Update no.912

Update from the Sunland

No.912

1.7.19 – 7.7.19

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

            To all,

            Congratulations to the United States National Women’s Fußball Team on their glorious victory over the Netherlands, 2-0, to win the Women’s World Cup in Lyon, France, in consecutive championships and the fourth time in 28 years.  Well done, Ladies!  Now, to the U.S. Soccer Federation, please pay the ladies at least as much as the men, and I highly recommend higher pay for higher performance. Again, well done, Ladies!

            The follow-up news items:

-- The BIC is at it again!  In just days after the Supreme Court blocked the USG inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census {Commerce v. New York [588 U.S. ___ (2019)] [911]}, the BIC has directed the Justice Department to reverse their position and find a legal basis for the citizenship question, and boldly stated the USG would defy the Court and include the citizen question anyway.  In the BIC’s words:

The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question.

8:06 AM - 3 Jul 2019

 . . . and continued:

So important for our Country that the very simple and basic “Are you a Citizen of the United States?” question be allowed to be asked in the 2020 Census. Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice are working very hard on this, even on the 4th of July!

4:20 AM - 4 Jul 2019

As noted in Update no.911, the Constitution uses the word “persons,” not citizens in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and the 14^thAmendment.  The Justice Department has a daunting task ahead to satisfy the BIC’s whim.  While the citizenship question may seem logical and reasonable, it is actually wrong and unconstitutional.

-- Since the first Democratic Party debate last week [911], busing has jumped to the foreground of our public political intercourse.  Busing is not even on the list of serious issues before us these days.  However, I will say that some times brute force is required to carry out the necessary societal change.  The elimination of race as a factor of discrimination and segregation did not and has not changed by simple law.  The Constitution expunged slavery from our laws [13^thAmendment (1865) and 14^thAmendment (1868)], but those constitutional changes were not sufficient.  It took another 100 years (five generations) to realize the promise.  Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)] declared that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal.  The principle applies not just to the classroom, but life in general.  Even that was not enough.  We needed more pointed and explicit laws {Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352; 78 Stat. 241] and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [PL 89-110; 79 Stat. 437]} to enforce the constitutional equality guaranteed 100 years earlier and sealed with the blood of 500,000 American lives.

            In a broad, general sense, I am a state’s rights person in that I believe most issues should be addressed and resolved at the lowest level of governance possible.  However, as I have consistently voiced in this humble forum (and elsewhere), the limit and tolerance of my state’s rights stance reaches a hard terminus when it comes to individual freedom, liberty and rights, e.g., a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy exists beyond the common law and even the Constitution.  The government has no right to inject itself into our private lives and especially into our bodies, except when issues of injury or harm are involved in private matters.  Busing has been and remains a brute force governmental action, and a necessary one, since we are not yet a truly integrated society.  If integration had been left to the states, we would still be suffering segregation in the former CSA states.  If basic civil rights for non-heterosexual citizens had been left to the states, we would still have homophobic discrimination and violence (oh wait, we still do, because some folks cannot seem to grow up).  To me, the busing debate represents far more than racial integration; it is eradication of the social factors in public life, most notably in contemporary life, the on-going discriminations against non-heterosexual citizens in the guise of religious freedom.  Discrimination based on any one or combination of the social factors is wrong no matter what rationale is used to justify it, and busing school students to achieve integration was a necessary brute force tool.  We are making progress toward a more enlightened future, but we face the persistent resistance of those who want us to remain stuck in the past.

            OK, this has gone too far.  Now, we are supposed to reject and deny the original flag in use at our Founding.  The 13-stars & stripes flag, the so-called Betsy Ross flag, is NOT the Confederate States of America flag.  Yes, there were compromises necessary to form the Union at the Founding, but that does not mean the United States of America condoned slavery.  Only four of the original 13 states advocated for slavery.  Are we seriously going to indict the whole for the small-minded-ness of the minority?  The majority vigorously argued against the concession; however, the choice for them was a Union with compromise or no union. E pluribus unum!  It took 78 years and 500,000 precious American lives to remedy that compromise, but it was done within the Constitution.  Unfortunately, it took another 100 years to unravel the inbred discrimination created in the early days of this Grand Republic.  This is one of the most ridiculous kerfuffles I have seen in my years.

            In the spirit of trying to be balanced and find good things the BIC gets credit for, the Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by 224,000 in June, while the unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.7%, as more Americans returned to the labor force. Wages advanced 3.1% from a year earlier.

            I completed my review of the Supreme Court’s gerrymandering decision—Rucho v. Common Cause [588 U.S. ___ (2019); No. 18–422], and its companion case, Lamone v. Benisek [No. 18–726].  The Court was split 5-4, precisely along ideological lines with the Chief Justice writing for the majority, and Associate Justice Kagan writing for the dissenters.  The two cases were perfect, juxtaposed, judicial reviews of the exact same issue.  Rucho dealt with a gross example of politically partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina, favoring Republicans.  The Lamone case dealt with the exact same phenomenon in Maryland, favoring Democrats.  As cited by the Court, after the 2010 census, the North Carolina General Assembly gerrymandered congressional district lines on a blatantly political partisan basis. In the 2012 election, Republican candidates received 49% of the statewide vote, and yet won 9 of the State’s 13 congressional seats (69%) in the U. S. House of Representatives.  In 2014, Republicans garnered 55% of the vote and increased their total representation to 10 of the 13 seats (77%).  The results in Maryland were no less grotesque.  After the gerrymandering following the 2010 census, Democrats received 65% of the statewide congressional vote and won 7 of 8 House seats (88%), including the once-reliably-Republican Sixth District.   Other examples in Pennsylvania and Ohio were cited, but simply represent more of the same.

            The summary of this ruling did not do the decision and reasoning justice.  I held an opinion (not yet expressed) based on the summary [911] and foreknowledge going into my reading. Both the majority and dissent altered my opinion.  The justices appeared to be unanimous in their opinion that political partisanship (as displayed in the cases noted above) is unconstitutional.  Yet, where they disagreed rested upon what to do about it.  El Jefe cited the Court’s “political question” doctrine {Baker v. Carr [369 U.S. 186 (1962] [539]}, leaving the question open for a political solution.

            Chief Justice Roberts argued gerrymandering has been with us since before the Founding, as if it is a normal and natural part of our history.  I will note that slavery was a part of our history, since before the Founding, as well.  He also argues that nothing in the Constitution requires or even suggests proportional representation, and does not recognize political parties or affiliation.  Under the Constitution and the Court’s long-standing precedent, the Chief Justice noted that the Court can and does adjudicate cases of one-person-one-vote and racial discrimination cases.  The Court has strived mightily to avoid political partisanship and the political arena.  If it can adjudicate racial discrimination, why cannot it judge political affiliation discrimination?  If this was just a political question, i.e., wrangling between political parties, I would agree with the Chief Justice.  Unfortunately, it is not just political squabbling.  We are talking about every citizen's most fundamental right and responsibility in a representative democracy—voting. The process of gerrymandering is a political effort to manipulate the will of the People and their precious votes.  In principle, I agree with the Chief Justice that the Court should avoid choosing sides in a political matter; and yet, I also agree with Justice Kagan when she concluded her argument: “These artificially drawn districts shift influence from swing voters to party-base voters who participate in primaries; make bipartisanship and pragmatic compromise politically difficult or impossible; and drive voters away from an ever more dysfunctional political process.”

            Here is a suggestion: how about a bipartisan, independent commission chaired by a state supreme court justice to define districts without any consideration or reference to any one or combination of social factors, based solely upon census population counts.  For clarity, by social factors, I mean age, gender, race, skin pigmentation, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, political affiliation, marital status, or disability.  The Chief Justice illuminated a congressional effort to achieve just such independent commissions in the states—H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019.  What the Chief Justice chose not to mention is H.R.1 was passed by the House [234-193-0-5(3)] on the 8^th of March.  What has happened to H.R.1 since passage, you ask? Absolutely nothing!  The bill was received in the Senate and has been steadfastly stonewalled by Senate Majority Leader McConnell. Republicans do NOT want a fair, independent solution, as they desperately fight to hold onto political power.  The Chief Justice wants to highlight a political solution outside the Judiciary; and yet, his example brightly spotlights precisely Justice Kagan’s admonition.  While the political wrangling continues unabated, the rights of all American citizens have been sullied and diminished in favor of the political power of a declining minority.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.911:

Comment to the Blog:

“On Chump's version of diplomacy, once people realize you're all bluff and BS, they don't take you seriously anymore.  Too bad about the USA's international position.

