"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.
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Thursday, May 01, 2014
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Critical thinking not practiced
"Last year the Texas G.O.P. explicitly condemned efforts to teach 'critical thinking skills,' because, it said, such efforts “have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”
"The Ignorance Caucus", Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2013-02-11
This sounds like something George Lakoff wrote about in "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea". Lakoff thinks that the battle is between those who have a strict father model and those who have a nurturing parent model.
Fixed beliefs are held by too many wherever they are on the political map, but the Republicans have been ossifying into ever more fixed beliefs for over ten years. They are even against some things they used to be for because those ideas don't fit the fixed belief structure they now have.
As for fixed beliefs, those who believe critical thinking can be taught, might read the critical thinking article linked above. One cognitive scientist doesn't believe critical thinking can be taught.
Surprisingly, it was the last great Republican President who said, "As our case is new, so we must think anew." New thinking does not come from fixed beliefs and parental authority.
"The Ignorance Caucus", Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2013-02-11
This sounds like something George Lakoff wrote about in "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea". Lakoff thinks that the battle is between those who have a strict father model and those who have a nurturing parent model.
Fixed beliefs are held by too many wherever they are on the political map, but the Republicans have been ossifying into ever more fixed beliefs for over ten years. They are even against some things they used to be for because those ideas don't fit the fixed belief structure they now have.
As for fixed beliefs, those who believe critical thinking can be taught, might read the critical thinking article linked above. One cognitive scientist doesn't believe critical thinking can be taught.
Surprisingly, it was the last great Republican President who said, "As our case is new, so we must think anew." New thinking does not come from fixed beliefs and parental authority.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Grover Norquist calls 911
Grover Norquist is frying a couple of hamburger patties in his kitchen when some grease spatters and is ignited. He rushes to his phone to call for assistance.
Scenario One
Grover Norquist calls 911. He receives a recorded message:
If you require government assistance, please look in Grover Norquist's bathtub.
Scenario Two
Grover Norquist calls his private fire company. He is given the following list of instructions:
If you are calling about a cat in a tree, please press 1.
If you are calling about smelling gas, please press 2.
If you are calling about a medical emergency, please press 3.
If you are calling about a fire, please press 4. (Grover Norquist presses 4.)
If you are calling about a car fire, please press 1.
If you are calling about a brush fire, please press 2.
If you are calling about a chimney fire, please press 3.
If you are calling about a kitchen fire, please press 4. (Grover Norquist presses 4.)
He hears the following message:
All our agents are busy. Please stay online for our next available agent.
After a minute, Grover Norquist hears the following message:
All our agents are still busy. Please stay online for our next available agent. Your approximate wait time is five minutes. (This is repeated every minute.)
Finally after ten minutes, he hears in an Indian accent:
"Good evening, my name is Stephanie. It is my pleasure to assist you this evening. May I have your name and address?"
Grover Norquist gives his name and address.
"I am sorry, sir, but we have no record of a client named Rover Northlist."
Grover Norquist spells out his name.
"I apologize for getting your name wrong, sir. My computer is searching for your account."
After a minute, the agent says, "I'm sorry, sir, but we are having a typhoon and our connection to the Internet is slow."
After another minute, the agent says, "I'm sorry, sir, but our records indicate that you have not paid your last two premiums. We are not permitted to dispatch a crew when a client is in arrears."
Scenario Three
As in Scenario two, but Grover Norquist has paid all his premiums. After the agent finds his account, she says, "I'm sorry, sir, but our crew for your town is now at an apartment fire and it appears that they will be there all night. Would you like me to check with our backup crew? They are only twenty miles away."
Scenario One
Grover Norquist calls 911. He receives a recorded message:
If you require government assistance, please look in Grover Norquist's bathtub.
Scenario Two
Grover Norquist calls his private fire company. He is given the following list of instructions:
If you are calling about a cat in a tree, please press 1.
If you are calling about smelling gas, please press 2.
If you are calling about a medical emergency, please press 3.
If you are calling about a fire, please press 4. (Grover Norquist presses 4.)
If you are calling about a car fire, please press 1.
If you are calling about a brush fire, please press 2.
If you are calling about a chimney fire, please press 3.
If you are calling about a kitchen fire, please press 4. (Grover Norquist presses 4.)
He hears the following message:
All our agents are busy. Please stay online for our next available agent.
After a minute, Grover Norquist hears the following message:
All our agents are still busy. Please stay online for our next available agent. Your approximate wait time is five minutes. (This is repeated every minute.)
Finally after ten minutes, he hears in an Indian accent:
"Good evening, my name is Stephanie. It is my pleasure to assist you this evening. May I have your name and address?"
Grover Norquist gives his name and address.
"I am sorry, sir, but we have no record of a client named Rover Northlist."
Grover Norquist spells out his name.
"I apologize for getting your name wrong, sir. My computer is searching for your account."
After a minute, the agent says, "I'm sorry, sir, but we are having a typhoon and our connection to the Internet is slow."
After another minute, the agent says, "I'm sorry, sir, but our records indicate that you have not paid your last two premiums. We are not permitted to dispatch a crew when a client is in arrears."
Scenario Three
As in Scenario two, but Grover Norquist has paid all his premiums. After the agent finds his account, she says, "I'm sorry, sir, but our crew for your town is now at an apartment fire and it appears that they will be there all night. Would you like me to check with our backup crew? They are only twenty miles away."
Thursday, August 16, 2012
A "real" Republican stands up
David Stockman was director of the Office of Management and Budget during Ronald Reagan's first term. He wrote a sharp criticism of current Republican thinking in "Paul Ryan's Fairy-Tale Budget Plan", New York Times, 2012-08-13.
Among other things Stockman points out that for all the budget cutting in "entitlements", Ryan wants to fund the "warfare state" with a budget twice what Eisenhower thought was sufficient to contain the Soviet threat, adjusted for inflation. Stockman writes that we have no real credible threat from any "advanced industrial state" and that Iran is benighted but irrelevant.
You might not agree with everything Stockman wrote, but you'll find his thinking is more in tune with reality than what currently passes for conservatism, that is, conserve the entitlements of large corporations and their "right" to raid the Treasury and the pockets of savers.
Among other things Stockman points out that for all the budget cutting in "entitlements", Ryan wants to fund the "warfare state" with a budget twice what Eisenhower thought was sufficient to contain the Soviet threat, adjusted for inflation. Stockman writes that we have no real credible threat from any "advanced industrial state" and that Iran is benighted but irrelevant.
You might not agree with everything Stockman wrote, but you'll find his thinking is more in tune with reality than what currently passes for conservatism, that is, conserve the entitlements of large corporations and their "right" to raid the Treasury and the pockets of savers.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Is this the time for a new major party?
In 1854, Whigs who were not happy with the party's policies formed a new party, the Republican Party. Not until 1860 did the Republicans win a presidential election. That president, Abraham Lincoln, increased the involvement of the federal government into the affairs of the United States - Homestead Act of 1862 that gave low cost land to settlers, Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 the subsidized the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, and Morrill Act of 1862 that gave land for the land-grant colleges.
Now the Republican Party is dominated by people with a narrow understanding of the Constitution and a narrow understanding of how a vibrant economy works, an economy supported by government-provided infra-structures.
I doubt that a new party will be formed by grass-roots action, be it the Coffee Party or the Occupy Wall Street activists. I think a new party will only be formed by a dedicated group of professional politicians. I hope that there are enough "old-school, New England-type" Republicans, tired of being beholden to the corporate-sponsored Tea Party, who will form a new pragmatic party. There are plenty of Republicans who have a broader view of what needs to be done. Unfortunately, many were defeated by Tea Party candidates in 2010. These "losers" could provide a nucleus for such a party. They have small chances of fielding a popular candidate by November 2012, but who knows what could happen in 2014 and 2016.
Now the Republican Party is dominated by people with a narrow understanding of the Constitution and a narrow understanding of how a vibrant economy works, an economy supported by government-provided infra-structures.
I doubt that a new party will be formed by grass-roots action, be it the Coffee Party or the Occupy Wall Street activists. I think a new party will only be formed by a dedicated group of professional politicians. I hope that there are enough "old-school, New England-type" Republicans, tired of being beholden to the corporate-sponsored Tea Party, who will form a new pragmatic party. There are plenty of Republicans who have a broader view of what needs to be done. Unfortunately, many were defeated by Tea Party candidates in 2010. These "losers" could provide a nucleus for such a party. They have small chances of fielding a popular candidate by November 2012, but who knows what could happen in 2014 and 2016.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
When do subsidies outlive their usefulness?
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) wrote an op-ed piece "A mature industry can sacrifice: That was the case with ethanol, and it's especially the case with oil" in today's Star Tribune.
She and others worked "to end the major tax credit for ethanol". Ethanol production "is now a competitive, established industry in the energy market…"
She asks why the oil industry isn't treated the same.
I think the answer is two-fold - lots of conservatives don't like the ethanol industry but they are paid big bucks by the oil industry.
Were all the oil subsidies a good idea some time in the past? Possibly. Consider that lots of oil was discovered and extracted by wildcatters. These were small groups that took the risks, financial and physical, to find the oil and drill the original wells. Many were the dry holes that they drilled.
Congress in its great wisdom saw the huge benefit of an oil-based economy and gave the hundreds or thousands of wildcatters a boost through various tax credits.
Now the oil industry is a mature industry of only five companies. Their probability of dry wells is practically nil compared to the wildcatters. Even with their safety shortcuts, their financial risks are small.
It's way past time to cut the oil subsidies.
She and others worked "to end the major tax credit for ethanol". Ethanol production "is now a competitive, established industry in the energy market…"
She asks why the oil industry isn't treated the same.
I think the answer is two-fold - lots of conservatives don't like the ethanol industry but they are paid big bucks by the oil industry.
Were all the oil subsidies a good idea some time in the past? Possibly. Consider that lots of oil was discovered and extracted by wildcatters. These were small groups that took the risks, financial and physical, to find the oil and drill the original wells. Many were the dry holes that they drilled.
Congress in its great wisdom saw the huge benefit of an oil-based economy and gave the hundreds or thousands of wildcatters a boost through various tax credits.
Now the oil industry is a mature industry of only five companies. Their probability of dry wells is practically nil compared to the wildcatters. Even with their safety shortcuts, their financial risks are small.
It's way past time to cut the oil subsidies.
Monday, January 17, 2011
A possible name and basis for a new party?
There is no real middle between today's so-called conservatives and so-called liberals, other than those who feel caught between two extremes.
What we need is a party that determines what the real problems are and what real, possible solutions to those problems may be. Maybe this party should be called the Realistic Party, not to be confused with reality shows.
Of course, once a group has a name and real people start joining it, then the group starts moving from its original goals. Oh, well! I tried.
This entry was partially inspired by Ross Douthat's latest column, "Scenes from a Marriage", New York Times, 2011-01-16.
He writes about the mutual antipathy between "the media" and Sarah Palin, which Douthat writes is more co-dependence.
Based on his realistic look at the issue, I would say he might be an ideal spokesperson for the Realistic Party. On the other hand, does his over-generalization that some journalists are "the media" disqualify him from this role?
What we need is a party that determines what the real problems are and what real, possible solutions to those problems may be. Maybe this party should be called the Realistic Party, not to be confused with reality shows.
Of course, once a group has a name and real people start joining it, then the group starts moving from its original goals. Oh, well! I tried.
This entry was partially inspired by Ross Douthat's latest column, "Scenes from a Marriage", New York Times, 2011-01-16.
He writes about the mutual antipathy between "the media" and Sarah Palin, which Douthat writes is more co-dependence.
Based on his realistic look at the issue, I would say he might be an ideal spokesperson for the Realistic Party. On the other hand, does his over-generalization that some journalists are "the media" disqualify him from this role?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
A Freudian slip of the fingers?
As I was copying the keywords from "Give Governance a Chance" to attach to the next entry, I discovered a big, bad typo. I had typed "Conversatives" instead of "Conservatives".
Is there some truth in that so-called "conservatives" react "conversely" to anything they perceive so-called "liberals" espousing?
Is there some truth in that so-called "conservatives" react "conversely" to anything they perceive so-called "liberals" espousing?
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.
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.
Friday, January 14, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
We don't have political parties, we have dreaming parties
We have one party that engages in wistful thinking and another that engages in wishful thinking. One dreams of a time that never was and the other of a time that never will be.
Too many commentators try to make a continuum from one to the other. What we really need are a political party or two that can define the real problems of here and now and come up with practical solutions for them. These would not be "moderate" parties, taking a little bit from one side and a little bit from the other. These would be parties that are interested in governance over grandstanding.
It's happened before in our country, but we are 150 years overdue for it happening again.
Too many commentators try to make a continuum from one to the other. What we really need are a political party or two that can define the real problems of here and now and come up with practical solutions for them. These would not be "moderate" parties, taking a little bit from one side and a little bit from the other. These would be parties that are interested in governance over grandstanding.
It's happened before in our country, but we are 150 years overdue for it happening again.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Malice in Wonderland
Political discourse is often filled with exaggeration, both of the efficacy of one's own plans and of the deficiency of an opponent's plans. Too often discourse also generates into calling into question the character and purpose of one's opponents. And too often the rhetoric gets way off the mark.
I think Obama is engaging in wishful thinking that the various initiatives he proposes are going to create jobs. Far too many of the jobs that match the "skill sets" of many workers are gone, not to return anywhere in the world. Obama's opponents are engaging in wishful thinking that tax cuts will create jobs that match those "skill sets". Sorry, folks, but investment is going to the jobs of tomorrow, not the jobs of yesterday.
Interestingly, both "sides" claim to be in support of the people. But which people? Republican John Weaver claims that victory will be given to the Republicans "by an out-of-touch, big spending president." ("GOP is riding a tiger in Tea Party movement", Star Tribune, 2010-09-16) My question is which people is Obama out of touch with. Certainly not all the people. Almost all of the elections are a bit over one-third of the people voting for one party, a bit under one-third voting for the other party, and one-third of the people not voting at all. Results may vary by electoral district. Projecting results like these to a mandate of the "people" is living in Wonderland.
I think Obama is engaging in wishful thinking that the various initiatives he proposes are going to create jobs. Far too many of the jobs that match the "skill sets" of many workers are gone, not to return anywhere in the world. Obama's opponents are engaging in wishful thinking that tax cuts will create jobs that match those "skill sets". Sorry, folks, but investment is going to the jobs of tomorrow, not the jobs of yesterday.
Interestingly, both "sides" claim to be in support of the people. But which people? Republican John Weaver claims that victory will be given to the Republicans "by an out-of-touch, big spending president." ("GOP is riding a tiger in Tea Party movement", Star Tribune, 2010-09-16) My question is which people is Obama out of touch with. Certainly not all the people. Almost all of the elections are a bit over one-third of the people voting for one party, a bit under one-third voting for the other party, and one-third of the people not voting at all. Results may vary by electoral district. Projecting results like these to a mandate of the "people" is living in Wonderland.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Climate change and so-called bipartisanship
How can there be bipartisanship on any issue when there are more than two sides? Actually, as Stewart Brand writes in "Four Sides to Every Story", New York Times, 2009-12-14 there is a continuum from alarmists who think there is no problem, to those who think caution should be applied to a possible problem, to those who think we should address a given problem, to alarmists who think the problem needs immediate, drastic action.
Brand divides the stances on climate change into the Denialists, the Skeptics, the Warners, and the Calamatists. The real scientists who are Skeptics are often quoted by the Denialists, much to the discomfort of the Skeptics.
This division could be applied to many issues, like health care. We have those who deny there is a problem and even exaggerate the effects of any propose solution and those who exaggerate any problem and deny that proposed solutions will do enough. Then there are all the people who recognize there is a problem, something should be done about the problem, disagree on the severity of the problem and about which solutions are most appropriate.
Unfortunately, the Denialists and the Calamatists too often control the public discourse and make the work of more reasoned minds more difficult. It is even worse when the Deniers and some Skeptics are locked into one political party and the Calamatists, the Warners, and some Skeptics are locked into another political party. With this arrangement how is any real bipartisanship possible?
We would be much better off if we had five political parties: Denialists, Skeptics, Warners, Calamatists, and Referees. The last party would examine the positions of the Skeptics and the Warners, and blend them into politics of the possible. Hopefully, the Denialists and the Calamatists would be marginalized to mere commentators.
Spelling changes from Deniers and Calamitists to Denialists and Calamatists made 2010-01-23.
Brand divides the stances on climate change into the Denialists, the Skeptics, the Warners, and the Calamatists. The real scientists who are Skeptics are often quoted by the Denialists, much to the discomfort of the Skeptics.
This division could be applied to many issues, like health care. We have those who deny there is a problem and even exaggerate the effects of any propose solution and those who exaggerate any problem and deny that proposed solutions will do enough. Then there are all the people who recognize there is a problem, something should be done about the problem, disagree on the severity of the problem and about which solutions are most appropriate.
Unfortunately, the Denialists and the Calamatists too often control the public discourse and make the work of more reasoned minds more difficult. It is even worse when the Deniers and some Skeptics are locked into one political party and the Calamatists, the Warners, and some Skeptics are locked into another political party. With this arrangement how is any real bipartisanship possible?
We would be much better off if we had five political parties: Denialists, Skeptics, Warners, Calamatists, and Referees. The last party would examine the positions of the Skeptics and the Warners, and blend them into politics of the possible. Hopefully, the Denialists and the Calamatists would be marginalized to mere commentators.
Spelling changes from Deniers and Calamitists to Denialists and Calamatists made 2010-01-23.
Monday, July 13, 2009
A new third party coming?
Here is another forgotten thought. I am sure I saw an article two or three days ago headlined something like "Palin to start new party". I'm not sure if it was in the Huffington Post, the New York Times, or the Washington Post. Wherever it was, I can't find it in the first several dozen hits.
Now that is the good news! I get many, many hits on "new party", whether it is the hard-nosed conservatives leaving the Republican party or moderates leaving the Republican party.
Whichever way it goes, it can only be a plus for our country. If the hard-nosed conservatives leave the Republican Party, then more moderates will join it, even from the Democrats, and we may gain a truly pragmatic party. If the moderates leave to form a new party we may get the same result.
That result is that we may get a party that balances what needs to be done, what can be done, and what is consistent with our history and Constitution.
Now that is the good news! I get many, many hits on "new party", whether it is the hard-nosed conservatives leaving the Republican party or moderates leaving the Republican party.
Whichever way it goes, it can only be a plus for our country. If the hard-nosed conservatives leave the Republican Party, then more moderates will join it, even from the Democrats, and we may gain a truly pragmatic party. If the moderates leave to form a new party we may get the same result.
That result is that we may get a party that balances what needs to be done, what can be done, and what is consistent with our history and Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)