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
Saturday, September 18, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)