Update from the
Heartland
No.699
4.5.15 – 10.5.15
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The surviving Tsarnaev brother was convicted on all 30
charges, including capital terrorism [695],
for his part in the Boston Marathon bombings [592]. The penalty
phase of his trial is underway. The
defense argument that Dzhokhar should be spared the death penalty because he
was unduly influenced by his older brother Tamerlan is so bloody bogus, i.e.,
the devil made me do it, or the masked grandma stole my homework. Really!?! Give me a break!
I hope the jury does what must be done. However, since the trial is being conducted in Boston, Massachusetts,
I expect the jury will accept the argument and decide upon life in prison for Tsarnaev’s
punishment.
-- As the mighty cogs of the U.S. Supreme Court turn slowly
on the four, state, marriage cases before them, opinion-writer Cal Thomas felt
compelled to offer his perspective.
“Supreme Court should not redefine marriage”
by Cal Thomas
Wichita Eagle
Published: Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Dear ol’ Cal e re-illuminated the ‘millennia’ query of
Justice Kennedy [698]. He is also concerned about opening the
door to polygamists and other non-traditional marriage arrangements. Cal draws attention to Justice
Kennedy’s reasoning in his United States v. Windsor [570 U.S.
___ (2013)] [606], which is rather
odd, since Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court in the narrow 5-4 decision
that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 {21.9.1996}[547] as unconstitutional. Cal concluded, “If we erase the
boundaries that have guided humanity for generations, we weaken our society,”
which is Cal’s reply to Justice Kennedy’s ‘millennia’ question. Like so many of these morality issues
in the law and thus before the Court, I see the issue in far broader terms,
e.g., Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)]{22.1.1973}[319] was not just about abortion, it
was far more about a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy in making very
personal medical decisions regarding her body and her life. So it is here. This case(s) is much more than
marriage. It is the rights of
individual citizens versus the power of the State to impose upon the private
lives of citizens. Cal, and
probably a majority of American citizens, believe to their very core and soul
that anything other than monogamous, bilateral, heterosexual, traditional
marriage is wrong, not just for themselves but for every single citizen; and,
like Cal, they believe so strongly they want the full force and weight of the
federal government to enforce their beliefs and opinions. I cannot predict the outcome of the
Supremes’ deliberations. Yet,
since Cal Thomas offered his opinion from his bully pulpit, I shall offer mine
from the meager platform available to me.
The State has exceeded its authority under the Constitution and the
principles that founded this Grand Republic when it imposed its morality upon
what is predominately, and nearly totally, a private matter with respect to
decisions that citizens should be free to make on how they wish to live their
private lives. Thus, federal,
state and local laws that infringe upon an individual’s freedom of choice are
unconstitutional . . . as long as those choices cause no injury or harm to
others, and they are made freely without coercion or intimidation. Now that I have said all that, perhaps
ol’ Cal is correct . . . the Supreme Court should not redefine marriage . . . I
will add, neither should government.
Marriage is a private contractual matter between consenting adults, not
an issue for state intervention.
Full stop!
On Tuesday, both chambers of Congress
passed an odd resolution [S.Con.Res.11; Senate: 51-48-0-1(0); House: 226-197-0-9(3)]
that some folks have touted as the first federal budget since 2009. This resolution will not be submitted
to the President. It is only a
“blueprint” for future budgetary legislation . . . well, at least that is what
some elements of the Press have labeled S.Con.Res.11. I am really struggling with the wisdom
of this apparently meaningless gesture.
Both chambers of Congress spent valuable time crafting this
document. The only discernible
purpose to S.Con.Res.11 is simply an extravagant shot-across-the-bow
to the Administration, as an attempt to dictate to the Executive the only
acceptable constraints by which to operate the government. This smacks of Congress wanting to run
the government despite the Constitution’s separation of powers.
The 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals in New York City rendered its judgment in the case of ACLU
v. Clapper [2CCA 14‐42‐cv (2015)]
– the appeal of ACLU v. Clapper [USDC NY SD case no. 13 Civ. 3994 (WHP) (2013)] {27.12.2013} [632], which supported the government’s position in the application
of §215 telephonic metadata collection and analysis program. The three-judge panel reversed the
district court decision and declared the NSA metadata program
unconstitutional. I have not yet
read the decision; it is in my “to be read” folder. The case is destined for the Supremes, I do believe.
In yet another interesting congressional
action, the Senate decided to fire its own shot at the Executive, in this
instance [H.R. 1191; Senate: 98-1-0-1(0)]. The Senate commandeered H.R. 1191, which the House had
passed as the Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act by
a vote of 415-0. The Senate gutted
everything beyond the bill number and passed what they titled as the Iran
Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, demanding Senate approval for any
agreement with Iran, even though the “agreement” is not a treaty, under the
authority of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution – “Advise
and Consent” of the Senate for treaties.
The bill must go back to the House to be voted on in its new form,
before it goes to the President.
Presuming the House passes it by a veto-proof majority, the proposed law
will go to the President. I would
still recommend the President veto H.R. 1191 as a symbolic gesture against the
overreach of Congress and force it to the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional
violation of separation of powers.
This one could get very interesting. Stay tuned!
The attempted jihadist terrorist attack
in Garland, Texas, last Sunday, instigated some rather intriguing conversations
and debates. By my perception, the
majority of the Press coverage and pronouncements of various talking heads
chose to focus their inquisition on Pamela Geller for her “antagonism” of Islam
via the “draw the Prophet Mohammed” contest conference she promoted. The discussion seems to have taken on a
rather disturbing tone – the consequences of “political correctness” taken
beyond the threshold of tolerance.
The same Press has no qualms maligning the Catholic Church with respect
to its political stance on a wide variety of social or moral issues, or its
conduct in the priesthood sexual conduct tragedy, but heaven forbid we might
offend Islam. Islamic countries
like Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan or Indonesia, have
every right to define acceptable public conduct in their countries. If an American citizen chooses to visit
an Islamic country (or any other country for that matter), he is obligated to
observe and oblige the laws and customs of that country. Americans do NOT have the right or
moral authority to export our laws, our customs & practices, to other
countries, Islamic or not.
Conversely, an immigrant’s or visitor’s religious proclivities
absolutely DO NOT give them any right or basis of objection for public conduct
in this country they find offensive.
I have lived and worked in a few other countries in my life, and I have
visited many more beyond those. I
have always tried to obey the laws and customs in those countries, and further
I tried within my, albeit limited, capacity to speak the local language. The Catholic Church heavily influences
life in virtually every aspect of public conduct in Italy, for example. I was “offended” by some of that
religious imposition, but I had no right whatsoever to disobey that imposition;
my choices were obey or leave. The
same applies to Muslims living in the United States, or Denmark, or France. Their religion does NOT give them
special protections. Geller did
not incite violence. Those two
perpetrators chose to violently demonstrate their offense. Thank goodness for the excellent
marksmanship of the local police officers, both perps died before they carry
out their violent intentions. I
find little value in Geller’s conference, but I will defend her right to do
exactly what she did. I may not
agree with Geller, but I must say she has handle this controversy in a far more
elegant manner than those who have condemned her in the name of “political
correctness.”
News from the economic front:
-- The Reserve Bank of Australia cut its benchmark interest
rate by 0.25% to a record low 2.00% –the second rate cut this year – as the
central bank moves to shore up economic growth amid falling commodity prices.
-- The Commerce Department reported the U.S. trade deficit
widened by 43.1% to a seasonally adjusted US$51.37B – the largest trade gap in
nearly two decades – suggesting that international commerce was a significant
drag on U.S. economic growth.
-- The National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China
reported that exports fell 6.2% in April from a year earlier, after a
drop of 14.6% in March. Imports
also fell more than expected, reflecting weaker domestic demand, down 16.1% in
April from a year earlier, compared with a 12.3% decrease in March. The data reflects broad global
resistance to economic growth.
-- The Labor Department reported U.S. nonfarm payrolls grew
a seasonally adjusted 223,000 in April, rebounding from an anemic March – 85,000
jobs revised down from the previously reported 126,000 jobs. The department also revised the February
payroll to 266,000, up from the previously reported 264,000. The unemployment rate ticked down to
5.4% in April from 5.5% in March. The
jobless rate is moving closer to the Federal Reserve's expectation of ‘full’
employment, which it pegs between 5.0% and 5.2%.
-- The People's Bank of [the People’s Republic of] China cut
its benchmark interest rate by 0.25%, its third reduction since November last
year amid slowing economic growth.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.698:
"Thanks again Cap. Been a little slack of late. Isn’t there always
so much going on in our ‘retired service’ life’s! Too much.
"I remember your comment of some weeks ago talking of an impending
election and its incumbent political hassle. ‘Hey Ho, let the fun begin’. The
fun, as you called it I believe in a disparaging way, has been on the gas
burner here in U/K for several weeks now. I believe the majority of the
electorate are sick to the back teeth of the shenanigans of our politicians,
two parties of which may well be neck and neck in the polls. Should one believe
them. Well it will all be decided on Thursday next, the traditional day of our
General Elections.
Claims and counter claims have been abundant. ‘’We will spend more
on the Health Service.’ ‘We won’t put up taxes’ etc etc.
"We are as a nation are still, somewhat successfully, clawing our
way out of the monetary sticking pit wrought upon us by the clowns ‘running’
the banks and that my friend is the only way to continue. My view is, as I feel
yours might be, ‘if you aint got it don’t spend it’.
"However Cap, as you said, ‘Let the fun begin’. I’ll update you.
"Oh and don’t, whatever you guys do, cut the budget for NASA."
My reply:
Re:
slack of late. I must confess, I
have not devoted as much time to Update topics. My “To Be Read” file of court cases continues to grow. Since retirement, I have been more
focused on my books of late. I try
to keep up, but alas, I am only a flawed and limited man. As always, you are always welcome to
advance any topic that strikes your fancy.
Re:
UK elections. Yes, y’all are deep
into it. Only a few more days to
go. One blessing in the Motherland
. . . your election seasons are established by law to be confined to a
comparatively short time. Vote
well and be thankful for your blessings.
Re:
politicians. They share traits
world-wide it appears . . . they are quite adept at promising to spend other
people’s money.
Re:
NASA funding. I agree. I am doing my part.
. . . follow-up comment:
"Agree your points re retirement! I can only admire the devotion
that you apply to your writing. I only wish I could knuckle down to it myself.
There are certainly far too many distractions in my life and I suspect yours
too.
"What do we do? Well not a politician!
"I’ve often wondered if we could run our nations without them. No I
don’t mean a military government. Maybe a body of the elected and a sprinkling
of voting Non-Elected but well qualified people to sustain the belief that we
the people need to have in the governing body.
"A job for you young sir!"
. . . my follow-up reply:
Retirement,
to me, is about enjoying life and engaging your passions. For some, it is gardening; for others,
fishing; for yet others, sitting on the couch watching television. For me, it is writing. I truly love the process from
conception and research to telling the story. I am not particularly keen on the editing process, but it is
an inextricable part of writing.
Part of my “arrangement” with Jeanne is, the pre-dawn hours are mine;
the workday hours are for writing, although necessary distractions do occur,
and the evenings and weekends are together. The process works for us, for me. I am home, so close at hand, if needed, but I am not under
foot.
The
key to writing is devoting / dedicating time, whatever time you can set aside –
one hour, ten minutes, whatever, whenever – to just write.
The
problem we face with politics is money.
As long as so much money is “available,” corruption cannot be far
away. Human beings are flawed,
weak creatures, and infinitely susceptible to the corruption of money. We must figure out a way to separate
governmental action – legislative, executive and judicial – from the money. The only check we have is our
vote. I once thought term limits
would be useful, but all that would do is make the corruptibility of staffers
even more pronounced than it already is.
The re-election seduction yields flawed men who are more focused on
re-election than doing what is best for this Grand Republic. At the end of the day, we must resist
becoming cynical as we observe the weaknesses of mankind.
I
would never succeed as a politician.
I have learned that my aversion to putting my hand into other people’s
pockets is simply too strong and pervasive. I struggle with marketing my own books for the very same
reason.
Comment to the Blog:
“Justice Kennedy's argument against same-gender marriage based on ‘millennia
of tradition’ is strikingly unoriginal. That exact appeal has been used to
support slavery and many other injustices. Usually Kennedy knows better than
that.
“The violence in Baltimore is perhaps inexcusable but is certainly
understandable. A couple of additional points merit consideration, however.
“The first is the origin of the worst rioting, on the first day. A
central factor in that is the police method of preparing for violence they were
certain would occur. They shut down bus service, thus trapping students downtown
who could not get home from school. Student frustration ensued, of course.
“Another fact worthy of consideration is that this was not an
isolated incident. Over 100 people had been killed by Baltimore police since
2010. Nobody sane would want to continue that, but it continued anyhow. Perhaps
the feeling in play was a desperate need to bring attention to this pattern.”
Comment to the Blog:
Re:
millennia. Precisely the
point. Perhaps he was just baiting
the plaintiffs to hear their arguments.
We will know, or at least we should know, by the end of June.
Re:
Baltimore violence. I am afraid it
is long past understandable . . . looting a local, pharmacy . . . really? Perpetual resentment . . . well, then,
storm the Bastille rather than loot the bakery.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Cal Thomas continues struggling to hold back the tide. As a history buff, I find it annoying that Justice Kennedy and others would use “millenia,” which exposes their ignorance of the history they cite. Millenia ago, marriage little resembled today's emotional and individual commitment. It was a joining of family business interests, not expected to be emotionally rewarding except by coincidence. Another change is that nowadays civil society may sanction marriages as well as religious organizations, and that changes the institution's place in the larger society. Worse yet, I suspect Justice Kennedy and Mr. Thomas are attempting an underhanded citing of the Bible. That document does not support monogamy. If we look to Abraham for our best example, the founder of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam was not monogamous sexually, and that is a key point in his story. Other examples of polygamy and/or open concubinage abound. More to the topic at hand, the Bible is subject to interpretation in its treatment of non-heterosexuals, and various quotes and analyses are in use to support differing views.
I agree with you that the issue at hand exceeds even the important one of marriage. The underlying question is one of general equal treatment. Those ignorant people trying to use history as their tool ignore the fact that history concerns change, not stasis. I believe that change, over the very long term (millenia) tends to more equality among people and less personal and societal violence. However, I disagree with you on the opinion of the majority of the American people. At the time of the Stonewall action in the late 1960s, the great majority surely opposed equality for non-heterosexual people. Forty-some years down the line, the opposition is a vocal minority that is mostly seen by the rest of us as hateful.
The Congress's latest odd resolution, the budget blueprint, continues a pattern that began the night election returns in 2008 showed that Obama had won. The good of the nation lost its priority with the Republican Party that night, replaced by hatred of President Obama that has not abated. The over-reaching by Congress is another part of the same aggression.
The attack on the anti-Islamic art show in Garland, Texas, is the first one that follows a realistic pattern. I imagine that it was an authentic effort by “lone wolf” extremists. Official America protects free speech whether or not it is offensive, and that is appropriate. The attackers met the fate one would expect if no outside factors influenced the event. I gather it's necessary to point out that the Catholic Church has not been presented as a threat to the United States by our government and its people have not been held in extra-legal prisons, bombed, profiled, or otherwise attacked. Claims that the US only seeks to punish or prevent “extremist” Islamic attackers ring hollow to those on the receiving end of the bombs and the rest of it.
I noted with interest the discussion on writing in your comment section. I seem not to have that “passion” around writing so many writers discuss. I experience writing as an easy flow of words and ideas, but not as something that gives me an identity or other great emotional rewards. Editing is a useful skill that I often enjoy for its ability to clarify and strengthen ideas. Others laud my writing in a variety of venues and situations. However, both the willingness and the ability to market and sell my writing are entirely absent in me. I have an odd learning disorder that may account for that, but whatever the cause my writing ability is not matched by a drive to reach an audience.
Calvin,
Re: Justice Kennedy. Again, I suspect that his ‘millennia’ query was a baiting exercise to test the arguments of the petitioners, rather than a implicit personal comment regarding his attitude toward non-heterosexual marriage. Nonetheless, we shall probably know his opinion in a couple of months.
Re: marriage. Good points all. Plain and simple, women and children were traditionally considered property of the husband / father – the patriarch of the family. Our society rejected the Doctrine of Coverture at least a quarter century ago and could be argued the rejection was nearly a century ago. The traditional argument is flat bogus.
Re: equality. Glad we agree. The marriages cases are about respect for every citizen and equality for all under the law. Full stop!
Re: budget. Again, well said. I will add the mindlessness of partisan, parochial, political attacks of President Obama were, in my humble opinion, the exact flip-side of the equally mindlessness attack on President Bush (43) during the prior administration. I can only hope I live long enough to see respectful opposition return to government and politics.
Re: jihadists. I’m not quite sure what your point is on this one. A little additional clarification might be useful.
Re: religion. I will note my previously espoused observation that Islam is about 600 yrs behind Christianity in terms of maturation. Both religions have claimed there is only ONE true God – theirs. For Christians, that exclusivity is represented by Jesus of Nazareth; for Muslims, exclusivity is represented by Abū al-Qāsim Muhammad ibn Abd Allāh ibn Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hāshim. Six hundred years ago, disparaging Jesus would have resulted in your violent death. Christianity has matured since those days. Islam will mature as well. I will argue that tolerance of dissent is critical to testing our faith. Muslims will eventually figure that out and will condemn the violent element among them.
Re: writing. It means something different to all of us. Fortunately for us, you like to write and express your opinions and perspective. Thank you very much.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment