Update from the Heartland
No.537
26.3.12 – 1.4.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
“Fugitive Slave Mentality”
by Robert Gooding-Williams
New York Times
Published: March 27, 2012; 9:45 pm
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/fugitive-slave-mentality/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120328
The article got me ta thinkin’.
What if George Zimmerman’s statement is correct? Does the reverse lynch mob make us feel any better? The public relations blitz carried out on behalf of Trayvon Martin is as impressive as it is misguided and premature. I have felt from the get-go that we did not know sufficient facts to condemn Zimmerman, but so we have in a very large way. I do not know what happened that night. I do not know how events escaladed to the death of a young man. What I do know is my intuition does not like the image that is slowly coalescing. Based on the little that I believe is factual, I am leaning slightly toward self-defense rather than innocent victim. While I advocate for justice, whatever that may be, I am far more concerned about the cacophony against the 2nd Amendment and against a citizen’s right to defend himself.
An interesting follow-up opinion from Chris Hedges [536]:
“Totalitarian Systems Always Begin by Rewriting the Law”
by Chris Hedges
Truthdig | Op-Ed
Published: Monday, 26 March 2012; 09:06
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8095-chris-hedges-%7C-totalitarian-systems-always-begin-by-rewriting-the-law
There are more than a few Americans who believe in synch with Hedges. Just as there is a substantial number of citizens who vehemently disagree with Chris. In a general sense, I share his concern for the potential abuse of a well-intentioned law. He actually wants us to believe the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) [PL 112-081; 125 Stat. xxxx; 31.December.2011] is actually also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill, as if Congress and the President have conspired to ignore the Posse Comitatus Act [PL 45-263; 20 Stat. 145 (18.June.1878)] [199] and deploy the military for domestic law enforcement activities. As it seems with most arguments, I suppose Chris assumes none of us will actually read or check his “facts.” Well, if so, he was wrong. As he suggested, I did read §§1021 & 1022 of the NDAA, among other sections. The highlighted sections of NDAA, Division A, Title X, Subtitle D are titled, Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force [§1021], and Military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists [§1022]. In fact, the whole of Title X, Subtitle D deals with counterterrorism activities. Two key foundational elements are missing from Hedges’ argument. 1.) We are at war. We have been at war at least since Congress passed and the President signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force [PL 107-040, 115 Stat. 224; 18.September.2001]. I recognized the fact is distasteful to some folks, but that does not alter reality. 2.) He conveniently ignores the context of history. There is a list of laws passed and enforced in virtually every major war fought by this Grand Republic that deal with support for the enemy during wartime. This war is no different from its predecessors. This is not to say that I disagree with Chris Hedges. We have every reason in a free society to question broad, ill-defined laws that can be easily utilized far beyond their original intent. Unfortunately, the weak and flawed men, given authority to enforce the laws, all too often use the yield from that enforcement for political or other purposes. Yet, a journalism degree, credential, job or assignment does not give anyone license to support the enemy, which in turn means, when you criticize the government during war, everyone must be careful not to jeopardize or infringe upon national security. I am critical of this administration and of every prior administration, but I do not expose essential instruments the State uses to wage war successfully. We have every reason to be attentive, inquisitive, critical and watchful, but we do not have the right to interfere with the State’s warfighting ability.
The Wall Street Journal reported that in the wake of the European bailout deal, Greece appears to be fracturing politically ahead of national elections, not yet scheduled but expected in April or May, raising the risk that the country will not be able to make the social and economic sacrifices still needed to keep it in the European Union (EU). The election appears to be shaping up as a public revolt against Greece's political establishment, which has backed the austerity policies that are the price of financial support from the EU and the International Monetary Fund. I would be willing to bet a dollar to donuts we are witness to the brutal consequences of rampant socialism. My opinion: the people of Greece have become all too accustomed to the “generosity of the State” without appreciating the consequences of such largesse. This is not to say socialism cannot work; I think Sweden is a positive example in that sense. The coming national elections will be an enlightening litmus test. We shall see.
A good friend and consistent contributor to this humble forum sent this:
“This is an article I've wanted to see for a long time on age of consent laws. She is thorough and rational.”
The article:
“Legislating Teen Sex: What's (Terribly) Wrong With Our Age of Consent Laws”
by Martha Kempner
RH Reality Check
Published: March 27, 2012 - 8:51am
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/03/legislating-teen-sex-age-consent-laws-send-young-men-to-jail-consensual-sex
The read the article and provided my comment.
I concur without qualification.
I have written numerous times about the gross injustice of cases like Genarlow Wilson [307], Maouloud Baby [332], and too many others.
I learned a few things from her treatise, which reinforce my shared opinion with her. Like virtually all of the morality laws, the State has attempted to enforce the opinions of a vocal minority.
She does touch on the influence of the U.S. Temperance movement. However, I think she understates the importance and impact of the Victorian era on morality in general and specifically the age of consent laws. The 1275 English law [1275 (3 Edw. 1) C A P. XIII] got it closer to correct at age 12. We tend to think children (i.e., <18yo) do not have the ability to consent; yet then, on 18y + 1d, they do. The reality is the age of consent is not age dependent but rather education dependent. The age of consent laws appear to me as parental abdication to the State and a desire to enforce the least common denominator of Victorian morality, i.e., sex should only exist in adult, heterosexual, monogamous marriage, and even then for procreation only.
Neither you nor I have the power or influence to change the law. Yet, the more we discuss these issues in the public domain, the more we can raise the voices of reform.
. . . to which I received this reply:
“You add some good points to what she said, especially the malevolent influence of the Victorian Era. The additional good news is that RH (Reproductive Health) is a relatively mainstream and feminist organization. I'm beginning to think the tide may turn, at least to a degree, while you and I are still around to see it.”
. . . along with my closing response:
I noticed that and went via the links. I sure hope you are correct in that the tide is turning. Like you, I hope we are both around to see it.
In the trail of my reading of Hall v. DeCuir [95 U.S. 485 (1877)] [535], I was compelled to re-read Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896); no. 210] and delve into the underlying history. So the story goes, Homer Adolph Plessy was specifically recruited by a committee of citizens to challenge a then recently enacted Louisiana segregation law, principally because Plessy was 7/8 white, called an “octoroon” in the language of that day. The law in question was the Louisiana Act of 1890, No. 111, p. 152 – provided, "all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this State, shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations." The law had been enacted on 10.July.1890. On 7.June.1892, Plessy paid for a first-class passage on the East Louisiana Railway from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. He boarded the train and took his seat. The conductor decided Plessy was not sufficiently white and ordered him to the “colored” railcar. He refused and was arrested, tried and convicted. The appeals affirmed his conviction and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts. Associate Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the majority and the Court. Frankly, his judicial reasoning is not worthy of further contemplation. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenter and wrote an impassioned indictment of the majority’s decision. The DeCuir decision was not even mentioned, despite the similarity of appeals. Harlan reminded us of our foundational history when he quoted Sir William Blackstone, “Next to personal security, the law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.” Commentaries, Book I (1765), Chapter 1 -- Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals, page 130. Harlan added, “But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” And yet, the Court did reinforce a de facto caste system. He prophesied the demise of the Plessy ruling, but it took another 58 years to overrule this decision, and some would argue the struggle continues to this very day. Harlan concluded, “We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow citizens, - our equals before the law.” The contrasts between the DeCuir (1877) and Plessy (1896) cases are dramatic and stark. In the former, Louisiana conformed and tried to enforce equality only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court, then in the latter case, 20 years later, the same state imposed Jim Crow segregation in defiance of the Constitution, and the Court defended and supported the state. Our ancestors had the opportunity to realize the principles upon which this Grand Republic was founded. The Supremes failed to stand up to the mark. It took another century to achieve the objectives of our heritage. The contrast in these two cases also illuminates brightly the ideological debate within the Judiciary and the public regarding so-called judicial activism and strict constructionism. If you believe the Constitution only supports federal authority über alles, then it is easy to ignore the rights of citizens and ignore the excesses of states. The rights of Josephine DeCuir and Homer Plessy mattered not to the Supremes of that day, only the maintenance of the status quo.
News from the economic front:
-- Euro-zone finance ministers announced an agreement to expand their transitional crisis lending instrument – the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) – to €700B (US$931B). By June 2013, the EU plans for the EFSF to cease making new loans. The permanent fund, the European Stability Mechanism, will be capped at €500B.
-- Spain proposed a 2012 budget that seeks to cut its deficit by €27B (US$36B) through spending cuts and a tax increase on large companies. Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaria said the budget calls for cutting central-government ministry spending by an average of nearly 17%, describing the budget as severely austere but essential.
Comments and contributions from Update no.536:
Comment to the Blog:
“I see the overriding civil liberty issue as Obama’s self-proclaimed ‘right’ to kill US citizens without due process. Consider that these people need not be terrorists, criminals, or anything else threatening. Without due process, we have no way to know, but we know that we could be next.”
My response to the Blog:
Taken to its logical (or illogical, depending upon one’s perspective) extreme, I shall concede your point. However, citizenship does not offer license to wage war on this Grand Republic. I have no objection to and I am comfortable with President Obama’s action in the case of Anwar al-Awlaqi & Samir Khan (30.9.2011). The salient question to the rest of us is where do we draw the line? To my knowledge, there is no defined limit. Nonetheless, I truly believe that al-Awlaqi would have had his day in court if he had surrender to U.S. law enforcement or he was in the United States and subject to arrest. He was not and he was waging war against the United States. We face similar questions with journalists like Chris Hedges – where are the limits?
