Update no.656

Update from the Heartland

No.656

7.7.14 – 13.7.14

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

Herzlichen Glückwunsch an die Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft in der 2014 Weltmeisterschaft.  Argentina’s Lionel Messier may be the proclaimed best futbol player in the world today, but the German team was clearly the best team in the world today.  The Germans gave a clinic on precision passing and ball control.  Their single goal at 113 minutes in extra time was a work of art.  Earlier, Germany’s drubbing of Brazil was history in the making and beyond belief, if I had not seen it live.  I must say I saw very little of Messier’s supposed brilliance.  Anyway, at least, now, we can get back to work.

All this brouhaha over illegal, minor children from Central America, predominately from Guatemala and Honduras, so they say, presents quite the conundrum.  Our history documents the root premise of this Grand Republic . . . to welcome the oppressed of the world.  The problem is, what is reasonable generosity and compassion, and what is being a chump and being taken advantage of in events.  In many respects, I think Central Americans understand our laws better than we do.  The challenge for us is sorting out the genuine threatened and oppressed from those who are looking for the angle.  There should be little doubt people come here in search of a better life.  Most of the rest of the world could have the same objective.  Mexico and Central America have an advantage over others in their proximity to the United States.  We clearly cannot accept, absorb, or even support all those seeking a better life.  So, where do we draw the line? 

As you may recall from Update no.647, I noted the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway [570 U.S. ___ (2014; No. 12-696], regarding the specific implementation of legislative prayer in the village of Greece, New York – population 94,000 and a suburb of Rochester.  In 1999, town supervisor John Auberger instituted an opening invocation after roll call and the Pledge of Allegiance.  At this level, Greece was consistent and compliant with Supreme Court applicable precedent in Marsh v. Chambers [463 U.S. 783 (1983)].  However, in 2007, Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens attended town board meetings to speak about issues of local concern.  They objected to the exclusive Christian prayer.  At one particular meeting, Galloway admonished board members that she found the prayers “offensive,” "intolerable,” and an affront to a “diverse community.”  In 2008, a Washington, D.C.-based religious freedom defense organization, Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Galloway and Stephens.

            Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the decision of the narrowly divided Court and wrote, “To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech, a rule that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town's current practice of neither editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact.”  He further observed, “The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech.”  Justice Anthony concluded, “Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.”  In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito concluded, “All that the Court does today is to allow a town to follow a practice that we have previously held is permissible for Congress and state legislatures. In seeming to suggest otherwise, the principal dissent goes far astray.”  Justice Thomas offered a rather shocking concurring opinion in which he concluded, “I would simply add, in light of the foregoing history of the Establishment Clause, that ‘[p]eer pressure, unpleasant as it may be, is not coercion’ either.”  Associate Justice Elena Kagan offered a spirited and cogent dissenting opinion.  She wrote, “So that when each person performs the duties or seeks the benefits of citizenship, she does so not as an adherent to one or another religion, but simply as an American . . . I think the Town of Greece's prayer practices violate that norm of religious equality--the breathtakingly generous constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian.”  She further observed, “In this country, when citizens go before the government, they go not as Christians or Muslims or Jews (or what have you), but just as Americans (or here, as Grecians).  That is what it means to be an equal citizen, irrespective of religion.  And that is what the Town of Greece precluded by so identifying itself with a single faith.”

            The Court’s slim majority chooses to see the good in people as well as the commonality of purpose in all American citizens.  Unfortunately, there are bad men among those who choose to become clerics, just as there are among other professions.  The Courts trusts that clerics chosen or who volunteer to give an invocation at a legislative session of Congress or a small village in upstate New York share the expansive, moderate, common ground of the Supreme Court.  Regrettably, life does not match the Court’s apparent Pollyanna perspective.  Religion is a private matter, between each of us as individuals and God, however each of us sees and believes in Him.  Religion helps us order our lives, find comfort amid the trials of life, and seek guidance in our journey through life.  At the end of the day, the Supreme Court got it wrong in this case.  The dissent was spot on . . . it was not the prayer, or even the content of the prayer that presented the constitutional issue in the City of Greece case, but rather the mechanics and paucity of any effort by the city board to avoid the condition of implied exclusion.

            Separately, I must illuminate the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas.  His perspective gives us perhaps the best view to date of the impact of strict fundamentalist thinking with interpretation of the Constitution.  He noted, “Construing the Establishment Clause as a federalism provision accords with the variety of church-state arrangements that existed at the Founding.  At least six States had established churches in 1789.”  Further, “Although the remaining state establishments were ultimately dismantled--Massachusetts, the last State to disestablish, would do so in 1833, that outcome was far from assured when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.”  We cannot debate his rendition of history; I do not dispute the facts he cites.  Yet, what we can question is his perspective regarding the intent of the Framers in constructing the Constitution with the words they chose.  Thomas went on to observe, “To my knowledge, no court has ever suggested that the Tenth Amendment, which "reserve[s] to the States" powers not delegated to the Federal Government, could or should be applied against the States.”  Further, “These provisions strongly suggest that, whatever nonestablishment principles existed in 1868 [14^th Amendment], they included no concern for the finer sensibilities of the ‘reasonable observer.’”  Apparently, to Thomas, the Constitution only applies to Federal conduct; the States should decide everything else, and We, the People, are on our own.  While I must acknowledge the literal basis of his position, I absolutely believe the Founders and Framers had and articulated a far broader and more expansive view on the Constitution, common law, and the foundation for growth of this Grand Republic.  As many of you know, I have been a states’ rights person.  Local governance is preferable to central dictation.  However, there is an over-arching foundation for that local governance, which at its very root includes freedom and justice for all, and a fundamental right to privacy in our choices in pursuit of happiness.  Justice Thomas’ view of this Grand Republic is quite exclusionary as if he believes people with power will always do the correct thing and what is best for all the people.  I cannot find support for his restricted view of our history beyond the literal interpretation of the words of the Constitution.

News from the economic front:

-- At their June policy meeting, the U.S. Federal Reserve has apparently decided to end the central bank's bond-buying program by October.  The action would close a chapter on a controversial experiment in central-banking history, begun in December 2008, in the depths of the Great Recession.  The Fed has been reducing their purchases of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities in incremental steps since January of this year.  Historians will debate whether the Fed’s action eased the severity of the recession.

Comments and contributions from Update no.655:

Comment to the Blog:

“I am glad you were able to reach the Eisenhower Library and do your research. Your learning will surely improve this blog and your other writings. Going there by motorcycle surely increased the rewards of that. I have been riding my bicycle for recreation as well as for transportation recently. The rewards of our off-road trail system here in Ohio parallel those of your road ride to a large degree.

“I have not yet acquired the patience to learn soccer, but I remain aware that it is the dominant sport in the balance of the world. I was actually taught that fact as part of my college course work.

“I agree with your linked articles on the Hobby Lobby decision. The Supreme Court has turned its basic Constitutional responsibility upside down. Rather than protect the weak from predation by the strong, they are “protecting” those who need no protection from those who already have little or no power. Justice Alito's notion that corporate personhood somehow protects the rights of the natural people running the corporations does not hold up in law or in morality. Justice Ginsburg effectively demolished that in her dissenting opinion. Probably our best hope for returning to the rule of law is that the more partisan Justices will retire or, in the case of Justice Thomas, be driven from office through scandal. They could then be replaced by more law-abiding Justices, if Obama were to act as a Democrat.

“The Hobby Lobby decision by its existence also highlights how sad and silly is the US way of paying for health care. Here in the United States we pay more for health care than any other nation but we come in thirty-ninth in health results. The nation as a whole is not acting in a capitalist mode, or we would get much more for our money.

“How Obama could have caused the collapse of the economy is beyond my understanding. That began before he took office. He may well have prolonged it, though. From my progressive viewpoint, he has continued Bush 43's policy of supporting the criminals who caused the crash and doing little or nothing for those who have lost houses, jobs, and money to the criminals. Those who have money they could use to build the economy will not invest in providing services or goods if the general public has no money to buy their output. We need to resuscitate the middle class and Obama has made no progress with that. Of course, he does not bear the full blame. Congress holds more power to do such things as re-regulate Wall Street or reinstate long-term unemployment benefits, and they do nothing useful.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Abilene trip.  Thank you.  Glad y’all have good bike trails.  Enjoy.

            Re: futbol.  They call it the beautiful game.

            Re: Hobby Lobby decision.  I need to read the associated opinions to properly form an opinion.  What I see in the Press does not look good to me.

            Re: Supreme Court justices.  Given the volatility of recent Court decisions and only a couple of years remaining of Obama’s final term, I doubt he would be able to push through any nomination without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, even the House could make things more difficult.

            Re: PPACA.  The Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College decisions do add confusion to an already confused situation.  It is going to take several years to let the dust settle down from all this.

            Re: Obama & economy.  The setup for the Great Recession of 2008 began in 1999.  The collapse certainly began before Obama was elected.  He inherited a mess; yet, some folks still blamed him.  I simply said, if we blame him, then let us give him some credit for the improving economy as well.  Yes, Congress set it up.  We, the People, ultimately pay the price.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)