“You and I have differing views on whether ‘the system is working,’ not just in aviation.  It's not working for the people who died in those crashes.

“What struck me about the debates was that the first night everyone focused on policy.  The second night Kamala Harris attacked, to her own benefit.  I'm not a Biden voter, but Harris, rather than state her own positions on race, hit Biden over something he did 44 years ago.  So far, I'll vote for one of the first-night candidates, probably Warren but maybe Castro or another progressive.

“You and I are aware of the Founders' fear of ‘factionalism.’  Unfortunately, they did little to prevent it.

“I see the phrase ‘whole number of persons’ in the Constitutional mandate for a census and read that as excluding anything that might cause any count less than the whole number of persons.  Some of the Constitution is really that simple.”

My response to the Blog:

            You got that right in spades, my friend. I think the world (except for his staunch & loyal followers) sees him as exactly what he is, a blustery bully who could not care less about anyone else.  I will also add, such a description is a pretty good definition of an Ugly American.  As the BIC’s administration continues, we approach, if we have not already passed, the point of no return regarding our reputation on the world stage. It is truly sad that in a matter of just a couple of years he has virtually single-handedly squandered our standing in the world community.

            Perhaps, your criticism may be a tad sharper than you intended.  My comments were not generalized beyond the aircraft certification process. I also believe you may have missed my qualifying adverb—finally.   The certification process clearly failed the crew and passengers on those two B737-MAX aircraft.  Those who caused or perpetrated that failure should be held criminally liable, full stop.

            I do not see Harris’s performance in the same light, I’m afraid.  Electability is one of the concerns among Democrats (and others); she needed to demonstrate she was not blinded by the light and capable of taking on the big dawg.  Her performance will probably play well for those among us who want the BIC soundly defeated. Way too early for me to favor anyone . . . other than anyone but the BIC.

            They did the best they could without being overly prescriptive and restrictive.  Our system of governance is not perfect and was never intended to be.  It was intended to be a sturdy foundation upon which future generations (us included) could build the structure.  If anything, I think it is we who have failed the Founders, not the other way around.

            I have always found it odd why they chose the adjective qualifier ‘whole,’ other than to emphatically countermand the three-fifths of non-free persons in the original wording.  My point was, in both the original and the amended language, they used the word ‘persons,’ not the word ‘citizens.’  I have not yet read the Commerce ruling, so I must be careful here; but, I am somewhat gobsmacked that the Supremes did not outright reject the administration’s initiative on that basis alone. Counting citizens is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.  For the strict constructionists, that ruling should have been extraordinarily easy and straightforward.

 . . . Round two:

“I understood that your comment concerned the aircraft certification process.  That process has only reached the point of correcting a past failure.  I have no reason to believe the process itself is working well enough to achieve its goal of safety in new aircraft.  My comment expanded on that to include regulation in the many government functions that have been turned over to corporations, such as automotive recalls and food safety.

“I don't think the Democrats will win general elections by attacking others, whether or not those attacks are justified.  They barely beat Roy Moore, for crying out loud.  Historically the Democrats have been losing seats back to the Bill Clinton era.  Real electability will consist of offering people something to vote for not against, consultants be damned.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            I will only say I believe your generalization is an unfair indictment of a process that has served the aviation industry and public safety well for decades.  I have confidence in the certification system.  While the public evidence is not sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt regarding Boeing’s specific failure in this instance, those facts have exceeded probable cause.  Several agencies of the federal government, including the Justice Department, are investigating Boeing’s conduct in the B737-MAX certification.  I trust and expect Boeing executives to be held accountable for the unreasonable pressure applied to the cognizant engineers.  That certification process failed to protect public safety, but that is not a sufficient reason to indict the whole process across multiple companies. That said, I do share your general, broad concern that the USG is abdicating to the for-profit corporations to do the necessary regulation, e.g., the banking system failure in 2008; that is not acceptable.

            I think most of us are agreed, simply attacking the opposition is not sufficient to win an election . . . except that is exactly what the BIC did three years ago.  He had no substantive plans or policies (and he still does not), and yet he was elected.  I believe you are seriously discounting Harris’s substantive policy statements. Her whole candidacy is not that 30 seconds on the stage last week.  I agree with you and I think she is offering all of us something to vote for. We have only just begun our extended silly season for next year’s election.  We have a long way to go.

 . . . Round three:

I'll note that while Trump had no clear or substantive policies, he offered his believers things beyond "lock her up."  He touted his tax cut, his "drain the swamp" claims, and his opposition to the (mostly imaginary) hordes of criminals crossing the southern border.  The fact that so many of us could see through all that didn't keep him from winning the election.  He was something more than the anti-Hillary, even though that something was and is mostly nonsense.  Likewise, the Democrats will have to be for something, not merely against Trump or each other.

 . . . my response to round three:

            The BIC campaigned on clichés and platitudes, not policies.  He simplistically touted The Wall, as if that would solve our immigration control and reform problem.  He sold his snake-oil tax cut as if it would benefit middle-class Americans. We are in agreement; a candidate must be for something, not just against the other guy.  62M American citizens voted for a man who was only hot air and bluster, devoid of substance.

Another contribution:

“Opened your URL on the N. Carolina argument, but still don’t understand what all the ashen debate is about?  Any help?

“Yes, your top man is seldom out of the news over here. Now then, many will see his smiles and handshakes with the Kim man as a huge step in the right direction but can those North Koreans be trusted. He runs the most dominated and brainwashed country on our planet. If we believe history then they cannot be trusted but Cap, we shall see.”

My reply:

            You asked: “Opened your URL on the N. Carolina argument but still don’t understand what all the ashen debate is about?”  I shall take the easy way out and further cite a Wikipedia article: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering.

I think the opening graphic on the right fairly well describes the issue with gerrymandering.  Also, there is an 1812 graphic on the topic a little farther down.  If that graphic does not answer your query, please come back to me.

            Yes indeed!  Well said.  History is not on the BIC’s side.  I walk a very fine line to praise his willingness to step outside the box; as the old saying goes, if we always do what we’ve always done . . .  I want him to be successful.  Now, we hear rumblings (nothing official, of course) that the BIC is considering totally and absolutely capitulating to the DPRK dictator with recognizing the rogue nation as a nuclear state—a freeze on their current inventory.  If he does that, it will be an incontrovertible failure.  Even more audacious, as the BIC floats that possibility, he slaps the IRI in the face for wanting to have what the DPRK has apparently just gained. I was not a fan of Obama’s Iran deal for a host of reasons, but at least he was trying to find a peaceful solution.  The BIC’s apparent capitulation to Kim is perhaps the single greatest motivation for the IRI to proceed post haste.  Even worse, the BIC is doing all this unilaterally; there is NO sign he has consulted or collaborated with our allies.  He is playing with international safety as if it is his own personal property to deal with as he chooses.  Outrageous is a grotesquely inadequate word here.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Thanks for your assistance with Gerrymandering.  Had a brief go at it.

“You will not believe what I’m about to say, but I guess it had to happen.

“We have lost our last WW2 Veteran aged 92 a Normandy D-Day soldier of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers.  The end of an era for us here.  It will be a big funeral for sure.

“That is our third death within 2 weeks of our Legion members.  A sad time indeed but we will move on-the sun will rise again.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            I suspect the phenomenon of gerrymandering is uniquely American.  Let it suffice to say, the process is a deliberate effort to dilute or negate opposition voters—very unfair and undemocratic.

            I am so sorry for your loss.  The end of an era indeed.  We still have a few left but not many.  The end comes to all of us, eventually. May God rest their immortal souls.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)