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
“Fugitive Slave Mentality”
by Robert Gooding-Williams
New York Times
Published: March 27, 2012; 9:45 pm
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/fugitive-slave-mentality/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120328
The article got me ta thinkin’.
What if George Zimmerman’s statement is correct? Does the reverse lynch mob make us feel any better? The public relations blitz carried out on behalf of Trayvon Martin is as impressive as it is misguided and premature. I have felt from the get-go that we did not know sufficient facts to condemn Zimmerman, but so we have in a very large way. I do not know what happened that night. I do not know how events escaladed to the death of a young man. What I do know is my intuition does not like the image that is slowly coalescing. Based on the little that I believe is factual, I am leaning slightly toward self-defense rather than innocent victim. While I advocate for justice, whatever that may be, I am far more concerned about the cacophony against the 2nd Amendment and against a citizen’s right to defend himself.
An interesting follow-up opinion from Chris Hedges [536]:
“Totalitarian Systems Always Begin by Rewriting the Law”
by Chris Hedges
Truthdig | Op-Ed
Published: Monday, 26 March 2012; 09:06
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8095-chris-hedges-%7C-totalitarian-systems-always-begin-by-rewriting-the-law
There are more than a few Americans who believe in synch with Hedges. Just as there is a substantial number of citizens who vehemently disagree with Chris. In a general sense, I share his concern for the potential abuse of a well-intentioned law. He actually wants us to believe the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) [PL 112-081; 125 Stat. xxxx; 31.December.2011] is actually also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill, as if Congress and the President have conspired to ignore the Posse Comitatus Act [PL 45-263; 20 Stat. 145 (18.June.1878)] [199] and deploy the military for domestic law enforcement activities. As it seems with most arguments, I suppose Chris assumes none of us will actually read or check his “facts.” Well, if so, he was wrong. As he suggested, I did read §§1021 & 1022 of the NDAA, among other sections. The highlighted sections of NDAA, Division A, Title X, Subtitle D are titled, Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force [§1021], and Military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists [§1022]. In fact, the whole of Title X, Subtitle D deals with counterterrorism activities. Two key foundational elements are missing from Hedges’ argument. 1.) We are at war. We have been at war at least since Congress passed and the President signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force [PL 107-040, 115 Stat. 224; 18.September.2001]. I recognized the fact is distasteful to some folks, but that does not alter reality. 2.) He conveniently ignores the context of history. There is a list of laws passed and enforced in virtually every major war fought by this Grand Republic that deal with support for the enemy during wartime. This war is no different from its predecessors. This is not to say that I disagree with Chris Hedges. We have every reason in a free society to question broad, ill-defined laws that can be easily utilized far beyond their original intent. Unfortunately, the weak and flawed men, given authority to enforce the laws, all too often use the yield from that enforcement for political or other purposes. Yet, a journalism degree, credential, job or assignment does not give anyone license to support the enemy, which in turn means, when you criticize the government during war, everyone must be careful not to jeopardize or infringe upon national security. I am critical of this administration and of every prior administration, but I do not expose essential instruments the State uses to wage war successfully. We have every reason to be attentive, inquisitive, critical and watchful, but we do not have the right to interfere with the State’s warfighting ability.
The Wall Street Journal reported that in the wake of the European bailout deal, Greece appears to be fracturing politically ahead of national elections, not yet scheduled but expected in April or May, raising the risk that the country will not be able to make the social and economic sacrifices still needed to keep it in the European Union (EU). The election appears to be shaping up as a public revolt against Greece's political establishment, which has backed the austerity policies that are the price of financial support from the EU and the International Monetary Fund. I would be willing to bet a dollar to donuts we are witness to the brutal consequences of rampant socialism. My opinion: the people of Greece have become all too accustomed to the “generosity of the State” without appreciating the consequences of such largesse. This is not to say socialism cannot work; I think Sweden is a positive example in that sense. The coming national elections will be an enlightening litmus test. We shall see.
A good friend and consistent contributor to this humble forum sent this:
“This is an article I've wanted to see for a long time on age of consent laws. She is thorough and rational.”
The article:
“Legislating Teen Sex: What's (Terribly) Wrong With Our Age of Consent Laws”
by Martha Kempner
RH Reality Check
Published: March 27, 2012 - 8:51am
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/03/legislating-teen-sex-age-consent-laws-send-young-men-to-jail-consensual-sex
The read the article and provided my comment.
I concur without qualification.
I have written numerous times about the gross injustice of cases like Genarlow Wilson [307], Maouloud Baby [332], and too many others.
I learned a few things from her treatise, which reinforce my shared opinion with her. Like virtually all of the morality laws, the State has attempted to enforce the opinions of a vocal minority.
