Update from the Heartland
No.290
25.6.07 – 1.7.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.290
25.6.07 – 1.7.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Our big, male, Rottweiler Rocky hit a tough patch over the last couple of months, and we received confirmation via biopsy on Tuesday, that he has osteosarcoma. Our vet’s prognosis: about three months, give or take. We just got him home after five days of treatment. We hope to give him a comfortable last bunch of weeks he has remaining with us. Rocky is eight years old. At his peak, he was a robust 160 pounds (75 kilograms) – an imposing body and presence but a pussy-cat personality.
Rocky & Gracie – April 2006
As the old saying goes, when it rains, it pours. Several key executives have been released, including the man to whom I reported, and the program office as we knew it has been dissolved. An integrated product line organization has been created within Engineering. I will continue working on product improvement of our Premier light jet aircraft. Change is a constant challenge in our business.
On the blessings side of the ledger, Melissa and Tyson drove up from Austin for a long weekend prior to Independence Day, enabling us to have a family gathering and supper Sunday evening. We were missing only Courtney . . . still in California. Of course, we took plenty of pix. Our Grandchildren – Judson, Aspen and Shalee.
On the blessings side of the ledger, Melissa and Tyson drove up from Austin for a long weekend prior to Independence Day, enabling us to have a family gathering and supper Sunday evening. We were missing only Courtney . . . still in California. Of course, we took plenty of pix. Our Grandchildren – Judson, Aspen and Shalee.
Our Grandchildren
Family . . . the treasure of life. Liberty allows us our pursuit of happiness. These are some of my most precious pursuits. I pray we have the resolve to protect all our children.
REMINDER: The 231st anniversary of American independence comes this Wednesday. Let us remember the importance of the holiday by reading the Declaration of Independence aloud for our family and friends. Lest we ever forget . . . .
Follow-up news items:
-- We have to give the Senate an “A” for effort as they tried yet one more time to pass an immigration bill; this time resurrected as the untitled S.1639 (a modified version the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 [S.1348]. [286-7] The Senate voted on cloture (46-53-1), and again failed to end debate. Thus, immigration reform is probably out of reach with this Congress and this administration. Status quo ante. We can add immigration to the growing list of difficult topics we are impotent to change.
-- The administration’s warrantless surveillance program popped up again, this week. [213, 267, 284] The Washington Post ran a series of articles based on the revelations of U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth – one of the so-called FISA court judges. Lamberth said, “We have to understand you can fight the war [on Islamic fascism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war.” As a principle or ideal, Lamberth is, of course, quite correct and spot on, and yet Lamberth’s revelations illuminate the fallacy and inadequacy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511]. If I had been the president after 9/11, I would have pressed the limit of warrantless surveillance; the President did what he had to do, and we are less protected today after the administration backed down.
-- Now, we hear the Secretaries of State and Defense are urging the President to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, along with the Supreme Court’s signal they intend to re-address the law associated with the detention process. [Citations are too numerous.] Once again, I must ask why? Why is self-flagellation consuming us? Does helping our enemies truly make us feel better?
-- The consequences of the TWA 800 incident [102-4, 115, 115A, 151, 154, 168, et al] continue to evolve. On Thursday, Representative Timothy H. Bishop of New York introduced the Transport Aircraft Fuel Tank Safety Act of 2007 [H.R.2912], requiring manufacturers of Part 25 Transport Category aircraft (≥30 passengers or ≥7500 lbs. payload) to implement the fuel tank flammable vapor reduction design criteria specified in Advisory Circular 25.981-2A -- Fuel Tank Flammability. Prima facia, requirements such as these appear to be beneficial; however, aircraft design is a constant challenge of balance and compromise. The TWA 800 incident never would have happened if the aircraft had been unable to takeoff that fateful night, but aircraft are not intended to remain on the ground, now are they?
The British People, and freedom-loving people around the world, got lucky this week in the continuing War on Islamic Fascism. Two significant car bombs were neutralized in London; one of the bombs appeared to be in the process of detonation or a failed detonation. Once again, the British explosives disposal experts took extraordinary risks, as their predecessors did nearly 70 years ago. The following day, Saturday, an apparently similar suicide car bomb rammed the main terminal entrance at Glascow airport. Fortunately, security barriers worked. These latest attacks, nearly two years after the successful London attacks [187, 189], have some of the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation, with one important exception – they were not successful. We must acknowledge that the British attacks may be al-Qaeda wannabes rather than direct action by the Islamic fascist group. I suspect there are other pending attacks in this wave, and I think raising the threat level to critical or imminent is quite appropriate. Several arrests have been made, so far, and I believe there will be more before this wave is subdued. May God protect our British cousins.
'Tis the season . . . such a flurry of Supreme Court decisions . . . and I cannot possibly digest them all. The decisions issued at the end of this term are made even more controversial by the very narrow 5-4 rulings on nearly all of them. The two most controversial cases involve the school house.
The case that may well define the Roberts Court came on the last day of the spring term. Two companion school desegregation cases were decided in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District no. 1 et al. [551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (No. 05-908). This decision claims to clarify the landmark school desegregation ruling of Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)], by restricting the use of race as a criterion for achieving diversity. Fifty-three years ago, the Court said, “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” In contrast, the voluminous Parents v. Seattle ruling can be summarized succinctly by Chief Justice Roberts’ last sentence at the conclusion of the Court’s opinion; “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” While Roberts’ statement is fundamentally correct, the naiveté of his rationale is as illuminating as it is staggering. I have never been a fan of judicial activism, or legislation by judicial fiat, or even school busing and forced desegregation. And yet, the devastating oppression of discrimination, bigotry, and segregation simply based on a citizen’s skin pigmentation is a far more onerous reality we suffered in those days. Despite the trauma produced by Brown, we must acknowledge the positive benefit of helping subsequent generations to overcome mindless racial hatred and bigotry. Brown overcame the Court’s inherent stare decisis philosophy to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] – the weak attempt by the Court to justify oppressive racial segregation and discrimination in the face of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause (1868). We can hope that when future generations look back on Parents v. Seattle, they will conclude that forced desegregation had achieved its objective, thus negating the drastic actions resultant from Brown. Nonetheless, I find it very hard to accept Roberts’ logic, reasoning and rationale. Lastly, this case offers clear focus on the societal challenge we face to achieve our Founding principles via a tortuous and flawed governance system, and especially when a coalesced and coherent willful majority seeks to use the instruments of State to deny equality, liberty, and freedom of choice to a minority of citizens.
The anticipated student free speech case – Morse v. Frederick [551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (06-278) – was decided by another close 5-4 split ruling (or we could call Morse a 6-3 or a 5.5-3.5 ruling, since Stephen Breyer filed a concurring in part, dissenting in part, opinion). On 24.January.2002, the principal of Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS), Juneau, Alaska, allowed students during school hours to observe the passage of the Olympic Torch Relay through the city on its way to the winter games in Salt Lake City, Utah. The student in question, Joseph Frederick – an 18-year-old, JDHS senior and no longer a minor under Alaska law – led other JDHS students in unfurling a 14-foot banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school as the Torch Relay passed. The principal – Deborah Morse – asked the students to remove the sign. When they refused, she confiscated the sign and later suspended Frederick; thus, the suit and progressive court judgments regard Frederick’s First Amendment freedom of speech challenge. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, reversing the 9th Circuit's ruling, and finding in favor of Principal Morse. I rarely agree with and I am more often quite critical of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas; the Morse ruling proves the exception. Clarence wrote a concurring opinion in which he rejects the long-standing principle of stare decisis and repudiates a pivotal precedent-setting, 38-year-old ruling – Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District [393 U.S. 503 (1969)] establishing that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion should be a “must-read” for anyone seeking to understand how our public schools have been so compromised as to be rendered virtually impotent in teaching our children the skills necessary to be successful in life. On the other hand, Justice Stevens offered up a rather scary view of student free speech in his dissenting opinion in Morse. The contrast between the opinions of Thomas and Stevens brilliantly illuminates the struggle created by the Court in Tinker and which we continue to suffer today despite Morse. Set aside the legal mumbo-jumbo, children do indeed have rights. However, their rights are derived from and exist under the authority of their parents; after all, the parents can and should be held accountable for the conduct of their children. To assign full rights to adolescent or juvenile minor children is wrong in the extreme. Further, the primary parental responsibility is to teach their children the requisite moral values, standards of public conduct, and respect for the law. The in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) responsibility of our schools and teachers must be complementary and supplemental, but not subservient to the primacy of the parents. (NOTE: whether we wish to admit it, some parents do NOT perform their societal responsibilities; the State’s legitimate interest in maturing productive, law-abiding citizens demands that schools fulfill that role.) As Clarence brightly illuminates, Tinker altered that balance substantially by emasculating school authority, thus, his opinion. Also, the Court’s rationale focused on Frederick’s banner advocating illegal drug use. From my perspective, the banner message was irrelevant. I advocate a far more restrictive guideline for elementary and secondary student freedom of speech that can and should be determined by local citizens rather than the Supreme Court or even state legislatures. My opinions regarding the war on drugs and drug abuse in general are public, well-argued (I hope), and clear. I encourage the public debate on this topic (and many others) by adults and students. And yet, I differentiate between proper and inappropriate venues for such debates. I speak on controversial topics in this forum as a private citizen and nothing more. Whether Frederick recognized it, he spoke as an affiliated student, not as a private citizen, and thus, should be subject to the rules of the school. I am not as liberal or tolerant of aberrant juvenile behavior as the Court has protected since Tinker and as the dissent argues in Morse. I do not believe minor children should possess the same constitutional rights as adult citizens in good standing. The State’s interest in inculcating respect for authority, proper discipline, and acceptable public conduct by students in their charge demands restrictions not applicable to adult citizens. Juveniles often have yet to realize the consequences and accountability associated with the exercise of our freedom of choice and the associated rights guaranteed citizen’s by the Constitution and our body of laws. School discipline remains an essential element in learning those lessons of consequences. In my humble opinion, the Court has injected itself as a major corrosive factor in the deterioration of the parent-children familial relationship to the detriment of society; thus, my concurrence, whole-hearted support and advocacy of the Thomas opinion. The Court fails yet again to recognize the special and unique relationship between parent(s) and child(ren), thus my observation on the Court’s corrosive contribution to the diminishment of juvenile discipline and detrimental conduct. This imbroglio seems even stranger when placed in another light – how would any of us expect our employer to react if we held up such a banner as an employee at a company-sponsored event? Is there any doubt? If not, then why on God’s little green earth should we ascribe more freedom to a high school student?
Another important First Amendment case was decided by the Supreme Court -- Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. [551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (06-969). This case is another direct challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) [PL 107-155; AKA McCain-Feingold]. The Court chose this case to readdress the concept of “functional equivalent of express advocacy,” i.e., advertising for a specific candidate as opposed to a political topic of public debate. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court and concluded, “When it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban – the issue we do have to decide – we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment's command that ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech’ demands at least that.” The bevy of concurring opinions from various justices adds an odd aura to this ruling; they expect further challenge to the law. When I read this decision, especially in comparison to other rulings, I gain the sense the Supremes are not confident or content with the BCRA language or even their interpretations to date regarding the attempted regulation of political speech. A measure of the Court’s dilemma can be seen in Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s summary statement of his concurring opinion, “I would therefore reconsider the decision that sets us the unsavory task of separating issue-speech from election-speech with no clear criterion.” Once again with humility, I must acknowledge the legal scholarship and writing skill of my favorite target; Antonin the Impaler offered a compelling “clean up our act” indictment of the Court’s First Amendment restrictions on political speech. I praise Antonin’s argument despite the fact that I also laud the attempt of BCRA to rein in the obscene amounts of money thrown at the near continuous, political, electoral process in the United States. Further, Section IV of Antonin’s opinion is a treatise on stare decisis – the principle of deference to prior Court decisions. The frustration felt by so many of us with the vulgarity of American political campaign processes and the corrupting influence of money is readily seen in Associate Justice David Souter’s opinion for the dissent; he said, “Neither Congress's decisions nor our own have understood the corrupting influence of money in politics as being limited to outright bribery or discrete quid pro quo; campaign finance reform has instead consistently focused on the more pervasive distortion of electoral institutions by concentrated wealth, on the special access and guaranteed favor that sap the representative integrity of American government and defy public confidence in its institutions. From early in the 20th century through the decision in McConnell, we have acknowledged that the value of democratic integrity justifies a realistic response when corporations and labor organizations commit the concentrated moneys in their treasuries to electioneering.” Spot on David, and I share your pain, but the judgment of the Court was correct, despite the pain it causes me and so many of our fellow citizens. At least, McCain-Feingold made the attempt to remedy a seriously broken process. The Court’s Wisconsin Right to Life decision has made that objective all the more distant.
The challenges to the President’s faith-based initiatives continued with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation [551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (06-157), centered upon Executive Order no. 13199, titled: “Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” issued on 29.January.2001, just after President Bush took office, which opened the door for using public funds via religious organizations ostensibly for the community good. The Freedom from Religion Foundation, an organization “opposed to government endorsement of religion,” challenged the initiating Executive Order (13199) along with a half dozen related executive orders on the basis they violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Court confined its ruling to a procedural issue of standing. The larger question of appropriateness remains unchallenged. I am not a fan of the President’s faith-based initiative for a host of reasons; however, I must acknowledge that he walks a very fine line regarding the Establishment Clause and underlying separation of church and State. I do not agree with or support the President’s very restrictive approach to embryonic stem cell research or his very liberal support of religious organizations ostensibly working for the public good. Nonetheless, the argument used by the Seventh Circuit claimed any taxpayer had standing, while the Supremes took a more restrictive view of Article III of the Constitution . . . an interesting debate, but probably of concern only to legal scholars. ‘Nuf said!
Comments and contributions from Update no.289:
“Are you moving farther to the left with each month W is in office. :-) I know I am.
“Cheney's arrogance on not being a part of the Executive Branch is a new low for the administration. The dark lord must go.
“I'm reading ‘god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’ by [Christopher] Hitchens. Awesome book. He's a compelling thinker and a knowledgeable historian. Also, as with most of the English, he has amazing command of the language.
My reply:
I am not sure if I am moving farther left, or the administration is moving farther right and away from me. Regardless, my political opinions are difficult to bundle up, categorize and label. When labels become necessary, I have always described myself as a moderate, independent, non-partisan . . . and proud of it. I was not impressed by the Vice President’s rationale for non-compliance, thus my criticism. And yet, there are attributes of Dick Cheney I find admirable. The balance is shifting w/ this administration, and I am losing my patience.
I have not read the Hitchens book. Sounds like I should. I just started John le’Carre’s latest book.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
REMINDER: The 231st anniversary of American independence comes this Wednesday. Let us remember the importance of the holiday by reading the Declaration of Independence aloud for our family and friends. Lest we ever forget . . . .
Follow-up news items:
-- We have to give the Senate an “A” for effort as they tried yet one more time to pass an immigration bill; this time resurrected as the untitled S.1639 (a modified version the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 [S.1348]. [286-7] The Senate voted on cloture (46-53-1), and again failed to end debate. Thus, immigration reform is probably out of reach with this Congress and this administration. Status quo ante. We can add immigration to the growing list of difficult topics we are impotent to change.
-- The administration’s warrantless surveillance program popped up again, this week. [213, 267, 284] The Washington Post ran a series of articles based on the revelations of U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth – one of the so-called FISA court judges. Lamberth said, “We have to understand you can fight the war [on Islamic fascism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war.” As a principle or ideal, Lamberth is, of course, quite correct and spot on, and yet Lamberth’s revelations illuminate the fallacy and inadequacy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511]. If I had been the president after 9/11, I would have pressed the limit of warrantless surveillance; the President did what he had to do, and we are less protected today after the administration backed down.
-- Now, we hear the Secretaries of State and Defense are urging the President to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, along with the Supreme Court’s signal they intend to re-address the law associated with the detention process. [Citations are too numerous.] Once again, I must ask why? Why is self-flagellation consuming us? Does helping our enemies truly make us feel better?
-- The consequences of the TWA 800 incident [102-4, 115, 115A, 151, 154, 168, et al] continue to evolve. On Thursday, Representative Timothy H. Bishop of New York introduced the Transport Aircraft Fuel Tank Safety Act of 2007 [H.R.2912], requiring manufacturers of Part 25 Transport Category aircraft (≥30 passengers or ≥7500 lbs. payload) to implement the fuel tank flammable vapor reduction design criteria specified in Advisory Circular 25.981-2A -- Fuel Tank Flammability. Prima facia, requirements such as these appear to be beneficial; however, aircraft design is a constant challenge of balance and compromise. The TWA 800 incident never would have happened if the aircraft had been unable to takeoff that fateful night, but aircraft are not intended to remain on the ground, now are they?
The British People, and freedom-loving people around the world, got lucky this week in the continuing War on Islamic Fascism. Two significant car bombs were neutralized in London; one of the bombs appeared to be in the process of detonation or a failed detonation. Once again, the British explosives disposal experts took extraordinary risks, as their predecessors did nearly 70 years ago. The following day, Saturday, an apparently similar suicide car bomb rammed the main terminal entrance at Glascow airport. Fortunately, security barriers worked. These latest attacks, nearly two years after the successful London attacks [187, 189], have some of the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation, with one important exception – they were not successful. We must acknowledge that the British attacks may be al-Qaeda wannabes rather than direct action by the Islamic fascist group. I suspect there are other pending attacks in this wave, and I think raising the threat level to critical or imminent is quite appropriate. Several arrests have been made, so far, and I believe there will be more before this wave is subdued. May God protect our British cousins.
'Tis the season . . . such a flurry of Supreme Court decisions . . . and I cannot possibly digest them all. The decisions issued at the end of this term are made even more controversial by the very narrow 5-4 rulings on nearly all of them. The two most controversial cases involve the school house.
The case that may well define the Roberts Court came on the last day of the spring term. Two companion school desegregation cases were decided in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District no. 1 et al. [551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (No. 05-908). This decision claims to clarify the landmark school desegregation ruling of Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)], by restricting the use of race as a criterion for achieving diversity. Fifty-three years ago, the Court said, “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” In contrast, the voluminous Parents v. Seattle ruling can be summarized succinctly by Chief Justice Roberts’ last sentence at the conclusion of the Court’s opinion; “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” While Roberts’ statement is fundamentally correct, the naiveté of his rationale is as illuminating as it is staggering. I have never been a fan of judicial activism, or legislation by judicial fiat, or even school busing and forced desegregation. And yet, the devastating oppression of discrimination, bigotry, and segregation simply based on a citizen’s skin pigmentation is a far more onerous reality we suffered in those days. Despite the trauma produced by Brown, we must acknowledge the positive benefit of helping subsequent generations to overcome mindless racial hatred and bigotry. Brown overcame the Court’s inherent stare decisis philosophy to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] – the weak attempt by the Court to justify oppressive racial segregation and discrimination in the face of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause (1868). We can hope that when future generations look back on Parents v. Seattle, they will conclude that forced desegregation had achieved its objective, thus negating the drastic actions resultant from Brown. Nonetheless, I find it very hard to accept Roberts’ logic, reasoning and rationale. Lastly, this case offers clear focus on the societal challenge we face to achieve our Founding principles via a tortuous and flawed governance system, and especially when a coalesced and coherent willful majority seeks to use the instruments of State to deny equality, liberty, and freedom of choice to a minority of citizens.
The anticipated student free speech case – Morse v. Frederick [551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (06-278) – was decided by another close 5-4 split ruling (or we could call Morse a 6-3 or a 5.5-3.5 ruling, since Stephen Breyer filed a concurring in part, dissenting in part, opinion). On 24.January.2002, the principal of Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS), Juneau, Alaska, allowed students during school hours to observe the passage of the Olympic Torch Relay through the city on its way to the winter games in Salt Lake City, Utah. The student in question, Joseph Frederick – an 18-year-old, JDHS senior and no longer a minor under Alaska law – led other JDHS students in unfurling a 14-foot banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school as the Torch Relay passed. The principal – Deborah Morse – asked the students to remove the sign. When they refused, she confiscated the sign and later suspended Frederick; thus, the suit and progressive court judgments regard Frederick’s First Amendment freedom of speech challenge. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, reversing the 9th Circuit's ruling, and finding in favor of Principal Morse. I rarely agree with and I am more often quite critical of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas; the Morse ruling proves the exception. Clarence wrote a concurring opinion in which he rejects the long-standing principle of stare decisis and repudiates a pivotal precedent-setting, 38-year-old ruling – Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District [393 U.S. 503 (1969)] establishing that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion should be a “must-read” for anyone seeking to understand how our public schools have been so compromised as to be rendered virtually impotent in teaching our children the skills necessary to be successful in life. On the other hand, Justice Stevens offered up a rather scary view of student free speech in his dissenting opinion in Morse. The contrast between the opinions of Thomas and Stevens brilliantly illuminates the struggle created by the Court in Tinker and which we continue to suffer today despite Morse. Set aside the legal mumbo-jumbo, children do indeed have rights. However, their rights are derived from and exist under the authority of their parents; after all, the parents can and should be held accountable for the conduct of their children. To assign full rights to adolescent or juvenile minor children is wrong in the extreme. Further, the primary parental responsibility is to teach their children the requisite moral values, standards of public conduct, and respect for the law. The in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) responsibility of our schools and teachers must be complementary and supplemental, but not subservient to the primacy of the parents. (NOTE: whether we wish to admit it, some parents do NOT perform their societal responsibilities; the State’s legitimate interest in maturing productive, law-abiding citizens demands that schools fulfill that role.) As Clarence brightly illuminates, Tinker altered that balance substantially by emasculating school authority, thus, his opinion. Also, the Court’s rationale focused on Frederick’s banner advocating illegal drug use. From my perspective, the banner message was irrelevant. I advocate a far more restrictive guideline for elementary and secondary student freedom of speech that can and should be determined by local citizens rather than the Supreme Court or even state legislatures. My opinions regarding the war on drugs and drug abuse in general are public, well-argued (I hope), and clear. I encourage the public debate on this topic (and many others) by adults and students. And yet, I differentiate between proper and inappropriate venues for such debates. I speak on controversial topics in this forum as a private citizen and nothing more. Whether Frederick recognized it, he spoke as an affiliated student, not as a private citizen, and thus, should be subject to the rules of the school. I am not as liberal or tolerant of aberrant juvenile behavior as the Court has protected since Tinker and as the dissent argues in Morse. I do not believe minor children should possess the same constitutional rights as adult citizens in good standing. The State’s interest in inculcating respect for authority, proper discipline, and acceptable public conduct by students in their charge demands restrictions not applicable to adult citizens. Juveniles often have yet to realize the consequences and accountability associated with the exercise of our freedom of choice and the associated rights guaranteed citizen’s by the Constitution and our body of laws. School discipline remains an essential element in learning those lessons of consequences. In my humble opinion, the Court has injected itself as a major corrosive factor in the deterioration of the parent-children familial relationship to the detriment of society; thus, my concurrence, whole-hearted support and advocacy of the Thomas opinion. The Court fails yet again to recognize the special and unique relationship between parent(s) and child(ren), thus my observation on the Court’s corrosive contribution to the diminishment of juvenile discipline and detrimental conduct. This imbroglio seems even stranger when placed in another light – how would any of us expect our employer to react if we held up such a banner as an employee at a company-sponsored event? Is there any doubt? If not, then why on God’s little green earth should we ascribe more freedom to a high school student?
Another important First Amendment case was decided by the Supreme Court -- Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. [551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (06-969). This case is another direct challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) [PL 107-155; AKA McCain-Feingold]. The Court chose this case to readdress the concept of “functional equivalent of express advocacy,” i.e., advertising for a specific candidate as opposed to a political topic of public debate. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court and concluded, “When it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban – the issue we do have to decide – we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment's command that ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech’ demands at least that.” The bevy of concurring opinions from various justices adds an odd aura to this ruling; they expect further challenge to the law. When I read this decision, especially in comparison to other rulings, I gain the sense the Supremes are not confident or content with the BCRA language or even their interpretations to date regarding the attempted regulation of political speech. A measure of the Court’s dilemma can be seen in Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s summary statement of his concurring opinion, “I would therefore reconsider the decision that sets us the unsavory task of separating issue-speech from election-speech with no clear criterion.” Once again with humility, I must acknowledge the legal scholarship and writing skill of my favorite target; Antonin the Impaler offered a compelling “clean up our act” indictment of the Court’s First Amendment restrictions on political speech. I praise Antonin’s argument despite the fact that I also laud the attempt of BCRA to rein in the obscene amounts of money thrown at the near continuous, political, electoral process in the United States. Further, Section IV of Antonin’s opinion is a treatise on stare decisis – the principle of deference to prior Court decisions. The frustration felt by so many of us with the vulgarity of American political campaign processes and the corrupting influence of money is readily seen in Associate Justice David Souter’s opinion for the dissent; he said, “Neither Congress's decisions nor our own have understood the corrupting influence of money in politics as being limited to outright bribery or discrete quid pro quo; campaign finance reform has instead consistently focused on the more pervasive distortion of electoral institutions by concentrated wealth, on the special access and guaranteed favor that sap the representative integrity of American government and defy public confidence in its institutions. From early in the 20th century through the decision in McConnell, we have acknowledged that the value of democratic integrity justifies a realistic response when corporations and labor organizations commit the concentrated moneys in their treasuries to electioneering.” Spot on David, and I share your pain, but the judgment of the Court was correct, despite the pain it causes me and so many of our fellow citizens. At least, McCain-Feingold made the attempt to remedy a seriously broken process. The Court’s Wisconsin Right to Life decision has made that objective all the more distant.
The challenges to the President’s faith-based initiatives continued with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation [551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (06-157), centered upon Executive Order no. 13199, titled: “Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” issued on 29.January.2001, just after President Bush took office, which opened the door for using public funds via religious organizations ostensibly for the community good. The Freedom from Religion Foundation, an organization “opposed to government endorsement of religion,” challenged the initiating Executive Order (13199) along with a half dozen related executive orders on the basis they violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Court confined its ruling to a procedural issue of standing. The larger question of appropriateness remains unchallenged. I am not a fan of the President’s faith-based initiative for a host of reasons; however, I must acknowledge that he walks a very fine line regarding the Establishment Clause and underlying separation of church and State. I do not agree with or support the President’s very restrictive approach to embryonic stem cell research or his very liberal support of religious organizations ostensibly working for the public good. Nonetheless, the argument used by the Seventh Circuit claimed any taxpayer had standing, while the Supremes took a more restrictive view of Article III of the Constitution . . . an interesting debate, but probably of concern only to legal scholars. ‘Nuf said!
Comments and contributions from Update no.289:
“Are you moving farther to the left with each month W is in office. :-) I know I am.
“Cheney's arrogance on not being a part of the Executive Branch is a new low for the administration. The dark lord must go.
“I'm reading ‘god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’ by [Christopher] Hitchens. Awesome book. He's a compelling thinker and a knowledgeable historian. Also, as with most of the English, he has amazing command of the language.
My reply:
I am not sure if I am moving farther left, or the administration is moving farther right and away from me. Regardless, my political opinions are difficult to bundle up, categorize and label. When labels become necessary, I have always described myself as a moderate, independent, non-partisan . . . and proud of it. I was not impressed by the Vice President’s rationale for non-compliance, thus my criticism. And yet, there are attributes of Dick Cheney I find admirable. The balance is shifting w/ this administration, and I am losing my patience.
I have not read the Hitchens book. Sounds like I should. I just started John le’Carre’s latest book.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment