Update from the Heartland
No.531
13.2.12 – 19.2.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I have tried to avoid commenting on the political pandering of this year’s silly season, but this week proved to be too much for me to resist. As former senator and presidential nominee Richard John “Rick” Santorum of Pennsylvania has gained ground on front-runner, leadership-supported, presumed nominee, former governor and presidential nominee Willard Mitt Romney, the Press has illuminated a number of Rick’s little tidbits of what to expect with his leadership.
Santorum said (9.February.2012, in Plano, Texas):
“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”
Implicit in his statement is faith by his definition remains the only acceptable belief. He is quite comfortable donning the robes of sanctimonious Christian fundamentalist evangelism. Yet, for him to diminish and dilute the French Revolution to the guillotine is historic sacrilege. He likes to accuse the Obama administration of transgression, and yet, I am left with the question: do I want him deciding what is correct for me and every other citizen in this Grand Republic?
Santorum said (18.October.2011, in an interview with the evangelical BLOG CaffeinatedThoughts.com):
“One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’
“It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
“Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These have profound impact on the health of our society.”
How things are supposed to be? Really? This reasoning scares the bloody hell out of me, on so many levels. I respect his right, as my right, to his personal opinions, beliefs and positions. However, he is not speaking as a common citizen like me; he is a candidate for President of the United States of America. It is this type of reasoning that is the essence of moral projection. He is claiming the path of righteousness, and implicitly stating emphatically that any other than his “path” must be deviant, injurious, abnormal and otherwise contemptible. Yes, I think we should talk about these issues. I appreciate his courage to put his personal beliefs on the table. However, what I expect from a leader is guiding us to solutions, not the imposition of his beliefs; a leader must represent all citizens, not just those who believe as he does.
Santorum said (August.2006, in an interview with Comcast, during his unsuccessful senatorial re-election campaign):
“I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life. But I’m not a believer in birth control and artificial birth control. I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. I think it breaks that … this is from a personal point of view of, from a governmental point of view I support that Title X.
“I guess it is and have voted for contraception, although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated …, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”
The audacity and misogynistic paternalism is incomprehensible for anyone who believes in every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice. Santorum wants us to trust him, to believe on faith, that he will not impose his personal beliefs on his decisions as a potential president. I respect his right to his personal opinions, but I do not, I cannot, trust him with such authority. We have just to look at the unilateral action of Governor Christopher James “Chris” Christie of New Jersey as he vetoed the action on a new law passed by both chambers of the state legislature, because he disapproved of their action morally and denied equal treatment under the law to a minority of state residents; this is precisely why electing a moral projectionist to a position of power is wrong. I want solutions, not imposition.
As much as I disapprove of Rick Santorum’s opinions on social issues and disagree with Chris Christie’s action this week, I must note two particular quotes from an interview of Governor Christie on Oprah’s Next Chapter, Oprah Winfrey’s Network (OWN), Sunday, 22.January.2012:
Christie’s boss: “It is a lot harder to hate up close.” So true!
and
Christie’s Mom: “If you have a choice, between being respected or being loved, always pick being respected; because, if someone respects you, love may come; but, if they love you without respect, it will go.”
There is wisdom, even among the socially conservative, moral projectionists.
As you may recall, I reviewed the district court case of Rick Glen Strandlof (AKA Rick Duncan) and his felonious claim of having been awarded both the Purple Heart and the Silver Star, attaining the rank of captain in the United States Marine Corps, serving three tours of duty in Iraq, and graduating from the United States Naval Academy, in violation of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 [PL 109-437; 102 Stat. 3266; 20.December.2006] [450, 454] – United States v. Strandlof [USDC CO 1:09-cr-00497-REB (2010); 16.July.2010] [450]. A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decided the district court erred and declared the Stolen Valor Act constitutional – United States v. Strandlof [10CCA no. 10-1358 (2012)]. The 2-1 decision was written by Circuit Judge Timothy Michael Tymkovich with a dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes. Neither was a particularly compelling judicial pronouncement. Next week, the Supremes will hear arguments on a similar case in the appeal of United States v. Alvarez [9CCA no.08-50345 (2010); 17.August.2010] [454], which will probably decide the Strandlof case as well. The law hangs upon the State’s interest in defending the integrity of military service and decorations. The 10th Circuit did not definitively answer that question – perhaps the Supremes will finally settle the issue.
News from the economic front:
-- Moody's Investors Service joined Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings to downgrade six European nations, including Italy, Spain and Portugal, and warned that France, Britain and Austria were at risk of being downgraded. Moody's cited concerns with how the debt crisis is being handled and the impact on the region's various economies.
Comments and contributions from Update no.530:
“I write mostly about your words about no provision for secession in founding documents.
“I will have to be a sea lawyer on this, so please forgive me. Suppose you had a purple shirt you wanted to wear on Wednesday. How do you know it is OK to do so? Does there have to be a law that reads "Citizens may wear purple shirts on Wednesdays"? I say as long as there is no law prohibiting you wearing the shirt, it is OK. There is an infinite number of things that lawmakers would have to do if giving permission, or making a provision, to do things was the way society functioned. Let's say a new park was in your city, and you took your dog to it. Does your dog have to be on a leash? I say no unless a park rule covers that. Same thing with parking on the grass. Now consider some things less trivial than your shirt, your dog and parking.
“The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution starts ‘Congress shall make no law respecting . . .’ To me, that means Congress may not make a law dealing with people assembling peaceably, either making a provision to do so or prohibiting it. So in the absence of a law dealing with this, is it OK for folks to assemble peaceably or not? You and I both "know" that folks may assemble peaceably. No provision exists for that except the absence of a prohibition.
“Now consider the 18th and 21st Amendments. The 18th Amendment is a prohibition of the sale and transporting of intoxicating liquors. What provision was there before 1920 for the sale and transporting of intoxicating liquors? My guess is there wasn't any. It was understood that as long as there was no prohibition of this, it was OK. The 21st Amendment starts "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Note that it does not give permission to sell liquors again except by repealing the prohibition. It does not read "Citizens may now . . . "
“So I say this applies to everything, including secession. If folks did not want states to secede from the Union, then that should have passed a law prohibiting that. No such prohibition exists. There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1869, White versus Texas, with a majority opinion that opined that secession was illegal. The majority included the words " a more perfect Union" in their writing. I disagree with that majority opinion. I think a more perfect Union is where a state is free to leave if they do it right, that is, using a republican process. You and most U.S. citizens like having captive states. I still think Virginia is a free and independent state. The 56 secessionists who signed the Declaration declared it so, and I like that. I will appreciate you letting me know when you think Virginia ceased to be a free and independent state and what happened on that date to make it so. I will venture a guess that you think it is when Virginia's delegates ratified the Constitution.
“In addition to my thinking that secession is OK due to an absence of any prohibition, I happen to think that there is provision in the Constitution for secession. I know you are going to disagree with this, but here goes: the 9th and 10th Amendments.
“Hey Cap, this debate could go on and on.”
My response:
Re: secession. I did not intend to connote any relationship between a paucity of reference and permission, or vice versa. I am suggesting President Lincoln’s interpretation of the Constitution might have been based on the lack of any provision for secession . . . the Union was the Union, for better or worse. I am not aware of any reference to dissolution of the Union other than the indirect reference in the Declaration – “[I]t is the Right of the People to alter or abolish [Government], and to institute new Government . . . .” The lack of process does not confer authority. Nonetheless, we could argue, the right of secession is inherent in the 10th Amendment. Regardless, President Lincoln chose to defend the Union as it was, not as the Confederacy intended or wished. I will also argue we are far better off together than we ever would have been apart, especially with the issue of slavery dividing us at the time.
Re: peaceful assembly. Are you suggesting secession was a simple extension of the 1st Amendment protection of assembly?
Re: Prohibition. Interesting topic, of which I have written extensively, and which I shall continue to write. I know that was not your point, only your example. Yes, I do agree, the absence of permission does not connote prohibition, either. If anyone is of the mind convinced secession is the desired course, validation can be found in the 10th Amendment. I am not arguing one way or the other; I am only addressing your line of inquiry, why did President Lincoln choose the words he did?
Re: White v. Texas. I’ve not read the case, but it is now on my reading list.
