Update from the Heartland
No.530
6.2.12 – 12.2.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I had the distinct honor of being invited by our Granddaughter Shalee Lynn to escort her to the annual Daughter/Daddy Dance. Dad was in California on an extended business trip. The dance committee had a very nice dessert bar. Shalee was a perfect date. We both enjoyed the special dance on a cold evening. I think I was the only grandfather there. I am very proud of her, but I think I wore her out. She spent the night with us and went to bed as soon as we got home. Well, truth be told, she wore ME out. LOL We had a great time.
I had the distinct honor of being invited by our Granddaughter Shalee Lynn to escort her to the annual Daughter/Daddy Dance. Dad was in California on an extended business trip. The dance committee had a very nice dessert bar. Shalee was a perfect date. We both enjoyed the special dance on a cold evening. I think I was the only grandfather there. I am very proud of her, but I think I wore her out. She spent the night with us and went to bed as soon as we got home. Well, truth be told, she wore ME out. LOL We had a great time.
Shalee Lynn and her oh so proud Poppie
[file: Shalee_Poppie 120211B1.jpg]
The follow-up news items:
--The inherent and implied, if not outright, corruption that congressional earmarks represent remains a persistent, if not perpetual, problem for We, the People, of this Grand Republic [257 & sub]. The Washington Post has given us an unprecedented look at this corrosive, contemporary, political practice.
“Congressional earmarks sometimes used to fund projects near lawmakers' properties”
by David S. Fallis, Scott Higham and Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post
Published: 6.February.2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2012/01/12/gIQA97HGvQ_story.html?
The reporters analyzed public records on the holdings of all 535 members of Congress and compared them with earmarks, members had sought for pet projects, most of them since 2008. The process uncovered appropriations for “work” in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members, with 33 members of Congress allocating more than US$300M in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or near property own by them, and 16 lawmakers who sent precious tax dollars to companies, colleges or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards. Worst of all, under current congressional ethics rules, this is both legal and hidden. And, they wonder why we are so angry.
-- The struggle for equal rights [237 & sub] took another step forward on Tuesday. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued their 2-1 decision in the state’s appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger [452]. They affirmed Judge Walker’s original decision and declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional – Perry v. Brown [9CCA nos. 10-16696, 11-16577 (2012)]. Please see the review below. We also learned this week that the Washington state legislature passed and sent to the governor a new law enabling same-sex marriage.
-- President Obama submitted his last budget request to Congress before the fall election. The new budget request projects a US$1.33T deficit for FY2012 and includes hundreds of billions of dollars of proposed spending on the nation's infrastructure. The projected deficit is higher than the US$1.296T deficit in FY2011, and is also slightly higher than a roughly US$1.15T estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last week [529]. The stage is set to paralyze Congress and supercharge the upcoming presidential election.
-- On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed [417-2-x-x(16)] a seriously, scaled-back version of an insider trading bill passed by the Senate [529]. The amount of publicly available information on either bill is unusually thin given the stage of the legislation. Press reports suggest the House bill stripped out several key reforms that the Senate had easily approved, and wouldn’t you know it, our noble representatives agreed to use the thinner House version to enter a joint conference committee to produce the final bill.
The California equal rights odyssey began years ago. We could peg the genesis with any one of a series of events. The judicial phase came into sharp focus with the California Supreme Court’s decision In re Marriage Cases [SC CA S147999 (2008); 43 Cal.4th 757; 15.May.2008] [336], which in turn galvanized a voter-initiative, constitutional amendment that became Proposition 8 narrowly passed in the following November election [4.November.2008]. After the California Supreme Court subsequently affirmed Proposition 8 – Strauss v. Horton [SC CA S168047 (2009); 26.May.2009] [389] – California residents Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier along with Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo filed suit in Federal court claiming their Equal Protection rights had been violated by Proposition 8. District Judge Vaughn Walker agreed with the plaintiffs – Perry v. Schwarzenegger [USDC CA(ND) no. C 09-2292 VRW (2010); 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D.Cal.2010); 4.August.2010] [452]. As noted above, on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered judgment in the appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling – Perry v. Brown [9CCA nos. 10-16696, 11-16577 (2012)] – and affirmed the district court judgment. Circuit Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt wrote for the court. One sentence distilled out the essence of the 9th Circuit’s decision, “The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.” The U.S. Supreme Court stated that moral disapproval by itself is not sufficient to justify an abridgement of rights for other citizens {Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); 26.June.2003} [082, 188]. Judge Reinhardt also noted, “Disapproval may also be the product of longstanding, sincerely held private beliefs. Still, while ‘[p]rivate biases may be outside the reach of the law, the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect’” {citing: Palmore v. Sidoti [466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984)]}. The dissenting opinion focused on the level of scrutiny the case deserved under the law. The majority used “strict scrutiny,” which demands the government demonstrate a compelling interest with the focused issue. Circuit Judge Norman Randy Smith argued that the Perry case did not warrant strict scrutiny and deserved only rational basis review – the lowest level. I do not know whether the Prop H8 proponents will appeal to the full 9th Circuit bench or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, as is their right. Nonetheless, I think the 9th Circuit has framed the basis of appeal and the essence of what we are likely to hear from the Supremes. Judicial pronouncements aside, I will argue the State does not have the authority to regulate private morality; that is the responsibility of parents, and judges/justices should be defending the fundamental right to privacy of citizens. In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, Antonin the Impaler cited a short list of what he believes are legitimate state laws “against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity [that] are likewise sustainable only in light of validation of laws based on moral choices” [Lawrence at 590]. In some of that list, there are issues of public health and safety that demand state regulation; private morality is not one of those issues and thus public laws are not justified. At this stage, we can only hope the Supremes recognize the fundamental right to privacy of every citizen as well as the right of every citizen to freedom of choice for their individual “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” We live and learn.
News from the economic front:
-- Greece’s so-called troika of foreign lenders – the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – demanded and obtained austerity measures from the Greek government in exchange for the next US$170B in bailout money. The troika also insisted on a condition that private creditors must take voluntary losses of up to 70% on Greek debt. After passage by the Greek Parliament, hooded, anarchistic youths torched shops and battled police in the streets of Athens, which will do nothing but further harm Greece’s tourism revenue.
Comments and contributions from Update no.529:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will note that your source for the Kashmiri Christian story makes no attempt at objectivity. Her story assumes motivation for the government action without any support for her statement and finishes with an editorial. Please note that the self-appointed sharia court that made most of the noise is not a government body, and also that most governments would respond to pressure from a group with a credible claim to represent 97% of the population on a given issue.
“Your point that separation of church and state is essential to a free society is indeed valid. Does the Indian government seek a free society? A law allowing conversions can be seen as an attempt to maintain order rather than an endorsement of freedom. Certainly India’s neighbors in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran would just as soon not follow the US model. If an orderly society is Kashmir’s goal, they ought to follow the lead of other Indian States and regulate conversions more closely. If they actually want a free society, that is another matter.
“The Senate has acted rationally and ethically in passing the STOCK Act, which attempts to prevent insider financial-market trading by members of Congress. Should the House pass a matching bill, that would constitute progress. However, following up with appropriate enforcement would still be necessary and difficult.
“I am not sure that the hardest-hit US States are a good comparison to Greece in the economic collapse. Greece’s issues are things like minimum wage that are regulated by national rather than provincial governments whereas the US States you mentioned were affected by job losses and housing issues. While I know little about Greek tax-collection methods, I can understand the more prosperous nations’ concern with imposing and collecting taxes. They enjoy a high standard of living that is largely dependent upon government programs and regulations, hence the need for stable income.
“We will see what we see with the deficit. Apparently, deficit spending is not the bogeyman it has been painted to be. I will point out that putting people to work automatically increases tax revenues, and that the primary economic sector still bleeding jobs is government. Such simple logic seems not to reach the minds in Congress.
It is nice that the government is finally pursuing a few of the offenders in tax evasion. The key economic issue is still ‘too big to fail’ banks.
“While people continue to discuss the Geneva Conventions, another treaty carries a far clearer standard. The Convention Against Torture (“Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”), signed by Reagan and ratified by Congress in 1994, allows no excuses about the conditions or locations where torture takes place. The US has prosecuted Charles Emmanuel, the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, under that treaty, but has yet to carry out its obligation to prosecute US nationals under the Convention and has pressured Spain and Britain to stop prosecutions. I’ll have a book review soon on my blog that discusses a source of information on this, but I feel certain that an Internet search would reveal more information.
“I’ll say it again: my point about who took the pictures of those Marines is a legal issue, but not a functional issue. In the 21st Century, expecting any event that involves more than one person to remain secret has become unrealistic. People today take pictures constantly and typically cannot be prevented from taking them or sharing them. Once these particular pictures landed on the Internet, the whole thing blew up. Clearly a great many people do not see this as a “local leadership discipline issue.” I suspect that your underlying point is that people do not understand the nature of war. These events are lessons in the nature of war. It appears that the more people understand about war, the less they approve of it.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: Sharia. Noted and quite appropriate. Yet, as in this instance, when Sharia is placed above secular law, you get the oppression of a minority – the non-believers or infidels. Religious law is inherently unequal.
Interesting observations regarding conversions. I’m not so sure.
Re: STOCK Act. Good observations. Congress notoriously likes the façade of propriety to obscure business as usual. Money is too tempting even for vaunted congressmen, who are just ordinary, flawed, weak men.
My use of states of this Grand Republic was not intended as a comparison, but rather an indicator. There are far more differences between Greece in the European Union than the states in the U.S.; however, fiscal mismanagement within one state can adversely affect the whole. Problems in Greece are multifaceted and multileveled. I picked on taxes because that is the most fundamental and basic. I have no problem with Greeks retiring at 50 yrs on a government paid 80% pension for life, as long as their taxes pay for it. When they must ask for Germany to pay for their largesse, that crosses the line. Reform in Greece will not be easy since they have become quite comfortable with the government providing everything they need without the slightest concern for where it comes from.
Re: deficit spending. Every government uses deficit spending when the situation warrants. So do each of us. From the Revolutionary War to the War on Islamic Fascism, our government has used deficit spending; but the bills are always paid. Government make-work jobs are at best a temporary, transient solution; sure, their income produces more tax revenue, but it is government paying the government, which is an unstable condition. I will argue that government should continue to contract as the private sector adds jobs. The key to revenue has been and will always be private sector employment.
Re: “Too big to fail.” No argument; agreed.
Re: My opinion regarding the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) [18.April.1988] presented in Update no.384 remains valid and applicable.
Re: battlefield photographs. Yes, that is my point. Let us keep things in perspective.
. . . round two:
“I will only follow up one point of your reply. If government continues to contract, who will repair our crumbling infrastructure, fight fires, teach our children (please don't pretend that proprietary schools will do a good job), and all the other jobs government is already beginning to fail at due to lack of funds?”
. . . my response to round two:
I am not an ideologically committed libertarian. I do not advocate for the contraction of government to the detriment of public safety, national security, and the common good. We need law enforcement, fire fighters, law makers, et cetera. I DO advocate for removing government from our private affairs, e.g., drugs, guns, and all those other moral projection laws we suffer today. We can and will argue about where the proper threshold lies. Yet, I think we can all agree far too much of our precious tax dollars go to projects that have nothing to do with the common good or public safety.
. . . round three:
“I certainly agree that we as a nation are wasting money on drug law enforcement and prisons, as well as other attempts to impose morality, but one must needs be specific in complaints about government. Government performs useful and necessary functions as well as those that are a waste of money and/or harmful.”
. . . my response to round three:
There is no question that we need a strong Federal government, working in conjunction with strong state governments. I have not the slightest doubt the Federal government is bloated well beyond reasonable. Nonetheless, we are agreed; the Federal government performs vital, essential functions for a well-ordered society. There are bad people among us and the international community; we need law enforcement in its myriad forms. We can argue about what should be cut in the Departments of Defense, Treasury, Education, Agriculture, Transportation, Commerce, et cetera. I would be happy to get all levels of government out of our private affairs. Any suggestions or ideas?
. . . round four:
“The only suggestions I have are the obvious ones. Regulating and taxing drugs in a manner similar to alcohol would eliminate funding for long-failed programs. Related to that, making our sentencing and prison systems resemble more successful nations' operations would improve our financial results and probably our societal ones as well. Taking prisons out of private hands would reduce their cost; private corporations must make a profit, and we pay for that regardless of what their marketers say. We have disagreed before and presumably still do so on whether to reduce military spending and on the value or dangers of the Department of Homeland Insecurity. I still say that if you really want the government out of people's personal lives, the powers of the spy agencies must be much more closely supervised and must reduce to fit within the Constitution.”
. . . my response to round four:
I think I can agree with all of those ideas. I certainly support the elimination of the DEA and prison out of the for-profit domain. I also agree that the Defense budget has plenty to be trimmed; I am just not too keen on reducing the combat arms and especially the special operations groups. I do have mixed views of DHS and DNI, but point taken regarding the need for warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. There are many other opportunities.
Another contribution:
“I write for 3 reasons. First, to let you know you are still a person of interest on the subject of prostate cancer. I hope you are doing well. I have not read much about your condition in your weekly update, so I hope this is a case of 'no news is good news'.
“Next, I noticed a mistake in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution at your web site. I read at the bottom of your site that I am supposed to cut you some slack. OK, cutting you all the slack I can muster, I hereby notify you that the word 'of' near the end of the preamble should be the word 'for', as in 'for the United States of America'.
“Lastly, I saw you had the Gettysburg Address on your site as something you think is glorious. I am not a Lincoln lover, so you and I have different values about him. I know 5 things I don't like about the Address. If you are interested in knowing what they are, please let me know and I will inform you what they are.”
My reply:
1. Yes, no news is really great news, actually. Had another follow-up visit on Monday. My progress appears to be well ahead of average. I still have a ways to go, but so far so good. Next PSA in May.
2. Good catch. Not sure how I missed that for all these years. Thx for the attention to details. It is actually a significant detail.
3. I do not write my opinions for agreement, but rather for debate. Democracy demands debate. Yes, please let me have it regarding the Gettysburg Address and President Lincoln. I always enjoy a good debate. Do you want to keep this private or can I include this in the Update . . . with your contribution anonymous of course. If not, I have problem keep our exchanges private. Your choice.
. . . the follow-up contribution:
“I am glad to write you with my opinion about President Lincoln's address. These are original thoughts. I am a person who likes to know if I am wrong about something, so please correct me if you think I am wrong. I don't want to go thru life making the same mistake over and over. I am not good at brevity and clarity, so feel free to edit anything I write. Do with this as you like. Here goes.
“1. ‘Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, . . . ‘. 1863 minus 87 is 1776. So Lincoln was referring to the signing and publishing of the Declaration of Independence. Here are some words in the title: ‘The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America.’ If 'United States of America' is interpreted as one nation, then the words 'unanimous' and 'thirteen' make no sense. I say our fathers brought forth 13 new nations, not one. Lots of U.S. citizens, when asked what they celebrate on July 4, say they are celebrating America's birthday, meaning the country that is today called the United States of America. I disagree. What I celebrate is the secession of the 13 colonies from the British crown and their change of status from colonies to countries.
“2. ‘Now we are engaged in a great civil war, . . .’ I say the Civil War was not a civil war. To me, a civil war is when 2 factions are fighting each other for the control of one country. The Confederates were not trying to wrest control of the U.S. from anyone. They were doing the same thing that their grandpappies and greatgrandpappies did in the 1770s. Nobody has ever been able to give me an answer that I like to these 2 questions: Why was it OK for the colony of Massachusetts to secede from the British crown, but not OK for the free and independent state of Virginia to secede from the Union? If one war was a civil war, then why weren't both wars civil wars? I have heard the Civil War called 4 things: the Civil War, the War Between the States, the War for Southern Independence and the War of Northern Aggression. Of those 4, I think Civil War is the least correct. Some civil wars were The War of the Roses in England, the Spanish Civil War in 1937 and the war in Russia starting in 1918 when the Communists fought the Whites. All those involved one country, 2 factions.
“3. ‘. . . for those who gave their lives that that nation might live.’ U.S. warriors did not give their lives that the U.S. might live. They gave their lives to destroy the Confederacy. The U.S. was in no danger of being wiped off any world maps. During the Revolutionary War, John Adams and Ben Franklin were not trying to destroy the British crown. I know of no country that experienced unilateral secession that was destroyed. East Timor seceded in 2002 from Indonesia. Indonesia is still around. Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971. Pakistan is still around. Peruvians seceded from Colombia in 1827, and Panamanians seceded from Colombia in 1903. Colombia is still on world maps. Ethiopia is still around. Singapore seceded from Malaysia in 1965. Malaysia is still with us. If the Dalai Lama leads his fellow Tibetans in seceding, he will not be trying to destroy China. Even in Biblical days, when the 10 tribes seceded, with the blessing of God, from King Rehoboam, the 2 countries lived side by side for a while without either trying to destroy the other. I digress a little here, but in first Kings 12:24, God commands King Rehoboam and his warriors not to fight with their brothers, but to return to their houses. I bring this up because I have heard the U.S. referred to as a country with a Judeo-Christian heritage. I don't think God would have been pro-secession if He thought the 10 tribes would try to wipe Israel off the map. There is a reason they are called Founding Fathers instead of Destroying Fathers. Yes, Czechoslovakia is no longer with us, but that is because the secession of the Czechs and Slovakians from each other in 1993 was mutual. So they each named their countries the way they wanted. That was more of a name change than an example of one faction trying to conquer the other. I don't think anyone was killed when Czechoslovakia ceased to exist.
“4. ‘. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom;’ What a hypocrite Lincoln was! During the Civil War, about 300 U.S. newspapers were shut down for one thing, dissension. U.S. soldiers were used to do it. I think I read that Benito Mussolini shut down about 30 newspapers for dissension. I am amazed that folks take Benito to task for what he did and Honest Abe gets a free ride. So much for freedom of the press. The politician, Clement Vallandingham from Ohio, was banished for dissension. So much for freedom of speech. In the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 is where the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is specified. Article 1 covers the legislative branch of the federal government. It seems to me the Framers meant for Congress to control the suspension, not the executive branch. I don't know the number of folks that were jailed in the U.S. by the Executive Department during the Civil War, but I think it was in the thousands. So lots of folks were jailed not knowing what they did wrong and for how long they were going to be in jail. Of course, what they did wrong is think differently from the President. Congress was not involved with this to my knowledge. But hey, Honest Abe knows all about a rebirth of freedom. In case you are wondering how many Confederate newspapers were shut down for dissension, it was none. No Confederate politicians were banished for dissent that I know of. I don't know about the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the Confederacy.
“5. ‘and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.’ At the end of the Preamble are the words ‘for the United States of America." Not for the people. In Article 7 are these words: Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, . . .’ Not the consent of the people. Rhode Island did not send any delegates to the Constitutional Convention, which is why nobody from Rhode Island signed the Constitution. So I say the Constitution is a government of the states, except Rhode Island, by the states, except Rhode Island, for the states, even Rhode Island. So let me see if I understand this. The Constitution was made for the benefit of the states. So President Lincoln must have thought that waging war against states that he claimed never left the Union somehow benefited those states. Amazing! I don't see how anyone can take President Lincoln's wish of government by the people not perishing seriously when they look at what he did to some members of the Maryland legislature. During his debates with Stephen Douglas, it was Douglas who was for popular sovereignty, not Lincoln. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution states that every state shall be guaranteed a republican form of government. All eleven of the seceding states seceded by a republican process. Representatives of the people met in state capitals, debated the issue of secession and then voted. That is what is meant by a republican form of government where it is understood that the majority wins. President Lincoln wanted the minorities to win. So much for either government of the states or of the people.
“I think that covers it. I probably left some things out, but this will do for now. I don't know if your readers will be interested in this, but I am. Thanks for inviting me to write to you about this. I vaguely remember something from Reef Points about burning letters written the night before. I hope that doesn't come back to haunt me.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
As with most topics, perspective is critical, and definitions are essential. I am not an expert on President Lincoln or the Gettysburg Address. I am just a common, ordinary citizen with opinions. I do not presume to know why President Lincoln chose the words he did, but I can offer my guess. As you say, here goes.
1. I suspect he picked 1776 as opposed to 1788, 1620, or 1775 for that matter. He picked the date I think most Americans would pick – the Declaration of Independence. We need to take the broader view, rather than constrain ourselves to the literal interpretation, e.g., “. . . all men are created equal . . . .” In that day, they meant Anglo-Saxon, male landowners; while today, we see the use of “men” as the generic mankind regardless of the social factors. In a historic sense, the United States of America did not exist until 1788. I cannot agree with the notion of 13 independent nations. The Declaration was endorsed by representatives from each of the 13 states, and they clearly banded together in their separation from the Crown. As Ben Franklin so succinctly and eloquent said, “We must hang together, or we shall surely hang separately.”
2. Civil war = war between organized groups within a nation. There are many motivating reasons groups choose to fight. In our case, it was to seek separation. I shall take a shot at your two sub-questions.
A. “Why was it OK for the colony of Massachusetts to secede from the British crown, but not OK for the free and independent state of Virginia to secede from the Union?” First, Virginia was not an independent nation, it was one of 34 states of the Union in 1861. There was no provision for secession in any of the founding documents. The Union was the Union. Each colony did not secede from the Crown; they banded together and seceded as a whole, not as individual states.
B. “If one war was a civil war, then why weren't both wars civil wars?” Per the definition, civil war is 2 or more factions with a country; we were a colony of Great Britain; we were not part of the United Kingdom. We can quibble over the definitions, if that is productive.
The Civil War fits the definition, it seems to me.
3. Perspective. You say toe-may-toe; I say toe-maw-toe. I cannot argue against your perspective. Yet, from my perspective, U.S. soldiers fought to preserve the Union, while the CSA soldiers fought to secede from the Union and form a confederation separate from the Union. The U.S. was not trying to destroy the confederate states, just the confederacy. The U.S. in fact paid for reconstruction and rehabilitation of the secessionist states. There are myriad examples of break-ups: the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Roman Empire, and now the Scots are moving closer to withdrawing from the United Kingdom. We chose a Union, not a confederation.
4. I am afraid I need a more convincing argument to even consider Lincoln as a hypocrite. If your argument rests solely upon his suppression of dissent in the Press, I am afraid you will find similar actions by Presidents in virtually every war in which this Grand Republic has been engaged. The Civil War was the first major conflict since the Founding that involved significant legal questions, not least of which was the suspension of The Great Writ (of habeas corpus). Unfortunately, I do not know about the possible suspension of habeas corpus in the Confederacy either [perhaps this exchange will instigate the lawyers within the forum to inform us].
5. Re: “consent of the People.” We are by definition a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy . . . by design and purpose. By my understanding of history, Rhode Island did indeed ratify the Constitution on 29.May.1790 [after formal ratification by ¾ of the states]. I do not believe the Constitution was made “for the benefit of the states.” The Constitution created the Federal government, bounded its authority, and codified the rights of all citizens. Our Constitution did not establish majority rule. In fact, quite the contrary, the document established a burdensome, some might say tortuous, process for amending the Constitution and even for passing basic common law. Our system of governance has always been to protect the rights of all from the tyranny of the majority. That said, and as noted earlier, there are NO provisions for dissolution of the Union – it was that simple fact that President Lincoln acted upon for the common good. Many have attempted to argue that secession was not about slavery, but rather about states’ rights – lipstick on a pig, it seems to me.
This is a big topic, worthy of our debate. I think the readers of this humble forum will be interested; the hard part is stimulating them to tinkle the keys and offer up their views & opinions. Thank you for sharing your views; you are always welcome on any topic.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
--The inherent and implied, if not outright, corruption that congressional earmarks represent remains a persistent, if not perpetual, problem for We, the People, of this Grand Republic [257 & sub]. The Washington Post has given us an unprecedented look at this corrosive, contemporary, political practice.
“Congressional earmarks sometimes used to fund projects near lawmakers' properties”
by David S. Fallis, Scott Higham and Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post
Published: 6.February.2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2012/01/12/gIQA97HGvQ_story.html?
The reporters analyzed public records on the holdings of all 535 members of Congress and compared them with earmarks, members had sought for pet projects, most of them since 2008. The process uncovered appropriations for “work” in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members, with 33 members of Congress allocating more than US$300M in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or near property own by them, and 16 lawmakers who sent precious tax dollars to companies, colleges or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards. Worst of all, under current congressional ethics rules, this is both legal and hidden. And, they wonder why we are so angry.
-- The struggle for equal rights [237 & sub] took another step forward on Tuesday. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued their 2-1 decision in the state’s appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger [452]. They affirmed Judge Walker’s original decision and declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional – Perry v. Brown [9CCA nos. 10-16696, 11-16577 (2012)]. Please see the review below. We also learned this week that the Washington state legislature passed and sent to the governor a new law enabling same-sex marriage.
-- President Obama submitted his last budget request to Congress before the fall election. The new budget request projects a US$1.33T deficit for FY2012 and includes hundreds of billions of dollars of proposed spending on the nation's infrastructure. The projected deficit is higher than the US$1.296T deficit in FY2011, and is also slightly higher than a roughly US$1.15T estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last week [529]. The stage is set to paralyze Congress and supercharge the upcoming presidential election.
-- On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed [417-2-x-x(16)] a seriously, scaled-back version of an insider trading bill passed by the Senate [529]. The amount of publicly available information on either bill is unusually thin given the stage of the legislation. Press reports suggest the House bill stripped out several key reforms that the Senate had easily approved, and wouldn’t you know it, our noble representatives agreed to use the thinner House version to enter a joint conference committee to produce the final bill.
The California equal rights odyssey began years ago. We could peg the genesis with any one of a series of events. The judicial phase came into sharp focus with the California Supreme Court’s decision In re Marriage Cases [SC CA S147999 (2008); 43 Cal.4th 757; 15.May.2008] [336], which in turn galvanized a voter-initiative, constitutional amendment that became Proposition 8 narrowly passed in the following November election [4.November.2008]. After the California Supreme Court subsequently affirmed Proposition 8 – Strauss v. Horton [SC CA S168047 (2009); 26.May.2009] [389] – California residents Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier along with Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo filed suit in Federal court claiming their Equal Protection rights had been violated by Proposition 8. District Judge Vaughn Walker agreed with the plaintiffs – Perry v. Schwarzenegger [USDC CA(ND) no. C 09-2292 VRW (2010); 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D.Cal.2010); 4.August.2010] [452]. As noted above, on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered judgment in the appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling – Perry v. Brown [9CCA nos. 10-16696, 11-16577 (2012)] – and affirmed the district court judgment. Circuit Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt wrote for the court. One sentence distilled out the essence of the 9th Circuit’s decision, “The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.” The U.S. Supreme Court stated that moral disapproval by itself is not sufficient to justify an abridgement of rights for other citizens {Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); 26.June.2003} [082, 188]. Judge Reinhardt also noted, “Disapproval may also be the product of longstanding, sincerely held private beliefs. Still, while ‘[p]rivate biases may be outside the reach of the law, the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect’” {citing: Palmore v. Sidoti [466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984)]}. The dissenting opinion focused on the level of scrutiny the case deserved under the law. The majority used “strict scrutiny,” which demands the government demonstrate a compelling interest with the focused issue. Circuit Judge Norman Randy Smith argued that the Perry case did not warrant strict scrutiny and deserved only rational basis review – the lowest level. I do not know whether the Prop H8 proponents will appeal to the full 9th Circuit bench or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, as is their right. Nonetheless, I think the 9th Circuit has framed the basis of appeal and the essence of what we are likely to hear from the Supremes. Judicial pronouncements aside, I will argue the State does not have the authority to regulate private morality; that is the responsibility of parents, and judges/justices should be defending the fundamental right to privacy of citizens. In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, Antonin the Impaler cited a short list of what he believes are legitimate state laws “against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity [that] are likewise sustainable only in light of validation of laws based on moral choices” [Lawrence at 590]. In some of that list, there are issues of public health and safety that demand state regulation; private morality is not one of those issues and thus public laws are not justified. At this stage, we can only hope the Supremes recognize the fundamental right to privacy of every citizen as well as the right of every citizen to freedom of choice for their individual “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” We live and learn.
News from the economic front:
-- Greece’s so-called troika of foreign lenders – the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – demanded and obtained austerity measures from the Greek government in exchange for the next US$170B in bailout money. The troika also insisted on a condition that private creditors must take voluntary losses of up to 70% on Greek debt. After passage by the Greek Parliament, hooded, anarchistic youths torched shops and battled police in the streets of Athens, which will do nothing but further harm Greece’s tourism revenue.
Comments and contributions from Update no.529:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will note that your source for the Kashmiri Christian story makes no attempt at objectivity. Her story assumes motivation for the government action without any support for her statement and finishes with an editorial. Please note that the self-appointed sharia court that made most of the noise is not a government body, and also that most governments would respond to pressure from a group with a credible claim to represent 97% of the population on a given issue.
“Your point that separation of church and state is essential to a free society is indeed valid. Does the Indian government seek a free society? A law allowing conversions can be seen as an attempt to maintain order rather than an endorsement of freedom. Certainly India’s neighbors in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran would just as soon not follow the US model. If an orderly society is Kashmir’s goal, they ought to follow the lead of other Indian States and regulate conversions more closely. If they actually want a free society, that is another matter.
“The Senate has acted rationally and ethically in passing the STOCK Act, which attempts to prevent insider financial-market trading by members of Congress. Should the House pass a matching bill, that would constitute progress. However, following up with appropriate enforcement would still be necessary and difficult.
“I am not sure that the hardest-hit US States are a good comparison to Greece in the economic collapse. Greece’s issues are things like minimum wage that are regulated by national rather than provincial governments whereas the US States you mentioned were affected by job losses and housing issues. While I know little about Greek tax-collection methods, I can understand the more prosperous nations’ concern with imposing and collecting taxes. They enjoy a high standard of living that is largely dependent upon government programs and regulations, hence the need for stable income.
“We will see what we see with the deficit. Apparently, deficit spending is not the bogeyman it has been painted to be. I will point out that putting people to work automatically increases tax revenues, and that the primary economic sector still bleeding jobs is government. Such simple logic seems not to reach the minds in Congress.
It is nice that the government is finally pursuing a few of the offenders in tax evasion. The key economic issue is still ‘too big to fail’ banks.
“While people continue to discuss the Geneva Conventions, another treaty carries a far clearer standard. The Convention Against Torture (“Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”), signed by Reagan and ratified by Congress in 1994, allows no excuses about the conditions or locations where torture takes place. The US has prosecuted Charles Emmanuel, the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, under that treaty, but has yet to carry out its obligation to prosecute US nationals under the Convention and has pressured Spain and Britain to stop prosecutions. I’ll have a book review soon on my blog that discusses a source of information on this, but I feel certain that an Internet search would reveal more information.
“I’ll say it again: my point about who took the pictures of those Marines is a legal issue, but not a functional issue. In the 21st Century, expecting any event that involves more than one person to remain secret has become unrealistic. People today take pictures constantly and typically cannot be prevented from taking them or sharing them. Once these particular pictures landed on the Internet, the whole thing blew up. Clearly a great many people do not see this as a “local leadership discipline issue.” I suspect that your underlying point is that people do not understand the nature of war. These events are lessons in the nature of war. It appears that the more people understand about war, the less they approve of it.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: Sharia. Noted and quite appropriate. Yet, as in this instance, when Sharia is placed above secular law, you get the oppression of a minority – the non-believers or infidels. Religious law is inherently unequal.
Interesting observations regarding conversions. I’m not so sure.
Re: STOCK Act. Good observations. Congress notoriously likes the façade of propriety to obscure business as usual. Money is too tempting even for vaunted congressmen, who are just ordinary, flawed, weak men.
My use of states of this Grand Republic was not intended as a comparison, but rather an indicator. There are far more differences between Greece in the European Union than the states in the U.S.; however, fiscal mismanagement within one state can adversely affect the whole. Problems in Greece are multifaceted and multileveled. I picked on taxes because that is the most fundamental and basic. I have no problem with Greeks retiring at 50 yrs on a government paid 80% pension for life, as long as their taxes pay for it. When they must ask for Germany to pay for their largesse, that crosses the line. Reform in Greece will not be easy since they have become quite comfortable with the government providing everything they need without the slightest concern for where it comes from.
Re: deficit spending. Every government uses deficit spending when the situation warrants. So do each of us. From the Revolutionary War to the War on Islamic Fascism, our government has used deficit spending; but the bills are always paid. Government make-work jobs are at best a temporary, transient solution; sure, their income produces more tax revenue, but it is government paying the government, which is an unstable condition. I will argue that government should continue to contract as the private sector adds jobs. The key to revenue has been and will always be private sector employment.
Re: “Too big to fail.” No argument; agreed.
Re: My opinion regarding the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) [18.April.1988] presented in Update no.384 remains valid and applicable.
Re: battlefield photographs. Yes, that is my point. Let us keep things in perspective.
. . . round two:
“I will only follow up one point of your reply. If government continues to contract, who will repair our crumbling infrastructure, fight fires, teach our children (please don't pretend that proprietary schools will do a good job), and all the other jobs government is already beginning to fail at due to lack of funds?”
. . . my response to round two:
I am not an ideologically committed libertarian. I do not advocate for the contraction of government to the detriment of public safety, national security, and the common good. We need law enforcement, fire fighters, law makers, et cetera. I DO advocate for removing government from our private affairs, e.g., drugs, guns, and all those other moral projection laws we suffer today. We can and will argue about where the proper threshold lies. Yet, I think we can all agree far too much of our precious tax dollars go to projects that have nothing to do with the common good or public safety.
. . . round three:
“I certainly agree that we as a nation are wasting money on drug law enforcement and prisons, as well as other attempts to impose morality, but one must needs be specific in complaints about government. Government performs useful and necessary functions as well as those that are a waste of money and/or harmful.”
. . . my response to round three:
There is no question that we need a strong Federal government, working in conjunction with strong state governments. I have not the slightest doubt the Federal government is bloated well beyond reasonable. Nonetheless, we are agreed; the Federal government performs vital, essential functions for a well-ordered society. There are bad people among us and the international community; we need law enforcement in its myriad forms. We can argue about what should be cut in the Departments of Defense, Treasury, Education, Agriculture, Transportation, Commerce, et cetera. I would be happy to get all levels of government out of our private affairs. Any suggestions or ideas?
. . . round four:
“The only suggestions I have are the obvious ones. Regulating and taxing drugs in a manner similar to alcohol would eliminate funding for long-failed programs. Related to that, making our sentencing and prison systems resemble more successful nations' operations would improve our financial results and probably our societal ones as well. Taking prisons out of private hands would reduce their cost; private corporations must make a profit, and we pay for that regardless of what their marketers say. We have disagreed before and presumably still do so on whether to reduce military spending and on the value or dangers of the Department of Homeland Insecurity. I still say that if you really want the government out of people's personal lives, the powers of the spy agencies must be much more closely supervised and must reduce to fit within the Constitution.”
. . . my response to round four:
I think I can agree with all of those ideas. I certainly support the elimination of the DEA and prison out of the for-profit domain. I also agree that the Defense budget has plenty to be trimmed; I am just not too keen on reducing the combat arms and especially the special operations groups. I do have mixed views of DHS and DNI, but point taken regarding the need for warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. There are many other opportunities.
Another contribution:
“I write for 3 reasons. First, to let you know you are still a person of interest on the subject of prostate cancer. I hope you are doing well. I have not read much about your condition in your weekly update, so I hope this is a case of 'no news is good news'.
“Next, I noticed a mistake in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution at your web site. I read at the bottom of your site that I am supposed to cut you some slack. OK, cutting you all the slack I can muster, I hereby notify you that the word 'of' near the end of the preamble should be the word 'for', as in 'for the United States of America'.
“Lastly, I saw you had the Gettysburg Address on your site as something you think is glorious. I am not a Lincoln lover, so you and I have different values about him. I know 5 things I don't like about the Address. If you are interested in knowing what they are, please let me know and I will inform you what they are.”
My reply:
1. Yes, no news is really great news, actually. Had another follow-up visit on Monday. My progress appears to be well ahead of average. I still have a ways to go, but so far so good. Next PSA in May.
2. Good catch. Not sure how I missed that for all these years. Thx for the attention to details. It is actually a significant detail.
3. I do not write my opinions for agreement, but rather for debate. Democracy demands debate. Yes, please let me have it regarding the Gettysburg Address and President Lincoln. I always enjoy a good debate. Do you want to keep this private or can I include this in the Update . . . with your contribution anonymous of course. If not, I have problem keep our exchanges private. Your choice.
. . . the follow-up contribution:
“I am glad to write you with my opinion about President Lincoln's address. These are original thoughts. I am a person who likes to know if I am wrong about something, so please correct me if you think I am wrong. I don't want to go thru life making the same mistake over and over. I am not good at brevity and clarity, so feel free to edit anything I write. Do with this as you like. Here goes.
“1. ‘Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, . . . ‘. 1863 minus 87 is 1776. So Lincoln was referring to the signing and publishing of the Declaration of Independence. Here are some words in the title: ‘The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America.’ If 'United States of America' is interpreted as one nation, then the words 'unanimous' and 'thirteen' make no sense. I say our fathers brought forth 13 new nations, not one. Lots of U.S. citizens, when asked what they celebrate on July 4, say they are celebrating America's birthday, meaning the country that is today called the United States of America. I disagree. What I celebrate is the secession of the 13 colonies from the British crown and their change of status from colonies to countries.
“2. ‘Now we are engaged in a great civil war, . . .’ I say the Civil War was not a civil war. To me, a civil war is when 2 factions are fighting each other for the control of one country. The Confederates were not trying to wrest control of the U.S. from anyone. They were doing the same thing that their grandpappies and greatgrandpappies did in the 1770s. Nobody has ever been able to give me an answer that I like to these 2 questions: Why was it OK for the colony of Massachusetts to secede from the British crown, but not OK for the free and independent state of Virginia to secede from the Union? If one war was a civil war, then why weren't both wars civil wars? I have heard the Civil War called 4 things: the Civil War, the War Between the States, the War for Southern Independence and the War of Northern Aggression. Of those 4, I think Civil War is the least correct. Some civil wars were The War of the Roses in England, the Spanish Civil War in 1937 and the war in Russia starting in 1918 when the Communists fought the Whites. All those involved one country, 2 factions.
“3. ‘. . . for those who gave their lives that that nation might live.’ U.S. warriors did not give their lives that the U.S. might live. They gave their lives to destroy the Confederacy. The U.S. was in no danger of being wiped off any world maps. During the Revolutionary War, John Adams and Ben Franklin were not trying to destroy the British crown. I know of no country that experienced unilateral secession that was destroyed. East Timor seceded in 2002 from Indonesia. Indonesia is still around. Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971. Pakistan is still around. Peruvians seceded from Colombia in 1827, and Panamanians seceded from Colombia in 1903. Colombia is still on world maps. Ethiopia is still around. Singapore seceded from Malaysia in 1965. Malaysia is still with us. If the Dalai Lama leads his fellow Tibetans in seceding, he will not be trying to destroy China. Even in Biblical days, when the 10 tribes seceded, with the blessing of God, from King Rehoboam, the 2 countries lived side by side for a while without either trying to destroy the other. I digress a little here, but in first Kings 12:24, God commands King Rehoboam and his warriors not to fight with their brothers, but to return to their houses. I bring this up because I have heard the U.S. referred to as a country with a Judeo-Christian heritage. I don't think God would have been pro-secession if He thought the 10 tribes would try to wipe Israel off the map. There is a reason they are called Founding Fathers instead of Destroying Fathers. Yes, Czechoslovakia is no longer with us, but that is because the secession of the Czechs and Slovakians from each other in 1993 was mutual. So they each named their countries the way they wanted. That was more of a name change than an example of one faction trying to conquer the other. I don't think anyone was killed when Czechoslovakia ceased to exist.
“4. ‘. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom;’ What a hypocrite Lincoln was! During the Civil War, about 300 U.S. newspapers were shut down for one thing, dissension. U.S. soldiers were used to do it. I think I read that Benito Mussolini shut down about 30 newspapers for dissension. I am amazed that folks take Benito to task for what he did and Honest Abe gets a free ride. So much for freedom of the press. The politician, Clement Vallandingham from Ohio, was banished for dissension. So much for freedom of speech. In the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 is where the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is specified. Article 1 covers the legislative branch of the federal government. It seems to me the Framers meant for Congress to control the suspension, not the executive branch. I don't know the number of folks that were jailed in the U.S. by the Executive Department during the Civil War, but I think it was in the thousands. So lots of folks were jailed not knowing what they did wrong and for how long they were going to be in jail. Of course, what they did wrong is think differently from the President. Congress was not involved with this to my knowledge. But hey, Honest Abe knows all about a rebirth of freedom. In case you are wondering how many Confederate newspapers were shut down for dissension, it was none. No Confederate politicians were banished for dissent that I know of. I don't know about the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the Confederacy.
“5. ‘and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.’ At the end of the Preamble are the words ‘for the United States of America." Not for the people. In Article 7 are these words: Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, . . .’ Not the consent of the people. Rhode Island did not send any delegates to the Constitutional Convention, which is why nobody from Rhode Island signed the Constitution. So I say the Constitution is a government of the states, except Rhode Island, by the states, except Rhode Island, for the states, even Rhode Island. So let me see if I understand this. The Constitution was made for the benefit of the states. So President Lincoln must have thought that waging war against states that he claimed never left the Union somehow benefited those states. Amazing! I don't see how anyone can take President Lincoln's wish of government by the people not perishing seriously when they look at what he did to some members of the Maryland legislature. During his debates with Stephen Douglas, it was Douglas who was for popular sovereignty, not Lincoln. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution states that every state shall be guaranteed a republican form of government. All eleven of the seceding states seceded by a republican process. Representatives of the people met in state capitals, debated the issue of secession and then voted. That is what is meant by a republican form of government where it is understood that the majority wins. President Lincoln wanted the minorities to win. So much for either government of the states or of the people.
“I think that covers it. I probably left some things out, but this will do for now. I don't know if your readers will be interested in this, but I am. Thanks for inviting me to write to you about this. I vaguely remember something from Reef Points about burning letters written the night before. I hope that doesn't come back to haunt me.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
As with most topics, perspective is critical, and definitions are essential. I am not an expert on President Lincoln or the Gettysburg Address. I am just a common, ordinary citizen with opinions. I do not presume to know why President Lincoln chose the words he did, but I can offer my guess. As you say, here goes.
1. I suspect he picked 1776 as opposed to 1788, 1620, or 1775 for that matter. He picked the date I think most Americans would pick – the Declaration of Independence. We need to take the broader view, rather than constrain ourselves to the literal interpretation, e.g., “. . . all men are created equal . . . .” In that day, they meant Anglo-Saxon, male landowners; while today, we see the use of “men” as the generic mankind regardless of the social factors. In a historic sense, the United States of America did not exist until 1788. I cannot agree with the notion of 13 independent nations. The Declaration was endorsed by representatives from each of the 13 states, and they clearly banded together in their separation from the Crown. As Ben Franklin so succinctly and eloquent said, “We must hang together, or we shall surely hang separately.”
2. Civil war = war between organized groups within a nation. There are many motivating reasons groups choose to fight. In our case, it was to seek separation. I shall take a shot at your two sub-questions.
A. “Why was it OK for the colony of Massachusetts to secede from the British crown, but not OK for the free and independent state of Virginia to secede from the Union?” First, Virginia was not an independent nation, it was one of 34 states of the Union in 1861. There was no provision for secession in any of the founding documents. The Union was the Union. Each colony did not secede from the Crown; they banded together and seceded as a whole, not as individual states.
B. “If one war was a civil war, then why weren't both wars civil wars?” Per the definition, civil war is 2 or more factions with a country; we were a colony of Great Britain; we were not part of the United Kingdom. We can quibble over the definitions, if that is productive.
The Civil War fits the definition, it seems to me.
3. Perspective. You say toe-may-toe; I say toe-maw-toe. I cannot argue against your perspective. Yet, from my perspective, U.S. soldiers fought to preserve the Union, while the CSA soldiers fought to secede from the Union and form a confederation separate from the Union. The U.S. was not trying to destroy the confederate states, just the confederacy. The U.S. in fact paid for reconstruction and rehabilitation of the secessionist states. There are myriad examples of break-ups: the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Roman Empire, and now the Scots are moving closer to withdrawing from the United Kingdom. We chose a Union, not a confederation.
4. I am afraid I need a more convincing argument to even consider Lincoln as a hypocrite. If your argument rests solely upon his suppression of dissent in the Press, I am afraid you will find similar actions by Presidents in virtually every war in which this Grand Republic has been engaged. The Civil War was the first major conflict since the Founding that involved significant legal questions, not least of which was the suspension of The Great Writ (of habeas corpus). Unfortunately, I do not know about the possible suspension of habeas corpus in the Confederacy either [perhaps this exchange will instigate the lawyers within the forum to inform us].
5. Re: “consent of the People.” We are by definition a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy . . . by design and purpose. By my understanding of history, Rhode Island did indeed ratify the Constitution on 29.May.1790 [after formal ratification by ¾ of the states]. I do not believe the Constitution was made “for the benefit of the states.” The Constitution created the Federal government, bounded its authority, and codified the rights of all citizens. Our Constitution did not establish majority rule. In fact, quite the contrary, the document established a burdensome, some might say tortuous, process for amending the Constitution and even for passing basic common law. Our system of governance has always been to protect the rights of all from the tyranny of the majority. That said, and as noted earlier, there are NO provisions for dissolution of the Union – it was that simple fact that President Lincoln acted upon for the common good. Many have attempted to argue that secession was not about slavery, but rather about states’ rights – lipstick on a pig, it seems to me.
This is a big topic, worthy of our debate. I think the readers of this humble forum will be interested; the hard part is stimulating them to tinkle the keys and offer up their views & opinions. Thank you for sharing your views; you are always welcome on any topic.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Cap, the Washington Post story on earmarks to which you linked has backfired with me. The story apparently intends to arouse concern about corrupt earmarks. I consider myself cynical about government, and I went to that story prepared to find another scandal or a series of them. Instead, I found exoneration for almost all of Congress’s earmarks. The potentially corrupt earmarks they found amounted to “more than $300 million” (they don’t say how much more), “most of it” since 2008. “Most of it” could be anything above 50%, but to simplify I will assume that all of it was in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Further along in the story, they give a total for all earmarks in 2010 alone as $34 billion. Thus, the figure for potentially corrupt earmarks over a three-year period amounts to less than 1% of a single year’s earmarks. That’s great news. They continue with examples, most of dubious value to their cause. In particular, they seem to completely exonerate Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), who sold his property prior to asking for an earmark nearby and then proceeded to go bankrupt along with his family’s business. This guy is not getting rich based on his Congressional position. The article also cites the example of Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), whose alleged offense is using an earmark to add a bike lane to a locally-planned bridge replacement near her home. Ok so far, but the story goes on to say, “That lane is a critical link in the many miles of bike paths that Miller has championed for many years.” Whether or not one favors bike facilities, this earmark is simply the continuation of Rep. Miller’s ongoing cause. It even lets her off the hook for wanting a decent place to ride because this particular unit is an important link in a large network that serves many people.
I still favor transparency in government workings, especially spending, but I no longer see earmark corruption as an issue that matters. I will note that reading more than the first two pages of this article requires the reader to create a “free” account.
The insider-trading bill as passed by the Senate, the STOCK Act, was apparently a reasonable first step. The House of Representatives diluted that bill. The account I read on the Internet somewhere focused on an amendment allowing lobbyists and others to profit from the inside knowledge of Members of Congress. We shall see what comes out of the House-Senate conference committee that determines the final result and whether both houses can pass whatever that committee crafts. I have little optimism for this type of legislation. People, even well-meaning people, find it difficult to limit their own prerogatives.
President Obama’s budget will not cause paralysis in Congress because Congress has been paralyzed for years. The budget discussion will merely become the latest subject of irresponsible rhetoric and inaction.
I was happy to see Prop H8 blocked, and particularly happy with the reasoning that the state Constitutional process may not be used to deny a disfavored group the rights given to all others. Gay marriage initiatives seem to be gaining momentum despite the self-serving rants of Tea Party/fundamentalist busybodies. Besides, I see no reason gay people should escape what most of the rest of us go through. Justice Scalia’s list of “laws based on moral choices” carries no weight to me. If he cannot show how those choices damage someone other than the people making the choices, I would rather not bother. This nation has better things to do than poke its nose into people’s bedrooms. Beyond that, the Constitution allots rights not otherwise granted to the people, not to any unit of government.
Before commenting further on Greece, you might want to check on actual conditions there.
I find your other commenter’s criticisms of the Gettysburg Address incredibly trivial and I will not address them. Also, this comment has grown to over 600 words, which is too many.
Calvin,
Re: earmarks. Wow! I never, at any moment, had even a remote sensation of legitimacy as I read the article. Further, I suspect the reporters had to constrain their analysis to some digestible level, i.e., direct benefit – improved property valuation, relatives, friends, et cetera. They did not touch upon the much larger and usually less identifiable quid pro quo factor. I recognize and freely acknowledge there must be good, supportable, public projects that are accomplished via earmarks. Yet, I respectfully submit, ANY appropriation done outside the normal, established, checks & balances of legislative action is inherently and fundamentally flawed and ripe for abuse. The few good projects simply cannot overcome the corrosive and corrupting potential of earmarks. Lastly, if a project is that beneficial for the public good, then why shouldn’t it go through the same scrutiny as any other appropriation? Why must it circumvent the system and processes intended to minimize corruption? Why take the risk?
Re: STOCK Act. I thought the Senate version did not go far enough, so you can imagine how I feel about the House version. As you say, we shall see.
Re: budget. LOL OK, you got me there. It is hard to paralyzed further what is already paralyzed to near inaction.
Re: Perry v. Brown. I was encouraged by the 9th Circuit’s decision. However, it was not a particularly well-written or compelling, judicial pronouncement. As I noted in my review, I think the 9th Circuit’s opinion is a pre-cursor for what we are likely to see from the Supremes. I would laugh at Antonin-the-Impaler’s listing and reasoning, if it was not so sad. Our society has a long history of moral projection, dictating by force of law how people are to conduct themselves in private. With the 4th Amendment, such moral projection becomes a matter of happenstance and prosecutorial zealousness. The object of Lawrence was, in fact, an erroneous entry and happenstance discovery; but, the private lives of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were exposed to the world for what was truly a private, consensual activity, simply because a willful minority, or even a majority, disapproved of such conduct. As the Supremes ultimately decided, the State could not demonstrate any proper interest for such a law other than moral disapproval. The same is true for masturbation, adultery, obscenity, et cetera; there is no proper State interest. I can argue there is a proper State interest in regulating prostitution – the health and welfare of both customers and providers, as well as the fair and equitable treatment of providers. None of those activities is injurious to the individual or the State.
Re: Greece. You apparently perceive that I am not aware of conditions in Greece. If so, how so? What am I missing?
Re: “Gettysburg Address.” I am sorry you feel the exchange was trivial. I do not. The larger question in that exchange is secession and the Union; neither is trivial.
As always, thank you for taking the time to express your opinions.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment