to have respect for the laws which are passed. We might not all agree or like the law but we must obey the law. If we don't like a law, we can work to change it. Sometimes judgments made by those who have a veto power over the law might rise our ire but a response of defiance cannot be tolerated if we desire for the other laws to maintain our free and ordered society. Right or wrong, the judge's decision is the judge's decision and we must abide by it.
With that said, I shall now do something which might seem odd. I will argue that part of the AZ is unconstitutional - but not utilizing the weak Department of Justice argument that the law tramples on federal responsibilities. Just realize, I do not actually know what was argued or what actually was stated in the decision besides what I've heard from the talking heads. I am going to argue a provision of the statute unconstitutional based on some new knowledge I've gained about our governmental system.
The portion I shall argue unconstitutional is the portion which requires officials during a legal stop with reasonable suspicion that the person involved in the legal stop is an illegal alien to inquire about immigration status. One of the requirements missing from this provision is what law officers are supposed to do once they come across someone who meets this condition. The intent is for the law officer to arrest the suspected illegal alien. Now this would apply to anyone who could not prove they are a legal alien or citizen. How long does this process take? This is where the law begins to stretch from constitutionality into unconstitutionality.
Hypothetical situation: Individual stopped for speeding. His English is not the best in the world. He is very nervous and lapses back into his native language. The police officer asks for his driver license and registration. Unfortunately, the driver forgot his wallet thus does not have proof of who he is. The name on the registration is his name but it's a common foreign name. The nervousness coupled with the broken English and the lack of a driver's license raises the suspicion of the officer. Is this guy an illegal alien or is he legal? What should he do? He radios back to the precinct but the name provided is inconclusive due to similarity with other names. The officer now arrests the man on suspicion of being an illegal alien due to lack of documentation. The problem is that the man has lived in this country for six years and has been a US citizen for the past one year. Is this a problem?
When considering the constitutionality of a law, the court looks at the intent of the law to see if affects a right. If it does, there are several tests which can be applied to verify the law's constitutionality. When rights dealing with life or liberty arises, the court will ask if the right involved is a fundamental right. In this case, detaining someone falls into the fundamental right category of liberty. Now liberty can be taken away with Due Process of Law but the law must provide Equal Protection of the law. This is where the immigration law begins to fall apart.
In Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 833, 894), Justice Sandra Day O'Conner states, "The proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant." In the AZ immigration law there are several groups for whom the law is irrelevant. Among these are legal citizens carrying legal identification, legal immigrants or other foreigners with legal and proper identification, and even illegal immigrants. The law becomes a restriction upon those who are legal citizens who by their look and their speech might lead one to believe they are not legal citizens who do not have identification upon their person. This class of people is the class we are concerned with in this discussion.
To look at this another way: two people are stopped for speeding: One who is white without a driver's license and one who is Oriental without a driver's license. What happens in each case? Without the AZ law, both are cited for not speeding and for not having a license. With the AZ law, the Oriental person, based on circumstances, could be detained longer than the white to verify immigration. How long that detainment lasts depends on the speed of the system in verification of the person's immigration status. Thus the Oriental's liberty is being denied, not necessarily without Due Process of Law, but based on not being Equal Protection of the Law.
To pass the Equal Protection Clause, the law must be "applicable equally to all in like condition," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (197 U.S. 11, 30). In the above scenario, two separate people are being treated differently. The reason they are being treated differently is because of certain traits associated with that person: race, color, nationality. When these traits become evident, this invokes the "strict scrutiny" test for constitutionality.
Under strict scrutiny, the State must prove that the intent of the law fulfills a "compelling state interest" and that the law is "narrowly drawn to satisfy this compelling interest." It is a valid state interest to ensure illegal immigrants are not in the state. It is a compelling state interest to remove said illegal immigrants from the state, especially if some of those immigrants are committing crimes against the populous of the state. The question then is the law "narrowly drawn" to satisfy this interest?
One only has to look to Skinner v. Oklahoma (316 U.S. 535) for the answer. In this case, thrice convicted felons were subject to sterilization because, at that time, it was believed criminal traits could be inherited from the parents. The problem with the law is that those subject to sterilization were "blue collar" criminals and not "white collar" criminals. Thus someone stealing $50 in a robbery three times was subject to the law while someone who embezzled $50 a hundred times was not. Why was this significant? Blacks committed most blue collar crimes while whites committed most white collar crimes. Thus Justice Douglas stated, "it has made as invidious discrimination as if it has selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment." Thus the sterilization law was declared unconstitutional for failing substantive due process.
The AZ law is not narrowly drawn to protect the liberty of a legal US citizen such that they will not be detained any longer than another US citizen who is of a different race or national origin. Much like Skinner, a discrimination of national origin is subjecting a class of persons to oppressive treatment in a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This means the law has stretched its umbrella of illegality over a legal action. Since the legal action is related to liberty - a fundamental right - the law must be declared unconstitutional.
The counter argument to this, which is made during many Supreme Court decisions, is that the number of people who would actually be denied liberty unjustly would be so small that it is unwarranted to declare the law unconstitutional. The problem with this argument though is our criminal system is based on the belief it is better to let a murderer go free to kill again than for the state to imprison an innocent person. Both are egregious actions, but the removal of freedom by state power outweighs the egregious nature of killing. We must stand by this principle even when our morals are assaulted.
I still agree with the AZ immigration law as written. However, I respect and stand by the judge's decision.
Mike
References:
Supreme Court Media: http://www.oyez.org/
We are a nation of laws meant to shape a free and ordered society such that we all can live as we see fit without intruding into the domain of others. The only way for this to occur is to have respect for the laws which are passed. We might not all agree or like the law but we must obey the law. If we don't like a law, we can work to change it. Sometimes judgments made by those who have a veto power over the law might rise our ire but a response of defiance cannot be tolerated if we desire for the other laws to maintain our free and ordered society. Right or wrong, the judge's decision is the judge's decision and we must abide by it.
With that said, I shall now do something which might seem odd. I will argue that part of the AZ is unconstitutional - but not utilizing the weak Department of Justice argument that the law tramples on federal responsibilities. Just realize, I do not actually know what was argued or what actually was stated in the decision besides what I've heard from the talking heads. I am going to argue a provision of the statute unconstitutional based on some new knowledge I've gained about our governmental system.
The portion I shall argue unconstitutional is the portion which requires officials during a legal stop with reasonable suspicion that the person involved in the legal stop is an illegal alien to inquire about immigration status. One of the requirements missing from this provision is what law officers are supposed to do once they come across someone who meets this condition. The intent is for the law officer to arrest the suspected illegal alien. Now this would apply to anyone who could not prove they are a legal alien or citizen. How long does this process take? This is where the law begins to stretch from constitutionality into unconstitutionality.
Hypothetical situation: Individual stopped for speeding. His English is not the best in the world. He is very nervous and lapses back into his native language. The police officer asks for his driver license and registration. Unfortunately, the driver forgot his wallet thus does not have proof of who he is. The name on the registration is his name but it's a common foreign name. The nervousness coupled with the broken English and the lack of a driver's license raises the suspicion of the officer. Is this guy an illegal alien or is he legal? What should he do? He radios back to the precinct but the name provided is inconclusive due to similarity with other names. The officer now arrests the man on suspicion of being an illegal alien due to lack of documentation. The problem is that the man has lived in this country for six years and has been a US citizen for the past one year. Is this a problem?
When considering the constitutionality of a law, the court looks at the intent of the law to see if affects a right. If it does, there are several tests which can be applied to verify the law's constitutionality. When rights dealing with life or liberty arises, the court will ask if the right involved is a fundamental right. In this case, detaining someone falls into the fundamental right category of liberty. Now liberty can be taken away with Due Process of Law but the law must provide Equal Protection of the law. This is where the immigration law begins to fall apart.
In Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 833, 894), Justice Sandra Day O'Conner states, "The proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant." In the AZ immigration law there are several groups for whom the law is irrelevant. Among these are legal citizens carrying legal identification, legal immigrants or other foreigners with legal and proper identification, and even illegal immigrants. The law becomes a restriction upon those who are legal citizens who by their look and their speech might lead one to believe they are not legal citizens who do not have identification upon their person. This class of people is the class we are concerned with in this discussion.
To look at this another way: two people are stopped for speeding: One who is white without a driver's license and one who is Oriental without a driver's license. What happens in each case? Without the AZ law, both are cited for not speeding and for not having a license. With the AZ law, the Oriental person, based on circumstances, could be detained longer than the white to verify immigration. How long that detainment lasts depends on the speed of the system in verification of the person's immigration status. Thus the Oriental's liberty is being denied, not necessarily without Due Process of Law, but based on not being Equal Protection of the Law.
To pass the Equal Protection Clause, the law must be "applicable equally to all in like condition," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (197 U.S. 11, 30). In the above scenario, two separate people are being treated differently. The reason they are being treated differently is because of certain traits associated with that person: race, color, nationality. When these traits become evident, this invokes the "strict scrutiny" test for constitutionality.
Under strict scrutiny, the State must prove that the intent of the law fulfills a "compelling state interest" and that the law is "narrowly drawn to satisfy this compelling interest." It is a valid state interest to ensure illegal immigrants are not in the state. It is a compelling state interest to remove said illegal immigrants from the state, especially if some of those immigrants are committing crimes against the populous of the state. The question then is the law "narrowly drawn" to satisfy this interest?
One only has to look to Skinner v. Oklahoma (316 U.S. 535) for the answer. In this case, thrice convicted felons were subject to sterilization because, at that time, it was believed criminal traits could be inherited from the parents. The problem with the law is that those subject to sterilization were "blue collar" criminals and not "white collar" criminals. Thus someone stealing $50 in a robbery three times was subject to the law while someone who embezzled $50 a hundred times was not. Why was this significant? Blacks committed most blue collar crimes while whites committed most white collar crimes. Thus Justice Douglas stated, "it has made as invidious discrimination as if it has selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment." Thus the sterilization law was declared unconstitutional for failing substantive due process.
The AZ law is not narrowly drawn to protect the liberty of a legal US citizen such that they will not be detained any longer than another US citizen who is of a different race or national origin. Much like Skinner, a discrimination of national origin is subjecting a class of persons to oppressive treatment in a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This means the law has stretched its umbrella of illegality over a legal action. Since the legal action is related to liberty - a fundamental right - the law must be declared unconstitutional.
The counter argument to this, which is made during many Supreme Court decisions, is that the number of people who would actually be denied liberty unjustly would be so small that it is unwarranted to declare the law unconstitutional. The problem with this argument though is our criminal system is based on the belief it is better to let a murderer go free to kill again than for the state to imprison an innocent person. Both are egregious actions, but the removal of freedom by state power outweighs the egregious nature of killing. We must stand by this principle even when our morals are assaulted.
I still agree with the AZ immigration law as written. However, I respect and stand by the judge's decision.
Mike
References:
Supreme Court Media: http://www.oyez.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)