[The following ran in the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch on March 22, 2009.]
As a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU, I have followed with interest the efforts to compel allowance of strongly sectarian prayers by state police chaplains. Your editorial of March 9 helped to focus my thinking.
To be sure, a KKK member offering a prayer for the advancement of whites only would be repugnant almost beyond belief. You noted that the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the firing of a state trooper who belonged to an arguably related organization. Presumably, the trooper challenged his firing on the rights of "assembly" and "expression" guaranteed in the First Amendment. He did not offer a public prayer extolling white supremacy, as your hypothetical posited.
I am struggling with the outcomes in both instances, not because I defend the conduct or associations but because I MUST defend the First Amendment. It is similar to the conflict I feel about smoking in restaurants, which I personally abhor, but I have my concerns about government prohibitions.
In the prayer situations you understandably raise, no one seems to ask what to me is a much more important question, one that questions why prayer is being offered in a public context in the first place? Prayer has no place in a secular governmental context whatsoever. If there were no such prayers, there would be no such conflict. The Wiccan priestess who incredibly (but predictably) lost her case before the Catholic-majority US Supreme Court a couple of years ago would have had no issue if there had been no prayers allowed at all at supervisor meetings.
About 6 years ago, the US Supreme Court upheld congressional content regulation of art displays funded by tax dollars. Most people applauded that predictable decision, and it brought home to me the realization that there is no "free lunch" and that all money has strings attached. The unasked question there is why should taxpayers forcibly fund any arts or humanities at all? If there were no such public funding, there could be no discrimination. Why also do we have taxpayer-funded religious chaplains?
If prayer (or comment or art display) is allowed in a public context or on public property, then I believe a government may not regulate it. I must cast my lot with the First Amendment.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
POWERS vs. RIGHTS
[The following was sent to the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch around March 19, 2009. It would not run because the later piece about public prayer was published earlier.]
In his vitriolic March 17 rant against the collectivist sins of the 56-day-old Obama Administration, DeWitt Taylor Brooks lectures us about the multiple violations of the US Constitution.as he (mis)understands it. He sternly warns us that "the 10th Amendment states anything [my emphasis] not delegated specifically to the United States ... are [sic] reserved to the states and to the people!" He further declares that "I've found nothing about giving the District of Columbia a voting seat in the House of Representatives. In fact, the Constitution specifically forbids this action."
These and other statements in his pathetic letter betray a profound ignorance of the Constitution that is, unfortunately shared by a large number of people who should know better. This ignorance is most often represented by frequent and common assertions that government officials have a presumed "right" to do a particular thing when, in fact, our Founders took great pains to draw a clear distinction between the expansive "rights" of individuals and the limited "powers" exercised by governments and their minions. Governments (and officials) do not have "rights" as such. Only people have "rights." Governments either have "powers" or they do not.
Yet, there is widespread evidence of the presumption of government POWER to act and a concurrent notion that RIGHTS are limited unless specifically expressed. This is exactly backward. The 10th Amendment does not use the word "anything" but instead makes it clear that POWERS not specifically granted to the United States are reserved to the states and to the people, and the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain RIGHTS in the Constitution shall not disparage other unstated rights retained by the people.
DC residents should not need a specific grant of their congressional representation under the Constitution, nor should they need statehood either. The residents of what was originally laid off as the "District of Columbia" incorporated both citizens of Maryland and of Virginia. The area south of the Potomac River was ceded back to Virginia in the late 1700's and became Arlington County, and its citizens continue to enjoy full congressional representation, though the County was initially part of the District of Columbia. One needs only to look at the map to see that.
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution empowers the Congress "to exercise exclusive Legislation [not jurisdiction] ... over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States ... become the Seat of the Government...." Our Founders were very precise in their use of language, so we should not arrogantly infer meanings not expressed in their writings. There is nothing whatsoever in there about the people residing in that District surrendering their congressional representation, so Mr. Brooks's assertion that "the Constitution specifically forbids" that is utter nonsense.
I would suggest that not only do the residents of the District have the unfettered right to have a voting representative in the House, but also that they are entitled to continue voting for Maryland's two senators since neither Congress nor the State of Maryland ever had any POWER to revoke their congressional representation. Conventional wisdom, even if 222 years old, can be still wrong.
In his vitriolic March 17 rant against the collectivist sins of the 56-day-old Obama Administration, DeWitt Taylor Brooks lectures us about the multiple violations of the US Constitution.as he (mis)understands it. He sternly warns us that "the 10th Amendment states anything [my emphasis] not delegated specifically to the United States ... are [sic] reserved to the states and to the people!" He further declares that "I've found nothing about giving the District of Columbia a voting seat in the House of Representatives. In fact, the Constitution specifically forbids this action."
These and other statements in his pathetic letter betray a profound ignorance of the Constitution that is, unfortunately shared by a large number of people who should know better. This ignorance is most often represented by frequent and common assertions that government officials have a presumed "right" to do a particular thing when, in fact, our Founders took great pains to draw a clear distinction between the expansive "rights" of individuals and the limited "powers" exercised by governments and their minions. Governments (and officials) do not have "rights" as such. Only people have "rights." Governments either have "powers" or they do not.
Yet, there is widespread evidence of the presumption of government POWER to act and a concurrent notion that RIGHTS are limited unless specifically expressed. This is exactly backward. The 10th Amendment does not use the word "anything" but instead makes it clear that POWERS not specifically granted to the United States are reserved to the states and to the people, and the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain RIGHTS in the Constitution shall not disparage other unstated rights retained by the people.
DC residents should not need a specific grant of their congressional representation under the Constitution, nor should they need statehood either. The residents of what was originally laid off as the "District of Columbia" incorporated both citizens of Maryland and of Virginia. The area south of the Potomac River was ceded back to Virginia in the late 1700's and became Arlington County, and its citizens continue to enjoy full congressional representation, though the County was initially part of the District of Columbia. One needs only to look at the map to see that.
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution empowers the Congress "to exercise exclusive Legislation [not jurisdiction] ... over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States ... become the Seat of the Government...." Our Founders were very precise in their use of language, so we should not arrogantly infer meanings not expressed in their writings. There is nothing whatsoever in there about the people residing in that District surrendering their congressional representation, so Mr. Brooks's assertion that "the Constitution specifically forbids" that is utter nonsense.
I would suggest that not only do the residents of the District have the unfettered right to have a voting representative in the House, but also that they are entitled to continue voting for Maryland's two senators since neither Congress nor the State of Maryland ever had any POWER to revoke their congressional representation. Conventional wisdom, even if 222 years old, can be still wrong.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
FAIR-MARKET MERCANTILISM
[The following was sent as an e-mail to Princeton Professor & Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman.]
I am concerned that the continuing "worship" of "free-market capitalism" by both Republicans and Democrats is going to cost our economic future dearly. We do not and never have had in this country a so-called "free market," at least not since the late 1800's (except for perhaps the past 8 years or so). I think it is past time to prick that balloon and let it disappear. Markets are inherently greedy. They are supposed to be greedy. That is why they must NEVER be unregulated, as you have argued.
It seems to me that the pundits in the US should instead recognize and promote "fair-market mercantilism," by which I mean the process of selling what is actually made to ready buyers in a fairly regulated market.
We are NOT in a capital crisis, we are in a mercantile crisis! Stuff ain't selling!
We must return to aggressive enforcement of the antitrust laws which have been mostly neglected since the Carter Administration. We must purge American industry of its bean-counter CEO's and MBA's who are screwing our manufacturing base into the ground with their bottom-line tunnel vision and cashflow myopia. We must elevate engineers and technicians to CEO status (as do Asian and Euro industries) to let them actually run American industries because they know how to actually make things that people want to buy, rather than trying to manipulate the markets to trick people into buying what the bean-counters decree they should want.
The American vehicle-manufacturing industry is a bleeding case in point and an issue I know something about: while Toyota and others are run by engineers who inherently know what people want, the US is controlled by these know-nothings trying to figure out what kind of cars people OUGHT to want. These twits are brainwashed in business schools to believe that all industry is generic and that they can run anything. Their paper credentials sadly intimidate those who actually know what to do but don't have the paper to prove it.
The notion of trickle-down tax cuts for the wealthy goes hand-in-glove with the fraud of "free-market capitalism." As I understand it, we should cut taxes on the wealthy so that they will invest their engorged wealth and deign to allow us peons to catch the chump change dripping from their pockets as they waddle to the Mercedes or Rolls-Royce dealer.
I am very angry that the working stiffs in this country, who cannot deduct the rent they pay for an apartment, are paying absolutely higher percentages of their gross income in taxes now (including FICA) than the wealthy, who get not one but two mortgage deductions, pay no FICA on salaries over $100K and pay only 15% tax on capital gains and dividends. That is absurd. The workers need some relief. They spend almost 100% of their incomes, and they are the future of mercantile recovery, NOT the wealthy. Not even Pres. Obama seems to understand this distinction, as he and that worthless Secy. Geithner continue to shovel cash to the very idiots who have already gobbled up our seed corn.
The median household income in this country is around $60K, and it is utterly absurd to proffer tax relief for those making over $100K. The median contemplates TWO workers each earning around $30K, like most of my friends, who are struggling. That is ridiculous. It may make political sense, but it is outrageously unfair.
"Generic Management 101"
(my palindrome)
A BMW; a rake--EGAD! A geek! A raw MBA.
I am concerned that the continuing "worship" of "free-market capitalism" by both Republicans and Democrats is going to cost our economic future dearly. We do not and never have had in this country a so-called "free market," at least not since the late 1800's (except for perhaps the past 8 years or so). I think it is past time to prick that balloon and let it disappear. Markets are inherently greedy. They are supposed to be greedy. That is why they must NEVER be unregulated, as you have argued.
It seems to me that the pundits in the US should instead recognize and promote "fair-market mercantilism," by which I mean the process of selling what is actually made to ready buyers in a fairly regulated market.
We are NOT in a capital crisis, we are in a mercantile crisis! Stuff ain't selling!
We must return to aggressive enforcement of the antitrust laws which have been mostly neglected since the Carter Administration. We must purge American industry of its bean-counter CEO's and MBA's who are screwing our manufacturing base into the ground with their bottom-line tunnel vision and cashflow myopia. We must elevate engineers and technicians to CEO status (as do Asian and Euro industries) to let them actually run American industries because they know how to actually make things that people want to buy, rather than trying to manipulate the markets to trick people into buying what the bean-counters decree they should want.
The American vehicle-manufacturing industry is a bleeding case in point and an issue I know something about: while Toyota and others are run by engineers who inherently know what people want, the US is controlled by these know-nothings trying to figure out what kind of cars people OUGHT to want. These twits are brainwashed in business schools to believe that all industry is generic and that they can run anything. Their paper credentials sadly intimidate those who actually know what to do but don't have the paper to prove it.
The notion of trickle-down tax cuts for the wealthy goes hand-in-glove with the fraud of "free-market capitalism." As I understand it, we should cut taxes on the wealthy so that they will invest their engorged wealth and deign to allow us peons to catch the chump change dripping from their pockets as they waddle to the Mercedes or Rolls-Royce dealer.
I am very angry that the working stiffs in this country, who cannot deduct the rent they pay for an apartment, are paying absolutely higher percentages of their gross income in taxes now (including FICA) than the wealthy, who get not one but two mortgage deductions, pay no FICA on salaries over $100K and pay only 15% tax on capital gains and dividends. That is absurd. The workers need some relief. They spend almost 100% of their incomes, and they are the future of mercantile recovery, NOT the wealthy. Not even Pres. Obama seems to understand this distinction, as he and that worthless Secy. Geithner continue to shovel cash to the very idiots who have already gobbled up our seed corn.
The median household income in this country is around $60K, and it is utterly absurd to proffer tax relief for those making over $100K. The median contemplates TWO workers each earning around $30K, like most of my friends, who are struggling. That is ridiculous. It may make political sense, but it is outrageously unfair.
"Generic Management 101"
(my palindrome)
A BMW; a rake--EGAD! A geek! A raw MBA.
GAY MARRIAGE
[The following was sent as an e-mail to a columnist who opined against discrimination against gays.]
As a Recovering Homophobe myself, I used to be somewhat skeptical of the "notion" of gay marriage. After all, as comedian Bill Maher has said, I really don't want to contemplate at length how gay men enjoy themselves.
But, I have evolved enough in my thinking to believe that the unbridled and arbitrary power of the state is a bigger threat to me than gay marriage.
Given the clear language of the 14th Amendment regarding "equal protection" of the law (ratified by all the states), I fail to see anywhere in the Constitution that any government--state or federal-- has the power to deny access to marriage, per se, to any consenting adult human. Or, for that matter, to discriminate against homosexuals in the military. "Don't ask/don't tell" is one of Bill Clinton's everlasting shameful legacies.
It is not about "creating special rights" for anyone--all rights exist all the time and always have--it is about whether or not there is a "rational basis" for recognizing a "special" government POWER to engage in such discrimination. I fail to see any. Most of this homophobic crap is utterly IRRATIONAL.
Marriage is an important legal relationship--federal tax and Social Security laws, for example, allow certain tax and benefit privileges ONLY to marital spouses, like filing joint tax returns. No state "domestic partner" law can affect the reach of federal law, so the creation of "domestic partnerships" at the state level is utterly irrelevant for purposes of interpreting FEDERAL laws. Also, under the current rubric of the foolishly titled "Defense of Marriage Act," one who is badly injured in a state where no recognition of domestic partnership is allowed would be denied the succor and attendance of a loved one who just happened to be a gay partner and, therefore, NOT a "family member" or spouse. Look at the outrage of the ongoing custody battle between the two lesbians fighting over child visitation between the courts of Virginia and Vermont. That is just absurd. The supposedly "cured" Virginia partner is seeking to deny all child contact and visitation with the "uncured" former lover. That is appalling and saddening to me.
Most unthinking people see these issues as the "creation" of "special rights." That is unfortunate. The pain and heartbreak are real, sad and totally unnecessary. And, there is this astounding Catch-22 that gay people have no business "living in sin" (lack of marriage) when the governments won't allow gay marriage! Irony is not the strong suit of most political leaders including, unfortunately, our current President.
As a Recovering Homophobe myself, I used to be somewhat skeptical of the "notion" of gay marriage. After all, as comedian Bill Maher has said, I really don't want to contemplate at length how gay men enjoy themselves.
But, I have evolved enough in my thinking to believe that the unbridled and arbitrary power of the state is a bigger threat to me than gay marriage.
Given the clear language of the 14th Amendment regarding "equal protection" of the law (ratified by all the states), I fail to see anywhere in the Constitution that any government--state or federal-- has the power to deny access to marriage, per se, to any consenting adult human. Or, for that matter, to discriminate against homosexuals in the military. "Don't ask/don't tell" is one of Bill Clinton's everlasting shameful legacies.
It is not about "creating special rights" for anyone--all rights exist all the time and always have--it is about whether or not there is a "rational basis" for recognizing a "special" government POWER to engage in such discrimination. I fail to see any. Most of this homophobic crap is utterly IRRATIONAL.
Marriage is an important legal relationship--federal tax and Social Security laws, for example, allow certain tax and benefit privileges ONLY to marital spouses, like filing joint tax returns. No state "domestic partner" law can affect the reach of federal law, so the creation of "domestic partnerships" at the state level is utterly irrelevant for purposes of interpreting FEDERAL laws. Also, under the current rubric of the foolishly titled "Defense of Marriage Act," one who is badly injured in a state where no recognition of domestic partnership is allowed would be denied the succor and attendance of a loved one who just happened to be a gay partner and, therefore, NOT a "family member" or spouse. Look at the outrage of the ongoing custody battle between the two lesbians fighting over child visitation between the courts of Virginia and Vermont. That is just absurd. The supposedly "cured" Virginia partner is seeking to deny all child contact and visitation with the "uncured" former lover. That is appalling and saddening to me.
Most unthinking people see these issues as the "creation" of "special rights." That is unfortunate. The pain and heartbreak are real, sad and totally unnecessary. And, there is this astounding Catch-22 that gay people have no business "living in sin" (lack of marriage) when the governments won't allow gay marriage! Irony is not the strong suit of most political leaders including, unfortunately, our current President.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Liberty & Justice For All
[The following was sent as an e-mail to President Obama on 2/26/09.]
Dear President Obama:
I am already seriously concerned about your re-election in 2012, given that you were elected to make a clean break with the horrific, unconstitutional practices of the Bush Administration.
It appears that you and your Justice Dept. have, in support of the former Bush Administration, taken the position in a recent filing in US District Court that "war" detainees being held incommunicado at the US Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan are not entitled to civil-liberties protections, presumably including "due process" (also guaranteed in the 5th Amendment, not merely in the 14th) and habeas corpus. This is flat wrong.
[See NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/washington/22bagram.html?scp=4&sq=detainees&st=cse
FIRST: by no legitimate means may those detainees be described as "war" detainees since there is no legitimate "war" pending, the Congress not having "declared war" as is its exclusive province under Article I of the US Constitution, the same entity that you and Mr. Eric Holder, your Attorney General, are sworn to uphold and defend. (BTW: you are NOT sworn to uphold and defend "the United States," according to the oath prescribed in Article II of the Constitution).
SECOND: notwithstanding whatever nonsense a five-person majority on the US Supreme Court may decide, the natural rights of humans (including "due process" and habeas corpus) are surely universal and not limited merely to US citizens.
THIRD: because those rights are universal, the US Constitution makes it abundantly clear in the 10th Amendment that the POWERS of the US government (including yours) are limited and specifically prescribed; otherwise, they simply do not exist. The US government and its minions do not and cannot magically gain powers not otherwise enjoyed merely because the US government is operating offshore. The 10th Amendment does not acknowledge in any respect that the POWERS of the US government are thus expanded.
FOURTH: the RIGHTS already universally enjoyed by everyone are properly and legally a prior and superior restraint that circumscribe even legitimate government POWER. They are not, as someone else has observed, "dispensations from a benevolent government" to be handed out or withheld, as with candy and children. The violation of our universally-held rights can never be legitimized, not even by the United States government. In fact, as the Constitution is the sine qua non-creating document for the very existence of the United States and its government, the powers of the United States can NEVER, under any circumstances, exceed what is SPECIFICALLY granted thereunder, REGARDLESS of whatever any other country or government has ever done. Thus, the past military experiences of other governments are simply not instructive nor do they serve as valid precedents for actions taken or not taken by the US government. In short, what you and your Administration are proposing is exercising (as did George W. Bush) brute military force in an ultra vires manner. Nor are there any legitimate IMPLICIT powers under our Constitution, notwithstanding what some other self-serving dunce may conclude.
The LEGITIMATE powers of the United States government (regardless of any other government that has ever existed) are thus circumscribed by the universal rights of all people everywhere, even offshore. The recognition of those universal rights antedates the existence of the United States and its government, as you may remember, by several hundred years.
In examination of the real civil-liberties elements of your Administration and that of former President George W. Bush, the similarities I personally now see are frightening. You should not buy into the politically convenient yet illicit conversion of what happened in 2001 (the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City) from a civil criminal matter into a phony, unauthorized military exercise fraudulently labeled a "war." Afghanistan may well become your Vietnam, I suspect, Osama bin Laden's machinations notwithstanding.
Now that you have moved into the White House, have you become informed of something that you did not know before to justify these deplorable actions? That is unlikely.
You will surely be the recipient of many accolades for your well-intended (if somewhat mis-allocated) efforts to reverse our pathetic economic fortunes, and perhaps in your list of priorities, those immediate, scary issues far transcend the "rights" of swarthy "towel-heads" in far-off Afghanistan. You may even achieve re-election in 2012 (despite the possible bloody disaster-to-come in Afghanistan), but you are seriously risking the loss of support by which you won the last election from those of us who are deeply concerned about individual rights and government restraint. Please don't proceed in such fashion.
I am not a believer but Jesus did say, I think, that "inasmuch as ye do unto the least of my bretheren ye do also unto me." That is my take on the Bill of Rights.
Dear President Obama:
I am already seriously concerned about your re-election in 2012, given that you were elected to make a clean break with the horrific, unconstitutional practices of the Bush Administration.
It appears that you and your Justice Dept. have, in support of the former Bush Administration, taken the position in a recent filing in US District Court that "war" detainees being held incommunicado at the US Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan are not entitled to civil-liberties protections, presumably including "due process" (also guaranteed in the 5th Amendment, not merely in the 14th) and habeas corpus. This is flat wrong.
[See NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/washington/22bagram.html?scp=4&sq=detainees&st=cse
FIRST: by no legitimate means may those detainees be described as "war" detainees since there is no legitimate "war" pending, the Congress not having "declared war" as is its exclusive province under Article I of the US Constitution, the same entity that you and Mr. Eric Holder, your Attorney General, are sworn to uphold and defend. (BTW: you are NOT sworn to uphold and defend "the United States," according to the oath prescribed in Article II of the Constitution).
SECOND: notwithstanding whatever nonsense a five-person majority on the US Supreme Court may decide, the natural rights of humans (including "due process" and habeas corpus) are surely universal and not limited merely to US citizens.
THIRD: because those rights are universal, the US Constitution makes it abundantly clear in the 10th Amendment that the POWERS of the US government (including yours) are limited and specifically prescribed; otherwise, they simply do not exist. The US government and its minions do not and cannot magically gain powers not otherwise enjoyed merely because the US government is operating offshore. The 10th Amendment does not acknowledge in any respect that the POWERS of the US government are thus expanded.
FOURTH: the RIGHTS already universally enjoyed by everyone are properly and legally a prior and superior restraint that circumscribe even legitimate government POWER. They are not, as someone else has observed, "dispensations from a benevolent government" to be handed out or withheld, as with candy and children. The violation of our universally-held rights can never be legitimized, not even by the United States government. In fact, as the Constitution is the sine qua non-creating document for the very existence of the United States and its government, the powers of the United States can NEVER, under any circumstances, exceed what is SPECIFICALLY granted thereunder, REGARDLESS of whatever any other country or government has ever done. Thus, the past military experiences of other governments are simply not instructive nor do they serve as valid precedents for actions taken or not taken by the US government. In short, what you and your Administration are proposing is exercising (as did George W. Bush) brute military force in an ultra vires manner. Nor are there any legitimate IMPLICIT powers under our Constitution, notwithstanding what some other self-serving dunce may conclude.
The LEGITIMATE powers of the United States government (regardless of any other government that has ever existed) are thus circumscribed by the universal rights of all people everywhere, even offshore. The recognition of those universal rights antedates the existence of the United States and its government, as you may remember, by several hundred years.
In examination of the real civil-liberties elements of your Administration and that of former President George W. Bush, the similarities I personally now see are frightening. You should not buy into the politically convenient yet illicit conversion of what happened in 2001 (the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City) from a civil criminal matter into a phony, unauthorized military exercise fraudulently labeled a "war." Afghanistan may well become your Vietnam, I suspect, Osama bin Laden's machinations notwithstanding.
Now that you have moved into the White House, have you become informed of something that you did not know before to justify these deplorable actions? That is unlikely.
You will surely be the recipient of many accolades for your well-intended (if somewhat mis-allocated) efforts to reverse our pathetic economic fortunes, and perhaps in your list of priorities, those immediate, scary issues far transcend the "rights" of swarthy "towel-heads" in far-off Afghanistan. You may even achieve re-election in 2012 (despite the possible bloody disaster-to-come in Afghanistan), but you are seriously risking the loss of support by which you won the last election from those of us who are deeply concerned about individual rights and government restraint. Please don't proceed in such fashion.
I am not a believer but Jesus did say, I think, that "inasmuch as ye do unto the least of my bretheren ye do also unto me." That is my take on the Bill of Rights.
DC Voting Rights
[The following was submitted as a post to the "Congress.org" Website on 2/19/09.]
I support a seat for Washington, D.C. in the House of Representatives in Congress because the constitutional provision respecting the creation of the "exclusive" jurisdiction for the District of Columbia could not lawfully disenfranchise DC residents (formerly residents of the State of Maryland). The 5th Amendment's "due process" requirements protects those persons.
No mere act of Congress can abrogate voting rights for citizens of a state. How is it that the citizens of Arlington County, Virginia were automatically restored to full voting rights while their (former) District counterparts on the north side of the Potomac were not? That is patently unconstitutional, regardless of the passage of time that the constitutional error has been allowed by feckless twits to stand.
The creation of exclusive federal jurisdiction for the District was not ever intended to disenfranchise those residents, but only to allocate administrative responsibilities.
FURTHER: DC residents should be allowed to STILL vote for Maryland's two senators, since they could not be lawfully disengaged therefrom without "due process."
These are much better results (and politically more likely) than creating a separate state out of the District of Columbia.
(See post 10/6/14)
I support a seat for Washington, D.C. in the House of Representatives in Congress because the constitutional provision respecting the creation of the "exclusive" jurisdiction for the District of Columbia could not lawfully disenfranchise DC residents (formerly residents of the State of Maryland). The 5th Amendment's "due process" requirements protects those persons.
No mere act of Congress can abrogate voting rights for citizens of a state. How is it that the citizens of Arlington County, Virginia were automatically restored to full voting rights while their (former) District counterparts on the north side of the Potomac were not? That is patently unconstitutional, regardless of the passage of time that the constitutional error has been allowed by feckless twits to stand.
The creation of exclusive federal jurisdiction for the District was not ever intended to disenfranchise those residents, but only to allocate administrative responsibilities.
FURTHER: DC residents should be allowed to STILL vote for Maryland's two senators, since they could not be lawfully disengaged therefrom without "due process."
These are much better results (and politically more likely) than creating a separate state out of the District of Columbia.
(See post 10/6/14)
Israel, Palestine
[The following was submitted as a letter to The Nation magazine on 2/4/09.]
So many people on both sides of the debate over Israeli policies and Palestinians cannot break free of the "he said/she said" ping-pong match that generates way too much heat and very little light.
While I have my own opinions about who did what in the past, those sorts of analyses are mostly irrelevant. Israel IS the government on the ground in most of Palestine, for better or worse. That is the reality. Its military superiority says so, regardless of who may be "right" or "wrong."
Israel is a country with an established government and court system. Hamas (or even Al-Fatah) is a mere political organization. Or a terror organization. It does not really matter because, as a government with a court system, Israel is obliged to render "due process" to every person in the lands it controls at all times, regardless of the "legitimacy" debates about its territorial possessions.
To the extent that the government of Israel deprives ANYONE of due process, with injury, death or property destruction, it is a lawless, criminal violator of human rights. Its actions are NEVER redeemed nor justified by what certain individuals do under the rubric of Hamas or whatever. That is a ludicrous proposition, yet even the supporters of the Palestinian people have bought into that phony comparison argument with their refutations and denials about Israel's possessory legitimacy.
Human rights are universal, so Israel has no more legitimacy in violations of due process than does the United States, nor any other government. The doctrine of due process may be enshrined in our Bill of Rights, but as the recent Bush Administration demonstrated with its criminal behavior at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, that doctrine should not be and is not limited by or to our Bill of Rights, nor to our borders. Certain majorities on our Supreme Court have been absurdly wrong about that.
Former Pres. Jimmy Carter was right to call Israel's policies "apartheid." Perhaps a thorough boycott of Israel is in order.
So many people on both sides of the debate over Israeli policies and Palestinians cannot break free of the "he said/she said" ping-pong match that generates way too much heat and very little light.
While I have my own opinions about who did what in the past, those sorts of analyses are mostly irrelevant. Israel IS the government on the ground in most of Palestine, for better or worse. That is the reality. Its military superiority says so, regardless of who may be "right" or "wrong."
Israel is a country with an established government and court system. Hamas (or even Al-Fatah) is a mere political organization. Or a terror organization. It does not really matter because, as a government with a court system, Israel is obliged to render "due process" to every person in the lands it controls at all times, regardless of the "legitimacy" debates about its territorial possessions.
To the extent that the government of Israel deprives ANYONE of due process, with injury, death or property destruction, it is a lawless, criminal violator of human rights. Its actions are NEVER redeemed nor justified by what certain individuals do under the rubric of Hamas or whatever. That is a ludicrous proposition, yet even the supporters of the Palestinian people have bought into that phony comparison argument with their refutations and denials about Israel's possessory legitimacy.
Human rights are universal, so Israel has no more legitimacy in violations of due process than does the United States, nor any other government. The doctrine of due process may be enshrined in our Bill of Rights, but as the recent Bush Administration demonstrated with its criminal behavior at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, that doctrine should not be and is not limited by or to our Bill of Rights, nor to our borders. Certain majorities on our Supreme Court have been absurdly wrong about that.
Former Pres. Jimmy Carter was right to call Israel's policies "apartheid." Perhaps a thorough boycott of Israel is in order.
Agree To Disagree
[The following appeared as a letter to Liberty magazine published in the March-April, 2009 issue.]
As an "incidental" atheist of some 40+ years, I must declare my agreement with Clifford Goldstein's observations about the likely effect of the alleged words of prominent atheists about which he bitterly complains, that those words will be "the fertile fodder [provided to] the Christian Right." [Sept.-Oct., 2008.]
I think it is very important to observe that no atheist speaks for the beliefs of any other, just like no Baptist, or Methodist, or Seventh-Day Adventist speaks for any other of similar persuasion. Thus, I do not feel confined or defined by anything that may have been uttered or written by any of those excoriated by Mr. Goldstein.
I personally have no problem with anyone else's beliefs, so long as they don't try to control my supported government. I usually refrain from "proselytizing" that there is no deity out there, which is also a pretty absurd thing to do. I have no idea, really, but I also have no reason to suspect as much. Mr. Goldstein cannot prove me wrong.
Mr. Goldstein's article would have been far more credible if he had refrained from use of such extreme phrases describing atheist thought and words as "dystopia," "puerile," "elitist clique," "bizarre views" and warning us dreadfully of an atheistic "eternal blackness of a cold, dead universe." Is he serious?
I know that some atheists are really "anti-theists," but I am not, and there is a difference. I slightly knew and did not like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, "the ultra-nasty den mother of American atheism." I think she was an "anti-theist," but I also know that she had been threatened and physically assaulted and was eventually murdered, so I think that her attitude was somewhat understandable, even if misguided. Mr. Goldstein should dial down his clueless scorn a bit.
As an "incidental" atheist of some 40+ years, I must declare my agreement with Clifford Goldstein's observations about the likely effect of the alleged words of prominent atheists about which he bitterly complains, that those words will be "the fertile fodder [provided to] the Christian Right." [Sept.-Oct., 2008.]
I think it is very important to observe that no atheist speaks for the beliefs of any other, just like no Baptist, or Methodist, or Seventh-Day Adventist speaks for any other of similar persuasion. Thus, I do not feel confined or defined by anything that may have been uttered or written by any of those excoriated by Mr. Goldstein.
I personally have no problem with anyone else's beliefs, so long as they don't try to control my supported government. I usually refrain from "proselytizing" that there is no deity out there, which is also a pretty absurd thing to do. I have no idea, really, but I also have no reason to suspect as much. Mr. Goldstein cannot prove me wrong.
Mr. Goldstein's article would have been far more credible if he had refrained from use of such extreme phrases describing atheist thought and words as "dystopia," "puerile," "elitist clique," "bizarre views" and warning us dreadfully of an atheistic "eternal blackness of a cold, dead universe." Is he serious?
I know that some atheists are really "anti-theists," but I am not, and there is a difference. I slightly knew and did not like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, "the ultra-nasty den mother of American atheism." I think she was an "anti-theist," but I also know that she had been threatened and physically assaulted and was eventually murdered, so I think that her attitude was somewhat understandable, even if misguided. Mr. Goldstein should dial down his clueless scorn a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