She does touch on the influence of the U.S. Temperance movement. However, I think she understates the importance and impact of the Victorian era on morality in general and specifically the age of consent laws. The 1275 English law [1275 (3 Edw. 1) C A P. XIII] got it closer to correct at age 12. We tend to think children (i.e., <18yo) do not have the ability to consent; yet then, on 18y + 1d, they do. The reality is the age of consent is not age dependent but rather education dependent. The age of consent laws appear to me as parental abdication to the State and a desire to enforce the least common denominator of Victorian morality, i.e., sex should only exist in adult, heterosexual, monogamous marriage, and even then for procreation only.
Neither you nor I have the power or influence to change the law. Yet, the more we discuss these issues in the public domain, the more we can raise the voices of reform.
. . . to which I received this reply:
“You add some good points to what she said, especially the malevolent influence of the Victorian Era. The additional good news is that RH (Reproductive Health) is a relatively mainstream and feminist organization. I'm beginning to think the tide may turn, at least to a degree, while you and I are still around to see it.”
. . . along with my closing response:
I noticed that and went via the links. I sure hope you are correct in that the tide is turning. Like you, I hope we are both around to see it.
In the trail of my reading of Hall v. DeCuir [95 U.S. 485 (1877)] [535], I was compelled to re-read Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896); no. 210] and delve into the underlying history. So the story goes, Homer Adolph Plessy was specifically recruited by a committee of citizens to challenge a then recently enacted Louisiana segregation law, principally because Plessy was 7/8 white, called an “octoroon” in the language of that day. The law in question was the Louisiana Act of 1890, No. 111, p. 152 – provided, "all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this State, shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations." The law had been enacted on 10.July.1890. On 7.June.1892, Plessy paid for a first-class passage on the East Louisiana Railway from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. He boarded the train and took his seat. The conductor decided Plessy was not sufficiently white and ordered him to the “colored” railcar. He refused and was arrested, tried and convicted. The appeals affirmed his conviction and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts. Associate Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the majority and the Court. Frankly, his judicial reasoning is not worthy of further contemplation. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenter and wrote an impassioned indictment of the majority’s decision. The DeCuir decision was not even mentioned, despite the similarity of appeals. Harlan reminded us of our foundational history when he quoted Sir William Blackstone, “Next to personal security, the law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.” Commentaries, Book I (1765), Chapter 1 -- Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals, page 130. Harlan added, “But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” And yet, the Court did reinforce a de facto caste system. He prophesied the demise of the Plessy ruling, but it took another 58 years to overrule this decision, and some would argue the struggle continues to this very day. Harlan concluded, “We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow citizens, - our equals before the law.” The contrasts between the DeCuir (1877) and Plessy (1896) cases are dramatic and stark. In the former, Louisiana conformed and tried to enforce equality only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court, then in the latter case, 20 years later, the same state imposed Jim Crow segregation in defiance of the Constitution, and the Court defended and supported the state. Our ancestors had the opportunity to realize the principles upon which this Grand Republic was founded. The Supremes failed to stand up to the mark. It took another century to achieve the objectives of our heritage. The contrast in these two cases also illuminates brightly the ideological debate within the Judiciary and the public regarding so-called judicial activism and strict constructionism. If you believe the Constitution only supports federal authority über alles, then it is easy to ignore the rights of citizens and ignore the excesses of states. The rights of Josephine DeCuir and Homer Plessy mattered not to the Supremes of that day, only the maintenance of the status quo.
News from the economic front:
-- Euro-zone finance ministers announced an agreement to expand their transitional crisis lending instrument – the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) – to €700B (US$931B). By June 2013, the EU plans for the EFSF to cease making new loans. The permanent fund, the European Stability Mechanism, will be capped at €500B.
-- Spain proposed a 2012 budget that seeks to cut its deficit by €27B (US$36B) through spending cuts and a tax increase on large companies. Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaria said the budget calls for cutting central-government ministry spending by an average of nearly 17%, describing the budget as severely austere but essential.
Comments and contributions from Update no.536:
Comment to the Blog:
“I see the overriding civil liberty issue as Obama’s self-proclaimed ‘right’ to kill US citizens without due process. Consider that these people need not be terrorists, criminals, or anything else threatening. Without due process, we have no way to know, but we know that we could be next.”
My response to the Blog:
Taken to its logical (or illogical, depending upon one’s perspective) extreme, I shall concede your point. However, citizenship does not offer license to wage war on this Grand Republic. I have no objection to and I am comfortable with President Obama’s action in the case of Anwar al-Awlaqi & Samir Khan (30.9.2011). The salient question to the rest of us is where do we draw the line? To my knowledge, there is no defined limit. Nonetheless, I truly believe that al-Awlaqi would have had his day in court if he had surrender to U.S. law enforcement or he was in the United States and subject to arrest. He was not and he was waging war against the United States. We face similar questions with journalists like Chris Hedges – where are the limits?
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