Re: “a more perfect Union.” If states are free to secede, then there is no union; it is at best a loose confederation. Virginia was never a “free and independent state [i.e., nation-state]”; it never existed as such, thus cessation cannot occur for what did not exist. It was a colony of Great Britain until it joined with 12 other colonies as the United States of America to declare themselves independent from the Crown; not as independent nations, but independent states within the larger Union. Virginia had its opportunity to go its separate way during the interim years under the Articles of Confederation and prior to ratification of the Constitution. Virginia chose to join the Union.
Re: 9th & 10th Amendments. I agree. If there was ever a path to dissolution of the Union, it would be through those omnibus amendments. That said, I respectfully submit, there is no evidence in any of the supporting documents of even a hint of such action, not even hypothesized or envisioned. Dissolution was never considered an option.
. . . follow-up comments:
“I will try to comment on some things you wrote in the order you wrote them.
“About the indirect reference in the Declaration: Here is something, maybe not verbatim, Congressman Lincoln said in a speech to Congress. ‘Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government.’ That would have been about 1848.
“You wrote that you think we are far better off together than apart. Consider a 22 year marriage, or union, and think of the husband as the U.S.A. and the wife as the C.S.A. The wife wants a divorce. The husband and wife listen to their friends and family members who offer advice. They go to counseling. Some of those people tell the wife that they think she is better off staying married. I say the wife is an adult. She may listen to this advice, but only she knows if she will be better off or not. Nobody else.
“As to your question about secession being an extension of assembling peaceably, my answer is no. I could have used any of the other things listed in the 1st Amendment, say, the abridgement of the press or an establishment of religion.
“As to Virginia not being a free and independent state, let me tell you about my short vacation to Savannah about 3 years ago. This involves Button Gwinnett, one of the 3 delegates from Georgia who signed the Declaration. There is a cemetery, Colonial Cemetery, where Button is buried. Do you know who the 2nd President of Georgia was? It was Button. Did you know Georgia even had presidents? The first was, I think, a man named Bulloch. He is buried about 30 feet from a brass(?) plaque that lists some things about Button. This plaque has the claim that Button was the 2nd President of Georgia. Nobody knows exactly where Button is buried, but he is somewhere in Colonial Cemetery. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, ‘. . .the intention of the lawgiver is the law.’ Now the Declaration is not exactly a law, but I claim if Button thought of himself as a president of Georgia, he understood that Georgia was a free and independent state, which is what is stated in the Declaration.
“As to Virginia having the opportunity to go its separate way under The Articles of Confederation, I say you are wrong. The words 'perpetual' and 'perpetuity' are used about 5 times in the Articles, as in the Union shall be perpetual. The full title is "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", or something like that. I was taught that during the convention in Philadelphia where the Constitution was written and discussed, the delegates went thru the Articles and kept what they liked and discarded what they didn't. So I pose this question to you: Why isn't there anything about the Union being perpetual in the Constitution like there was in the Articles? My answer is not that the delegates overlooked this topic, but they purposely omitted it. That is a guess. It may be that this is something lost to history. The delegates were not supposed to keep a record of their discussions as I recall.
“Here is something from President Lincoln's first inaugural address that interests me: ‘I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual.’ Nobody has ever been able to tell me about this universal law. Do you have any information, or even a hunch, about it? I hope it is not ‘Might makes right.’ Please reconsider my mentioning that the Czechs and Slovakians mutually decided to secede. Did they break this universal law? Or how about in 2008 when the U.S. and other countries supported Kosovo when they seceded? Was this universal law broken by all those countries? I remember reading about some Serbian politician, whose name I don't recall and couldn't pronounce if I did, claiming that the secession of Kosovo broke some international law. He sounded very much like Abraham to me. Abe used the adjective 'universal', and the Serb used 'international'. Do you have any thoughts on this?
“That's all the news that's fit to print, except it isn't really news.”
. . . my follow-up comments:
Re: Lincoln quote. I am not familiar with that statement. I would have to do more research to understand the context of the statement. Certainly, the statement is not consistent with his presidential actions.
Re: better off. Your analogy is appropriate; yet, there are monumental differences between a marriage of individuals and the Union of states. Taken to the logical terminus, there would be no nations remaining, only sovereign individuals, families or tribes. I understand and appreciate the desire of the Confederate states to preserve their dependence on slavery. The intransigence of that debate can be seen in today’s political discord. Hopefully, we will re-learn the art of compromise and problem-solving some day.
Re: secession. We are agreed. However, apparently, I still do not comprehend the connection you are trying to make with secession and individual rights.
Re: Button Gwinnett. A touch of history . . . thank you. I did not know any of that. Nonetheless, I cannot make the jump to a free & independent nation based on what the leader calls himself.
Re: Perpetual Union. My answer to your question: I do not know. I cannot find any reference in the Federalist Papers, or any other definitive document regarding codification of this Grand Republic. The essential reality of any law is perspective. If we want the Union to be dissolved, I am certain we can convince ourselves it must be dissolved. While I am ideologically a long way from a Federalist, I remain convinced and committed to this Grand Republic, as a whole. I am proud of the history the Confederacy brought to our collective history, and as I believe the Republic is stronger for the trial.
Re: universal law. Well, I do not know what Lincoln meant by “universal law”; however, my guess would be the law of “unalienable rights” that are indirectly reflected in the 9th & 10th Amendments. The dissolution of Yugoslavia is an appropriate example; however, I would like to point out that Yugoslavia was a federation created by force of arms, not freedom of assembly. The same argument could be made for the Soviet Union.
Comment to the Blog:
“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.”
My reply to the Blog:
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 paralyze 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.
. . . follow-up comments:
“I had not thought I used any unusual skills or insights in reaching my conclusions about the earmarks story. It took no special effort to notice the two major figures given, and the two examples I mentioned were not the only weak ones. I still contend that story you linked disproved the very point it set out to prove. Yes, any corruption is wrong, but we must set some sort of priorities. By the figures given in the story the corruption in earmarks is somewhat less than 1% of the earmarks. The authors used a sound research method but did not find what they must have expected. They wrote the story anyhow, perhaps to meet a deadline or satisfy editorial demands, and they used emotional words to convince the reader even though the facts they gave did not match those words. Other priorities matter more than earmarks, especially as the potential corruption figure amounts to a very small part of the Federal budget. The reason earmarks cannot go through the same scrutiny as other appropriations is the lack of time. Hundreds of items, most amounting to less than one tenth of 1% of the budget, cannot be examined by the number and variety of people who discuss and debate larger items. Beyond that, the debate cannot be as well informed about local issues as about, for example, military appropriations. Nobody knows the entire country that well.
“I mentioned Greece because you seemed to find it easy to dismiss the Greek protestors as “hooded, anarchistic youth” who might harm the tourism industry. Here is a link to an NPR story on conditions there:
I have tried to avoid commenting on the political pandering of this year’s silly season, but this week proved to be too much for me to resist. As former senator and presidential nominee Richard John “Rick” Santorum of Pennsylvania has gained ground on front-runner, leadership-supported, presumed nominee, former governor and presidential nominee Willard Mitt Romney, the Press has illuminated a number of Rick’s little tidbits of what to expect with his leadership.
Santorum said (9.February.2012, in Plano, Texas):
“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”
Implicit in his statement is faith by his definition remains the only acceptable belief. He is quite comfortable donning the robes of sanctimonious Christian fundamentalist evangelism. Yet, for him to diminish and dilute the French Revolution to the guillotine is historic sacrilege. He likes to accuse the Obama administration of transgression, and yet, I am left with the question: do I want him deciding what is correct for me and every other citizen in this Grand Republic?
Santorum said (18.October.2011, in an interview with the evangelical BLOG CaffeinatedThoughts.com):
“One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’
“It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
“Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These have profound impact on the health of our society.”
How things are supposed to be? Really? This reasoning scares the bloody hell out of me, on so many levels. I respect his right, as my right, to his personal opinions, beliefs and positions. However, he is not speaking as a common citizen like me; he is a candidate for President of the United States of America. It is this type of reasoning that is the essence of moral projection. He is claiming the path of righteousness, and implicitly stating emphatically that any other than his “path” must be deviant, injurious, abnormal and otherwise contemptible. Yes, I think we should talk about these issues. I appreciate his courage to put his personal beliefs on the table. However, what I expect from a leader is guiding us to solutions, not the imposition of his beliefs; a leader must represent all citizens, not just those who believe as he does.
Santorum said (August.2006, in an interview with Comcast, during his unsuccessful senatorial re-election campaign):
“I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life. But I’m not a believer in birth control and artificial birth control. I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. I think it breaks that … this is from a personal point of view of, from a governmental point of view I support that Title X.
“I guess it is and have voted for contraception, although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated …, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”
The audacity and misogynistic paternalism is incomprehensible for anyone who believes in every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice. Santorum wants us to trust him, to believe on faith, that he will not impose his personal beliefs on his decisions as a potential president. I respect his right to his personal opinions, but I do not, I cannot, trust him with such authority. We have just to look at the unilateral action of Governor Christopher James “Chris” Christie of New Jersey as he vetoed the action on a new law passed by both chambers of the state legislature, because he disapproved of their action morally and denied equal treatment under the law to a minority of state residents; this is precisely why electing a moral projectionist to a position of power is wrong. I want solutions, not imposition.
As much as I disapprove of Rick Santorum’s opinions on social issues and disagree with Chris Christie’s action this week, I must note two particular quotes from an interview of Governor Christie on Oprah’s Next Chapter, Oprah Winfrey’s Network (OWN), Sunday, 22.January.2012:
Christie’s boss: “It is a lot harder to hate up close.” So true!
and
Christie’s Mom: “If you have a choice, between being respected or being loved, always pick being respected; because, if someone respects you, love may come; but, if they love you without respect, it will go.”
There is wisdom, even among the socially conservative, moral projectionists.
As you may recall, I reviewed the district court case of Rick Glen Strandlof (AKA Rick Duncan) and his felonious claim of having been awarded both the Purple Heart and the Silver Star, attaining the rank of captain in the United States Marine Corps, serving three tours of duty in Iraq, and graduating from the United States Naval Academy, in violation of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 [PL 109-437; 102 Stat. 3266; 20.December.2006] [450, 454] – United States v. Strandlof [USDC CO 1:09-cr-00497-REB (2010); 16.July.2010] [450]. A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decided the district court erred and declared the Stolen Valor Act constitutional – United States v. Strandlof [10CCA no. 10-1358 (2012)]. The 2-1 decision was written by Circuit Judge Timothy Michael Tymkovich with a dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes. Neither was a particularly compelling judicial pronouncement. Next week, the Supremes will hear arguments on a similar case in the appeal of United States v. Alvarez [9CCA no.08-50345 (2010); 17.August.2010] [454], which will probably decide the Strandlof case as well. The law hangs upon the State’s interest in defending the integrity of military service and decorations. The 10th Circuit did not definitively answer that question – perhaps the Supremes will finally settle the issue.
News from the economic front:
-- Moody's Investors Service joined Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings to downgrade six European nations, including Italy, Spain and Portugal, and warned that France, Britain and Austria were at risk of being downgraded. Moody's cited concerns with how the debt crisis is being handled and the impact on the region's various economies.
Comments and contributions from Update no.530:
“I write mostly about your words about no provision for secession in founding documents.
“I will have to be a sea lawyer on this, so please forgive me. Suppose you had a purple shirt you wanted to wear on Wednesday. How do you know it is OK to do so? Does there have to be a law that reads "Citizens may wear purple shirts on Wednesdays"? I say as long as there is no law prohibiting you wearing the shirt, it is OK. There is an infinite number of things that lawmakers would have to do if giving permission, or making a provision, to do things was the way society functioned. Let's say a new park was in your city, and you took your dog to it. Does your dog have to be on a leash? I say no unless a park rule covers that. Same thing with parking on the grass. Now consider some things less trivial than your shirt, your dog and parking.
“The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution starts ‘Congress shall make no law respecting . . .’ To me, that means Congress may not make a law dealing with people assembling peaceably, either making a provision to do so or prohibiting it. So in the absence of a law dealing with this, is it OK for folks to assemble peaceably or not? You and I both "know" that folks may assemble peaceably. No provision exists for that except the absence of a prohibition.
