Justice Thomas and the Second Amendment

Justice Thomas and others seem to believe the Second Amendment reads "The people have no right to regulate a militia of one person".

Do they also believe that that one person has a right to fire into a crowded theater?  The Supreme Court long ago limited free speech by stating that a person cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.

If someone were to claim that Justice Thomas was getting paid one million dollars a year from  the arms industry, wouldn't Justice Thomas be justified in suing to limit that persons right to free speech?

On the other hand, Justice Thomas should get an honorarium from the Federalist Society to cover travel expenses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/opinion/guns-second-amendment-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer,   Linda Greenhouse

Whose “free speech”?

Amazing how many critics who say “political correctness” is limiting free speech on campuses, but then want to restrict what is taught, like climate change.  To quote somebody who we really hear too much, “Sad!"


See http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/whos-really-placing-limits-on-free-speech.html.

Shouting is not free speech

It seems more and more demonstrators for whatever cause claim they are exercising their free speech rights.  Are they exercising free speech or freedom to disrupt?

Is it “free speech” to shout down a speaker?  By doing so, isn’t a shouter impinging on the speakers right of free speech?  Is it free speech to demonstrate outside a building in such large numbers that others can’t exercise their freedom to come and go as they please.

Some supporters of Bernie Sanders threaten to disrupt the Democratic National Convention.  As far as I know, Sanders has not yet disavowed these supporters.

Similarly, Trump supporters have disrupted other meetings.  Or anti-Trump supporters have tried to disrupt his meetings.

Consider that vocal opposition can arouse to unknown actions those you oppose.

Here is a better protest.  Silence.  Get a seat or a place to stand at a meeting of a politician you disagree with.  Then do nothing.  Don’t applaud.  Don’t boo.  Don’t cheer.  However, do stand for the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner or the Pledge of Allegiance.  You don’t want to be called unpatriotic.  You don’t have to sing or recite.  Lots of supporters do likewise.

You may be alone, but you are not yourself supporting or disrupting the speaker.  If you can get a couple dozen friends to join you, you have multiplied the silence.  If your action catches on, it could happen that a politician encounters a very quiet audience.  Nothing can be more disconcerting to a politician than silence.

See also "Free opinion vs. free speech",
http://magree.blogspot.com/2016/04/free-opinion-vs-free-speech.html

Tout est pardonné

I've spent a lot of time researching the "Tout est pardonné" issue of Charlie Hebdo.  But I have found no address to order a copy.  I could impose on a couple of French friends, but I email them too infrequently.

I did find out how to donate and did: http://www.charliehebdo.fr/index.html.  This site has almost nothing else but donation forms.

But I won’t go to eBay for it.  I read that somebody is already offering this issue at $300!

P.S. 2016-01-02 A French friend did mail me the "Tout est pardonné" issue of Charlie Hebdo.  It really does tax my French.

Congressism

We have racism, sexism, and anti-semitism.  Now we have Congressism.  Congressism is a dislike of Congress out of all proportion to reality.  Commentators claim Congress is broken.  Polls indicate that people are very dissatisfied with Congress but that they are satisfied with their own Representatives and Senators.

Wait a minute!  Congress is broken but people like their own Representatives and Senators.  But Congress is made up of other people’s Representatives and Senators.  And those other people are satisfied with their members of Congress.  If all these Congress members are doing such a good job according to the people who supposedly elected them, how can Congress be broken?

“The Tea Party wins if we start hating our government. The solution is to find ways to be informed and engaged in our democratic process all the time, not just when there is a presidential election.” - Annabel Park, a Coffee Party founder (see www.coffeepartyusa.org)

“Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?”  Doctor Ben Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

If we don’t trust Congress, which is supposed to be most representative of the three branches of our government, are we giving up on keeping our republic?

So, let us not give up on our government.  Let us count the ways we can improve it.

First, of course, is to show up at every election and vote.  This is especially true if you live in a “gerrymandered” district.  You could contribute to an upset or you could reduce the margin of victory.

Also, don’t make any assumptions based on polls.  Vote whether the candidate you support is ahead or behind the polls.  The polls sample far fewer people than actually vote.  Remember also that polls can be very, very wrong.  In 1998, the polls predicted Skip Humphrey, Norm Coleman, and Jesse Ventura for governor in that order.  The results were Ventura, Coleman, and Humphrey.  As far as big money in politics, Ventura spent about one-tenth as much money per vote as either of his opponents.

Second, write about government.  Write letters to the editor.  Write to your representatives.  Write to the mayor, governor, or president.  You don’t need an essay.  You can simply state your support or opposition for some action.  Personally, I prefer writing directly to signing petitions.  One hundred persons writing about an issue probably has more influence than one thousand people signing a petition.

Unless you have some compelling information for or against an issue, a short letter is best.  Consider that the more people a politician represents, the greater the volume of mail and the less the chance that the politician will even see your letter.  But his or her staff will probably be counting them by subject and position.

One of the reasons Congress is “broken” is that few, if any, members read every word of the bills they vote on.  They depend on staff advice and often just follow their party.  I read that somebody challenged Congress to read the Patriot Act before voting on it.  Supposedly only one Congressman took up the challenge and voted against it.  I find it a bit hard to believe because supposedly complete copies were not available to Congress until twelve hours before the vote!  What’s this about the U.S. Senate being the greatest deliberative body in the world?  And people who are making the most noise about limited government now voted for the Patriot Act then.

Maybe we should follow Grover Norquist’s example and get Congress to sign a “Read the Bill Pledge”.  Maybe Warren Buffet or George Soros could fund this effort.

If all of these ideas seem to be getting nowhere, then maybe a few brave souls would start a new third party.  Say a few Republicans who don’t like the theft of the Party of Lincoln by the Tea Party and Southern Conservatives and a few Democrats who don’t care to jump whole-heartedly into every cause that some in the party expect everybody to support unconditionally.  Also, members of either party who feel that large corporations have too much influence on a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

The name I thought of was “Pragmatic Populists”.  That is, the government should work for the people as a whole with consideration that there will be conflicts of interests.

As usual, when I think I have a new and unique idea, somebody has already thought of it.  One source I found is an analysis of Justice John Paul Stevens’ decisions with regard to the First Amendment.  Gregory P. Magarian considers the balance that Justice Stevens sought in “The Pragmatic Populism of Justice Stevens’ Free Speech Jurisprudence”.  The abstract is at http://law.bepress.com/villanovalwps/art57/ and you can get the full text by clicking the “Download” button to the right of the title.

I don’t know if I’ll ever finish all forty-some pages of legal reasoning, but Magarian writes that Justice Stevens thought that the purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that all could participate in political discourse, regardless of their background, status, or wealth.  Justice Stevens was writing opinions in support of this view, opposing his colleagues who interpreted the First Amendment as protecting political speech from government interference.  In other words, he didn’t think the First Amendment protected those who had the most bucks from buying the biggest microphones thereby overwhelming any speech of those who disagreed with them.

And the great irony is that John Paul Stevens is a Republican appointed by a Richard Nixon, a Republican.  The next irony is that Stevens seems to be holding the ideal of protecting individual against state power and the other conservatives seem to be favoring state or corporate power.

You can find an interesting biography of him in “TheDissenter, Justice John Paul Stevens, Majority of One”, Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times, 2007-09-23.

"Congressism" was also published in the Reader Weekly, 2013-10-23 and can be found at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2013/10/24/2305_party_of_one-2

ALEC takes a licking, sheds crocodile tears

In response to several large corporations withdrawing their membership or promising to withdraw from the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC has issued a press release "…on the Coordinated Intimidation Campaign Against Its Members".  The truly ironic statement by an organization that behind a well-funded, expertly co-ordinated intimidation campaign of manipulating public policy is "Today, we find ourselves the focus of a well-funded, expertly coordinated intimidation campaign."  See http://www.alec.org/2012/04/alec-responds/

For commentary on how ALEC does not believe in the free market it promotes, does not really want small government, and definitely does not want free speech see "As Donors Flee, Corporate Front Group ALEC Whines That Critics Are Trying To 'Eliminate Discourse'", Zaid Jilani, Republic Report, 2012-04-11.

The Republic Report gives its purpose as "Investigating How Money Corrupts Democracy".  One of the articles featured in today's issue (2012-04-15) is "Corruption Responsible for 80% of Your Cell Phone Bill", Matt Stoller, 2012-04-09.  However, if you think the Republic Report is a left-wing rag trying to discredit Republicans, see "The Real Hilary Rosen Scandal: Does Her Firm Sell Access To The White House To Powerful Corporations?", Lee Fang, 2012-04-13

Why fight Super-PACs? They may do it for us

Winning Our Future PAC, a Super PAC supporter of Newt Gingrich, may win our future free of Super PACs. Sheldon Abelson have given over five million dollars to Winning our Future. As a casino owner, he doesn't seem to place his bets well. So far Newt Gingrich has incurred the wrath of the other candidates for the Republican nomination and received less than 40,000 votes. That's $125 per vote; not a very good bargain. See "Kamikaze Gingrich, on the loose in South Carolina", Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 2012-01-11, republished as "Gingrich takes the big money", Star Tribune, 2012-01-13.
His relentless attacks on Mitt Romney may also help re-elect Barack Obama. If so, Republicans may really rethink their support of money as speech. Gosh, if I have enough money to put a loud-speaker truck on every corner and blast my message so loud that nobody can have any conversation, would shutting down my loud-speakers take away my free-speech rights. Far-fetched. What about being the highest bidder for so much television time that nobody can even get a second of air-time? Is that a free-speech right?

But getting back to the real world of individual citizens, there are steps we can do to halt Super-PACs.

1) Don't watch TV. This is the easiest way to ignore Super-PACs

2) Show up and vote

3) Read newspapers and magazines. You can easily skip over pages you don't like.

4) Vote what you believe; ignore poll results

5) Talk politics with friends. Don't be passive about voting.

6) Vote in every election.

7) In case I didn't mention it, Vote! It's your patriotic duty.

If corporations are persons then…

Let's not only give them some of the "rights of persons" like "free speech", let's give them some of the responsibilities and consequences of being persons.

If corporations are persons then shouldn't they pay personal income tax?  Many argue that corporate taxes are taking away from shareholders or are being passed on to customers.  Well, aren't exorbitant executive salaries being decided by a self-selected board of directors taking away from shareholders also?  Aren't the taxes being paid by my plumber or my barber being passed on to me?   So, what's so different about corporations if they are considered persons?

If corporations are persons then shouldn't they be restricted severely for pollution?  If I burn trash in my backyard or have a faulty furnace that is sending soot all over the neighborhood, won't I be called to account for it by my neighbors and the city?  If I dump poisonous chemicals in my sink, won't I be called to account for it?  If corporations are persons then shouldn't they be held to the same standards as physical persons?

If corporations are persons then shouldn't they suffer the same consequences for capital crimes?  If a corporation commits such malfeasance that people die then shouldn't it go to prison?  Prison in this case could be putting all its assets in escrow for the equivalent prison time.  If a corporation willfully murders people and if the jurisdiction executes murderers then shouldn't the corporation be liquidated?  Blackwater employees willfully shot Iraqis.  The only consequence was the loss of some contracts and the company reorganized under a different name.  Do you think that you or I could publicly change our name and address to escape punishment for any crime?

Remember the old adage: be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

If the Constitution doesn't mention health care...?

Denise Dennis wrote an interesting column about the disruption of a health care meeting moderated by Secy. Kathleen Sebelius and Sen. Arlen Specter, "Right Wingers Wreak Havoc on Philadelphia Town Meeting".

A smaller group opposed to the health care bill kept shouting throughout the meeting interrupting others claiming their right to free speech. Dennis asked one if he wasn't taking the right of free speech from others.

The demonstrators waved copies of the Constitution and claimed health care wasn't mentioned. Let's see, mandatory birth and death certificates aren't mentioned in the Constitution either. Nor are stop lights, paved highways, railroads, airports, air traffic control, nuclear weapons, and waterboarding.

Gosh, I guess we haven't had a Constitutional government since the days of that fine Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.