SOOWEE'S SECOND THEORY OF GRAVITY

© 4/11/16 All rights reserved.  (See 3/19/08.  Updated 2/7/18.)

This came to me over several weeks in the early spring of 2016, and it is based upon several observations of others about which I recently read.

Most of us know that there is no such thing as a true “vacuum.”  That is, to say, a vacuum does not affirmatively “suck.”  It is merely the ABSENCE of air pressure, and whenever anything moves toward a vacuum, like in a mercury barometer, it is really the ambient air pressure that is PUSHING down on the exposed reservoir of mercury and up into the “vacuum” tube.  In outer space, a mercury barometer would not work because there is no air pressure.

Perhaps gravity is really not masses drawn toward each other by the energy of some mysterious subatomic “God” particle (the recently confirmed “Higgs” boson, for example) but is, instead, the ABSENCE of energy within a mass that allows EXTERNAL "dark energy" (currently causing the known Universe to expand) to also PUSH mass objects toward each other (thus “gravity”).  I am only a layperson, so I do not have the knowledge of math nor physics with which to test these speculations.  I must leave that to others.  (In his 1997 novel, Mason And Dixon about the 18th-Century surveyors who created the eponymous line, Thomas Pynchon opens with a sailing-ship voyage in the 1700's to watch a total eclipse of the sun somewhere in the South Pacific.  The BOATSWAIN (pronounced "bosun") on board the sailing ship is aptly named "Higgs"!)

So, what if that “dark energy” is what PUSHES objects together (manifest as Einstein’s warpage of space-time) like a roulette ball going around the wheel being confined and “pushed” around by the rim of the wheel bowl?  And, because the objects of matter being “pushed” together have mass, that mass (the absence of “dark energy”) actually creates a sort of “vacuum” that allows the external “dark energy” of gravity to push those mass objects closer together!  That's my story, and I'm sticking with it!

I assume that there is a constant whereby the acceleration of "gravity" is proportionate to the mass of the two objects in attraction.  For instance, on Earth, a body approximately 8,000 miles in diameter, objects are “attracted” to fall toward the Earth at a uniform acceleration rate of around 32 feet per second per second.  Most objects thus attracted are not of such a mass as to create a measurable differential in attraction.  The “pull” of gravity on the Moon is less, but we know that the Moon's gravity does "attract" the Earth, the tides and other objects.  The “pull” of gravity on Jupiter is probably way more than either!

Hell if I know!

CORPORATE "GENEROSITY"

I have never understood why corporations donate to charities, other than suck-up "good will."  It is an accounting mess, and I think it is not a proper function of a profit-seeking business.  Those donated funds otherwise belong to the shareholders, but the managers get all the credit for their shareholders' "generosity"!  I think that's a load of crap and should be prohibited across the board by law!  It will never happen, however, because too many powerful, influential people prefer the status quo.  They wantonly donate my money to each other's charities then get all the credit for it from each other complete with cigars and back-slaps!  It really annoys me to see corporate "sponsorships" on PBS or for the "March of Dimes"!  Also, as a shareholder, I never get invited to all those cocktail parties, dinners and galas.  If shareholders want to donate personally to a charity, fine, but they should get the sole credit, not the corporate managers.

Speaking of the "March of Dimes," I remember filling up the little cards with silver dimes in elementary school to cure polio!  Well, Drs. Salk and Sabin cured polio back in the 1950's.  We all took our Salk shots, then we sucked down the Sabin sugar cubes.  So, did the "March of Dimes" die a quiet death thereafter?  No!  That self-serving eternal flame-out is still chugging along, having subsequently adopted "birth defects" as its clever raison d'etre!  

Charities never die.  Miraculously and regardless of scientific advancements, they are like vampires and  live forever, parasitically sucking on the lifeblood of society forevermore!  If cancer is ever cured, the "American Cancer Society" will surely find some reason to keep on keeping on!

IN-TUITION

College and university tuitions are way higher now than when I went to college.  The burden of student loan debt to finance same is crushing, and job prospects for graduates (and loan payback) are slim.  Student loan debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so it hangs like a blood-sucking tick on the student debtor for a very long time.  Student loan debt, unlike most federal programs, is VERY profitable for the US government!  Beginning with us Baby Boomers in the mid-1960's, the DEMAND for college has way outstripped the SUPPLY of available places and grows with every year.  Indifferent "semi-pro" athletes on athletic "scholarships" are subsidized by tuition-paying students.  A college degree is a must-have for almost everyone, since the future income prospects for those without one are horribly (and mistakenly) degraded.  Too many people are being told that they must attend college AT ANY COST, and so it is.  The colleges and universities are just charging whatever the market will bear, AS THEY SHOULD!

When DEMAND exceeds SUPPLY, costs go up.  That is basic economics.

Some people of indifferent academic abilities should be diverted to trade schools Instead.  I should have gone to a trade school instead of wasting space in college and law school!  I finally DID go to auto mechanics school and got top grades!  I passed all 8 ASE Master Mechanic's exams TWICE!  I always wanted to be a car mechanic, and when I finally did that, I realized I had been wrong to pursue "academic" courses beginning so many years ago.  I don't regret my formal education, but I did get it kicking and screaming the whole way!  I was simply not allowed to consider any alternatives to college, except being wounded or killed in Vietnam!  Not much of a choice worth having, anyway!

All colleges and universities ought to quit awarding the oxymoronic "athletic scholarships" to good athletes who don't really care about getting an academic education.  Why should the colleges and universities provide a FREE "farm system" for the NBA and NFL, when major-league baseball must maintain its own farm system?  All colleges and universities should be put under the NCAA Division III rules (academic scholarships only) immediately.  That would create a "level playing field" that would be fair to all fans, and good athletes uninterested in formal education could go into a basketball or football pro farm system maintained by the majors.  Good athletes who are also scholars could get real "scholarships" AND play their favorite sports!

That might then obviate the idiotic debate about whether or not college athletes should be paid for their labors!  I understand their desire to share in the ocean of athletic cash flowing through college and university coffers, but it's nonsense!  Maybe coaches will finally get lower salaries than the college presidents!  All money generated within an athletic program should be deemed to belong to the school.  Why should coaches be allowed to divert those funds into their own pockets?  Same for research funds given to professors!  If school resources are used to generate those funds, then they should belong to the schools!  More money might then be freed up to provide more tenure-track faculty positions and fringe benefits, especially if the administrative bureaucracies are brought to heel.

If DEMAND for college student space were reduced, the costs must eventually come down, and so would the currently outrageous bite of student loans.

CLASS WARFARE?

Stephen Colbert asked Bernie Sanders on February 10, 2016 if he was not, in fact, advocating "class warfare."  That is the usual response to those who seek to "spread the wealth" and make public institutions more inclusive.

Indeed, some advocates do complain against the "haves" as a group, and that is just as wrong as complaining about other groups like "Muslims," or "blacks," or even "white folks."  Group-think is the essence of bigotry.  Each of us is entitled to be judged by our own actions and statements and not as a member of any group.  So, it is wrong to blame all wealthy folks generally for the fact that Congress and many of the state legislatures have been unwilling to levy the necessary taxes to generate the revenues being spent.

Nobody likes paying taxes.  Why should anyone be expected to ASK for a tax increase?  Nevertheless, taxes are the price we must pay for a civilized society, and we cannot have "civilization" if there are people going hungry, homeless or whose disorders are untreated.  I personally believe those are fundamental to our self-definitiion as a free, civilized society.  

When he was the tax-supported President some thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan, without a hint of irony, famously declared "government" as the enemy.  There has been a palpable hostility toward "government" among most of the wealthier folks ever since, and among some not so wealthy.  There also is a widespread presumption that, BUT FOR "government," the taxpayers would have so much additional money.  That ignores, however, the very complex ways in which higher gross earnings are derivative of stronger, more effective "government" that requires taxes to function properly.  There are very few wealthy people in an anarchy.  Too many Americans are taking their well-being for granted.  That may well change when rusted bridges start tumbling and water and sewer systems start failing.  Artificially low taxation for the past thirty years or so in the face of draining, adventurous warmongering has beggared our neglected and deteriorating infrastructure.  Those chickens may be about to come home to roost!  Flint, Michigan just may be the tip of an approaching iceberg of massive infrastructure failure all over the US.  

It is a fact that wealthier people wind up keeping a larger PERCENTAGE (not simply total dollars) of their gross incomes after taxes and basic living expenses than do lower incomes.  This has probably been true for a very long time, but those who presume to analyze economic policy must reckon with the fact that lower-income households spend most if not all of their after-tax net incomes.  Their savings is virtually nonexistent.  Many forego healthcare expenditures just to keep food on the table.  It is unconscionable that ANY household in America must choose between illness vs. hunger.  That is unacceptable to me.

"Healthcare" and "insurance coverage" should not be synonymous, but they are.  When people complain about the high cost of "Obamacare" or whatever and tout the "free-market system" as a preferred alternative to managing healthcare costs, such a proposal would leave many ignorant, powerless, low-income folks at the risk of a brutal marketplace, as before.  Until "Obamacare" was adopted, American families were subject to a "free-market" healthcare system complete with mostly unregulated for-profit insurance companies that are not, BY LAW (still), subject to the antitrust laws.  Anticompetitive practices furthered excluding those with "pre-existing" disorders, exclusionary monopoly markets (still a problem), premium-cost collusions, coverage-limitation collusions, and a host of other expensive realities that impaired any insurance coverage for some and expensive coverage for others.  Yet increases in taxes are never compared with the former COMBINED costs of uninsured healthcare and for-profit insurance, and many geographic areas are still served by only one or two companies, furthering the effective monopoly referenced above.  For-profit insurance companies are permitted to NOT compete area by area, are permitted to charge whatever they can collude is reasonable, and they do not suffer whenever a healthcare provider refuses to play in their colluded sandbox.  More and more providers are opting out of the insane system that prevails.

Notwithstanding my favor for public healthcare, "Obamacare" is a far cry from being a good system.  It was the product of a nefarious bargain between Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the insurance companies who were basically left in charge.  The House of Representatives acted first on the issue of public healthcare, and the House bill that was sent to the Senate was a pretty good bill: it provided universal public healthcare, exclusive of private insurance company control; it provided serious cost controls, yet did not saddle healthcare providers with the pointless need to generate a profit "envelope" for the insurance companies, as does "Obamacare."  In short, by gutting the House-passed bill and forcing he American people to buy into a for-profit system, "Obamacare" has continued some of the many shortcomings under the prior system.

Bernie Sanders is advocating "Medicare-for all," which the House bill more closely resembled.  There is no reason why this is not an acceptable goal.  It does not prevent health-insurance companies from participating, just as they now participate by writing Medicare supplemental policies.  But, it would provide some "universal" healthcare availability that would not be CONTROLLED by the health-insurance companies, whose participation should be submitted to competitive forces that would require healthcare-insurance companies to compete in ALL markets as a condition of participating at all.  The territorial exclusions should be eliminated.  If supported by higher taxes on higher incomes, the true "middle class" could be spared much of the additional cost that would be borne, instead, by those who can AFFORD to do so.  The costs of private insurance could be drastically reduced for all, including the wealthy, and non-participating providers (who would be spared much of the burden of bearing the profit "envelope") would be more likely to stay in the game.  Paid benefits would be even and certain, being of benefit to healthcare providers and, ultimately, to patients.

And, the net IMPACT on most taxpayers would likely be lighter if the insurance-company profit margins were subtracted from the costs equations.  Again, the core issue is not who shells out what, but who has what left over.  Those in Sweden, for example, who are in a 60% income-tax bracket know that they are getting a lot of "civilization" for their money.  Even though a 60c bite is being taken out of every top dollar (not all of them), they are getting a lot for their money.  And, even if they are in the 60% bracket, they still have quite a bit left over.

"Class warfare" implies a certain unfair and hostile seizure of private property that would otherwise be available BUT FOR a government riddled with "waste, fraud and abuse."  Ever since Reagan, many people have come to ignore the many good and efficient things that "government" does and look only at the admitted shortcomings.  Too many idealistically obsess about living in an utopian anarchy, free of pesky "government."  Providing fundamentals for everyone in society does not mean a "war" on any segment.  How much pleasure and satisfaction can a wealthy person derive from his bounty if there are hordes of hungry, desperate people hanging out on street corners begging, vomiting, committing crimes, etc.?  How much enjoyment of that wealth can he or she have if lying in a bed, paralyzed with a broken back because a bridge collapsed?  What might the health-insurance company try to declare as "uninsurable" then?

"Class warfare" indeed!

CONVENTIONING WISDOM

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has indignantly demanded the call for a "Convention of States" to amend the US Constitution under Article V.  Keep in mind that Abbott was the legally-trained Texas Attorney General before he became Governor, so one might properly conclude that he has already thought through all the ramifications of his propositions.  Further, the reader might be tempted to dismiss the zealous proponents of such stuff as half-wit Trailer-Trash yayhoos, but I dare not possibly suggest such a conclusion! 

Nevertheless, Abbott has proposed several provisions for such a Convention.  Here they are, according to "The Daily Beast," with my reactions to his propositions: 

1.  Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

Might this proposition automatically modify or restrict the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and "navigable" waters, even if the focused event occurs entirely within Texas?  What do the words "regulate," "activity," "wholly" or "within" mean?  Would Congress be able to regulate the generation of pollutants entirely in one state that spill into or blow into another state? 

2.  Require Congress to balance its budget. 

I used to support the Balanced-Budget Amendment, then I got to thinking about how the Constitution is usually enforced, by filing litigation in COURT!  Constitutional provisions are NOT self-enforcing, so it's always been up to the FEDERAL courts to enforce them.  So, if Congress fails to cobble together a balanced budget," that certainly seems to be a constitutional violation to be created by Abbott's proposition.  Would Congress be under some sort of time limit to generate that "balanced budget," or could it proceed on "continuing resolutions" as it now does?  Could that mean the Congress would be obligated to levy high enough taxes to support all the stupid pseudo-wars they are too spineless to declare?  Who might be able to file a FEDERAL court action seeking a court order COMPELLING the Congress to obey the law?  Would a federal judge have to first make a finding that the budget, in fact, was not "balanced" before proceeding?  Might a "balanced budget" require "balanced" spending and taxing?  The "budget" does not really control federal spending now, and supposedly there is already a federal statute in effect requiring a "balanced budget"!  Could the federal courts order the Congress to levy more taxes?  Would a President be able to keep the costs of a big war "off-budget," as George W. Bush did with the Iraq War?  Could federal judges generate a "balanced budget" if the Congress failed to do so?  (I don't think that would be a valid function of the judiciary, speaking of "activist judges"!)  Could the courts decide what should be taxed?  Neither Abbott nor any other "Convention" advocate has ever provided any answers to all these questions. 

3.  Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

What does the word "creating" mean?  Would federal agencies be prohibited from issuing regulations covering the things they are usually expected to regulate?  Would the Congress be, therefore, burdened to write up more detailed statutes to make up for the regs the "unelected bureaucrats" couldn't legally generate anymore?  When would that ever get done? If Congress predictably overlooked something, would the federal government then be prohibited from addressing it? 

4.  Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

What does "preempting" mean?  Would this revoke the "Supremacy" clause in Article VI that recites that the Constitution, all congressional acts and ratified treaties are parts of the "supreme Law of the Land"?  So if state legislatures adopted laws that were contrary to federal law about a matter clearly within the purview of Congress (like immigration), would all the different state laws prevail? 

5.  Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

I understand the intention here is to cut down the Judicial Branch as a separate, co-equal branch to the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.  Same with Proposition 6.  Proposition 9 would supposedly allow 2/3 of the state legislatures to "override" a congressional act or executive regulation.  Would 2/3 of the state legislatures be able to override a federal outcome that clearly addressed a federal issue, like declaring war?  Could 2/3 of the state legislatures declare war, even if 1/3 objected?  Could 2/3 of the state legislatures revoke a declaration of war, even if 1/3 supported it?  It appears the intent here is to subject ALL of the congressional powers in Article I and all of the Supreme Court decisions under Article III to a 2/3 state legislative veto.  Since the Supreme Court has outlawed school racial segregation, could 2/3 of the state legislatures reintroduce it?  If the Supreme Court outlawed capital punishment, could 2/3 of the states revoke that and maybe even compel it in states that had also outlawed it?  Could 2/3 of the states completely outlaw capital punishment for the entire country as presently validated by the Supreme Court?

6.  Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

What, exactly, is the scope of a "democratically enacted law"?  Would it require 7 of 9 Justices to outlaw an obviously unconstitutional law enacted by a state, like compelling daily prayers to Allah in the public schools? 

7.  Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

I was unaware the "balance of power" was out of whack!  The 10th Amendment already prohibits "powers not delegated" to the federal government.  Why is it necessary to "reinvent the wheel"?  Maybe we just need to develop a "litmus" pledge for potential judicial candidates to sign!

8.  Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

How do we define "overstep their bounds"?  Or, do we just empower the individual states to sue the government as often as desired?  Does that require a state legislature to direct the state attorney general to sue the government?  Does a state's governor have any say-so or veto?  Who pays the costs of the litigation?  The loser?  If a state loses, should its taxpayers have to pay the federal government's legal fees, or vice-versa?  

9.  Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation. 

What in the world does "override" mean?  Would the offending regulation or law have to be specifically identified in a legislative act duly adopted and signed by the governor?  To what extent of detail would an override need to have?

Other points are worth making: the amending provisions of Article V do not limit the subject matter of any called Constitutional Convention.  So, while it may be Abbott's intention that only his proposals be heard, once the Convention is called to order, there is no way to block proposed amendments from the floor, such that the various rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to remain silent, the prohibitions against "cruel and unusual punishment," the right to a lawyer, the right to subpoena witnesses, the right to be free from unreasonable" searches, all of those things COULD be potentially revoked or restricted as desired by a simple majority vote at the Convention!  Presumably all votes would be by simple majority once the Convention was called to order.  There is also no provision in Article V for how a Constitutional Convention could proceed, who would preside, where or when it could be held, how long it would last, who could be a delegate, etc.  Presumably the state legislatures would be the sole determinants of who got elected as delegates.  There is also no proposed allocation of representation!  Presumably the allotment of delegates would be according to population, but that is not specifically provided.  Must the states be equally represented as they were at the original Constitutional Convention?  If so, then Vermont (the home of Sen. Bernie Sanders) would have the same Convention voting strength as Texas!  Women and minorities could arguably be limited or excluded from a delegation if any state legislature so decided.  It could conceivably wind up being entirely composed of white male property-owners, just like the first Constitutional Convention! 

I am also not sure if Article V requires a proposed-amendment ratification by 3/4 of ALL states or just 3/4 of the ones in attendance at the Convention.  So, if only 34 states (2/3) show up for the Convention, could just 26 (3/4 of 34; barely half of all states) accomplish the ratification, or would it still require a full 38 state legislatures to ratify?

FINALLY, I am absolutely fascinated with the pure political angles of these propositions!  Suppose a coalition of few big states, like Texas, NY, California, Fla., Ohio, etc. got together and passed some sort of law in Congress (where they have dominant representative power) favoring heavily populated states, but a coalition of at least 34 small and/or sparsely populated states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Nevada, etc. got together and had their legislatures revoke that pro-big-state federal law!  That is a distinct possibility under Abbott's propositions!  By empowering only state legislatures, these propositions do not reflect any sort of numerical population balance or influence!

Maybe it won't make any difference if these propositions are adopted.  Getting 34 states to agree on anything may be impossible!

De Debbil is really in de details!  Good luck with all that!

THE BIG LIE

Many people have seen on TV in a cop show the ubiquitous use of the polygraph (a/k/a “lie detector”)  Most people may well believe in the efficacy and accuracy of the polygraph with respect to “lie detection.”  Nothing could be further from the truth, and the examiners and other “experts” know it.

I spent 38 years in the practice of law in a rural area.  For the first 13 years or so I practiced the defense of the criminally accused.  Early in my career I allowed two of my clients to be examined on polygraph at the Va. State Police Division Headquarters.  (I will never do such a thing again.)

The polygraph (I refuse to label it a “lie detector” since that is a patently false label) graphically measures on a moving paper graph the fluctuations in the subject’s breathing, heart rate, and galvanic (sweat) reaction on the fingers.  The assertion accepted by most is that a change in these reactions from a previously laid-down “control” image is indicative of stress caused by dishonesty.  So, the person examining the alleged graphic display of stress then pronounces that such stress is most likely due to dishonesty.

The results of a polygraph exam are usually not admissible in court absent the concurrence of the accused.  However, once such concurrence is obtained (rarely), the examiner (usually having no more than a high-school education) is allowed to opine, under oath, that the machine has shown “undue” or “unusual” stress, thus indicating the accused is not being truthful.  This is the core of the “Big Lie.”

The sensors usually connected to the polygraph are: (1) a chest belt, which measures both the breathing rate and the size of the breaths taken; (2) a blood pressure cuff to measure heart rate; and (3) a sensor that wraps around a couple of fingers and purportedly measures the level of perspiration on the fingers, then translating that to a galvanic reaction that transmits voltage.  These sensors are, in turn, connected to a device that translates the physical input from the sensors into pulsing pens scribing waves onto the moving paper graph.  As the paper moves under the pens, the pulses from the sensors cause the pens to wipe back and forth across the moving graph paper, thus producing a graph showing the three inputs as “squiggles” on the paper.  The examiner then looks at the pattern of the graphs and draws (or states) conclusions about the honesty of the subject.  Under prevailing polygraph theory, a display of “undue” subject stress on the graph indicates a lack of subject truthfulness, according to most examiners.

I recall the polygraph exam back in the mid-1970‘s of one young girl whom I represented and who was accused of theft.  She was thus examined at State Police Headquarters in Culpeper.  The examiner, a State Police officer, declared that the child was being untruthful.  I asked to see the graph and to have pointed out to me the point showing my client’s dishonesty.  The examiner pointed to an area on the graph that, to my eyes, displayed almost NOTHING--no apparent change in the graphic waves being laid down.  Despite my expressed skepticism, the examiner, however, INSISTED she was being untruthful.

So, being naïve and inexperienced in such matters, I came to believe that my client was being dishonest.  The examiner was firm in his conclusion and thereby greatly influenced my own thinking.  I owe my client an apology, some 40 years later!  That examiner had no business at all drawing such a conclusion.  I am now convinced that he willfully and deliberately and dishonestly attempted to shore up the charges against my client by drawing a conclusion that was obviously at odds with what was shown on the graph.  I am ashamed that I fell for it.

Most examiners have no business opining about stress and the signs of it.  Most have no college degree and therefore no advanced education enabling them to comprehend physiological manifestations of stress.  And, most examiners have no business opining about the connection between purportedly observed stress changes and truthfulness.  They are drawing ultimate conclusions (and being allowed to state them under oath or by and with the authority of their public position), thereby dishonestly influencing the conclusions of others and the resultant outcomes.

There is absolutely no reliable basis for a subjective, uneducated conclusion that a particular squiggle on a piece of paper is evidence of dishonesty.  NO ONE is qualified to draw such absurd, fabricated conclusions!  Yet both the CIA and the FBI are still permitted to use polygraph exams of employees to ferret out alleged spies and end careers.  That is insane.

No one should ever submit to a polygraph exam for any reason whatsoever.  No one should ever sign an employment agreement (which the courts routinely and blindly enforce) that permits the employer to condition a hiring based on the employee’s unconditional and unlimited willingness to submit to such nonsense.

It is way past time for the US Supreme Court and the Congress to outlaw any use of the polygraph for any reason whatsoever.  That this issue has been ignored for so long is conclusive evidence of the intellectual corruption of those who are sworn to protect our civil liberties.

LOVING vs. VIRGINIA & GAY MARRIAGE

(Based upon a letter to the Editor of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, 5/22/15)

In late May 2015, Markus Schmidt published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch an interesting article about the famous 1966 Supreme Court case, LOVING vs. VIRGINIA and its possible impact on the gay marriage case currently pending before the US Supreme Court.  LOVING thankfully outlawed Virginia's legal hostility toward interracial marriage. So, ”activist" federal judges had to do what the State of Virginia and many other mostly Southern states had stupidly refused to do: recognize the "basic civil right" to marriage as recited by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren. OF COURSE, judges "make law" when they rule in such fashion.  That is the proper function of a separate and equal judicial branch of government.  Meanwhile, the legislative branch does not always get to do whatever it wishes, not even a democratically elected one!  

The State of Virginia bans not only religious gay marriage but also civil gay marriage.  The current litigation involves only the bans against civil (non-religious) gay marriage.  Yet, even religious marriages must be sanctioned by state law, with civil licensure and certification requirements.  Many so-called “conservatives” still believe the 10th Amendment is a "states' rights" blank-check empowerment of the states as against Congress, but that is not so. The delegates to the federal Constitutional Convention were not authorized to empower the states. Those other powers are only RESERVED, NOT GRANTED to the states.  Therefore, the 10th Amendment operates only as  a restraint against unlimited federal powers. One must look to the applicable state constitutions that empower or limit the states as thus recited; but for state constitutions, a particular state government would not even legally exist nor have any power to act at all.

The proper query here is whether or not a state government has a specific power to prevent the creation of private civil relationships between consenting, unrelated adults.  Few would likely tolerate government prohibition of religious marital liturgies, so why tolerate government prohibition of civil gay marriages?  Under the 14th Amendment, the US Constitution (the "Supreme Law of the Land") recognizes our basic civil right to equal protection of the laws, over and above the whims and prejudices of elected legislators.  This means that gays have exactly the same rights and liberties as straights.  No more, no less.  No American government, not even a democracy, may pass laws against that rule absent some "compelling" reason.  Mere preservation of vague, subjective, religious "traditions" reflected by someone's mere opinion is not compelling under any constitutional measure.  The US may well be a "Christian Nation" in the eyes of many but, to be fair, our governments should be firmly secular at all times.

It is my fervent hope that the US Supreme Court will view this issue through the correct end of the "constitutional telescope" and clearly enunciate vigorous limits on such state powers rather than squirm to find yet another discrete right.

ARE CORPORATIONS "PEOPLE"?

Two Supreme Court cases fairly recently decided have raised the ire of many folks who deplore the apparent pro-conservative, pro-corporation bias on the Court.  CITIZENS UNITED vs. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ("CITIZENS UNITED") and BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al, vs. HOBBY LOBBY  STORES, INC., et al  ("HOBBY LOBBY") both seem to hold that corporations have such clear human characteristics that they should enjoy unlimited freedom of speech (CITIZENS UNITED) and also reflect the personal religious and moral principles of the majority stockholders (HOBBY LOBBY).  I think CITIZENS UNITED is a valid interpretation of the First Amendment's ban on suppression of speech.  I do not agree that shareholders may have the closely-held corporations they mostly own reflect their moral or religious doctrines, as seemingly provided under HOBBY LOBBY.

I did not find in either Opinion where the Supreme Court held that corporations are humans.  That is an obvious absurdity, yet it has become the shorthand complaint of those claiming "liberal" allegiances who oppose these outcomes.  That is a misleading representation of what the Court held in both cases, and only a careful reading of the Opinions can reveal the complex issues raised and decided.  Any attempt to simplify either Opinion is absurd.  There is no valid substitute for going to the source if one wishes to have an informed opinion about those cases.

CITIZENS UNITED:

Most opponents to recognition of First Amendment rights for corporations defiantly insist that "money is not speech."  They are understandably incensed that very wealthy and reactionary people can buy influence with their money via ads against arguably more "reasonable" liberal candidates.  However, I think this issue needs to be viewed for what it is: whether or not the First Amendment protects the toxic, deplorable, overwhelming "speech" and electioneering of the reactionary toads with too much money.  Regrettably, I think that is EXACTLY what the First Amendment protects.

This case arose when the "nonprofit" group, "Citizens United," wanted to produce a video highly critical of Hillary Clinton when she was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.  They wanted to show the video "on demand" on cable TV.  They failed to get a declaratory ruling that the First Amendment prohibited enforcement of Section 441b of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) by the Federal Election Commission.  In oversimplification, that Section prohibited ads seeking a specific political outcome within 30 days of an election.  Citizens United, claiming that the First Amendment was intended precisely to protect political speech, first and foremost, appealed to the Supreme Court.

I said above "regrettably" because I agree with most critics of the CITIZENS UNITED decision that there is way too much evil money in politics.  I hate being out-spent, and I am certain that some legislators happily vote to please their well-heeled masters.  However, several issues arise: in Virginia, fewer that half of all registered voters have been showing up at the polls recently, so for me a much bigger issue is that the big money is simply not influencing nor corrupting their votes because they are not cast at all!  Those politicians who have eagerly gone after the big money are already predisposed to support and oppose the same issues as their wealthy benefactors, so I fail to see that any serious "corruption" is occurring.  No one can seriously assert that, "but for" those nasty contributions and videos, the outcomes would be any different; besides, if bribery is occurring, it should be prosecuted.  We already have laws outlawing bribery.  Political censorship is simply abhorrent to me.  I think the First Amendment was EXACTLY intended to protect ALL political "speech," including nasty videos.  Further, I think the First Amendment guarantees me the right to pool my money with others to get a bigger "speech" bang for my buck.  I think the First Amendment guarantees the right to be offended!

We cannot have one First Amendment for the "right" people of lesser means and a more restrictive First Amendment for the evil, wealthy reactionaries.  That is stupid.  And, I certainly don't want some unelected bureaucracy (the FEC) deciding what speech is permitted and what isn't, as the CITIZENS UNITED Opinion clearly addresses.  The answer to offensive "speech" is more "speech," not government censorship.  It is amazing, even frightening, that so many self-described "liberals" are so comfortable with the notion of censorship of people and organizations they don't like.  All they can focus on is the fact they are being outspent, but they want their politics for free, and the big money deprives them of that

Finally, they have also utterly failed to show any connection between the "evil money" and political outcomes.  It is ASSUMED that such money influences voting patterns, but no such evidence has been produced.  Consider all the nasty money thrown at Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, yet he handily won election both times.  To be sure, he had his own big money, but to use that as a justifier, it means that one must conclude that he corrupted more "for" votes than did the other side!

HOBBY LOBBY:

Justice Alito's opinion starts out making it clear that they are ruling only in the cases of closely held corporations, where the objecting owners own or control most if not all of the stock.  He says that Congress, in adopting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), did not intend to deprive business owners of protection of their moral principles if they choose to put their business into a corporate form of existence.

In the HOBBY LOBBY case, the objecting husband-&-wife owners owned all the stock.  They objected to being required by HHS to provide medical insurance inclusive of birth control benefits for corporate employees as a violation of their sincere religious beliefs that life begins at conception, so to be forced to provide such medical insurance would violate their protections under RFRA.

One of the core principles we learned in law school is that a corporation's provision of limited liability turns on maintaining the "separateness" of the corporation from the investor individuals, such that only the shareholder's investment is at risk, rather than the risk of unlimited personal liability.  We were further taught that this principle remains the same regardless of the size of the corporation, and that the owner shareholders should not treat the corporation as their "alter ego," subject to the risk that the corporate creditors might "pierce the corporate veil" and reach those shareholders personally, the very thing use of the corporate form of business was intended to prevent.  That "alter ego" risk is much greater with closely-held corporations than, say, large publicly-traded corporations.

Now comes along the US Supreme Court doing violation to the core principle of "separateness" of corporation and owner by imputing the owners' personal moral and religious beliefs upon the employment policies of the corporation.  I could not find any discussion of this issue in the HOBBY LOBBY opinion, if only to dismiss such concerns.  It appears that the entire United States Supreme Court has blundered into destruction of a core principle of corporate law in its zeal to assert religionist attitudes about healthcare.

I think this decision is absurd.  There should NEVER be any identification between a corporation and the owner shareholders thereof.  The US Supreme Court seems unconcerned.

That is my take on these two very complex decisions.

MONUMENTAL (Poem)

© 5/26/07, 4/15/15.

Black Granite Hole in the ground;

Bomber wing of shame, plunged to Earth, imbedded.

Etched names and hollow, piercing spirit eyes, searing lasers, following me.

Yet I return, time and again, to that wall of wasted lives.

Ceaseless weeping, yet naming not those names.

Anger boils inside me, laser-fired,

Undeclared war.  BULLSHIT!

Par for the course; our gutless Congress

Making the world ever safe for duh-mock-racy.

Déjà vu, all over again.

Wah!  We, the People, not fairly represented, 

Yet thus we choose as we mostly do not vote.

Elders, snugly cushioned in their upholstery, 

Sending innocent patriots to bloody slaughter.

Dulce et decorum est!

Par, indeed, for the course.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

Fight ‘em here or fight ‘em there!

If already here, kill ‘em anyway!

For Dog and Country.

I hate the smell of inevitable sorrow in the morning.

PLEASE! SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!

There are three horrible "save-me-from-myself" measures always being promoted, and I don't like any of them:

TERM LIMITS:

I am opposed to "term limits"!  We already have "term limits" anyway!  They are called "elections," and one can do his or her part to enforce such "term limits" as he or she may wish!  I no longer vote any party line.  Instead, I am doing my best to vote every worthless incumbent out of office, REGARDLESS of party!  We don't need some law to deprive me of my desire to keep sending the same son-of-a-bitch back into office again and again if that is what I want to do.  "Term limits" are not about getting rid of MY asshole; I am perfectly fine with MY asshole; otherwise, I would not keep voting for him!  Instead they are about getting rid of YOUR asshole, whom I despise!  Dave Brat's Virginia voters like him a lot; otherwise they would not have elected him!  They despise California's Nancy Pelosi and want to get rid of her, but her voters like her just fine!  It's Dave Brat they want to get rid of!  Sheesh!

BALANCED-BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT:

The proposed "balanced-budget" amendment to the Constitution is utterly absurd.  I understand there is already a federal statute requiring a balanced budget, so why would the Congress likely obey the Constitution more than a statute?  Most of them don't care about the Constitution now!  What if the Congress were to not pass a "balanced budget"?  Would such a constitutional violation have to be remedied by the courts, as per usual?  Would we ultimately have as few as five justices on the US Supreme Court acting in the place of a recalcitrant Congress in order to balance the budget?  Anyway, the "budget" is not where the rubber meets the road!  Congress often APPROPRIATES more money than what is "budgeted" and certainly spends more!  Total crap!  Just DO IT!

CAMPAIGN FINANCE "REFORM":

I also don't like campaign finance "reform."  I don't trust anything using the words "children," "bipartisan" or "reform."  We will get the money out of prostitution quicker than out of politics!  I do not want the government prohibiting me or anyone else from spending as much money as I wish, or combining my money with others, to call whomever a "goddamned lying son-of-a-bitch" right before the election if I so choose.  Money may not BE "speech," but it buys a helluva megaphone!  I realize that there are too many politicians taking too much money from the "wrong" people, but that is considerably aggravated by most people not bothering to vote!  How can we rant and rave about the alleged corruption of the "system" when only 40% of Virginia registered voters bothered to get off their skanky butts and go vote in the 2014 federal elections, or the 43% who bothered to vote in 2013's Virginia "goober-natorial" election?  What were the worthless rest of the registered voters doing on Election Day?  We already have criminal laws prohibiting bribery, and that is what we are really talking about, so let the bribery laws be enforced--or not!  We don't need more laws creating more power for a government that is already drunk with power!  We certainly don't need to adopt laws that empower the unelected Federal Election Commission to decide what political "speech" is permissible!  We have had multiple campaign "reform" laws passed since Watergate, yet the do-gooders clamor for more because NONE of the nonsense already passed is working as they expected!  Every time some law is passed, we are told boastfully that things are gonna work right THIS time, then along come some smart lawyers, and they figure out a way around whatever was passed!  Again and again and again!  It's like General Motors' repeated promises to build cars right THIS time, or Lucy promising Charlie Brown to not yank the football away as he runs up to kick it!  EVERY FALL!  Duh! 

Meanwhile, the "po' widdle" nonvoters sulk and whine about having no voice and no choice while they munch on Chee-tos in front of the TV on Election Day.