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 [14th
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 :-)