“Now consider the 18th and 21st Amendments. The 18th Amendment is a prohibition of the sale and transporting of intoxicating liquors. What provision was there before 1920 for the sale and transporting of intoxicating liquors? My guess is there wasn't any. It was understood that as long as there was no prohibition of this, it was OK. The 21st Amendment starts "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Note that it does not give permission to sell liquors again except by repealing the prohibition. It does not read "Citizens may now . . . "
“So I say this applies to everything, including secession. If folks did not want states to secede from the Union, then that should have passed a law prohibiting that. No such prohibition exists. There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1869, White versus Texas, with a majority opinion that opined that secession was illegal. The majority included the words " a more perfect Union" in their writing. I disagree with that majority opinion. I think a more perfect Union is where a state is free to leave if they do it right, that is, using a republican process. You and most U.S. citizens like having captive states. I still think Virginia is a free and independent state. The 56 secessionists who signed the Declaration declared it so, and I like that. I will appreciate you letting me know when you think Virginia ceased to be a free and independent state and what happened on that date to make it so. I will venture a guess that you think it is when Virginia's delegates ratified the Constitution.
“In addition to my thinking that secession is OK due to an absence of any prohibition, I happen to think that there is provision in the Constitution for secession. I know you are going to disagree with this, but here goes: the 9th and 10th Amendments.
“Hey Cap, this debate could go on and on.”
My response:
Re: secession. I did not intend to connote any relationship between a paucity of reference and permission, or vice versa. I am suggesting President Lincoln’s interpretation of the Constitution might have been based on the lack of any provision for secession . . . the Union was the Union, for better or worse. I am not aware of any reference to dissolution of the Union other than the indirect reference in the Declaration – “[I]t is the Right of the People to alter or abolish [Government], and to institute new Government . . . .” The lack of process does not confer authority. Nonetheless, we could argue, the right of secession is inherent in the 10th Amendment. Regardless, President Lincoln chose to defend the Union as it was, not as the Confederacy intended or wished. I will also argue we are far better off together than we ever would have been apart, especially with the issue of slavery dividing us at the time.
Re: peaceful assembly. Are you suggesting secession was a simple extension of the 1st Amendment protection of assembly?
Re: Prohibition. Interesting topic, of which I have written extensively, and which I shall continue to write. I know that was not your point, only your example. Yes, I do agree, the absence of permission does not connote prohibition, either. If anyone is of the mind convinced secession is the desired course, validation can be found in the 10th Amendment. I am not arguing one way or the other; I am only addressing your line of inquiry, why did President Lincoln choose the words he did?
Re: White v. Texas. I’ve not read the case, but it is now on my reading list.
Re: “a more perfect Union.” If states are free to secede, then there is no union; it is at best a loose confederation. Virginia was never a “free and independent state [i.e., nation-state]”; it never existed as such, thus cessation cannot occur for what did not exist. It was a colony of Great Britain until it joined with 12 other colonies as the United States of America to declare themselves independent from the Crown; not as independent nations, but independent states within the larger Union. Virginia had its opportunity to go its separate way during the interim years under the Articles of Confederation and prior to ratification of the Constitution. Virginia chose to join the Union.
Re: 9th & 10th Amendments. I agree. If there was ever a path to dissolution of the Union, it would be through those omnibus amendments. That said, I respectfully submit, there is no evidence in any of the supporting documents of even a hint of such action, not even hypothesized or envisioned. Dissolution was never considered an option.
. . . follow-up comments:
“I will try to comment on some things you wrote in the order you wrote them.
“About the indirect reference in the Declaration: Here is something, maybe not verbatim, Congressman Lincoln said in a speech to Congress. ‘Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government.’ That would have been about 1848.
“You wrote that you think we are far better off together than apart. Consider a 22 year marriage, or union, and think of the husband as the U.S.A. and the wife as the C.S.A. The wife wants a divorce. The husband and wife listen to their friends and family members who offer advice. They go to counseling. Some of those people tell the wife that they think she is better off staying married. I say the wife is an adult. She may listen to this advice, but only she knows if she will be better off or not. Nobody else.
“As to your question about secession being an extension of assembling peaceably, my answer is no. I could have used any of the other things listed in the 1st Amendment, say, the abridgement of the press or an establishment of religion.
“As to Virginia not being a free and independent state, let me tell you about my short vacation to Savannah about 3 years ago. This involves Button Gwinnett, one of the 3 delegates from Georgia who signed the Declaration. There is a cemetery, Colonial Cemetery, where Button is buried. Do you know who the 2nd President of Georgia was? It was Button. Did you know Georgia even had presidents? The first was, I think, a man named Bulloch. He is buried about 30 feet from a brass(?) plaque that lists some things about Button. This plaque has the claim that Button was the 2nd President of Georgia. Nobody knows exactly where Button is buried, but he is somewhere in Colonial Cemetery. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, ‘. . .the intention of the lawgiver is the law.’ Now the Declaration is not exactly a law, but I claim if Button thought of himself as a president of Georgia, he understood that Georgia was a free and independent state, which is what is stated in the Declaration.
“As to Virginia having the opportunity to go its separate way under The Articles of Confederation, I say you are wrong. The words 'perpetual' and 'perpetuity' are used about 5 times in the Articles, as in the Union shall be perpetual. The full title is "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", or something like that. I was taught that during the convention in Philadelphia where the Constitution was written and discussed, the delegates went thru the Articles and kept what they liked and discarded what they didn't. So I pose this question to you: Why isn't there anything about the Union being perpetual in the Constitution like there was in the Articles? My answer is not that the delegates overlooked this topic, but they purposely omitted it. That is a guess. It may be that this is something lost to history. The delegates were not supposed to keep a record of their discussions as I recall.
“Here is something from President Lincoln's first inaugural address that interests me: ‘I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual.’ Nobody has ever been able to tell me about this universal law. Do you have any information, or even a hunch, about it? I hope it is not ‘Might makes right.’ Please reconsider my mentioning that the Czechs and Slovakians mutually decided to secede. Did they break this universal law? Or how about in 2008 when the U.S. and other countries supported Kosovo when they seceded? Was this universal law broken by all those countries? I remember reading about some Serbian politician, whose name I don't recall and couldn't pronounce if I did, claiming that the secession of Kosovo broke some international law. He sounded very much like Abraham to me. Abe used the adjective 'universal', and the Serb used 'international'. Do you have any thoughts on this?
“That's all the news that's fit to print, except it isn't really news.”
. . . my follow-up comments:
Re: Lincoln quote. I am not familiar with that statement. I would have to do more research to understand the context of the statement. Certainly, the statement is not consistent with his presidential actions.
Re: better off. Your analogy is appropriate; yet, there are monumental differences between a marriage of individuals and the Union of states. Taken to the logical terminus, there would be no nations remaining, only sovereign individuals, families or tribes. I understand and appreciate the desire of the Confederate states to preserve their dependence on slavery. The intransigence of that debate can be seen in today’s political discord. Hopefully, we will re-learn the art of compromise and problem-solving some day.
Re: secession. We are agreed. However, apparently, I still do not comprehend the connection you are trying to make with secession and individual rights.
Re: Button Gwinnett. A touch of history . . . thank you. I did not know any of that. Nonetheless, I cannot make the jump to a free & independent nation based on what the leader calls himself.
Re: Perpetual Union. My answer to your question: I do not know. I cannot find any reference in the Federalist Papers, or any other definitive document regarding codification of this Grand Republic. The essential reality of any law is perspective. If we want the Union to be dissolved, I am certain we can convince ourselves it must be dissolved. While I am ideologically a long way from a Federalist, I remain convinced and committed to this Grand Republic, as a whole. I am proud of the history the Confederacy brought to our collective history, and as I believe the Republic is stronger for the trial.
Re: universal law. Well, I do not know what Lincoln meant by “universal law”; however, my guess would be the law of “unalienable rights” that are indirectly reflected in the 9th & 10th Amendments. The dissolution of Yugoslavia is an appropriate example; however, I would like to point out that Yugoslavia was a federation created by force of arms, not freedom of assembly. The same argument could be made for the Soviet Union.
Comment to the Blog:
“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.”
My reply to the Blog:
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 paralyze 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.
. . . follow-up comments:
“I had not thought I used any unusual skills or insights in reaching my conclusions about the earmarks story. It took no special effort to notice the two major figures given, and the two examples I mentioned were not the only weak ones. I still contend that story you linked disproved the very point it set out to prove. Yes, any corruption is wrong, but we must set some sort of priorities. By the figures given in the story the corruption in earmarks is somewhat less than 1% of the earmarks. The authors used a sound research method but did not find what they must have expected. They wrote the story anyhow, perhaps to meet a deadline or satisfy editorial demands, and they used emotional words to convince the reader even though the facts they gave did not match those words. Other priorities matter more than earmarks, especially as the potential corruption figure amounts to a very small part of the Federal budget. The reason earmarks cannot go through the same scrutiny as other appropriations is the lack of time. Hundreds of items, most amounting to less than one tenth of 1% of the budget, cannot be examined by the number and variety of people who discuss and debate larger items. Beyond that, the debate cannot be as well informed about local issues as about, for example, military appropriations. Nobody knows the entire country that well.
“I mentioned Greece because you seemed to find it easy to dismiss the Greek protestors as “hooded, anarchistic youth” who might harm the tourism industry. Here is a link to an NPR story on conditions there:
. . . my follow-up comments:
We must be an optimistic society. We choose to see the good, even in bad situations, and rationalize to ourselves that it’s not so bad. It is our nature. As they so eloquently said in the Declaration, “[M]ankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” So it is, so it shall be.
Peaceful assembly is an essential right of free people. My point was not to condemn the majority of peaceful protesters, who have every right to take to the streets to protest the enormous failure of the Greek government, but it is the “hooded, anarchistic youth” that subvert, contaminate and corrupt what should be peaceful assembly. Regardless, the street protests do not lessen the failure of the Greek government. Worse above the intra-national events, apparently a large number of Greek citizens expect, nay demand, the Germans cover the shortfall in their largesse as some form a guilt reparations for the Nazi transgressions of 70 years ago. I do not give the Greeks a pass for what they have done to themselves.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
We must be an optimistic society. We choose to see the good, even in bad situations, and rationalize to ourselves that it’s not so bad. It is our nature. As they so eloquently said in the Declaration, “[M]ankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” So it is, so it shall be.
Peaceful assembly is an essential right of free people. My point was not to condemn the majority of peaceful protesters, who have every right to take to the streets to protest the enormous failure of the Greek government, but it is the “hooded, anarchistic youth” that subvert, contaminate and corrupt what should be peaceful assembly. Regardless, the street protests do not lessen the failure of the Greek government. Worse above the intra-national events, apparently a large number of Greek citizens expect, nay demand, the Germans cover the shortfall in their largesse as some form a guilt reparations for the Nazi transgressions of 70 years ago. I do not give the Greeks a pass for what they have done to themselves.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I share your assessment of Rick Santorum. If I were to meet him somewhere without knowing anything about him, I would think from the quotes you gave that he had some mental condition. I would never dream that he would be allowed to run for President.
What you call “moral projection” is, I think, what I mean by “self righteousness.”
I am not a Constitutional scholar, so I will skip that debate. However, I will share my opinion that the Gettysburg address was a political/motivational speech, not intended for a legal debate.
Calvin,
Anyone who qualifies can run for president. Santorum meets the constitutional qualifications. I defend his right to speak his mind and to espouse his personal beliefs, just as you and I do every week. I cannot imagine giving him my precious vote on some nebulous trust that he would seek compromise solutions to our social issues.
Moral projection is far more serious than self-righteousness in my mind. The latter is an inner confidence or even an evangelical preaching element. The former is using the power of the State, the weight of the law, to impose and enforce his moral choices upon every citizen. The latter is very much steeped in our freedom of speech; the former is contrary to the very essence of this Grand Republic and the Constitution.
You are a citizen. You do not need to be a constitutional scholar to develop and debate the issue of Union and secession. The contributor used the Gettysburg Address as a vehicle, an agent, to debate the larger question of secession. I also held up Lincoln’s motivation speech as admirable words – a convenient target. The question of debate remains secession.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment