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.

COMMERCE IN ARMS

(The following was published by the Richmond Times-Dispatch December 27, 2014:)

Regarding Barton Hinkle's December 21 column about Governor McAuliffe's alleged "misinformation" about gun owners' rights, I would like to offer these observations.

I am not necessarily in favor of all of Governor McAuliffe's proposals, but most do not violate constitutional rights.  As a gun owner, I am a firm supporter of the 2d Amendment's recognition of an unqualified personal "right ... to "keep and bear Arms."  However, Hinkle's embrace of the National Rifle Association's warped expansion of gun "rights" is plainly wrong.  Hinkle enumerates proposals by Governor McAuliffe that, with one exception, deal ONLY with gun commerce and concealed-weapons permits.  The 2d Amendment does, indeed, protect one's right to "keep and bear Arms" already owned, but it does not protect any right to buy or sell arms nor to carry them concealed.  Concealed-carry is a conditional privilege that is controlled via government permits.  There is no "right" to concealed-carry stated in the 2d Amendment.  One may only "bear" arms, presumably openly.  

As far as I know, there is no intrastate commercial activity that is not subject to control by state governments.  Congress clearly has the power to "regulate [interstate] Commerce" in the Constitution, with no exception for arms.  Commerce has been a particular justification for governmental regulation down through the ages.  It is ludicrous to suggest that governments in the US may regulate most any aspect of commerce OTHER THAN in arms.

The one exception cited by Hinkle has to do with banning arms possession by those under protective orders.  That makes very good sense, I think, but I question the constitutionality of such a general ban.  I would agree that such a ban could be imposed by a court as a condition of release on bond or following a conviction for any violent crime, but that would be a case-by-case (literally) judicial application, not a blanket ban.

Governments are obliged to adopt and enforce their laws pursuant to the right of "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment, but other than that, they are free to regulate by law commerce and concealed-carry any way desired.  The 2d Amendment is silent as to commercial transactions.  The NRA has done a terrible disservice, threatening the rights of us gun owners, by willfully confusing the matter.

HIGH NOON?

Well, it looks like about 6-½ years after his first inauguration, Obama has finally found some testicles!  He's not ready to star in "High Noon" or anything like that, yet, but the move to put Cuban relations on a more sensible plane is laudatory.

Enough of the Cold War already!  Castro is a half-dead geezer, and his brother Raul is not far behind.  "Things" are going to be different in Cuba soon enough!  I would also argue that Castro would have been gone long ago had we not made him the "villain" and thereby ensured his adoration in Cuba despite all his absurd policies!  The idiotic US embargo of that country has been our national shame until the CIA torture stuff.  It is interesting to note that the CIA has been at the bottom (cesspool) of both policies.  Yet those twits could not protect us from "9/11" nor even from the Boston bombing!  What a worthless organization!

The move to liberate those "undocumented aliens" who were brought to the US as children (so-called "DREAMers") is another smart move.  What kind of idiot wants to deport those folks?  They are as "American" as I am, and most are paying taxes and doing well!  Wednesday, the US Supreme Court refused to review a Court of Appeals decision that blocked the attempt by Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, to deny those poor folks drivers licenses to ensure that they would have no way at all to commute to jobs and be productive citizens.  Those halfwits in Arizona government are a good example of just how stupid STATE governments can get, for those who think "states' rights" is a good idea!

Obama cannot lift the anti-Cuba embargo on his own.  He will need to persuade Congress to approve that, and I doubt that is in the cards.  The question is begged: why was Obama so aimless and tentative when he had a functional majority of Dems in the Congress his first 2 years?  Basically, Obama should go down in history as one of the most INEFFECTUAL presidents we've ever had because he squandered the opportunity (mostly with that pig of a law called "Obamacare") to arguably get progressive measures adopted by the Congress.  The Dems who lost control of the House in 2010 have no glory to share, either, although the House healthcare bill was a pretty good bill, and Nancy Pelosi deserves the credit.  It later got trashed in the Senate once Harry Reid put his filthy paws all over it.  The feckless Obama was almost totally AWOL during the House proceedings and basically did not get involved until the matter went to the Senate, where he and Harry Reid connived to turn the measure into an insurance-company relief act by preemptively gutting the House-passed "public option" without any debate whatsoever!  "Obamacare" is Obama's sole legacy of any significance.  Pathetic.

I have been complaining about Obama's tentativeness and lack of courage.  These recent moves are really the first I have ever seen to the contrary.  I fear it may be too little/too late, and if a Republican is elected in 2016, even "Obamacare" may get totally repealed.  I don't think there is any secret that most Republicans want NO publicly-funded healthcare at all.  I think most citizens do (not necessarily "Obamacare"), but they have mostly ignored those electoral risks.  It seems that Republicans would rather be surrounded by a bunch of untreated sick people and poor people who clog emergency rooms and wind up forcing paying patients' bills higher that get paid by insurance companies that raise premiums to pay for the care of those poor people ANYWAY!  DUH!  "Democracy" is not going to win the IQ contest for sure!

I think the 2014 election was more a repudiation of the tentativeness and timidity of Obama and the Democrats rather than an affirmation of Republican policies.  But the results do not lie.  Regardless of what motivated the absurdly low 40% of voters who showed up in Va. this year, or what motivated the 60% that sat on their worthless asses on Election Day and did not vote, the Republicans are in charge in Congress, and Obama will be lucky to get his paycheck from here on!

GEEZER BOOMERS

(The following was sent as a letter to the Editor of the Richmond (Va.) Times Dispatch on December 6, 2014.)

Your editorial of December 5 purports to credit such things as "public-service messages" and "school ... strategies" for the reduction in juvenile violent crime.  I suppose those laudable things have had some positive influence, as you generally acknowledge.

However, the "tough-love" crowd routinely takes the credit for the unmistakeable overall drop in violent crime, as do the MADD mothers taking credit for the unmistakeable drop in alcohol-related accidents.  The latter are even talking about pushing the "BAC" (Blood Alcohol Content) drunk-driving "trigger" down to 0.05% BAC since the 0.08% "trigger" seems to have worked so well.  It was at 0.10% BAC some years ago until Bill Clinton and Congress coerced all states to embrace the 0.08% BAC DUI standard in the 1990's or lose federal highway funds.

Your editorial also points out that adult violent crime, though down, is now higher than juvenile violent crime.  That should be no surprise, if the "experts" would acknowledge the "elephant in the room."

The "elephant" is the aging of us Baby Boomers.  How is it that the single largest demographic variable in history (the coming of age and then the aging of us Boomers) is repeatedly ignored when considering these disparate events?  Not only with regard to crime and drunk driving, but also the current economic "malaise" that resists the idiot "supply-side" remedy of lower income taxes for the "job creators."  Fundamentally, we Boomers have gotten too old to party, too old to rumble, and too old to be in the marketplace buying up stuff left and right, spending money like drunk sailors and never saving a penny!

We Boomers were the greatest single "demand" influence the world marketplace has ever seen, and there is no succeeding generation able to equal our sheer numbers.  Consequently, we are all suffering a crisis in economic "demand," not "supply."  The real "job creators" (retailers and other small businesses) have fewer paying customers so must hire fewer employees.  (Retail sales for "Black Friday" were down nationwide over 11% last week.)

Distracted cops easily targeting "social drinkers" coming out of bars, festivals and athletic events are racking up the conviction numbers but are still missing most of the admittedly fewer "killer drunks" still on the road with BAC levels routinely exceeding 0.13%, relatively unchanged since the 0.10% standard.  (I have the Virginia DMV's own numbers to prove this statement.)  "Social drinkers" are probably "impaired" at 0.08%, but they are not very "dangerous."  Nevertheless, the MADD mothers and law enforcement pat themselves on the back for "doing something."  We Boomers are just too old to be out on the roads driving drunk like we used to, so of course accidents are down overall!

If the personal savings rate jumps up soon, you can "thank" us paranoid "geezer" Boomers for hoarding our dollars instead of spending them!

DIGITAL DELIGHTS

(Posted 12/5/14 on "The Daily Beast" as a comment to news that the reliably liberal New Republic magazine will be taken over and given a rigorous digital exam!)

Notwithstanding the "Wrong-Wing" glee that the New Republic is being arguably gutted by its new digitally-savvy owner, while mourners express horrified comparisons to the bloody "Red Wedding" in the HBO series, Game of Thrones, the political viewpoint of TNR is irrelevant.  We can't all subsist on a diet composed exclusively of the drivel published by Rupert Murdoch.  But what IS relevant is the fact that a lot of print magazines are dying or going digital.  This turn of events is as reminiscent of the current plot line on "The Newsroom" as it is the "Red Wedding," wherein a digital dynamo wants to take over the network and convert it to "infotainment."

Let's face it: "analog" news and opinion just don't cut it in the digital age, where industry moguls are mostly MBA bean-counter types, obsessed primarily with the financial bottom line.  It has brutally happened in American industry, too, where the bean-counters now get to dictate the design of domestic automobiles, for example, based not upon their performance and engineering but whether or not they will turn a profit.  (That is why I now drive Toyotas.  Even though many are now made in the US, the design process and managerial philosophy are still not dominated by "bean-think.")  In the digital world in which we now exist, the customer/reader/viewer/driver is not to be served but is to be exploited as a profit center, to be coerced into serving the interests of the businesses instead of the businesses serving them.

PLUS, we aging, mostly analog Baby Boomers are not the driving consuming force in the marketplace anymore.  We are now mostly paranoid geezers waiting to die.  We have been replaced by much more tech-savvy youngsters who seemingly prefer digital access, even as they are being manipulated and exploited by the bean-counters.

Oblah-di, oblah-dah.