Update from the Heartland
No.311
19.11.07 – 25.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.311
19.11.07 – 25.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Various news sources reported recent laudable advances in stem cell research and genetic manipulation. In one report, British scientists achieved positive results in treating Parkinson’s disease with manipulated genetic material. In a separate report, scientists in Japan and the United States have apparently developed a another genetic manipulation technique to coax mature skin cells into acting like embryonic stem cells, meaning the resultant cells can potentially be directed to produce any specialized cells in the body. While these announcements are encouraging, I urge caution. Depending upon the age of the root mature cells, progressive mutations have occurred, and it is not clear to me how those mutations can be corrected. Nonetheless, we have positive signs.
If you want to see some really incredible and very personal flying, try this link:
http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=4262
A key to reading and understanding judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court to local civil judges, or interpretations by the Press or politicians, seems to be directly dependent upon our perception of primacy – individual, state or federal. I have always taken the Preamble to the Constitution quite seriously –
“We, the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The meaning is quite clear – fine, crystal clear – We, the People, granted certain authority to the Federal government, to act on our behalf in specific activities. The 9th and 10th Amendments reinforce the fact that all powers of government are derived from the governed – We, the People. At test, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of a private citizen regarding the constitutionality of a highly restrictive, District of Columbia, handgun law that verges upon prohibition. This case will be the first test of the 2nd Amendment by the Supremes since 1939, and may well illuminate brightly the persuasions of the current members of the Court. So, let us review . . . the 2nd Amendment states:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Federalists and gun control advocates focus upon the phrase “well regulated Militia,” meaning gun possession should only be protected for organized, State-sanctioned organizations intended for the collective security and defense. For the individual rights folks, the dominant words are “the right of the people,” which exceeds all others. To add further emphasis, the use of the word ‘infringed’ has only one relevant meaning – the right bear arms existed and exists outside the Constitution and shall not be imposed upon by government. Since I am of the latter group, I shall offer this additional view, the opening two phrases are background intended to establish the foundation or general purpose rather than provide a limitation upon the right of the People. To the Federalists, the opening phrase allows the Federal or any government to restrict the private ownership of firearms not directly associated with a State-sanctioned group; thus, the State is dominant, not the individual. The case before today’s Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller [docket no. 07-290]) grows from the denial of a private-possession, gun permit request by Dick Anthony Heller. He joined a challenge to the DC handgun control measure that was eventually heard by the Circuit Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. The three-judge panel in the case of Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia [DC CCA No. 04-7041 (2007)] reversed the district court judgment, finding the DC law was an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment. Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Hirsch Silberman, writing for the majority, said, “The provision’s second comma divides the Amendment into two clauses; the first is prefatory, and the second operative. Appellants’ (Parker, Heller, et al) argument is focused on their reading of the Second Amendment’s operative clause.” Also at issue is the last, Supreme Court, 2nd Amendment ruling nearly 70 years ago {United States v. Miller [307 U.S. 174 (1939)]}. The Miller ruling validated the National Firearms Act of 1934 [PL no. 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236, 26 U.S.C. §§ 1132] – a New Deal, Federalist, legislative reaction to the rampant gun crime of the Prohibition era. Fortunately, the current Supremes apparently feel that leaving Miller as their last definitive statement on the 2nd Amendment is not an adequate jurisprudence condition, given the sensitivity of the right to bear arms within this Grand Republic. Without boring into the details, let it suffice to say this case is another individual versus the State question. Heller was not a felon or a criminal in any form; in fact, he was an auxiliary police officer. His case represents the worst of an intrusive government . . . imposing upon and penalizing law-abiding citizens without cause. If I was going to predict the outcome, I think the Supremes will uphold the DC Circuit’s ruling and accentuate Judge Silberman’s English dissection of the 2nd Amendment. Whatever the outcome, I suspect the Supreme Court’s decision will be an illuminating read. The Court’s ruling in this case will be quite interesting; namely, will the so-called strict constructionists (Scalia & Thomas) associate ‘militia’ and ‘bear Arms’ as written, or see the words in the larger context of the whole document? We shall see . . . probably by late winter, early spring . . . just in time to be a major issue in the election. Lastly, as we await the Court’s decision, I must say, most, if not all, gun control measures treat the symptom rather than the root cause, like so many of our silly laws. When will we ever learn?
The 2nd Amendment discussion above is one of many reasons I get so wrapped up about the judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Another reason is the lightning rod decision Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)]. The strict constructionist like Bork [307], Scalia and Thomas opine about the lack of any reference to abortion or privacy in the Constitution, and thus Roe being a case of judicial fiat and a prime example of excessively liberal Court rulings. To those of us who take a larger view of the Constitution, Roe was meticulously consistent – the fundament right of every individual to protection of his private Pursuit of Happiness. Of course, some of the anti-abortion folks go absolutely spastic freaky at the notion that a individual citizen might actually have a fundamental right to privacy and the concomitant freedom of choice to decide what is best for them. Without diverting this dialogue any more than I already have, we cannot have it both ways depending upon our degree of sensitivity or offended morals. Justice Blackmun said it quite eloquently. Just as guys like Bork say the Constitution offers no guidance and thus offers no restriction on the State’s ability to regulate abortion or anything else not expressly discussed in the Constitution, I argue that the paucity of any restrictions means precisely that the individual retains those rights, and as such, the individual citizen must be protected from intrusion into his private affairs by the State. The interpretation of the self-anointed, strict constructionists simply states that the Federal government has no authority to sanction or restrict abortion as a medical procedure, and as such the states individually do have that right; thus, by their interpretation, the individual does not have the right under the Constitution to protection from governmental intrusion into their private affairs and choices. To me, there are not many things scarier than a judge who can rationalize State dominance over the individual (of course, there are constrains like bona fide, public, State interests; thus, how we define 'bona fide' becomes the salient debate in this question and so many others). Freedom cannot be parsed; either we are free, or we are not.
As reported in this humble journal, I received the last of the congressional replies to my Open Letter regarding the pending Employment Non-Discrimination Act [306], (Roberts [309] and Brownback [310]). Here is the reply of Representative Todd Tiahrt.
November 15, 2007
Dear Cap:
Thank you for contacting me in support of Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007, H.R. 2015 and H.R. 3685. I greatly appreciate knowing your thoughts on this important issue.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act was introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on April 24th. This bill would ban “employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” Like you, I abhor bigotry and discrimination; however, I am concerned that this vaguely-constructed overhaul of labor law is inconsistent with the free exercise of religion and will weaken traditional marriage.
Free exercise of religion as found in the Constitution and as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) must be firmly upheld. It is a cornerstone of our nation's founding and our future. America's churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious non¬profits must maintain the right to employ those that share their particular religious or moral worldview. Unfortunately, ENDA would impede on these fundamental rights.
ENDA would also weaken the landmark Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by giving Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights. DOMA is the federal law that declares marriage is between one man and one woman. Maintaining DOMA is essential in defending the sanctity of marriage. However, passage of ENDA will provide activist judges around the country the legal ammunition to undermine state and federal marriage laws. Courts in New Jersey, Vermont and Massachusetts have all used state legislation similar to ENDA as a springboard for mandating same-sex marriage or civil unions. In 2005 Kansas overwhelmingly passed the Marriage Amendment by 70 percent. The people of Kansas have spoken. With the path is so clearly defined in history, it would be irresponsible for Congress to pass ENDA.
Upon introduction, H.R. 3685 was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the House Committee on Administration. It was passed out of the Committee on Education and Labor on October 22nd by a vote of 27-21. ENDA was considered on the House Floor on November 7th and passed by a vote of 235-184. The bill now moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you sharing your thoughts with me regarding ENDA. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or my labor policy aide, Jim Richardson. It is an honor to serve you in the United States Congress.
Best regards,
Todd Tiahrt
Member of Congress
. . . to which, I replied:
Todd,
Thank you for your reply.
As you note, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) [H.R.3685] was passed by the House and is before the Senate. I have written and continue to write to Senators Roberts and Brownback on this issue.
Since ENDA is no longer before the House, I could let your letter be the closing of our communications regarding the question of equal rights for all citizens. However, your raising of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [PL103-141; H.R.1308; S.578; 42 U.S.C. §2000bb], the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 [PL104-199; H.R.3396; 110 Stat. 2419; 1 U.S.C. §7 and 28 U.S.C. §1738C], and the Kansas Marriage Amendment (Article 15, §16) broadens the horizon of this exchange.
Former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor so succinctly and eloquently wrote in her concurring opinion for Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)], “A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the State's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.” I recognize and acknowledge that we are not talking about criminal rights here, but rather civil rights and equality under the law. Yet, her words offer profound wisdom regarding the nature of our Liberty, and the proper relationship between an individual citizen and the State.
A willful majority has the power to impose upon any minority it so chooses, as it has done numerous times in the history of this Nation. And yet, that reality does not make it correct or even honorable. We are not talking about a bona fide State interest in public conduct or even the safety of private conduct. Discrimination, persecution, intimidation and oppression with respect to any of the social factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or disability) is just flat wrong, and contrary to the very essence of the founding principles of this Grand Republic – that each and every citizen is endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Each of us may believe as we wish that private, non-heterosexual conduct is a lifestyle choice or a genetic predisposition – that is our right. Regardless, to deny any citizen their unalienable right to pursue their happiness as they choose simply because a willful majority disapproves of that citizen’s choices is a despicable aberration of our time comparable to the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393 (1856)] and Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] decisions of our past.
As such, I beseech you to find the courage to stand up for the equal rights of ALL citizens and resist the seductive, Sirens’ song of a willful, moral projectionist majority. Let us do what is correct, even if it is not very popular.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
If you would like to know just a little more about the dark art of hatred and intimidation faced everyday by those who do not conform and ascribe to moral majority's definition of normal, I suggest this article:
"The Geography of Hate"
by Mark Potok, Luke Visconti, Barbara Frankel and Nigel Holmes
New York Times
Published: November 25, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25potok.html?th&emc=th
I also read this interesting article:
"West Wing: How Dangerous Is America?"
by Gabor Steingart in Washington, D.C.
Der Spiegel
Compiled on November 20, 2007, 05:44 PM CET
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,518399,00.html
It seems some Europeans cannot see the forest through the trees. Apparently, Americans are the problem; we are more dangerous to world peace than Russia, or Iran, or China, or even al-Qaeda. Well, ain’t that sumpin’! I suppose one hell-been-for-leather President determined to eradicate our enemies, who inflicted grievous injury upon our innocent citizens, can erase a century of defending freedom. Furthermore, the current President will peacefully relinquish power to his successor on 20.January.2009, and another person will occupy that position and undoubtedly exercise power in a different manner. Lastly, I have stated more than a few times in this humble journal, I have no interest in making nice with those who threaten us. This too shall pass.
Comments and contributions from Update no.310:
"Prohibition of tools like waterboarding smells of Bush-hating to a degree those doing so are glad to see us lose, so Bush loses. That prohibition is a much bigger crime than scaring a war combatant to get information to save our lives, which is no crime at all. It is a dark time these days for military warriors if they are not allowed to win. And, failure win will be our undoing."
My reply:
Yea verily!
The uber-Left is trying mightily to make war gentlemanly, unstained, and pretty. By doing so, if they are successful, we will be unable to fight and win future wars, and potentially this war. War is killing and destruction – no if’s, and’s or but’s. The side that does the best job of it usually wins. I’m sorry this is so blunt and grotesque for some of our citizens, but that is the way it is . . . or at least should be. The question remains, will the uber-Left be successful?
. . . with this follow-up:
"Success for the left is failure for the USA. Let's hope our survival urge wins over bad judgment. War is hell and should be conducted that way. Win is the only option for survival."
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Indeed!
Related side note: Interesting that Bill Richardson stated in the latest Democratic national debate that he believed human rights should supersede national security. In general, I am an admirer of Bill Richardson, but when he said that, we had proof positive that parochial political pandering trumps logic and reason. For someone as experienced as him, the naiveté was astounding. While he is not likely to gain the party nomination, hearing such pronouncements from party luminaries does not bode well for our choices in the next election or the future of this Grand Republic.
I was torn in the last presidential election; I did not want Bush’s social conservatism and mishandling of the Battle for Iraq, but in the end, I knew we could not afford the Pollyanna approach to international relations and national defense espoused by John Kerry. I do not want to face those dreadful choices again.
Another contribution:
"Right on point on GWB being a divider. He never really tried to reach out to the other side--either within his party or the Democrats. I recently heard a commentary on the differences between GWB and FDR. FDR did reach out across the aisle during the war and thereby made a more united front. He could have gone the GWB route, but didn't. I would also criticize GWB and his administration for lack of leadership-- as opposed to his father for example, who took the time and effort to garner a coalition to go into Iraq. It was always 'my way or the highway' with both domestic and foreign leaders – which has brought us to the situation we are now in.
"And as far as his vetoes are concerned, they all aren't for 'Democratic causes'--some have been bi-partisan and have been done because the country needs them. That makes it even worse."
My response:
The contrast between FDR and GWB as wartime presidents is as stark and bipolar as such comparisons can get. FDR had his flaws too, some of them serious, but in the main, he was able to forge a unity government at a critical time in the history of this Grand Republic and the World. While I laud GWB’s decisiveness, like you, I must strongly criticize his insular form of leadership; seeking counsel only from those who agree with you is hardly a path to a sense of inclusion and respect necessary for a unity government. No, as I’ve said many times, history will not likely be kind to GWB.
My point on the spending vetoes was one of perception rather than specific content, as the President does not have line item veto authority. And, I’m not sure I really care why he vetoed a particular bill, the impression left with me was as I stated in the Update. If he had been vetoing these obscene spending bills throughout his presidency, I would be kinder to W., but alas that is NOT the case.
And another contribution:
"Just read G[eorge] Washington's proclamation on thanksgiving of 1789. Confess I didn't really know what you guys get up to on that day except eat turkey. Do you also remember your veteran dead on that day our November 11th?"
My reply:
The poignancy of Washington’s 1789 proclamation reflects the significance of that time – the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation, the debates on government of the People, the Constitution, and the well-spring of this Grand Republic. We don’t often remember the essence of that truly thanksgiving time in our history. For my family, and I believe most American families, Thanksgiving is that one holiday of the year devoted just to family – no other purpose – a family gathering.
Americans celebrate two significant veteran remembrance days – Memorial Day (it was May 30th, but then they changed it to the last Monday in May) to remember our war dead, and Veterans’ Day (the 11th of November) to remember all those who have served and continue to serve. Of course, we, Marines, celebrate the day the Continental Congress ordered the formation of two battalions of Continental Marines (10.November.1775); Marines have been serving this Grand Republic every day since that auspicious day.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Our nations are miles apart but linked so closely in our joint history. Our remembrance day this year has been marked by a greater number of people than I can recall. Our Poppy Appeal (I'm certain you'll know the origins) looks like being a record breaker. I tasked my team of county zealots to raise £500,000 this year and it looks as though we might get there. We are however aware of what is being known as 'The Afghan' effect. But no matter the money will be used wisely on those in need and there are many. Good to correspond with you Cap.
"Enjoy your turkey! Oh we have 'bird flu' here, from the continent and by Christmas we may well have culled all our Turkeys."
. . . any my follow-up reply:
The ‘bird flu’ situation in the United Kingdom has and continues to make the news in the Colonies. We can only hope the government handles the precautions well, and God protects those infected.
I’m quite aware of the Poppy Appeal [I’ll add an explanation for the Update, since I doubt most Americans recognize the process or its origins]. Hopefully, this year’s fundraising campaign was successful beyond expectations.
[PS: the Poppy Appeal is a public, charitable endeavor to render assistance and offer recognition to those injured in battle and has been associated with Remembrance Day (Veterans’ Day in the U.S.) since 1921. The artificial poppies worn by so many at that time each year was inspired by John McCrae's 1915 poem “In Flanders’ Fields,” which captured the human tragedy of war. May God bless all those who serve the cause of Freedom.]
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- Various news sources reported recent laudable advances in stem cell research and genetic manipulation. In one report, British scientists achieved positive results in treating Parkinson’s disease with manipulated genetic material. In a separate report, scientists in Japan and the United States have apparently developed a another genetic manipulation technique to coax mature skin cells into acting like embryonic stem cells, meaning the resultant cells can potentially be directed to produce any specialized cells in the body. While these announcements are encouraging, I urge caution. Depending upon the age of the root mature cells, progressive mutations have occurred, and it is not clear to me how those mutations can be corrected. Nonetheless, we have positive signs.
If you want to see some really incredible and very personal flying, try this link:
http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=4262
A key to reading and understanding judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court to local civil judges, or interpretations by the Press or politicians, seems to be directly dependent upon our perception of primacy – individual, state or federal. I have always taken the Preamble to the Constitution quite seriously –
“We, the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The meaning is quite clear – fine, crystal clear – We, the People, granted certain authority to the Federal government, to act on our behalf in specific activities. The 9th and 10th Amendments reinforce the fact that all powers of government are derived from the governed – We, the People. At test, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of a private citizen regarding the constitutionality of a highly restrictive, District of Columbia, handgun law that verges upon prohibition. This case will be the first test of the 2nd Amendment by the Supremes since 1939, and may well illuminate brightly the persuasions of the current members of the Court. So, let us review . . . the 2nd Amendment states:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Federalists and gun control advocates focus upon the phrase “well regulated Militia,” meaning gun possession should only be protected for organized, State-sanctioned organizations intended for the collective security and defense. For the individual rights folks, the dominant words are “the right of the people,” which exceeds all others. To add further emphasis, the use of the word ‘infringed’ has only one relevant meaning – the right bear arms existed and exists outside the Constitution and shall not be imposed upon by government. Since I am of the latter group, I shall offer this additional view, the opening two phrases are background intended to establish the foundation or general purpose rather than provide a limitation upon the right of the People. To the Federalists, the opening phrase allows the Federal or any government to restrict the private ownership of firearms not directly associated with a State-sanctioned group; thus, the State is dominant, not the individual. The case before today’s Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller [docket no. 07-290]) grows from the denial of a private-possession, gun permit request by Dick Anthony Heller. He joined a challenge to the DC handgun control measure that was eventually heard by the Circuit Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. The three-judge panel in the case of Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia [DC CCA No. 04-7041 (2007)] reversed the district court judgment, finding the DC law was an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment. Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Hirsch Silberman, writing for the majority, said, “The provision’s second comma divides the Amendment into two clauses; the first is prefatory, and the second operative. Appellants’ (Parker, Heller, et al) argument is focused on their reading of the Second Amendment’s operative clause.” Also at issue is the last, Supreme Court, 2nd Amendment ruling nearly 70 years ago {United States v. Miller [307 U.S. 174 (1939)]}. The Miller ruling validated the National Firearms Act of 1934 [PL no. 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236, 26 U.S.C. §§ 1132] – a New Deal, Federalist, legislative reaction to the rampant gun crime of the Prohibition era. Fortunately, the current Supremes apparently feel that leaving Miller as their last definitive statement on the 2nd Amendment is not an adequate jurisprudence condition, given the sensitivity of the right to bear arms within this Grand Republic. Without boring into the details, let it suffice to say this case is another individual versus the State question. Heller was not a felon or a criminal in any form; in fact, he was an auxiliary police officer. His case represents the worst of an intrusive government . . . imposing upon and penalizing law-abiding citizens without cause. If I was going to predict the outcome, I think the Supremes will uphold the DC Circuit’s ruling and accentuate Judge Silberman’s English dissection of the 2nd Amendment. Whatever the outcome, I suspect the Supreme Court’s decision will be an illuminating read. The Court’s ruling in this case will be quite interesting; namely, will the so-called strict constructionists (Scalia & Thomas) associate ‘militia’ and ‘bear Arms’ as written, or see the words in the larger context of the whole document? We shall see . . . probably by late winter, early spring . . . just in time to be a major issue in the election. Lastly, as we await the Court’s decision, I must say, most, if not all, gun control measures treat the symptom rather than the root cause, like so many of our silly laws. When will we ever learn?
The 2nd Amendment discussion above is one of many reasons I get so wrapped up about the judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Another reason is the lightning rod decision Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)]. The strict constructionist like Bork [307], Scalia and Thomas opine about the lack of any reference to abortion or privacy in the Constitution, and thus Roe being a case of judicial fiat and a prime example of excessively liberal Court rulings. To those of us who take a larger view of the Constitution, Roe was meticulously consistent – the fundament right of every individual to protection of his private Pursuit of Happiness. Of course, some of the anti-abortion folks go absolutely spastic freaky at the notion that a individual citizen might actually have a fundamental right to privacy and the concomitant freedom of choice to decide what is best for them. Without diverting this dialogue any more than I already have, we cannot have it both ways depending upon our degree of sensitivity or offended morals. Justice Blackmun said it quite eloquently. Just as guys like Bork say the Constitution offers no guidance and thus offers no restriction on the State’s ability to regulate abortion or anything else not expressly discussed in the Constitution, I argue that the paucity of any restrictions means precisely that the individual retains those rights, and as such, the individual citizen must be protected from intrusion into his private affairs by the State. The interpretation of the self-anointed, strict constructionists simply states that the Federal government has no authority to sanction or restrict abortion as a medical procedure, and as such the states individually do have that right; thus, by their interpretation, the individual does not have the right under the Constitution to protection from governmental intrusion into their private affairs and choices. To me, there are not many things scarier than a judge who can rationalize State dominance over the individual (of course, there are constrains like bona fide, public, State interests; thus, how we define 'bona fide' becomes the salient debate in this question and so many others). Freedom cannot be parsed; either we are free, or we are not.
As reported in this humble journal, I received the last of the congressional replies to my Open Letter regarding the pending Employment Non-Discrimination Act [306], (Roberts [309] and Brownback [310]). Here is the reply of Representative Todd Tiahrt.
November 15, 2007
Dear Cap:
Thank you for contacting me in support of Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007, H.R. 2015 and H.R. 3685. I greatly appreciate knowing your thoughts on this important issue.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act was introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on April 24th. This bill would ban “employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” Like you, I abhor bigotry and discrimination; however, I am concerned that this vaguely-constructed overhaul of labor law is inconsistent with the free exercise of religion and will weaken traditional marriage.
Free exercise of religion as found in the Constitution and as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) must be firmly upheld. It is a cornerstone of our nation's founding and our future. America's churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious non¬profits must maintain the right to employ those that share their particular religious or moral worldview. Unfortunately, ENDA would impede on these fundamental rights.
ENDA would also weaken the landmark Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by giving Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights. DOMA is the federal law that declares marriage is between one man and one woman. Maintaining DOMA is essential in defending the sanctity of marriage. However, passage of ENDA will provide activist judges around the country the legal ammunition to undermine state and federal marriage laws. Courts in New Jersey, Vermont and Massachusetts have all used state legislation similar to ENDA as a springboard for mandating same-sex marriage or civil unions. In 2005 Kansas overwhelmingly passed the Marriage Amendment by 70 percent. The people of Kansas have spoken. With the path is so clearly defined in history, it would be irresponsible for Congress to pass ENDA.
Upon introduction, H.R. 3685 was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the House Committee on Administration. It was passed out of the Committee on Education and Labor on October 22nd by a vote of 27-21. ENDA was considered on the House Floor on November 7th and passed by a vote of 235-184. The bill now moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you sharing your thoughts with me regarding ENDA. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or my labor policy aide, Jim Richardson. It is an honor to serve you in the United States Congress.
Best regards,
Todd Tiahrt
Member of Congress
. . . to which, I replied:
Todd,
Thank you for your reply.
As you note, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) [H.R.3685] was passed by the House and is before the Senate. I have written and continue to write to Senators Roberts and Brownback on this issue.
Since ENDA is no longer before the House, I could let your letter be the closing of our communications regarding the question of equal rights for all citizens. However, your raising of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [PL103-141; H.R.1308; S.578; 42 U.S.C. §2000bb], the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 [PL104-199; H.R.3396; 110 Stat. 2419; 1 U.S.C. §7 and 28 U.S.C. §1738C], and the Kansas Marriage Amendment (Article 15, §16) broadens the horizon of this exchange.
Former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor so succinctly and eloquently wrote in her concurring opinion for Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)], “A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the State's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.” I recognize and acknowledge that we are not talking about criminal rights here, but rather civil rights and equality under the law. Yet, her words offer profound wisdom regarding the nature of our Liberty, and the proper relationship between an individual citizen and the State.
A willful majority has the power to impose upon any minority it so chooses, as it has done numerous times in the history of this Nation. And yet, that reality does not make it correct or even honorable. We are not talking about a bona fide State interest in public conduct or even the safety of private conduct. Discrimination, persecution, intimidation and oppression with respect to any of the social factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or disability) is just flat wrong, and contrary to the very essence of the founding principles of this Grand Republic – that each and every citizen is endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Each of us may believe as we wish that private, non-heterosexual conduct is a lifestyle choice or a genetic predisposition – that is our right. Regardless, to deny any citizen their unalienable right to pursue their happiness as they choose simply because a willful majority disapproves of that citizen’s choices is a despicable aberration of our time comparable to the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393 (1856)] and Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] decisions of our past.
As such, I beseech you to find the courage to stand up for the equal rights of ALL citizens and resist the seductive, Sirens’ song of a willful, moral projectionist majority. Let us do what is correct, even if it is not very popular.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
If you would like to know just a little more about the dark art of hatred and intimidation faced everyday by those who do not conform and ascribe to moral majority's definition of normal, I suggest this article:
"The Geography of Hate"
by Mark Potok, Luke Visconti, Barbara Frankel and Nigel Holmes
New York Times
Published: November 25, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25potok.html?th&emc=th
I also read this interesting article:
"West Wing: How Dangerous Is America?"
by Gabor Steingart in Washington, D.C.
Der Spiegel
Compiled on November 20, 2007, 05:44 PM CET
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,518399,00.html
It seems some Europeans cannot see the forest through the trees. Apparently, Americans are the problem; we are more dangerous to world peace than Russia, or Iran, or China, or even al-Qaeda. Well, ain’t that sumpin’! I suppose one hell-been-for-leather President determined to eradicate our enemies, who inflicted grievous injury upon our innocent citizens, can erase a century of defending freedom. Furthermore, the current President will peacefully relinquish power to his successor on 20.January.2009, and another person will occupy that position and undoubtedly exercise power in a different manner. Lastly, I have stated more than a few times in this humble journal, I have no interest in making nice with those who threaten us. This too shall pass.
Comments and contributions from Update no.310:
"Prohibition of tools like waterboarding smells of Bush-hating to a degree those doing so are glad to see us lose, so Bush loses. That prohibition is a much bigger crime than scaring a war combatant to get information to save our lives, which is no crime at all. It is a dark time these days for military warriors if they are not allowed to win. And, failure win will be our undoing."
My reply:
Yea verily!
The uber-Left is trying mightily to make war gentlemanly, unstained, and pretty. By doing so, if they are successful, we will be unable to fight and win future wars, and potentially this war. War is killing and destruction – no if’s, and’s or but’s. The side that does the best job of it usually wins. I’m sorry this is so blunt and grotesque for some of our citizens, but that is the way it is . . . or at least should be. The question remains, will the uber-Left be successful?
. . . with this follow-up:
"Success for the left is failure for the USA. Let's hope our survival urge wins over bad judgment. War is hell and should be conducted that way. Win is the only option for survival."
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Indeed!
Related side note: Interesting that Bill Richardson stated in the latest Democratic national debate that he believed human rights should supersede national security. In general, I am an admirer of Bill Richardson, but when he said that, we had proof positive that parochial political pandering trumps logic and reason. For someone as experienced as him, the naiveté was astounding. While he is not likely to gain the party nomination, hearing such pronouncements from party luminaries does not bode well for our choices in the next election or the future of this Grand Republic.
I was torn in the last presidential election; I did not want Bush’s social conservatism and mishandling of the Battle for Iraq, but in the end, I knew we could not afford the Pollyanna approach to international relations and national defense espoused by John Kerry. I do not want to face those dreadful choices again.
Another contribution:
"Right on point on GWB being a divider. He never really tried to reach out to the other side--either within his party or the Democrats. I recently heard a commentary on the differences between GWB and FDR. FDR did reach out across the aisle during the war and thereby made a more united front. He could have gone the GWB route, but didn't. I would also criticize GWB and his administration for lack of leadership-- as opposed to his father for example, who took the time and effort to garner a coalition to go into Iraq. It was always 'my way or the highway' with both domestic and foreign leaders – which has brought us to the situation we are now in.
"And as far as his vetoes are concerned, they all aren't for 'Democratic causes'--some have been bi-partisan and have been done because the country needs them. That makes it even worse."
My response:
The contrast between FDR and GWB as wartime presidents is as stark and bipolar as such comparisons can get. FDR had his flaws too, some of them serious, but in the main, he was able to forge a unity government at a critical time in the history of this Grand Republic and the World. While I laud GWB’s decisiveness, like you, I must strongly criticize his insular form of leadership; seeking counsel only from those who agree with you is hardly a path to a sense of inclusion and respect necessary for a unity government. No, as I’ve said many times, history will not likely be kind to GWB.
My point on the spending vetoes was one of perception rather than specific content, as the President does not have line item veto authority. And, I’m not sure I really care why he vetoed a particular bill, the impression left with me was as I stated in the Update. If he had been vetoing these obscene spending bills throughout his presidency, I would be kinder to W., but alas that is NOT the case.
And another contribution:
"Just read G[eorge] Washington's proclamation on thanksgiving of 1789. Confess I didn't really know what you guys get up to on that day except eat turkey. Do you also remember your veteran dead on that day our November 11th?"
My reply:
The poignancy of Washington’s 1789 proclamation reflects the significance of that time – the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation, the debates on government of the People, the Constitution, and the well-spring of this Grand Republic. We don’t often remember the essence of that truly thanksgiving time in our history. For my family, and I believe most American families, Thanksgiving is that one holiday of the year devoted just to family – no other purpose – a family gathering.
Americans celebrate two significant veteran remembrance days – Memorial Day (it was May 30th, but then they changed it to the last Monday in May) to remember our war dead, and Veterans’ Day (the 11th of November) to remember all those who have served and continue to serve. Of course, we, Marines, celebrate the day the Continental Congress ordered the formation of two battalions of Continental Marines (10.November.1775); Marines have been serving this Grand Republic every day since that auspicious day.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Our nations are miles apart but linked so closely in our joint history. Our remembrance day this year has been marked by a greater number of people than I can recall. Our Poppy Appeal (I'm certain you'll know the origins) looks like being a record breaker. I tasked my team of county zealots to raise £500,000 this year and it looks as though we might get there. We are however aware of what is being known as 'The Afghan' effect. But no matter the money will be used wisely on those in need and there are many. Good to correspond with you Cap.
"Enjoy your turkey! Oh we have 'bird flu' here, from the continent and by Christmas we may well have culled all our Turkeys."
. . . any my follow-up reply:
The ‘bird flu’ situation in the United Kingdom has and continues to make the news in the Colonies. We can only hope the government handles the precautions well, and God protects those infected.
I’m quite aware of the Poppy Appeal [I’ll add an explanation for the Update, since I doubt most Americans recognize the process or its origins]. Hopefully, this year’s fundraising campaign was successful beyond expectations.
[PS: the Poppy Appeal is a public, charitable endeavor to render assistance and offer recognition to those injured in battle and has been associated with Remembrance Day (Veterans’ Day in the U.S.) since 1921. The artificial poppies worn by so many at that time each year was inspired by John McCrae's 1915 poem “In Flanders’ Fields,” which captured the human tragedy of war. May God bless all those who serve the cause of Freedom.]
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment