Today begins my discourse on Arizona's immigration law. The goal is for anyone, after reading this, to be able to discuss the law based on the law vice conjecture. Maybe when the discourse is complete, I'll send email to Eric Holder and others who have failed to read the law with a link to this blog. They might learn a thing or two.
I know I've given the link before but here's the link for the Arizona law again:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
The law amends the Arizona Revised Statutes to add article 8. Title 11 section 1051 para A states:
NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
This passage is directing all government entities of the state to enforce federal law. The essence of this is to ensure a San Francisco-esque city doesn't exist in the state. As a total force, the entire state is directed to enforce federal law.
para B:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION.
This is the sticking point of the law; the section most opponents are against. First let's define the word lawful. Lawful is "legitimate" (New Standard Dictionary); "being in harmony with the law" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law). So if someone has contact that can only be construed as lawful and nothing else and they are an official of the state or some other entity of the state, then they are bound to follow the rest of this sentence. If the contact is not within the bounds of the law, then the rest of the sentence has no bearing and cannot be followed. The opponents of this law cry that this provision will lead to racial profiling. It would be naive not think there are unscrupulous police officers in our country. Let's face it, every day a news story can be found that documents abuses by the police. Some of these abuses are innocent while some are not. Those that are not are perpetuated by those who are unscrupulous. However the unscrupulous police officers will racial profile without this law so the wording or passage of this law is immaterial to their actions. Those opponents who cry that this law requires racial profiling are also incorrect. The law officers who follow the law know that if the initial contact between the law officer and someone else does not meet the definition of lawful such that the contact would not stand up in a court of law as being lawful if challenged, then the officers will not follow the rest of the passage because they know that if they do, then whatever action occurs after the violation of the statute is inadmissible. Some may argue that the law officer might innocently engage in racial profiling; however, a later sentence addresses this issue, so I'll delay comment.
(Please note: I interchange law officer, police officer, and official. Granted these are separate roles but for the discussion based on who is required to follow Arizona law, they will mean the same.)
So once a lawful contact has been made, the law officer must have reasonable suspicion. This term is defined as an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances. The legal standard here is that the law officer must be able to point to the specific facts or circumstances. A hunch does not point to specific facts.
So what would constitute a reasonable suspicion that someone might be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States? Currently case law does not exist to establish this (or at least none that I have come across in my research). Consider the following scenario: a police officer engages a speeding vehicle. After the offender has pulled over, the police officer discovers a driver who does not speak English. This person also presents a foreign driver license. The officer has engaged the speeder via lawful contact and now has reasonable suspicion the person behind the wheel might not be in the country legally (non-US driver license and non-English language). The officer now has a duty to inquire about the immigration status of the individual. Another scenario: a police officer is responding to a domestic dispute. This time the accuser speaks broken English or maybe even zero English. The accuser gives a statement but does nothing else to arise suspicion. The police officer has engaged the accuser via lawful contact; however, facts or circumstances have not arisen to provide reasonable suspicion the accuser is an alien in the country illegally. This means the officer cannot inquire of the accuser's immigration status. I, for one, look forward to reading the case law as it becomes available.
ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED.
This sentence is straight forward. If someone is arrested, before the police can allow them to walk out of the station, the person's immigration status must be verified. This sentence does not differentiate between a suspected alien here legally and a resident of the state. If someone is arrested, their immigration status will be verified. This provision prevents what has happened in the past where an alien in the country illegally was released only to commit another crime.
THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Another straight forward sentence. 8 USC sec 1373(c) basically states ICE must respond to inquiries from state or local officials about the immigration status of someone.
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
Here the Arizona government is specifically stating that the facts or circumstances required for reasonable suspicion cannot be based on race, color, or national origin; in essence, racial profiling is not allowed in enforcement of the law. This particular sentence of the law is usually ignored by the opponents of the law.
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Here the Arizona government states that if someone holds one of the identification methods above the automatic assumption is that they are a legal immigrant or resident. No further questions can be asked after this. For me the amusing aspect of this section of the law is "if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance." The city of San Francisco issues city identification cards to anyone who resides in their city, whether that someone is here unlawfully or not (see: http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=113). Because San Francisco does not require legal presence for the city (local government) issued identification card, this section of the Arizona law prohibits the city issued ID card from being used as a presumption the card holder is in the United States legally. Good for Arizona!
I'll finish later this week. I'm not sure I will write my blog tomorrow (5/19) as it is my birthday and after spending over twenty years in the service of our Country by being a member of the US Submarine force where my birthday was not a guaranteed day-off, I desire to take a day off!
Mike
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Sticks and Stones
Last Friday, May 14, John Albert Gardner III was officially sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. John Gardner received consecutive life sentences for raping and murdering two young teenagers. John Gardner's sentencing should've taken less than fifteen minutes; instead, the sentencing lasted over an hour and a half and was broadcast on local television stations and over the internet by various websites. At the sentencing, the victims' families were allowed to make "victim impact statements" to the court. None of these statements were directed to the court; instead, every statement was directed towards the defendant. As I watched the sentencing unfold, I could only wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of this sensationalism.
In late February, a seventeen year-old runner disappeared in a park in Poway, California. A few days later, John Gardner was arrested after his DNA was discovered on clothing found at the scene of her disappearance. Her body was found in a shallow grave. (see: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/A-Community-Mourns-86202377.html) A week later, the body of another teenager, Amber Dubois, who had disappeared over a year prior was found in northern San Diego county on the Pala Indian reservation. Last month, John Gardner pleaded guilty to raping and murdering both teenagers along with attacking a young woman in Dec 2009. He did this to avoid the death penalty. (see: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/For-Ambers-Family-Closure-91114589.html). I give the back drop to this story to show John Gardner is a despicable human being. I agree with the father of Chelse King, Brent King, who said Gardner is "a coward who preys on young women half his size."
Victim impact statements were first introduced in 1976 in Fresno, California (Alexander and Lord, 1994). Now every state allows some form of victim impact statement either at pre-sentencing, sentencing, or at parole (National Center for Victims of Crimes, 1996). There are some states that do not allow victim impact statements in cases with the death penalty. The purpose behind a victim impact statement is to allow the victim or the victim's family to appear before the court and deliver a statement detailing the effect of the crime on the victim. It is a way to "humanize" the justice system so that the victim feels they have a voice in the system.
What transpired during the Gardner sentencing was far from a victim impact statement. Instead the victims' families unleashed anger and hurtful statements at Gardner. The parents of Chelsea King even unleashed anger at Gardner's mother. None of the victim impact statements were actual victim impact statements.
For one state, a victim impact statement should include a summary of the harm the victim has experienced due to the crime. The statement should also include the economic impact on the victim due to the crime. The statement can also include the victim's position on the sentence for the criminal. None of the rules state the victim should or can address the actual criminal. (Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services, n.d.).
I could only wonder while watching the victim impact statements which included video memorials that what I was observing some how violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." What does cruel and unusual punishment mean? While researching punishments during the 1700's, the biggest gripe by the people was that criminals were being punished in a manner that did not fit the crime. For example, thievery was punished by hanging which would mean that someone stealing 5 cents could be sentenced to hang. Because of excessive required punishments, some juries would find a criminal innocent vice facing the knowledge they helped to put someone to death for a small infraction. In 1689, a Bill of Rights was presented to the King of England which included the above phrase. George Mason relied upon the 1689 bill of rights when he drafted the Commonwealth of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. During the debate over the Constitution and its ratification, James Madison utilized Virginia's Declaration of Rights when he drafted the Bill of Rights.
So is verbal assualt of a criminal cruel and unusual punishment? For John Gardner, I'd like to assault him with a baseball bat. Like I said before, I agree with the father of one his victims that Gardner is a coward. But much like justice is blind, punishment should be metted out without emotion. This ensures the punishment is not cruel nor unusual. A just society will hold criminals accountable for their crimes but will do so with restraint. Once emotion is allowed into the sentencing phase, the punishment may exceed the crime. Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of just justice which is why the eighth amendment exists.
It amuses me that the website advocating the need for victim impact statements includes the following quote: "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice." Montesquieu, 1742. What I witnessed on television on Friday was tyranny inflicted under the shield of law and in the name of justice. John Gardner was given three life sentences without the possibility of parole. The life sentences are to be served consecutively. One life sentence alone is enough to ensure he stays off the streets. Only a judgment based on emotion would make three life sentences back-to-back-to-back.
John Gardner's mother was there to see her son sentenced. Instead she was vilified by her son's victims' parents. She suffered cruel and unusual punishment. Where was her protection?
Sticks and stones may break my bones, words may never hurt me. But sometimes words do hurt. And please, don't throw sticks and stones.......
Mike
References:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Timeline-for-Chelsea-King-and-Amber-Dubois-Cases-91064789.html
English Bill of Rights. (1689). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
The Charter of Freedom. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
Crime and Punishment websites. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REVhistoryCrime.htm
The Bloody Code. (n.d.) Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/17724/The-Bloody-Code
Reggio, M. (1997). History of the Death Penalty. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html
Wilkens, J. (2010). At sentencing, families unleash rage at murderer. SD: Union-Tribune. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/14/victim-families-say-gardner-will-burn-hell/
Victim Impact Statements. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.letswrap.com/legal/impact.htm
Victim Impact Statements. (1999). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32515
Alexander, E and Janice Lord. (1994). A victim's right to speak: Impact statments. A nation's responsibility to listen. Retrieved 17 May, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/impact/welcome.html
In late February, a seventeen year-old runner disappeared in a park in Poway, California. A few days later, John Gardner was arrested after his DNA was discovered on clothing found at the scene of her disappearance. Her body was found in a shallow grave. (see: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/A-Community-Mourns-86202377.html) A week later, the body of another teenager, Amber Dubois, who had disappeared over a year prior was found in northern San Diego county on the Pala Indian reservation. Last month, John Gardner pleaded guilty to raping and murdering both teenagers along with attacking a young woman in Dec 2009. He did this to avoid the death penalty. (see: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/For-Ambers-Family-Closure-91114589.html). I give the back drop to this story to show John Gardner is a despicable human being. I agree with the father of Chelse King, Brent King, who said Gardner is "a coward who preys on young women half his size."
Victim impact statements were first introduced in 1976 in Fresno, California (Alexander and Lord, 1994). Now every state allows some form of victim impact statement either at pre-sentencing, sentencing, or at parole (National Center for Victims of Crimes, 1996). There are some states that do not allow victim impact statements in cases with the death penalty. The purpose behind a victim impact statement is to allow the victim or the victim's family to appear before the court and deliver a statement detailing the effect of the crime on the victim. It is a way to "humanize" the justice system so that the victim feels they have a voice in the system.
What transpired during the Gardner sentencing was far from a victim impact statement. Instead the victims' families unleashed anger and hurtful statements at Gardner. The parents of Chelsea King even unleashed anger at Gardner's mother. None of the victim impact statements were actual victim impact statements.
For one state, a victim impact statement should include a summary of the harm the victim has experienced due to the crime. The statement should also include the economic impact on the victim due to the crime. The statement can also include the victim's position on the sentence for the criminal. None of the rules state the victim should or can address the actual criminal. (Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services, n.d.).
I could only wonder while watching the victim impact statements which included video memorials that what I was observing some how violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." What does cruel and unusual punishment mean? While researching punishments during the 1700's, the biggest gripe by the people was that criminals were being punished in a manner that did not fit the crime. For example, thievery was punished by hanging which would mean that someone stealing 5 cents could be sentenced to hang. Because of excessive required punishments, some juries would find a criminal innocent vice facing the knowledge they helped to put someone to death for a small infraction. In 1689, a Bill of Rights was presented to the King of England which included the above phrase. George Mason relied upon the 1689 bill of rights when he drafted the Commonwealth of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. During the debate over the Constitution and its ratification, James Madison utilized Virginia's Declaration of Rights when he drafted the Bill of Rights.
So is verbal assualt of a criminal cruel and unusual punishment? For John Gardner, I'd like to assault him with a baseball bat. Like I said before, I agree with the father of one his victims that Gardner is a coward. But much like justice is blind, punishment should be metted out without emotion. This ensures the punishment is not cruel nor unusual. A just society will hold criminals accountable for their crimes but will do so with restraint. Once emotion is allowed into the sentencing phase, the punishment may exceed the crime. Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of just justice which is why the eighth amendment exists.
It amuses me that the website advocating the need for victim impact statements includes the following quote: "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice." Montesquieu, 1742. What I witnessed on television on Friday was tyranny inflicted under the shield of law and in the name of justice. John Gardner was given three life sentences without the possibility of parole. The life sentences are to be served consecutively. One life sentence alone is enough to ensure he stays off the streets. Only a judgment based on emotion would make three life sentences back-to-back-to-back.
John Gardner's mother was there to see her son sentenced. Instead she was vilified by her son's victims' parents. She suffered cruel and unusual punishment. Where was her protection?
Sticks and stones may break my bones, words may never hurt me. But sometimes words do hurt. And please, don't throw sticks and stones.......
Mike
References:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Timeline-for-Chelsea-King-and-Amber-Dubois-Cases-91064789.html
English Bill of Rights. (1689). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
The Charter of Freedom. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
Crime and Punishment websites. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REVhistoryCrime.htm
The Bloody Code. (n.d.) Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/17724/The-Bloody-Code
Reggio, M. (1997). History of the Death Penalty. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html
Wilkens, J. (2010). At sentencing, families unleash rage at murderer. SD: Union-Tribune. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/14/victim-families-say-gardner-will-burn-hell/
Victim Impact Statements. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.letswrap.com/legal/impact.htm
Victim Impact Statements. (1999). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32515
Alexander, E and Janice Lord. (1994). A victim's right to speak: Impact statments. A nation's responsibility to listen. Retrieved 17 May, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/impact/welcome.html
Friday, May 14, 2010
An Exemplary Example
Even before April 23rd, when Governor Jan Brewer signed Arizona senate bill 1070, the Arizona immigration enforcement bill, into law, a firestorm of protest began. Like a Southern California Santa Ana fueled brush fire, the firestorm has only gathered strength and intensity. From school boards to cities to even the President, everyone seems to have something to state about the new law. The question is whether or not the comments are actually valid.
A few days after the law was passed, the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was queried about the law at a press conference for another issue (AP, 2010). Mr. Holder stated the new law might be subject to abuse. Of course, this is a political statement where a politician states facts without substance. Any law, as written, might be subject to abuse. Thanks for stating the obvious, Mr. Holder. Oh and thanks for reporting it news media people. Much like a Molotov cocktail lobbed into an already burning fire, these words helped the firestorm continue.
The President made an indirect statement about the Arizona law. This is another political covert word ploy. The President said the federal government needed to take action so that quote "misguided efforts" unquote would not continue to be taken around the country. In essence, the President alluded to the new Arizona law as being misguided without actually stating such words.
Lindsay Graham (R-SC) came out saying he thinks the law is unconstitutional. What does he mean by "thinks?" He stated this without even justifying his comment. Has this even helped the discourse over the law? If he had stated he thinks the law is unconstitutional with supporting statements of why he thought the law was unconstitutional, his statement might actually mean something. Instead his statement is like a colander being used to retain water.
Yesterday, May 13th, the truth be told. Eric Holder admitted that he had not read the Arizona law at all. Instead he had glanced at it (Foxnews, 2010). So Mr. Holder two weeks ago makes a statement, albeit a standard political one, against the law; yet, he had not even fully read the law. Would it not have been easier when questioned about the law for him to have said, "I reserve my comments about this issue to a later date as I have not read the law"?
This fact now begs the question to how many of the other personnel making statements about the Arizona law have actually read the law. Especially in light of Mr. Holder's comment that he based his opinion on newspaper and television accounts and briefings by other people who had read the law. He, a lawyer, made a statement based on hearsay. Hearsay, for the most part, since there are always exceptions to any rule, is not admissible in court because of the inability to test the accuracy of the statement under cross-examination. In other words, Mr. Holder's statement would not hold up in a court of law.
The Attorney General stated he had made his statement based on newspaper accounts. In the article relating Sen. Graham's comments, the author, Stephanie Condon of CBS News, states the Arizona law would require immigrants to carry documents verifying their immigration status. I've read this article four times attempting to see a different viewpoint. Unfortunately, each time I read the article, my opinion is she is stating the law is doing something new - instructing immigrants to carry documentation of immigration status. While there is some fact in this statement, the word choice is poor and full of untruths.
Section 3 of SB1070 amends section 13-1509 of Arizona Statutes to read "In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a)." This statement does not state that each immigrant must carry documentation. This statement states it is a violation of state law if an immigrant is in violation of federal law. Section 1304(e) of 8 US Code states, "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card." It is already a federal law that every immigrant have in their possession documentation. Wait, I've just stated a misnomer. Only adults of legal age, 18, are required to have said documentation on their person. This means if an immigrant child does not have their documentation on them, they are not in violation of federal law and, as such, are not in violation of Arizona state law.
The CBS News article makes a statement that is not totally factually correct. Mr. Holder based his opinion on newspaper accounts. How many others have done the same action? How many others have set such an exemplary example for their country?
The spreading of innocent ignorance is just as dangerous as the spreading of intentional lies. In the references are the links to Arizona's SB1070 and 8 United States Code for your review.
Mike
References:
AP. (2010, Apr 27). Holder: U.S. may fight Arizona immigration law. CBS News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/27/politics/main6437887.shtml
Condon, S. (2010, Apr 27). Lindsey Graham: I think Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional. CBS News.com Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003549-503544.html
FOX News. (2010, May 13). Holder admits to not reading Arizona's immigration law despite criticizing it. FOX News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas-immigration-law-despite-slamming/
Arizona SB 1070. (2010). Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/SB_1070_Signed.pdf
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.) United States Code Title 8 Section 1304. . Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1304.html
A few days after the law was passed, the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was queried about the law at a press conference for another issue (AP, 2010). Mr. Holder stated the new law might be subject to abuse. Of course, this is a political statement where a politician states facts without substance. Any law, as written, might be subject to abuse. Thanks for stating the obvious, Mr. Holder. Oh and thanks for reporting it news media people. Much like a Molotov cocktail lobbed into an already burning fire, these words helped the firestorm continue.
The President made an indirect statement about the Arizona law. This is another political covert word ploy. The President said the federal government needed to take action so that quote "misguided efforts" unquote would not continue to be taken around the country. In essence, the President alluded to the new Arizona law as being misguided without actually stating such words.
Lindsay Graham (R-SC) came out saying he thinks the law is unconstitutional. What does he mean by "thinks?" He stated this without even justifying his comment. Has this even helped the discourse over the law? If he had stated he thinks the law is unconstitutional with supporting statements of why he thought the law was unconstitutional, his statement might actually mean something. Instead his statement is like a colander being used to retain water.
Yesterday, May 13th, the truth be told. Eric Holder admitted that he had not read the Arizona law at all. Instead he had glanced at it (Foxnews, 2010). So Mr. Holder two weeks ago makes a statement, albeit a standard political one, against the law; yet, he had not even fully read the law. Would it not have been easier when questioned about the law for him to have said, "I reserve my comments about this issue to a later date as I have not read the law"?
This fact now begs the question to how many of the other personnel making statements about the Arizona law have actually read the law. Especially in light of Mr. Holder's comment that he based his opinion on newspaper and television accounts and briefings by other people who had read the law. He, a lawyer, made a statement based on hearsay. Hearsay, for the most part, since there are always exceptions to any rule, is not admissible in court because of the inability to test the accuracy of the statement under cross-examination. In other words, Mr. Holder's statement would not hold up in a court of law.
The Attorney General stated he had made his statement based on newspaper accounts. In the article relating Sen. Graham's comments, the author, Stephanie Condon of CBS News, states the Arizona law would require immigrants to carry documents verifying their immigration status. I've read this article four times attempting to see a different viewpoint. Unfortunately, each time I read the article, my opinion is she is stating the law is doing something new - instructing immigrants to carry documentation of immigration status. While there is some fact in this statement, the word choice is poor and full of untruths.
Section 3 of SB1070 amends section 13-1509 of Arizona Statutes to read "In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a)." This statement does not state that each immigrant must carry documentation. This statement states it is a violation of state law if an immigrant is in violation of federal law. Section 1304(e) of 8 US Code states, "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card." It is already a federal law that every immigrant have in their possession documentation. Wait, I've just stated a misnomer. Only adults of legal age, 18, are required to have said documentation on their person. This means if an immigrant child does not have their documentation on them, they are not in violation of federal law and, as such, are not in violation of Arizona state law.
The CBS News article makes a statement that is not totally factually correct. Mr. Holder based his opinion on newspaper accounts. How many others have done the same action? How many others have set such an exemplary example for their country?
The spreading of innocent ignorance is just as dangerous as the spreading of intentional lies. In the references are the links to Arizona's SB1070 and 8 United States Code for your review.
Mike
References:
AP. (2010, Apr 27). Holder: U.S. may fight Arizona immigration law. CBS News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/27/politics/main6437887.shtml
Condon, S. (2010, Apr 27). Lindsey Graham: I think Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional. CBS News.com Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003549-503544.html
FOX News. (2010, May 13). Holder admits to not reading Arizona's immigration law despite criticizing it. FOX News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas-immigration-law-despite-slamming/
Arizona SB 1070. (2010). Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/SB_1070_Signed.pdf
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.) United States Code Title 8 Section 1304. . Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1304.html
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
A Rose by any other Name
Three times I've heard the same insinuation. Two of those times were heard yesterday (May 12th) on the same cable station but from two different shows. What I heard was that a representative from our Congress had switched his vote on the health care vote after being assured by the President that the immigration issue would be taken up this year.
The radio station I used to listen to (I'm currently boycotting them for a business decision the station made) has their broadcast tower located in Tijuana. Because of this, the station routinely broadcasts Mexican commercials. They even broadcast the Mexican national anthem at midnight and 5 a.m! Anyway, the station was broadcasting several public service announcements about the upcoming Mexican elections. One of those announcements warns of someone asking for a vote in exchange for a favor. The announcement proclaims someone doing this is guilty of corruption and engaging in illegal activity.
So, let me get this straight. If you promise one thing in exchange for another when related to voting in the government, this is called corruption? Now this is from Mexico. Does this apply in America?
Corrupt is defined by Merrian-Webster as characterized by improper or unusually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another (as by taking or giving a bribe). Another definition is capable of being bribed. So what does bribe mean? Bribe is a benefit given, promised, or offered in order to influence the judgment or conduct of person in a position of trust.
One of the necessary elements of bribery is intent. When someone offers a bribe that person commits the crime of bribery. When the person receiving the bribe accepts the bribe, then that person is also guilty of the crime of bribery. Since the offeror shows intent when offering a bribe, the crime is immediately committed by the offeror. Not until the offeree shows intent by accepting the bribe is that person guilty of bribery. (Cheeseman, 2007).
On March 12, Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) released a statement declaring his decision to vote no on the pending healthcare initiative (Frumin, 2010). He even states he would find a yes vote very difficult if not impossible. Then on the day of the vote, he changed his vote to yes. Realize that originally, he was a yes-man on healthcare; but, he didn't like the fact that undocumented immigrants would not be covered under the plan even if they paid the premiums themselves. His argument was that even if they are undocumented, immigrants should be allowed to pay for their healthcare plan. At least, he wasn't advocating a total free ride for those who want to bypass the immigration process!
So let's recap. Rep. Gutierrez was for the healthcare plan. Then he was against the healthcare plan. Then at the last moment prior to the vote for healtcare, he was for the healthcare plan. Talk about a flip-flopper! Remember his words, "very difficult if not impossible" to vote yes on the healthcare plan as proposed. Nothing changed in the proposed healthcare plan from his impossible-to-vote yes response to his actual vote of yes. So what happened to change his mind?
In Rep. Gutierrez's own words: "Discussions with Obama ensure we can have
a victory for health care and for the immigrants of our nation." (Sweet, 2010). The insinuations I heard from the television was that Rep. Gutierrez changed his vote because he was assured that immigration would be the next priority for Obama's administration. Rep. Gutierrez changed his vote from an almost impossible yes after assurances that his issue would be tackled by the President.
These types of back room deals I believe have been occurring for the history of our country. In the movie Milk, tension between Dan White and Harvey Milk develops when Harvey and Dan agree to vote for each other's campaign issues but after the vote for Harvey's concern, Harvey changes his mind and votes against Dan's concern. (Milk is another fantastic movie that is highly recommended.)
You vote for my issue and I'll vote for your issue. Is there a difference in that statement and you vote for my issue and I'll give you money or something else in return? What about, if you vote for my bill, I'll push for your issue before Congress? I think not. Back to the definition of a bribe - something offerred to influence the judgment of someone else in trust. If you are giving or accepting bribes, then you are also corrupt.
Some may argue that in today's politics, in order to accomplish tasks (i.e. get things done), these back room deals must be made. I disagree. You are either for a bill or you are against a bill. Your vote should depend on your view of the bill not upon what you can get for your vote. The bill either passes or fails based upon its viewed merits of those voting for it. A bill's vote should not be determined by a vote on another bill. A vote for a vote is nothing more than a form of corruption.
A rose by any other name smells as sweet. The healthcare plan approval process does have a smell to it.....
Mike
For the record, before anyone else chimes in on the merits of this post, the U.S. Constitution was almost not ratified by several states because it did not contain a bill of rights. After assurances that the topic would be taken up by Congress, those states then ratified the Constitution. This comes close to vote for this and we'll do what you ask; however, there is a big difference. The states did not want to vote for the bill because of something it did not contain. They were assured but not guaranteed their concerns would be addressed about the merits of the bill as proposed. The fate of the United States depended upon their vote on the Constitution so the states ratified the Constitution and sent back to the Congress their ratification notice with requests for amendment. While murky, this episode is not corruption or bribery. I'm sure there are other examples in our Country's history that aren't so murky. And I'm sure there is more to the Obama-Gutierrez conversation than has been reported. I utilized what is available to make a point.
References:
Cheeseman, H.R. (2007). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (6th ed.). NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Frumin, B. (2010, Mar 12). Dem Rep. Gutierrez Confirms Plans To Vote 'No' On Senate Health Care Bill. Talkingpointsmemo.com. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/dem-rep-gutierrez-confirms-plans-to-vote-no-on-senate-health-care-bill.php
Sweet, L. (2010, Mar 18). Luis Gutierrez a yes on Obama health care bill. Updated. Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/03/luis_gutierrez_will_be_a_yes_o.html
The Bill of Rights. Retrieved 13 May 2010 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
United States Bill of Rights. Retrieved 13 May 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
The radio station I used to listen to (I'm currently boycotting them for a business decision the station made) has their broadcast tower located in Tijuana. Because of this, the station routinely broadcasts Mexican commercials. They even broadcast the Mexican national anthem at midnight and 5 a.m! Anyway, the station was broadcasting several public service announcements about the upcoming Mexican elections. One of those announcements warns of someone asking for a vote in exchange for a favor. The announcement proclaims someone doing this is guilty of corruption and engaging in illegal activity.
So, let me get this straight. If you promise one thing in exchange for another when related to voting in the government, this is called corruption? Now this is from Mexico. Does this apply in America?
Corrupt is defined by Merrian-Webster as characterized by improper or unusually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another (as by taking or giving a bribe). Another definition is capable of being bribed. So what does bribe mean? Bribe is a benefit given, promised, or offered in order to influence the judgment or conduct of person in a position of trust.
One of the necessary elements of bribery is intent. When someone offers a bribe that person commits the crime of bribery. When the person receiving the bribe accepts the bribe, then that person is also guilty of the crime of bribery. Since the offeror shows intent when offering a bribe, the crime is immediately committed by the offeror. Not until the offeree shows intent by accepting the bribe is that person guilty of bribery. (Cheeseman, 2007).
On March 12, Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) released a statement declaring his decision to vote no on the pending healthcare initiative (Frumin, 2010). He even states he would find a yes vote very difficult if not impossible. Then on the day of the vote, he changed his vote to yes. Realize that originally, he was a yes-man on healthcare; but, he didn't like the fact that undocumented immigrants would not be covered under the plan even if they paid the premiums themselves. His argument was that even if they are undocumented, immigrants should be allowed to pay for their healthcare plan. At least, he wasn't advocating a total free ride for those who want to bypass the immigration process!
So let's recap. Rep. Gutierrez was for the healthcare plan. Then he was against the healthcare plan. Then at the last moment prior to the vote for healtcare, he was for the healthcare plan. Talk about a flip-flopper! Remember his words, "very difficult if not impossible" to vote yes on the healthcare plan as proposed. Nothing changed in the proposed healthcare plan from his impossible-to-vote yes response to his actual vote of yes. So what happened to change his mind?
In Rep. Gutierrez's own words: "Discussions with Obama ensure we can have
a victory for health care and for the immigrants of our nation." (Sweet, 2010). The insinuations I heard from the television was that Rep. Gutierrez changed his vote because he was assured that immigration would be the next priority for Obama's administration. Rep. Gutierrez changed his vote from an almost impossible yes after assurances that his issue would be tackled by the President.
These types of back room deals I believe have been occurring for the history of our country. In the movie Milk, tension between Dan White and Harvey Milk develops when Harvey and Dan agree to vote for each other's campaign issues but after the vote for Harvey's concern, Harvey changes his mind and votes against Dan's concern. (Milk is another fantastic movie that is highly recommended.)
You vote for my issue and I'll vote for your issue. Is there a difference in that statement and you vote for my issue and I'll give you money or something else in return? What about, if you vote for my bill, I'll push for your issue before Congress? I think not. Back to the definition of a bribe - something offerred to influence the judgment of someone else in trust. If you are giving or accepting bribes, then you are also corrupt.
Some may argue that in today's politics, in order to accomplish tasks (i.e. get things done), these back room deals must be made. I disagree. You are either for a bill or you are against a bill. Your vote should depend on your view of the bill not upon what you can get for your vote. The bill either passes or fails based upon its viewed merits of those voting for it. A bill's vote should not be determined by a vote on another bill. A vote for a vote is nothing more than a form of corruption.
A rose by any other name smells as sweet. The healthcare plan approval process does have a smell to it.....
Mike
For the record, before anyone else chimes in on the merits of this post, the U.S. Constitution was almost not ratified by several states because it did not contain a bill of rights. After assurances that the topic would be taken up by Congress, those states then ratified the Constitution. This comes close to vote for this and we'll do what you ask; however, there is a big difference. The states did not want to vote for the bill because of something it did not contain. They were assured but not guaranteed their concerns would be addressed about the merits of the bill as proposed. The fate of the United States depended upon their vote on the Constitution so the states ratified the Constitution and sent back to the Congress their ratification notice with requests for amendment. While murky, this episode is not corruption or bribery. I'm sure there are other examples in our Country's history that aren't so murky. And I'm sure there is more to the Obama-Gutierrez conversation than has been reported. I utilized what is available to make a point.
References:
Cheeseman, H.R. (2007). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (6th ed.). NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Frumin, B. (2010, Mar 12). Dem Rep. Gutierrez Confirms Plans To Vote 'No' On Senate Health Care Bill. Talkingpointsmemo.com. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/dem-rep-gutierrez-confirms-plans-to-vote-no-on-senate-health-care-bill.php
Sweet, L. (2010, Mar 18). Luis Gutierrez a yes on Obama health care bill. Updated. Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/03/luis_gutierrez_will_be_a_yes_o.html
The Bill of Rights. Retrieved 13 May 2010 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
United States Bill of Rights. Retrieved 13 May 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
Yesterday, May 11, the San Diego Unified School District entered the realm of politics by passing a resolution condemning Arizona law SB1070 as unconstitutional. (See story at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/11/school-board-condemns-arizona-immigration-law/). The resolution originally was going to warn parents and students not to travel to Arizona because the travelers might be subject to harassment or racial profiling but was dropped prior to the resolution's passage. Now why would a school district whose mission statement and vision statements relate to education take a stand on a law that is not related to the education process?
The answer can be found all over the Internet in the form of social justice websites. There are teacher organizations that believe teaching is a political act. They see the children entrusted to their daily care as critical change agents essential to the struggle for social justice (Teachers for Social Justice, 2004). These organizations desire to change society by ways of the education of the country's youth. They are doing this in the guise of justice - social justice.
Instead of instructing children in English, Mathematics, History, etc, these "teachers for social justice" desire to teach with a spin. They desire to indoctrinate someone else's child so that the child thinks like them. Is this the role of teachers in our society?
Every day parents send their children off to school to learn the basics so that when the children become of age, the children can go out and be productive members of society. What is being a productive member of society? This is where the crux of the argument begins. Each of us might define productive in a different way - we are human beings and sometimes we do think and act differently than others. A productive member of society should contribute to said society and not be a drain on the resources of the society. Does this mean each student who enters society needs to be rich? Not necessarily. A mother who stays at home raising her children is a productive member of society just as much as the mother who enters the workplace to provide for her family. A person who works as a garbage collector to put food on the table every day and have a roof over his head is a productive member of society as much as the Wall Street executive who makes more money than all garbage collectors combined.
Each individual who relies upon their abilities to function and does not expect others to give them aid is a productive member of society. The individual who violates the law of society is not a productive member of society. The individual who lives as Mary, the mother of Precious in the movie "Precious: based on the book Push by Sapphire," is not a productive member of society. (If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. Mo'Nique's performance as Mary is stellar.) People who expect others to provide for them are not productive. Now every once in awhile people need assistance. There's a difference in asking for assistance versus expecting assistance.
In November of last year, I read a story in the newspaper that saddened me. It related the story of a homeless man who had passed away in late August. This man suffered from mental illness which was, more than likely, the reason he was homeless. Every day this individual could be seen on a park bench on Point Loma in San Diego. Every day on my way home from the Submarine Base on Point Loma, I observed this homeless man sitting or laying on the park bench. He was a constant fixture of the park. His presence to me was always calming. I could never put my finger on why. I just know that every day I looked for him in the park and every day he was there, until August of last year. Then I didn't see him anymore. I wondered what happened to him. Then in November when reading the newspaper story I found out he had died. This man never asked for any assistance. He was not one of the homeless people seen standing on the corner begging. He just wanted to be left alone to live life his own way. Was this man a productive member of society? By my definition he was. His was not a drain on society's resources as evidenced by the newspaper story. But did he contribute to the society? My calmness every day when seeing him should answer that question. The people who brought him food and clothes and enjoyed his presence should answer that question. I miss him.
Now back to our educators who feel they should be instructing our children to be instruments of change. We entrust them to do a job of education of the basics. The teacher's viewpoints on society are not a part of the basics. Granted the teachers are humans and their political and personal viewpoints will come out from time to time, but their curriculum should not resolve around their beliefs. They should not view themselves as change agents to end a cycle of oppression (Russo, 2004). That is not their role in society.
The San Diego Unified School District has removed their mask. The wolf in sheep's clothing is coming out into the open. Our educators should be just that - educators, not political activists. We and our posterity deserve better.
I wanted to go to the open forum before the vote so I could ask a question. My question would've been, "who has actually read the law as approved and amended by the Arizona legislation at the Arizona government's website?" Anyone who voted for or against the resolution (they all voted in favor of the resolution) without first reading the law set a poor example to the parents and children of their school district.
I recommend you check out some of the websites listed in the references.....
Mike
References:
IMBd. (2010). Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929632/
Teachers for Social Justice. (2004). About Teachers for Social Justice. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.teachersforjustice.org/2007/09/about-tsj.html
Russo, P. (2004). What does it mean to teach for social justice? Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.oswego.edu/~prusso1/Russos_what_does_it_mean_to_teach_for_s.htm
Teachers for Social Justice: http://www.t4sj.org/
San Diego Unified School District vision statement: http://www.sandi.net/20451072010212567/site/default.asp
San Diego Unified School District mission statement: http://www.sandi.net/20451072095932967/blank/browse.asp?a=383&bmdrn=2000&bcob=0&c=56612
Wilkens, J. (2009). Community pays its respects Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/08/community-pays-its-respects/
The answer can be found all over the Internet in the form of social justice websites. There are teacher organizations that believe teaching is a political act. They see the children entrusted to their daily care as critical change agents essential to the struggle for social justice (Teachers for Social Justice, 2004). These organizations desire to change society by ways of the education of the country's youth. They are doing this in the guise of justice - social justice.
Instead of instructing children in English, Mathematics, History, etc, these "teachers for social justice" desire to teach with a spin. They desire to indoctrinate someone else's child so that the child thinks like them. Is this the role of teachers in our society?
Every day parents send their children off to school to learn the basics so that when the children become of age, the children can go out and be productive members of society. What is being a productive member of society? This is where the crux of the argument begins. Each of us might define productive in a different way - we are human beings and sometimes we do think and act differently than others. A productive member of society should contribute to said society and not be a drain on the resources of the society. Does this mean each student who enters society needs to be rich? Not necessarily. A mother who stays at home raising her children is a productive member of society just as much as the mother who enters the workplace to provide for her family. A person who works as a garbage collector to put food on the table every day and have a roof over his head is a productive member of society as much as the Wall Street executive who makes more money than all garbage collectors combined.
Each individual who relies upon their abilities to function and does not expect others to give them aid is a productive member of society. The individual who violates the law of society is not a productive member of society. The individual who lives as Mary, the mother of Precious in the movie "Precious: based on the book Push by Sapphire," is not a productive member of society. (If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. Mo'Nique's performance as Mary is stellar.) People who expect others to provide for them are not productive. Now every once in awhile people need assistance. There's a difference in asking for assistance versus expecting assistance.
In November of last year, I read a story in the newspaper that saddened me. It related the story of a homeless man who had passed away in late August. This man suffered from mental illness which was, more than likely, the reason he was homeless. Every day this individual could be seen on a park bench on Point Loma in San Diego. Every day on my way home from the Submarine Base on Point Loma, I observed this homeless man sitting or laying on the park bench. He was a constant fixture of the park. His presence to me was always calming. I could never put my finger on why. I just know that every day I looked for him in the park and every day he was there, until August of last year. Then I didn't see him anymore. I wondered what happened to him. Then in November when reading the newspaper story I found out he had died. This man never asked for any assistance. He was not one of the homeless people seen standing on the corner begging. He just wanted to be left alone to live life his own way. Was this man a productive member of society? By my definition he was. His was not a drain on society's resources as evidenced by the newspaper story. But did he contribute to the society? My calmness every day when seeing him should answer that question. The people who brought him food and clothes and enjoyed his presence should answer that question. I miss him.
Now back to our educators who feel they should be instructing our children to be instruments of change. We entrust them to do a job of education of the basics. The teacher's viewpoints on society are not a part of the basics. Granted the teachers are humans and their political and personal viewpoints will come out from time to time, but their curriculum should not resolve around their beliefs. They should not view themselves as change agents to end a cycle of oppression (Russo, 2004). That is not their role in society.
The San Diego Unified School District has removed their mask. The wolf in sheep's clothing is coming out into the open. Our educators should be just that - educators, not political activists. We and our posterity deserve better.
I wanted to go to the open forum before the vote so I could ask a question. My question would've been, "who has actually read the law as approved and amended by the Arizona legislation at the Arizona government's website?" Anyone who voted for or against the resolution (they all voted in favor of the resolution) without first reading the law set a poor example to the parents and children of their school district.
I recommend you check out some of the websites listed in the references.....
Mike
References:
IMBd. (2010). Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929632/
Teachers for Social Justice. (2004). About Teachers for Social Justice. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.teachersforjustice.org/2007/09/about-tsj.html
Russo, P. (2004). What does it mean to teach for social justice? Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.oswego.edu/~prusso1/Russos_what_does_it_mean_to_teach_for_s.htm
Teachers for Social Justice: http://www.t4sj.org/
San Diego Unified School District vision statement: http://www.sandi.net/20451072010212567/site/default.asp
San Diego Unified School District mission statement: http://www.sandi.net/20451072095932967/blank/browse.asp?a=383&bmdrn=2000&bcob=0&c=56612
Wilkens, J. (2009). Community pays its respects Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/08/community-pays-its-respects/
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Kagan Experience
Yesterday President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens on the highest court in our Country, the Supreme Court. As usual, there will be moans and groans as the Congress proceeds through the affirmation process. These moans and groans began even before she was officially nominated (see New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html?scp=2&sq=Elena%20Kagan&st=cse). The biggest moan is that she is the first justice nominated in over 40 years without any judiciary experience.
The above article does point out there have been many justices that have been selected who did not have any judiciary experience. What's humorous is the article pointed to "even a former president." When I was watching the news this morning and heard a Republican senator moaning about her lack of experience, I decided to look up the only President of the United States to also serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William H. Taft. At first glance, President Taft's bio timeline does elude to the misconception he had zero judiciary experience. However, after digging a little deeper another story unfolds.
One point which elicits a smile on my face is the fact that President Taft served as solicitor general of the United States - the same role Ms. Kagan currently fulfills - from 1890 to 1892. A shared trait between a former Chief Justice and the current appointee to associate justice. After reading a little more one learns the truth, President Taft served as a judge of the Superior Court at Cincinnati from 1887 to 1890 and as a federal circuit court judge from 1892 until 1900 when President McKinley asked him to serve on the United States Philippine Commission from which he served as the first civil governor of the Philippine Islands. Even the big 'ole New York Times allows misconceptions to enter their writings!
A justice that also did not have any judiciary experience when he was appointed was Charles E. Hughes. I picked him due to an interesting fact, but I'll get to that fact later. First, Chief Justice Hughes practiced and taught law after graduating from Columbia Law School. His rise to fame came when he defeated William Randolph Hearst for governor of New York. He served four years before accepting an appointment as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. So Chief Justice Hughes never served in a judiciary capacity before becoming an associate justice. He didn't even come close to Ms. Kagan's resume. She at least argues cases before the Supreme Court.
Now the interesting fact. Chief Justice Hughes resigned his justice position after receiving the nod from the Republican party for nomination for President. He lost to Woodrow Wilson in a very close election. After several other positions including secretary of state, President Hoover, in 1930, nominated him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This makes Chief Justice Hughes as the only individual to leave the high court to only return at a later date (hopefully, I devoted enough research to this fact that it remains fact!).
Do those nominated to the Supreme Court require judiciary experience? Our history provides the answer to this question and the answer is an emphatic NO. Those who sit on the high court should be schooled in law, the application of the law, and the interpretation of said law. They should be knowledgeable of the Constitution, its meaning, and its origin. Other than that, there shouldn't be any other requirements.
Too often those in government look to ideology to determine nominees to the Supreme Court. The only time this should be looked at is to ensure a balance exists on the Court. We've seen too often that a singular power will exert their will when there isn't enough balance to counter the will of that majority power. A balance should always exist to limit the effects of personal and political beliefs. The ideal situation is where the interpretation of the law and the Constitution is accomplished without influence of one's own personal and political beliefs. The ideal situation can never occur because, as humans, our beliefs will guide our thoughts and actions, even in the face of logic and common sense.
Is Elena Kagan a good nominee? That is a question for each of us to answer ourselves. She is definitely well educated in the law, even serving as Harvard Law School's first woman dean. She is a liberal replacing a liberal. Hopefully, she'll be closer to the ideal than closer the extreme. One day in the future, we will know what the Kagan Experience is all about.
Mike
Reference:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. Chicago: Standard Educational Corporation.
The above article does point out there have been many justices that have been selected who did not have any judiciary experience. What's humorous is the article pointed to "even a former president." When I was watching the news this morning and heard a Republican senator moaning about her lack of experience, I decided to look up the only President of the United States to also serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William H. Taft. At first glance, President Taft's bio timeline does elude to the misconception he had zero judiciary experience. However, after digging a little deeper another story unfolds.
One point which elicits a smile on my face is the fact that President Taft served as solicitor general of the United States - the same role Ms. Kagan currently fulfills - from 1890 to 1892. A shared trait between a former Chief Justice and the current appointee to associate justice. After reading a little more one learns the truth, President Taft served as a judge of the Superior Court at Cincinnati from 1887 to 1890 and as a federal circuit court judge from 1892 until 1900 when President McKinley asked him to serve on the United States Philippine Commission from which he served as the first civil governor of the Philippine Islands. Even the big 'ole New York Times allows misconceptions to enter their writings!
A justice that also did not have any judiciary experience when he was appointed was Charles E. Hughes. I picked him due to an interesting fact, but I'll get to that fact later. First, Chief Justice Hughes practiced and taught law after graduating from Columbia Law School. His rise to fame came when he defeated William Randolph Hearst for governor of New York. He served four years before accepting an appointment as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. So Chief Justice Hughes never served in a judiciary capacity before becoming an associate justice. He didn't even come close to Ms. Kagan's resume. She at least argues cases before the Supreme Court.
Now the interesting fact. Chief Justice Hughes resigned his justice position after receiving the nod from the Republican party for nomination for President. He lost to Woodrow Wilson in a very close election. After several other positions including secretary of state, President Hoover, in 1930, nominated him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This makes Chief Justice Hughes as the only individual to leave the high court to only return at a later date (hopefully, I devoted enough research to this fact that it remains fact!).
Do those nominated to the Supreme Court require judiciary experience? Our history provides the answer to this question and the answer is an emphatic NO. Those who sit on the high court should be schooled in law, the application of the law, and the interpretation of said law. They should be knowledgeable of the Constitution, its meaning, and its origin. Other than that, there shouldn't be any other requirements.
Too often those in government look to ideology to determine nominees to the Supreme Court. The only time this should be looked at is to ensure a balance exists on the Court. We've seen too often that a singular power will exert their will when there isn't enough balance to counter the will of that majority power. A balance should always exist to limit the effects of personal and political beliefs. The ideal situation is where the interpretation of the law and the Constitution is accomplished without influence of one's own personal and political beliefs. The ideal situation can never occur because, as humans, our beliefs will guide our thoughts and actions, even in the face of logic and common sense.
Is Elena Kagan a good nominee? That is a question for each of us to answer ourselves. She is definitely well educated in the law, even serving as Harvard Law School's first woman dean. She is a liberal replacing a liberal. Hopefully, she'll be closer to the ideal than closer the extreme. One day in the future, we will know what the Kagan Experience is all about.
Mike
Reference:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. Chicago: Standard Educational Corporation.
Monday, May 10, 2010
A Day at Berry
Nestled in the foothills of north Georgia in the small town of Rome is one of the world's largest college campuses, Berry College. Founded in 1902 as a school for rural children on 83 acres of land, Berry College, today, boasts a campus size of 26,000 acres and a student body of just under 2,000. This is one of the most beautiful campuses a person could visit. On any given day, deer can be seen grazing on the abundant grass fields that grace the campus. A trip along the trails of the campus lead to an old corn mill and large reservoir. Beautiful trees line the campus.
A story related about Martha Berry, the founder, speaks of someone coming across her planting a row of trees in the middle of a field. The person asks her what she is doing to which she replies "planting trees that someday will line a road that people will drive down to access an education." Today that row of trees can be seen along the old school entrance running from Martha Berry highway towards the house in which Martha Berry at one time lived. The old "gate of opportunity" is beautiful to behold. Martha Berry was a visionary and an admirable philanthropist. (You can visit the website of Berry College to review their campus and learn more about Martha Berry: www.berry.edu).
The college promotes the believe of Martha Berry to deliver an education of "the head, the heart, and the hands" (Berry.edu, 2010). Martha Berry believed in an education which emphasized learning (imagine that - a college that promotes learning), emphasized being a volunteer for others, and promoted work. This belief is still held today and was a continuing theme of the various speakers at the class of 2010's graduation.
My original plan was to begin my dissertation on the Arizona immigration law, SB1070. After attending my daughter's graduation from the aforementioned institution this past Saturday, May 8th, I changed my plans. This change came about due to the guest speaker and a quote from Martha Berry related by another speaker.
I cannot remember the Martha Berry quote word-for-word so the quote will have to paraphrased. The gist of the quote is "those that seek out the easy make themselves weaker, those that seek out the difficult make themselves stronger." This is a powerful quote and a great lesson to learn. In an easy analogy, look at muscle building. It is easy to lift ten pounds. One who continues to lift ten pounds will not be as strong as someone who continues to increase the weight they lift to a weight that is difficult for them to lift. The quote is also analogous to Robert Frost's famous poem, "The Road Less Traveled." It is easy to continue on the path others have taken; might not be as easy to travel on the road that others have not taken. Who is more enriched by their specific road of choice?
The guest speaker at the graduation was Rev. Meisel, president of The Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation, a national philanthropic organization based in Princeton, N.J. During his speech he mentioned the importance of social justice. This is where today's diatribe began to take shape.
I wondered if Martha Berry would be a proponent of social justice? Or at least, how I view social justice. Reflecting on her quote versus my believe of what social justice means, I have my doubts. When I researched what social justice means, I began to develop a different answer. So today I will discuss social justice.
When I hear the words "social justice," I envision taking from one group of people and giving to others, especially used to redistribute wealth. Social justice is, in fact, more complicated than my simple meaning. The definition of social justice is "the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society" (dictionary.com, 2010). A good example of this would be affirmative action which redistributed advantages Caucasian individuals had with respect to hiring practices to minority groups, such as African-Americans.
Another viewpoint is social justice is the view of a strong value system which promotes equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities (National Association of Social Workers, n.d.). Yet another viewpoint, would make equal rights with respect to social justice to mean equal access to programs that make it possible for people from any societal sector or standing to be successful (Ellis-Christensen, 2010). In each case, something is taken from one group and given to another group in the name of justice, in the name of fairness. But who is defining what fair is?
This is the crux of the right versus the left. Leftist views would have you believe that government must tax the rich to pay for programs that benefit those who have been disadvantaged. Rightist views would have you believe that government must only encourage philanthropy while ensuring everyone has the opportunity to pursue their success.
Social justice should not be confused with socialism. Socialism is the ownership of capital and property in the community as a whole which some view as government ownership of business. Socialism will be discussion for later.
Social justice has a place in our country. There are some who have been disadvantaged to misbelieves, I refer back to affirmative action. Our history is ripe with injustice towards the ex-slaves after the Civil War and their decendants for generations. Black Americans were disadvantaged due to their skin color and nothing more. Our country had to do something to bring justice so that black Americans have the same equal opportunity as white Americans. Of course, at some point, this disadvantage should go away. That is the purpose of social justice to make it equal for all.
However, the line must be drawn at economic justice. Governments cannot be a Robbing Hoodlum to take from the strong to give to the weak. Nor should they over tax one group to give benefits or pay for programs to another group. Going back to Martha Berry's quote, what message does it send when someone who works hard to be strong is rewarded by having what is rightfully theirs taken to give to someone who is not as strong as them or chooses the weak path? This policy creates animosity between the two groups. The strong resent the weak for not trying to be strong and the weak resent the strong for being strong. It is not a win-win situation.
So what would Martha Berry support? I believe the answer lies in her actions. She founded a school to educate the head, the heart, and the hands. She did this by taking action and not expecting others to give up what they had for her to accomplish her dream. She attempted the difficult to become strong. Her legacy lies in the education given to the graduates, the promotion of giving from the heart, in other words, the education in philanthropy, and the education of doing work with your hands. I doubt Martha Berry would've supported that work of the hands to be done with a gun pointed towards another.
So when looking at social justice, we need to ponder why someone is advantaged while someone else is disadvantaged. Is the disadvantage due to something the disadvantaged had no control over? For example, no one has control over their race, their sex, or their sexual preference. Some may throw in ability. But some ability is controllable and some is not. For example, I have the ability to catch a football thrown at me. However, I do not have the ability to do it as a profession in the National Football League. Should I use the cause of social justice to force the issue? No. The use of social justice needs common sense. Some may also throw in class. However, this is the land of opportunity. If you want to improve your class, at least in our country, there is opportunity to do so. But you can't take the easy road.
In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It does not say you will actually be happy.
Mike
References:
Declaration of Independence (1776). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
Dicitionary.com (2010). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+justice
Ellis-Christensen, T. (2010, May 2). What is Social Justice? Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-social-justice.htm
National Association of Social Workers. (n.d.) Issue fact sheets, Social Justice. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/issue/peace.asp
A story related about Martha Berry, the founder, speaks of someone coming across her planting a row of trees in the middle of a field. The person asks her what she is doing to which she replies "planting trees that someday will line a road that people will drive down to access an education." Today that row of trees can be seen along the old school entrance running from Martha Berry highway towards the house in which Martha Berry at one time lived. The old "gate of opportunity" is beautiful to behold. Martha Berry was a visionary and an admirable philanthropist. (You can visit the website of Berry College to review their campus and learn more about Martha Berry: www.berry.edu).
The college promotes the believe of Martha Berry to deliver an education of "the head, the heart, and the hands" (Berry.edu, 2010). Martha Berry believed in an education which emphasized learning (imagine that - a college that promotes learning), emphasized being a volunteer for others, and promoted work. This belief is still held today and was a continuing theme of the various speakers at the class of 2010's graduation.
My original plan was to begin my dissertation on the Arizona immigration law, SB1070. After attending my daughter's graduation from the aforementioned institution this past Saturday, May 8th, I changed my plans. This change came about due to the guest speaker and a quote from Martha Berry related by another speaker.
I cannot remember the Martha Berry quote word-for-word so the quote will have to paraphrased. The gist of the quote is "those that seek out the easy make themselves weaker, those that seek out the difficult make themselves stronger." This is a powerful quote and a great lesson to learn. In an easy analogy, look at muscle building. It is easy to lift ten pounds. One who continues to lift ten pounds will not be as strong as someone who continues to increase the weight they lift to a weight that is difficult for them to lift. The quote is also analogous to Robert Frost's famous poem, "The Road Less Traveled." It is easy to continue on the path others have taken; might not be as easy to travel on the road that others have not taken. Who is more enriched by their specific road of choice?
The guest speaker at the graduation was Rev. Meisel, president of The Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation, a national philanthropic organization based in Princeton, N.J. During his speech he mentioned the importance of social justice. This is where today's diatribe began to take shape.
I wondered if Martha Berry would be a proponent of social justice? Or at least, how I view social justice. Reflecting on her quote versus my believe of what social justice means, I have my doubts. When I researched what social justice means, I began to develop a different answer. So today I will discuss social justice.
When I hear the words "social justice," I envision taking from one group of people and giving to others, especially used to redistribute wealth. Social justice is, in fact, more complicated than my simple meaning. The definition of social justice is "the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society" (dictionary.com, 2010). A good example of this would be affirmative action which redistributed advantages Caucasian individuals had with respect to hiring practices to minority groups, such as African-Americans.
Another viewpoint is social justice is the view of a strong value system which promotes equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities (National Association of Social Workers, n.d.). Yet another viewpoint, would make equal rights with respect to social justice to mean equal access to programs that make it possible for people from any societal sector or standing to be successful (Ellis-Christensen, 2010). In each case, something is taken from one group and given to another group in the name of justice, in the name of fairness. But who is defining what fair is?
This is the crux of the right versus the left. Leftist views would have you believe that government must tax the rich to pay for programs that benefit those who have been disadvantaged. Rightist views would have you believe that government must only encourage philanthropy while ensuring everyone has the opportunity to pursue their success.
Social justice should not be confused with socialism. Socialism is the ownership of capital and property in the community as a whole which some view as government ownership of business. Socialism will be discussion for later.
Social justice has a place in our country. There are some who have been disadvantaged to misbelieves, I refer back to affirmative action. Our history is ripe with injustice towards the ex-slaves after the Civil War and their decendants for generations. Black Americans were disadvantaged due to their skin color and nothing more. Our country had to do something to bring justice so that black Americans have the same equal opportunity as white Americans. Of course, at some point, this disadvantage should go away. That is the purpose of social justice to make it equal for all.
However, the line must be drawn at economic justice. Governments cannot be a Robbing Hoodlum to take from the strong to give to the weak. Nor should they over tax one group to give benefits or pay for programs to another group. Going back to Martha Berry's quote, what message does it send when someone who works hard to be strong is rewarded by having what is rightfully theirs taken to give to someone who is not as strong as them or chooses the weak path? This policy creates animosity between the two groups. The strong resent the weak for not trying to be strong and the weak resent the strong for being strong. It is not a win-win situation.
So what would Martha Berry support? I believe the answer lies in her actions. She founded a school to educate the head, the heart, and the hands. She did this by taking action and not expecting others to give up what they had for her to accomplish her dream. She attempted the difficult to become strong. Her legacy lies in the education given to the graduates, the promotion of giving from the heart, in other words, the education in philanthropy, and the education of doing work with your hands. I doubt Martha Berry would've supported that work of the hands to be done with a gun pointed towards another.
So when looking at social justice, we need to ponder why someone is advantaged while someone else is disadvantaged. Is the disadvantage due to something the disadvantaged had no control over? For example, no one has control over their race, their sex, or their sexual preference. Some may throw in ability. But some ability is controllable and some is not. For example, I have the ability to catch a football thrown at me. However, I do not have the ability to do it as a profession in the National Football League. Should I use the cause of social justice to force the issue? No. The use of social justice needs common sense. Some may also throw in class. However, this is the land of opportunity. If you want to improve your class, at least in our country, there is opportunity to do so. But you can't take the easy road.
In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It does not say you will actually be happy.
Mike
References:
Declaration of Independence (1776). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
Dicitionary.com (2010). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+justice
Ellis-Christensen, T. (2010, May 2). What is Social Justice? Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-social-justice.htm
National Association of Social Workers. (n.d.) Issue fact sheets, Social Justice. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/issue/peace.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)