Reagan’s words to today’s “conservatives”

Would Ronald Reagan admonish today’s so-called “conservatives” with “There you go again”?

I supported and voted for John Anderson in 1980 because I saw him as a real Republican who was concerned with “res publica” (public things).  Rather than have a laundry list of “ills of what was wrong” he concerned himself with balancing issues.

Unfortunately the Republican Party has devolved into a blame machine in which Democrats can do no right.

If the Republicans were real conservatives, wouldn’t they be all in favor of considering many ideas rather than be in lockstep on one set of ideas?

If they were real conservatives, wouldn’t they read the Constitution very carefully instead of corrupting it to fit their own ideas?

If they were real conservatives, wouldn’t they heed Washington’s advice in his farewell address to avoid factions?

Once upon a time the Senate was called the “greatest deliberative body in the world.  Now it has a Majority of one who obstructs any legislation that he doesn’t like.

Gun Control

I wonder what the writers of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights would think of the Second Amendment being interpreted as:

The people have no right to regulate a militia of one person.

If you read through the Constitution you will find that the writers knew quite well the difference between “the people” and “a person”.

Posted to Nicholas Kristof's 2018-03-08 column on the Florida school shooting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opinion/parkland-florida-gun-control.html?comments#permid=26247237

Counter to “Republicans” and facts

Comment to Paul Krugman’s “Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias”, New York Times, 201-12-08

I think a counter-attack to these distorters of facts should be repeating over and over again their misinterpretation and misrepresentation of so many ideas.

To them, a free market means corporations are free to do what they please.  But a true free market is:

Many buyers and sellers.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter or leave the market.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need.
There are no externalities (all costs are paid for in the transactions

They cherry-pick “sacred” texts to suit themselves.

Adam Smith in “On the Wealth of Nations” observed the England had laws the prevent the workers from organizing to raise wages but none to prevent the masters from organizing to keep wages down.

Adam Smith warned that those who live by profit are not to be trusted.

“Originalist” judges have changed the Constitution to mean that corporations are people.

Hypocritic oath and an ignored reading

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

U.S. Constitution, Article VI

Somehow, we have a Congress that gave an oath to the Koch brothers and made sure they passed the religious anti-tax test of Grover Norquist.

Every year the Senate has a public reading of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and the next day they ignore what he wrote.  Maybe many of them stayed away during the reading or slept through it.

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.  Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it?  Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

"In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim."

Who has the U.S. become beholden to either as a friend or as an enemy: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Cuba .

Is National Prayer Breakfast Constitutional?

Donald Trump wants churches to speak freely about politics without concern about losing their tax-free status.  Will he apply this to all religious institutions, or only those he favors, like churches, but not mosques?

He is right that churches should have freedom of speech, but he is wrong that their freedom of speech should be subsidized by the taxpayers.

See “How Trump Would Corrupt the Pulpit”, Steven Waldman, New York Times, 2017-02-02.

Interestingly, he was speaking at an “unconstitutional” gathering: the National Prayer Breakfast.  Isn’t this a religious test for public office?  Doesn’t this kind of make those who don’t attend look irreligious?

See also http://magree.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-united-states-is-not-christian.html.

Why we have our electoral mess

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, supposedly in 1858.  See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:547?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.

The electoral college was one of the Constitutional stratagems slave owners used to protect themselves from the North taking away their slaves.  Another was counting slaves as three-fifths persons. This increased the number of representatives they got far beyond the number of actual voters.  Also basing the Senate on states rather than population, these less-populated states further increased their furtive power grab.

By increasing their relative state power in presidential elections, they hoped they could keep the end of slavery at bay.

They unleashed a long bloody war to protect this despicable practice. Unfortunately, they forgot the Constitutional provision that Congress could call out the militia to suppress insurrections.  (In our own time, Congress seemed to forget this provision in dealing with the Bundys.)

So, the Electoral College differs from democracy and the five victories because of the Electoral College in our country's history have differed from democracy.  Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party.  Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party.

See also "More on the Electoral College".

Trump was right, the election was rigged

But the rigging was not done by his opponents.

Let’s assume there are three states, East Coast, West Coast, and Flyover.  East Coast and West Coast each have a population of a million people.  Flyover has a population of two million.  Each of the three states has two Senators.  East Coast and West Coast each have one Representative in Congress; Flyover has two Representatives.

Therefore, East Coast and West Coast each have three electoral votes and Flyover has four electoral votes.  That is, East Coast and West Coast together have six electoral votes for a combined half of the nation’s population.  Flyover has four electoral votes for the other half of the population.

Now assume we have three candidates, Marsy, Dosy, and Lammsy.  Marsy and Dosy have large followings and Dosy has a couple of thousand.  The eligible voters in each state are 80% of the population, but turnout is only 50%.  That means that eight hundred thousand vote in East Coast and West Coast combined and eight hundred thousand vote in Flyover.

In East Coast and West Coast, Marsy got 49 percent of the vote, Dosy got 48, and Lammsy got three percent.  In Flyover Marsy got 40 percent, Dosy got 52 percent, and Lammsy got eight percent.  In numbers of votes, in the East Coast and West Coast, Marsy got 392,000 votes, Dosy got 384,000, and Lammsy got 24,000.  In Flyover, Marsy got 320 thousand, Dosy got 416 thousand, and Lammsy got 64 thousand.

Clearly, Dosy is the winner with 800 thousand votes against Marsy’s 712 thousand and Lammsy’s 90 thousand.  Wrong!  Marsy is the winner with six electoral votes as opposed to Dosy’s four electoral votes.

This “rigging” wasn’t done by anybody involved in this hypothetical election.  It was done in the Eighteenth Century with the approval of the Constitution.

Ironically, this “rigging” benefited the candidate who complained throughout his campaign that the election was “rigged”.

See also “The election was stolen, really!”

Revolution if Clinton Wins?

“Some Donald Trump Voters Warn of Revolution if Hillary Clinton Wins”
Ashley Parker and Nick Carasaniti, New York Times, 2016-10-27
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html

Those threatening "revolution" if Donald Trump loses the Presidential Election don't really know the U.S. Constitution.

As to the elections being "rigged" consider

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections...of its own Members..."

- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5

This means that the outgoing House and Senate get to judge the elections to keep themselves in office or to judge the fairness of the election of their replacements.  If the Clinton "landslide" many are predicting comes true, wouldn't many members of Congress be out of office?  Do you really think there are so many Republican members of Congress who believe the elections are "rigged" that they would nullify the election of their successors?  Given the number of congressional Republicans disavowing Trump, I seriously doubt they would nullify the election of their replacements.

As to having a "revolution" consider

"The Congress shall have the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to ...  suppress Insurrections..."

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section 8

Whatever the result of the election, would not most members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, be repulsed by an insurrection in support of a defeated Presidential candidate?

Bernie Sanders, second choice after none of the above

I really am not happy with our choice of Presidential candidates this year, but from all that I can read Bernie Sanders is far above being more interested in the people than the special interests.  It really is time we bring government back to "We the People" rather than "We the Corporations" or "We the special interests".

If you are for Bernie Sanders, before sure to vote even if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.  If you stay away because your first choice didn't get the nomination, consider that if you stay away that is one more vote for the party of the plutocrats.

That said, here is one of Bernie Sanders latest pronouncements about bringing government back to "We the People".

In the United States today, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, 47 million Americans are living in poverty.

Almost 22 percent of American children are poor and we have the highest child poverty rate of almost any major country on earth.

Let’s be clear. Living in poverty doesn’t just mean you don’t have enough money to buy a big screen TV, a fancy laptop, or the latest iPhone. It goes much deeper than that.

Living in poverty means you are less likely to have a good grocery store in your community selling healthy food. Far too often it means you don’t know where your next meal is going to come from. Living in poverty means you are less likely to have access to a doctor, dentist or mental health care provider. It means you have less access to public transportation, which makes it harder to find a job. It means you are less likely to have access to child care.

In the United States of America, poverty is often a death sentence.

Yesterday, I spoke about poverty in McDowell County, West Virginia — one of the poorest counties in one of the poorest states in America. In 2014, over 35 percent of the residents in McDowell lived in poverty, including nearly half of the children. The roads are crumbling and only 6 percent of adults have a college education. Less than two-thirds have graduated high school. It has the lowest life expectancy for men in the entire nation. I hope you’ll watch part of my speech on poverty and share it with friends and family on social media.

\Bernie Sanders Speaks on Poverty in McDowell County, WV [See Video]
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/share/poverty-is-a-death-sentence


Poverty is an issue we must address. In 2011, the American Journal of Public Health found that 130,000 people died in just one year alone as a result of poverty.

This is not an issue we can just sweep under the rug and hope it will go away. Because it won’t.

And when I talk about it being too late for establishment politics and economics, this is what I mean. When I talk about thinking big and outside the box, about rejecting incremental change, I am talking about the millions of Americans who live in poverty who have been tossed out, left behind, and abandoned by the rich and powerful. We need to create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.

Here’s what we need to do:

Rebuild our country’s crumbling infrastructure. A $1 trillion investment in our infrastructure will create at least 13 million jobs all over America - jobs that cannot be outsourced.

We must rewrite our disastrous trade policies that enable corporate America to shut down plans in places like West Virginia and move them to Mexico, China, and other low-wage countries.

We can create 1 million jobs for disadvantaged youths through legislation I introduced with Rep. John Conyers of Michigan.

We need to increase the wages of at least 53 million American workers by raising the minimum wage from a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour.

At a time when women workers earn 79 cents for every dollar a man earns, we need to sign the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. Equal pay for equal work.

We need to make health care a right for every man, woman, and child through a Medicare for All single-payer system.

We need to treat drug addiction like a mental health issue, not a criminal issue.

We need to ensure every worker in this country has at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, two weeks of paid vacation, and one week of paid sick days.

We need to impose a tax on Wall Street to make public colleges and universities tuition free while substantially reducing student debt.

At a time when half of older workers have no retirement savings, we’re not going to cut Social Security, we’re going to expand it so people can retire with dignity and respect.

No president can do all of these things alone. We need millions of Americans to begin to stand up and fight back and demand a government that represents all of us. That is the political revolution.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

Paid for by Bernie 2016
(not the billionaires)
PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE

Stand against the powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress and have their sights set on the presidency.

The Misunderstood Constitution

A letter writer to the Star Tribune stated that media should "return to their Constitutional responsibility of unbiased rhetoric.” (2015-07-21)  That doesn’t look like anything I ever saw in the Constitution.  I wrote a counter letter that “freedom of the press” imposes no such responsibility on the media, and it was published on 2015-07-23.

I don’t understand how people can put words into the Constitution that are not even there.  And much of the Constitution is a guideline rather than absolute law.  For example, “freedom of the press” means that I could state that you embezzled your employer of $50,000.  However, if you can prove that you did not embezzle your employer, you can sue me for defamation of character.  On the other hand, if you are brought to court on a charge of embezzlement, you have no case if I state you were brought to court.

The classic case many use is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but even here you have to be careful.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. used it as a remark in a case of “sedition”; it is not law.  See “It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote, Trevor Timm, The Atlantic, 2012-11-02.

Besides putting words into the Constitution that aren’t there, many of us put meaning into words that the writers of the Constitution probably didn’t intend.  The current hot phrase is “Freedom of Religion” to avoid obeying laws we don’t like.  For example, paying for employee health insurance that covers contraception.  “Freedom of Religion” has been allowed erratically to conscientious objectors.

But would “Freedom of Religion” apply to not paying taxes we don’t like?  I doubt it.  Tax “choice” would be a bureaucratic nightmare far worse than educational tax exemptions for certain political organizations.

“Freedom of Religion” is also being used as justification for not serving people one does not approve of, for example, gays.  I think the sit-ins of the sixties established that if you have a public establishment you should be open to all of the public.  The only exceptions should be excluding certain behavior: “No Shoes,  No Shirt, No Service.”

On the other hand, if you are asked to cater certain parties, you should be able to decline.  If you disapprove of mixed bathing or same-sex kissing, should you be required to provide your services?

My take is that “Freedom of Religion” is the freedom to believe whatever you want: child or adult baptism, hierarchical or elected church organization, and on and on.  However, you are not always free to act on these beliefs, say virgin sacrifice.

Interestingly, some of the same people who want their Freedom of Religion want to deny Freedom of Religion to others.  For example, mandatory public school prayer.  What form should a public prayer take to satisfy all faiths?  Ironically, those who want public prayer ignore the admonition in their holy book to not be like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men.

We often treat the Constitution as almost God-given, but it was the long work of a hot summer with many, many compromises, like slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes.  Benjamin Franklin voted for the Constitution even though he didn’t approve of several parts but thought it might be the best that could be written.  Note also, that 74 delegates were named to the Constitutional Convention, 55 attended, and only 39 signed the final document.

The Constitution does give the Supreme Court the judicial power of the United States.  This power is extended to a long list of cases which just about covers all possible cases.  However, it did not gain a solid reputation until the tenure of John Marshall (1801-1835).  Many of the cases brought before his court have become landmarks that are cited again and again.

However, the Court is composed of many with a variety of political beliefs.  Some decisions are unanimous, many decisions are divided.  And divided decisions may have more than two or more reasonings.  What a Court in the Nineteenth Century decided may be overturned by a Court in the Twentieth Century.

Appointees to the Supreme Court have often surprised the Presidents who nominate or approve them.  A case of point is Justice Earl Warren who put together many liberal decisions that upset the conservatives of the day; for example, Brown vs. Board of Education, making school segregation illegal.

Interestingly, the cries of “activist court” became very shrill during Warren’s tenure and beyond.  Not surprisingly, those voices were stilled during the time that the Court put corporations before people.  And “corporation” does not even appear in Constitution.

Finally, be really wary that the Constitution will protect our rights.

When the mathematician John von Neuman, a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, went for his citizenship interview, he was asked if he was glad he was in the U.S. where that couldn’t happen.  He had read the Constitution thoroughly and replied that it could.  Fortunately for von Neuman, the interviewer didn’t follow up on his answer.

It took me awhile to understand his reasoning.  Take a minute to try to answer this.

The Constitution can be amended!  What if the political will is there to make the current President the President for life?

Can’t happen?  Think again.  The Eighteenth Amendment forbade the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.  It was very popular.  And then intoxicating liquors became even more popular.  It took fourteen years for the Amendment’s repeal.  If there was an amendment to make someone President for Life, wouldn’t an amendment to prevent further amendments follow?

Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-07-30 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/07/29/5702_the_misunderstood_constitution.

This version includes a few grammatical or spelling corrections.

Second Amendment v. Article I, Section 8

"Everybody" seems to know exactly what the following means:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This was ratified by the States and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State authenticated it.

However, what Congress passed was:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Just what does the missing comma mean?  I'll defer to grammarians on this, but if there is any difference in meaning, it makes it harder to determine the intent of Congress.

Whatever, Cliven Bundy and his supporters are using "the right to bear arms" as a justification of his armed refusal to obey a court order that the Bureau of Land Management should confiscate his cattle for his non-payment of fees for use of Federal Land.

He seems to be ignoring Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that includes:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well.  The Constitution contains too many phrases that are open to interpretation.

A Tea Party member stated on a To the Best of Our Knowledge broadcast that she could determine the writers' intent by reading the Constitution.  She must be more knowledgable than the Justices of the Supreme Court.  They rarely have unanimous decisions. Even if they do, the decision can be overturned by a later court.  Consider that the "separate by equal" case justifying school segregation was overturned later by "Brown vs, Board of Education".

Even decisions on the Second Amendment have changed over time.

One of the early cases was US v. Cruikshank (1876) where the defendants were accused of threatening citizens of African descent who were exercising their own rights to peaceably assemble.

If the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right, then shouldn’t the slaves have had the right to bear arms for self-defense against oppressive slave owners and overreaching state governments that condoned slavery?

In Presser v. Illinois (1886), Presser claimed that the armed parade he was leading was protected by the Second Amendment.  Illinois law forbade anybody to form a military company without a license from the state.  The Supreme Court ruled against Presser.  Among the arguments was,  “The exercise of this power [to regulate the militia] by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.”

Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the opinion in US vs. Miller (1939) that The National Firearms Act was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and not violative of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  McReynolds was a very conservative judge who opposed much of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.
.
Then everything changed with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.  One of the pronouncements is “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

This reads as if written by an “activist judge” who interprets the Constitution to suit ideological beliefs rather than what the Constitution actually says.  This is surprising to come from a judge appointed by a president of a party who long railed against “activist judges”.

I wonder if the current Supreme Court would rule in Cliven Bundy’s favor because the Congress does not have the authority to call out the militia “to suppress insurrections”.  I wonder that if many in Congress voted to call out the militia would the Republicans then do everything they could to stop this action.

As so many of us are, the Republicans seem to be selective in which laws they support and which they oppose.  Are not laws prohibiting abortion an imposition on individual liberty?  Are not laws favoring certain religious views in schools an imposition on those who do not have those views?

And Republicans seem the most eager to have a large standing army to go anywhere the President wants for whatever reason.  Boy!  Talk about not following the intent of the Founders.

What is an independent to do?  “Conservatives” want to go back to a past that never was, and “Liberals” want a future that will never be.

Gas attack or missile attack: who suffers?

I sent the following webmail to Pres. Obama:

To paraphrase your words: “At what point do we say we need to confront actions that are violating our Constitution?”  “I would argue that when I see 400 children subjected to missiles, over 1,400 innocent civilians dying senselessly … the moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing.”


What guarantee do you have that each cruise missile will hit a military target?  What guarantee do you have that each military target will be occupied by those responsible for the gas attack?  Do you know how many civilian workers might be in each target?


A Tomahawk missile has a supposed accuracy of 10 meters.  Many streets in Damascus are less than 10 meters wide.  Will every military target be more than 10 meters from an apartment building?  How far will the debris from a missile explosion go?  How many missile explosions will bring neighboring apartments down?


Assume one apartment building has six floors, each floor has four apartments, each apartment has five residents.  That's 120 residents in a single apartment building.  Do you have any count of how many apartment buildings will be brought down by any misses or near misses or "non-misses"?


If the lethal blast range is 28 meters, then eight neighboring buildings could be brought down. That could mean over 900 residents could be killed by one Tomahawk missile.


If you send ten Tomahawks that could mean over 5,000 Syrians will die for your "message" to Assad.  That is a rather high-price for a message for the deaths of 300 or 1400 people.


Oh, by the way, have you considered the repercussions if any missile damages a mosque?


And if the gas attack was perpetrated by Islamic radicals, you really will have been suckered!

Quote of the day - Political optimism

"If the political rulers were men of merit and talent and governed only in the public interest, they would naturally command the affection and respect of the people, and the crises of authority bedeviling American society would end."

Don't you share this wish for today when private interests are corrupting government?

However, this is a summary of the ideas of many of the American politicians of the 18th Century, as written by Gordon S. Woods in "The Radicalism of the American Revolution", copyright 1991.

Unfortunately, the politicians of the 18th Century often did not follow through on ruling only in the public interest. Remember the term Gerrymander. It was a convoluted redistricting plan devised by Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts, and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.

Voter ID laws may be illegal

The Independence Party of Minnesota has an interesting article on voter ID, "Voter ID requires elimination of all license fees and faster service", Peter Tharaldson

That is, if a driver's license is required to vote and a fee is charged for obtaining a driver's license, is that not a poll tax?  A poll tax is prohibited by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Where are the strict constructionists on this issue?

Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution

"The far right is now stealing the Constitution in plain sight. I don’t speak here of ordinary conservatives who may differ with me on the scope of the Commerce Power or the meaning of the 11th Amendment but of the Bachmanns, the Perrys, the Pauls (father and son). These charlatans are not being answered as they should be, in part because too many progressives see only the imperfection and shame in the Constitution’s history and blind themselves to the promise of its text." - "The Constitution: A Love Story", Garrett Epps, The American Prospect 2011-10-17.

This was another of the serendipitous finds made as I wandered from one link to another.

 The comments to this article are just awful, not just because I disagree with the Constitutional points made, but the attitude is so ad hominem or generalized, like "all liberals". Note that Epps doesn't attack "conservatives" in general, but those who raise specific points that would bother anybody who loves the Constitution.

Too much free speech?

I've long had in my mind a quote that the answer to too much freedom of speech (the press) is more freedom of speech (the press).  I've thought is Winston Churchill but could find no reference.  I've thought it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., but could find to reference.

From looking at some articles related to the Citizens United case, I think I found the context.

It was in Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).  For her activities in the Communist Labor Party, Miss Whitney was convicted to prison based on the Criminal Syndicalism Act of California.  The U.S. Supreme Court let the judgement of the state court of appeals stand.  Justice Sanford wrote the opinion.

Justice Brandeis concurred but with much more nuance; Justice Holmes joined in this opinion.

Brandeis wrote that the mere statement of an action in the far future does not constitute a threat.  He did concur that the lower court had established that the threat was more imminent.

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it."

I think it is worthwhile struggling through all the reasoning.  The quote I used is the only place "more speech" is used, and so your browser should find it in the text.

Responses to "Give Governance a Chance"

So far there have only been two posted responses to my "Local View" submission, "Give Governance a Chance".  One simply was "Well stated."  The other was a long paragraph about living at the end of a mile-long private road and not worrying about getting cholera.  The Like or Dislikes were 10-2 and 2-11, respectively.

I haven't been around town since it was published, but four acquaintances told me that they liked it, as well as my two adult children (of course).

"Give Conservatives a Chance" has over thirty comments, including replies and replies to replies.  I didn't bother reading most of them, being "same old, same old" regardless of the "side" taken.

Give Governance a Chance

This is the title of a "Local View" article I wrote for the Duluth News Tribune.  You can find it at

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/188796/

It was my response to "Give Conservatism a Chance" published earlier in the week.  It is at

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/188404/

Be forewarned: The Duluth News Tribune makes articles available for free for only a week; after that you have to pay.

Repeal the 14th amendment? Careful what you ask for!

"Jon Kyl Backs Republican 14th-Amendment Repeal Effort To Deny Citizenship To Immigrants' Children", Huffington Post, 2010-08-02.

Before anybody repeals the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they should read it carefully in its entirety.

Those who are upset about "illegal" immigrants are upset about the part of the 14th Amendment that states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Those who want to repeal this Amendment should also consider that it states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive a person of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Does this mean if the 14th Amendment is repealed that the citizens of a state that did not ratify the repeal then have the right to deprive repeal supporters of life, liberty, and property without even a hearing?

Supporters of repeal should also be careful that nobody slips into their amendment a repeal of the statement in Article I, Section 7, that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."  "Ex post facto" means "after the fact"; that is, if somebody does something Congress doesn't like but is not illegal, then Congress cannot pass a law that makes that past action illegal and punishable now.

If the "ex post facto" provision were removed, then somebody might slip in a rider on some bill that to be a citizen a person had to prove that all of their ancestors were legal immigrants, right back to the Mayflower.  Gosh! Was there even agreement among the pre-Mayflower residents as to who was a legal immigrant and who was most unwelcome?

You think that's impossible.  Would all Senators and Representatives who read every word of every bill please raise their hands?  Hm?  Would somebody check the cloak room to see if any have raised their hands?

An important afterthought: has anybody considered that the 14th Amendment was proposed by a Republican Congress?

Second Amendment and Insurrection

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

- Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Many people are using this amendment to justify carrying guns to defend themselves against what they believe is the tyranny of the state.  But the amendment doesn't mention the security of the "people"; it says that a militia is necessary for the security of the state.

Moreover, Article I, Section 8, enumerating the powers of Congress states that it shall have the power

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Some of the people who want to be armed against a tyrannical state give a broad definition of the Militia, citing some law defining the Militia, that the Militia includes most adult males.

So, if those arming themselves against a tyrannical state rise up against a state they judge tyrannical, then they should obey Congress when they are called upon to put down their own insurrection.

Oh, well!  As I read somewhere lately, the Constitution is not a coherent philosophical document, but a political document full of compromises and sometimes inconsistencies.  Too many people are making it a philosophical document, selecting only those clauses that support their political beliefs.