constitution

by

The Second Amendment And Reality


I am writing this as an historian who focused on U.S. History. Conservatives today are making hay claiming that they are simply using a founder’s view of the Amendment. This could not be further from the truth. Additionally, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right of the individual to bear arms is sacred. Still, a handful of states have laws that outlaw carrying weapons in public. But now, a New York law is in their N.R.A.’s sights as it challenges a law in that state that bars the carrying of a loaded weapon.

Republicans since the 1970s have made a mockery of the Second Amendment. Their claim of historical accuracy is an entirely false spin. How can that be? We need only look at the years from 1767 to 1789. Starting in 1770s, the court on King George through its military emissaries in the Colonies, took steps to remove arms and gun powder from the militia forces each town had. Their final assault on the colonists right to have a well-armed militia took place on April 19, 1775 when British Regular army and marine units set foot to remove the powder from Concord. Now the colonists were well aware of the British forces intentions and removed all arms and gun powder from Concord’s armory. This assault was the last in many other such assaults, all failures, the British Military conducted.

The question here is why was the court of King George III dictating such maneuvers? The answer does not lie in the simple desire of the crown to increase its power over Colonial America. In 1767 the British Parliament passed a set of laws called the Townshend Act. Within this act were the Revenue Act, the Port Act, the Quartering Act and the Indemnity Act. Where the colonies had no representation in Parliament, the colonies rightly felt repression. But these acts were only the beginning of additional acts the British Parliament passed to reign in the colonies. Parliament felt the colonies were out of line with British law, and to come extent, they were! A great example of this was the overt act to avoid taxation in the sugar trade. Massachusetts had a thriving rum distillery business. These merchants set up the triangle trade where sugar was shipped directly to Jamaica where molasses was manufactured. There being no tax on molasses, the substance was then shipped to the Massachusetts, and other, distilleries in the colonies. Another example was the requirement that all ships be built in England. With its lush forests, this law also was entirely ignored. In Manchester NH there is a road named Mast Road which derived its name from the large trees which were hauled over that road on their way to Portsmouth where ships were built.

These restrictive and coercive acts stirred large amounts on rancor among all colonies towards England. Since the earliest of days, the various cities and towns of colonial America secured individual militias to, first, protect them from Indian attack and later as a general form of individual protection. These towns elected their own officers, who, then reported to the General Officers each colony appointed. About 1773 the English forces overtly sought to insert their dominance over the Colonials. On this particular point, however, the colonial stood firm, never giving an inch to the English troops. This, of course, infuriated and exasperated English Parliament as it was never able to overcome the Colonies desires on this point.

One further point must be observed. In the early to mid-1770s, England’s Parliament sought to quiet American editorialism and their individual’s right to protest. The colonists believed these points to be sacred. English oppression was obvious. And it was on this very point that Bostonians, lead by Samuel Adams, went to the port of Boston and threw the tea from three English ships into the bay. The value of that tea at that time was approximately $1 million. That would translate to roughly $33.5 million today.

Now if you look at the Bill of Rights and then at the various coercive acts of England, you will find a one-to-one correlation. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In this Amendment you need only look at two phrases to realize that it simply refers to the ability of each state to maintain an active militia which today is known as the National Guard. And we know this to refer only to a group but the phrase, “right of the people” where the noun “people” is always plural, never singular. Now if, as in 1790 America, most town’s militias required the individual to purchases their own arms to participate in the militia, that right would naturally transfer to the individual. It is over this point jurists argue. Today’s National Guard has its weapons and ammunition supplied by the Federal Government, their is no require put upon the individual. This, therefor, negates the notion of an individual’s right to bear arms according to the original act.

However, as a nation of ever changing laws, we have granted, via the various state’s primacy, the individual to hold arms. And the Constitution, via another amendment, has made a state’s law inviolable. That means that New York has the right to restrict, as the state legislature sees fit, who can own fire arms and to restrict the ownership of certain types of arms ownership. And therefor, the Federal Government is not allowed to make a national law regarding this amendment.

by

Time to Change Term Lengths for U.S. Representatives Plus Term Limits


Our Constitution sets out the terms for both senators and representatives. But these were laid out in an era when campaign financing was insignificant and a mistrustful nation felt representatives should run every two years. But times have changed. Campaign funding, at all levels, is big business. For those who are members of the house, they get elected and almost immediately must think of getting re-elected. That is because they have to find the funds to be able to run ads for their next term and to pay for other re-election expenses. This necessarily takes away from their ability to serve their constituency as well as they could.

The solution is to change their term from 2-year to 4-year terms. This would require an Constitutional amendment but it should not be that difficult. By increasing the term to 4 years, representatives would be able to serve their constituents better.

The change would happen as a representative came up for re-election. It would take six years to cycle through every representative but in the end, you would still have elections every two years, 1/3 of the house vying for re-election, as presently happens.

Secondly, both the house and senate should be allowed to serve a total of 18 years in either the house or senate. That means someone could serve in the house for 18 years and then continue in the senate for another 18 years, 36 years total. And by not allow any present member to be grandfathered, meaning they would immediately fall under this rule, a total of 18 senators, mostly democrats, would be required to retire when their present term ends.

by

Keep Your Religion Out of My Government!


Everyone knows the First Amendment, right? I kind of doubt it because most people believe it is all about freedom of the press and the right to assemble. It is but that is just the first part. The First Amendment reads in its first part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The is the first portion. It is not until the second part that freedom of speech is address as-well-as the freedom of assembly and to petition the government with its grievances. During colonial times, Americans had a long running battle with the British over their right to assemble, have a free press, and to demonstrate their grievances.

When it came time to write the Constitution, all of the first 10 Amendments we left out as an expediance to getting it passed by at least 10 states, the minimum required. They knew that when the government was officially formed in 1789, they could present amendments to the constitution. To show how almost paranoid the early leader were about establishing their personal freedoms, that one amendment seems a bit of an anathema today, the third amendment. It deals with the quartering of military forces in private residences. Why did they put this one in as anyone today knows that it seems a bit ridiculous. Back then it was not. The British has passed a law called the “Quartering Act” which allowed exactly that.

It took two years for the states to agree on what we call “The Bill of Rights,” but they knew these amendments had to be faultless. The second amendment, always of great discussion, was a direct response to General Gage’s numerous attempts to capture gun power the various town militias kept as they felt their right. Again, in colonial times, all men from 18 to 60 were considered a part of that town’s militia and were required to purchase their own gun and to partake in regular exercises as the town saw fit. The very first part of the amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to to secure a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The idea of a regular military, today’s active duty, was held by a minority, George Washington being its most fervent supporter and Thomas Jefferson stating that he believe only act active navy was necessary. Still, the idea behind this was that no one could ever keep our country from being well-armed. Even the NRA, as recently as 1939, believed that to be the truth. But in recent years the US Supreme Court has ruled that it does indeed extend to private individuals. I only bring this up to show that we have differences about what the amendments mean, and the 2nd Amendment has been the most visible.

My ancesters were Puritans who arrived here, at Ipswich Massachusetts in 1638. The very word “Puritan” came from the idea that these people had about “purifying” the Church of England which they believed to be too “papist.” The Puritans of Boston who moved to New Town, a portion later known as Cambridge, founded Harvard College, as a non-sectarian seminary. To this day, the Harvard Divinity School retains that ideal. But this is import to recognize because these Puritans to a man believed that religion was a personal thing which each man had to decide for himself. These beliefs brought about the founding of the Congregational Church which allowed for no hierachy. And later the founding of the Unitarian Church but the transcendentalists. To differentiate the Puritans from the Pilgrims, a mistake often made, the two groups were at odds with each other. John Brewster, the leader of the Pilgrims, was the leader of a seperatist group. A radical group who did not believe the Church of England could be reformed. They were Calvanists who believed in predestination. But Roger Williams, a Calvanist preacher with the Pilgrims, split of and founded Rhode Island and the first Baptist church in America.

The British were always upset that the Americans refused to be a part of the Church of England although there was little the could do about it. But the British had the Church of England at the center of their government. The colonists hate that ideal and refused to abide by it in America. This feeling was even stronger at the writing of the Constitution. Among them were the atheist, Benjamin Franklin, and the indifferent, Thomas Jefferson, who called himself a “Theist,” to George Washington who was an Anglican, and others who were Roman Catholic, Presbytarian, Congregationalists, and others. To them, it was obvious that the inclusion of religion in matters or state was against all they held true. Their differences were on display at the Constituional Conventions, and none tried to claim their religion over all others. That they knew of Britains efforts to force the Church on England on them allowed them to understand the need to keep all religion, without exception, out of their government.

It is ironic that the Republican Party, whose adherents claim often to be originalist, fail to apply that to religion in government and are frequently trying to put conservative Christian beliefs into law, or to defeat laws they dislike or claim to be against their religion. Now they will never say it is against their religion but instead state their belief and tell all who will list that to thing otherwise is unpatriotic. Their efforts to ban abortion are absolutely of religous belief. What they fail to realize that they are doing exactly what they claim to be against, defining morality on certain issues. Morality, or lack thereof, is the right of the individual to decide and must remain out of our government!

The right wing attack of Planned Parenthood is an abortion unto itself. Ninety percent of everything Planned Parenthood is about is helping to educate women about sex and their bodies. That the Federal Government would fund an organization whose main task is to educate any portion of our society is against all reason. For example, Ted Cruz, who is a Southern Baptist, and claims the moral high ground, speaks for on 6.7% of American when calling upon his religous beliefs. He does this often. Our founding fathers knew full well the danger of this. Why cannot right wing Republicans do the same. Republican claim to be the party of Lincoln. Did they ever look to see that Lincoln did not care for any formal religion. The great minds of our early country usually believe in a power greater than themselves, a God who above all, and for no one in particular. Why cannot those who seek to push religion into our government see that?

by

The Crisis Called Trump


Donald Trump loves to announce himself as one of the greatest presidents ever. The reality is, I believe history will portray him as one of the worst ever. He will join Warren Harding, probably the most corrupt, Andrew Johnson, probably the most ineffective, and Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and a few others who are at the bottom. We all know that Andrew Johnson was brought before the senate for removal and was saved by a single vote. Warren Harding was so corrupt that he faced the possibility of being charge with a federal crime and was facing removal by his own party had he not suddenly died.
Donald Trump is probably one of the most divisive presidents ever. Even before he was elected, he was using an “us against them” strategy which he has continued, if changed in flavor, during his presidency. But he has done so at his own peril and has either fired or had quit more of his senior staff than any president in history during his first two years. And swirling around all that is his likely collusion with the Russian government prior to the election which, if proven, would put him directly in the cross-hairs of the, as the Constitution names it, most “high crimes” of probably any president; something approaching treason.

 
One of the things you find inquiries, such as what are going on now with the FBI investigation, is that there is ultimately a degree of truth with the focus of the investigation. For example, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair and investigation. Clinton steadfastly denied any wrong doing but when the Starr investigation was completed it was clear that Pres. Clinton was guilty of “abuse of power.” That very same abuse of power is happening today although in a form yet to be spelled out.
The recent NY York Times anonymous Op-Ed article illustrates an administration in crisis. People have wasted their time arguing over whether the article should have been printed, it should have, or that the writer should have identified himself, irrelevant. Instead, discussion should center around how much truth is contained in the article. The writer presents a very reasonable description of what dedicated, and highly intelligent people will do to prevent a president from erring so egregiously as to cause serious damage to the country.

 
What Trump has failed to realize, and I doubt will ever, is that his job is to do the will of the people, and not whatever suits him from one moment to the next as he has done. In truth, all politically elected and appointed official, from the president on down, are public employees who, when they take their oath of office promise to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And it is quite clear in the Constitution that all public employees hold office only in the interest of the American public.
Trump is acting like he is starring in a t.v. show where he can yell “you’re fired!” and it becomes true. Government simply does not, and cannot, work that way. He constantly tramples the First Amendment by exclaiming that people who hold opposing views should be silenced. He has made ludicrous statements like he knows more than his generals! Only a fool makes such a claim.

 
I fully expect the Democrats to retake both the senate and house during the next elections. I expect there will be enough energy among party leaders to start impeachment hearings.

 
The people of the United States deserve far better leadership than they now have. It is time for my generation, the baby boomers, to step aside and allow the next two generations to take over. We did good work in the 70s and 80s but our time is past. It is time that those 40 years of age and younger take over and definite their future for in truth, the future of the baby boomers is far shorter than theirs and they deserve the reins of power.

by

Have Americans Lost Control of Their Government?


The current state of our government and, in particular, the chasm that exists between Republicans and Democrats, seems like a child’s food fight rather that an ongoing adult conversation. Each side is doing what is called, “right fighting.” That is, each side is so convinced that it is right that the art of compromise seems to have gone out the window. An old cliché says that a fish stinks from its head down. Our government right now is exemplifying that more than ever.

Our government was via the Constitution set up with three branches, none of which was supposed to have more power than the other. But our present Congress is so fearful of doing the next right thing, and its job, has abdicated in favor of the Executive Branch. Article 2 of our Constitutes delineates the powers granted the President. What amazes me the most is that Article 2 section 3 clearly states that the President “. . . from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient . . . “ The framers of the Constitution left many parts of it vague as they judged that with the passage of time necessary changes to the Constitution or different interpretations of It would be necessary. But it is my opinion the Article 2 Section 3 is rather clear in its intention; that being that changes to law and policy may be suggested by the President and that Congress would then act upon them. The Constitution is also repeatedly clear that a 2/3rds vote should be the standard for passing any legislation.

Over the years, however, Congress has made changes to what is necessary for certain measures and that being a simple majority favor the law.

Most recently, President Trump made the unilateral decision to scale back some remote (Utah) national monuments at the behest of industry. He has also charged his Interior Secretary to find other locations to which he can to the same. The idea of National Parks and National Monuments was the idea of President Theodore Roosevelt when he created Arcadia National Park and Yosemite National Park. “The Antiquities Act is the first law to establish that archeological sites on public lands are important public resources. It obligates federal agencies that manage the public lands to preserve for present and future generations the historic, scientific, commemorative, and cultural values of the archaeological and historic sites and structures on these lands. It also authorizes the President to protect landmarks, structures, and objects of historic or scientific interest by designating them as National Monuments.” (Public Broadcasting Service, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/american-antiquities-act-of-1906.htm). The law is quite specific in saying that the President is obligated to preserve “objects of historic and scientific interest. Pres. Trump has chosen to ignore this law and turn over these precious lands to commercial interests, destroying artifacts that favor the public interest and the scientific community.

The Constitution, and all its framers in their writings, made very clear that the first job of the Federal Government is to act in the best interest of the people. But for decades now our Congresses and Presidents have only too frequently done the bidding of powerful interests and PACs. It would be only too easy to show how the Republicans Party over the past 6 years or so has worked mostly in a self-serving manner. But that would less than truthful. The fact remains that the Democrats are equally responsible in bending to the will of powerful and well-monied interests instead of the people. The Democrats have not had control of Congress for many years now and the Republicans have been able to run rough-shod over them by passing bills that make a simple majority vote the rule of Congress. No Democrat has been able to find the inner fortitude to challenge such bills in front of the US Supreme Judicial court.

Time-and-again the Republican Congress has passed bills which are clearly unpopular with the people of the United States. The most visible action at present has been their persistent attempts to gut and eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Their most recent move has been to tied changes to the ACA to the government funding bill now in Congress. Such actions are referred to “rider bills.” It is the blatant attempt to circumvent the proper way to have a bill passed, a “clean bill.” That refers to a bill which has no riders and is voted up or down on its own merits.

Both parties in Congress are not doing the “right thing” but rather doing the most self-serving thing. That has never more true when Senator Mitch McConnell declared that he would not allow then President Obama to seat a new Supreme Court justice when Justice Scalia unexpectedly died two years ago. Not only was that self-serving but it went entirely against the spirit of our Constitution and the manner in which all justices have been confirmed since 1789. Such actions must stop. This means that U.S. Citizens, regardless of political favor, must make Congress accountable for its actions.

A majority of U.S. citizens of both parties has said they do not trust congress to do the right thing. There is an easy solution to that; stop re-electing your representatives and senators.

There is an old saying, “nothing changes if nothing changes.”

by

America the Violent: It is Time We Curbed Our Gun Preoccupation


Scholars debate the meaning behind the second amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to take up a 2nd Amendment suit on only 3 occasions in its entire history. It is not that the 2nd amendment is sacred, it is just that there is no consensus on the writers’ intendent. Scalia commented on “original intent” as that was his belief. But he never spoke on the 2nd.

I did my graduate work on U.S. history, and while the Revolutionary War was not my focus, I was required to be more than just conversant in it. And because of that, I like to point to what the colonists called the “Townsend Act.” They detested all of them. But if you look at the Townsend Acts and the other acts instituted between 1765 and 1774, you will find they directly correspond to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. When the writers were constructing the Constitution they knew it would need amending and they also knew what those amendments would look like. But for the sake of expedience, getting 9 colonies to agree upon the document, they wrote the main document exactly as you see it today. The Bill of Rights, 10 amendments, were all passed in the first year of America’s existence. George Mason and James Madison, a Virginian wrote them, but we had already added a state, Vermont, which meant they needed 10 of the 14 to ratify. Mason actually wrote 12 amendments. The 11th Amendment was how states were represented in the house. Madison wanted a set small constituency for each congressman. This amendment failed. But the 12th amendment was one we can relate to today even better. It forbade Congress from giving itself pay raises. Of course that one failed.

But back to the 2nd Amendment. It is brief: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The colonists had, from their earliest days in America, maintained a colonial militia. This was made up of men who assembled once a month on the town’s green, practiced a bit and went back home. Because the colonial governments were always strapped for cash, the members of the militia were required to supply their own guns, which they did.

About 1765, the British government began a concerted effort to “control” the colonists in what they perceived as acts contrary to the desires of the crown. The British government sent British soldiers and British Marines to take the place of the militia and maintain the peace, as they saw fit. At the same time, they replaced the duly elected governors of the colonies with governor-general, their own men. Additionally, they replaced judges hearing admiralty (seagoing) cases with their own extremely biased judges.

Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts, a British appointee, declared that the storage of weapons and gun powder to be illegal and sent numerous forays to Plymouth, Salem, Portsmouth, NH and other locales, before ordering out his troops on the fateful day of April 19, 1775. The troop commander was ordered to capture all arms and powder known to be stored in Concord and bring into British possession. We all know how that worked out.

And so in the late 1780s when the Constitution and its amendments were being considered and written, the idea that a government could outlaw a state’s right to maintain its own militia was particularly sour in their mouths. It is important at this point to state that each colony joining the central Federal Government made it known that it desired as much autonomy as possible. The 1792 Massachusetts Militia was formed under the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment strictly outlawed the Federal Government from disallowing such an action.

In 1792, people who possessed guns tended to be members of the militia. And those people tended to be farmers, although certainly not exclusively so. But by that time the state government was suppling the guns necessary for its militia. The militia of 1792 is the National Guard of today. There is a direct lineage. Some states, however, maintain both, a National Guard force which can be called up to federal duty and a militia force which cannot be called up to federal status. In both cases, however, the governor is the commander-in-chief of such forces.

It is my belief that when Madison wrote “the right of the people” he was simply echoing the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence which starts “We the people.” People is being used in a plural sense and was never intended to mean the individual. I am certain it did not occur to Madison that people might grasp this amendment as an individual’s right. But Madison’s intent is clear. He meant the amendment to only apply to military forces.

Now, consider the fact that as of 1986 the purchase of machine guns was made illegal. In a curious twist, it is not, however, illegal to possess one but it cannot be made after 1986. And according to the ATF, as of 1986 there were only 182,619 that were transferable.

Now the only difference between a machine gun and an AR-15, civilian version of the M-16 rifle, is the number of rounds it can shoot with one pull of the trigger. Some machine guns use the same caliber round although most of the older ones use either the old NATO round, 7.62 or a larger round. I bring this up because no one is complaining about the machine gun law but try to restrict the usage of an almost equally lethal weapon and the push back is enormous. It makes no sense.

I do not think that a complete ban on assault weapons is necessary but I do think that any person desiring to own one should have to jump through a series of hoops prior to being allowed to purchase one. Getting such a gun should require legalities akin to gaining a security clearance and in turn, many will find themselves turned away, but for just cause.

I like guns and am an expert marksman. But it is difficult for me to understand why any responsible gun owner and prospective purchaser would object to more strict rules for ownership than now exist. These rules would never keep the responsible owner from purchasing a gun but it would certainly curb the illegal sales of guns and illegal ownership.

by

Understanding the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights


When it comes to understanding their own history, Americans are horrible. To be fair, the manner in which U.S. history is taught leaves a lot to be desired. However, that does not excuse Americans from having a basic understanding of the events that shaped our country. When America was founded the settlers believed they would be an equal part of the British Empire. They were, after all, born in England and never believed their moving to a new continent would in any way change their status as citizens of England.

Americans adopted English law as the basis of their government. And every English settlement was a certified English corporate entity. And to that end almost all trade by Americans was with England. Americans exported cotton, wool, indigo and other raw materials to England. In return they got cloth, tea, kitchen utensils and other finished products. This lasted into the early 18th Century when American industry started coming into its own. For example, all goods shipped on the water were supposed to be carried on English ships however American ship owners took exception to this. As part of the “triangle trade,” Americans were supposed to send sugar and molasses to England. But rum loving Americans thought it far more economical to ship their sugar to the Caribbean and get their rum on the return voyage and one their own ships.

Then starting in the mid-18th Century England instituted a series of measures designed to bring the colonists into line. Taxing goods was nothing new but the King sent troops to America to insure that taxes were paid and English authority abided. Then in 1767 Parliament passed a series of laws that became known as the Townsend Acts. There was the revenue act, the customs act, the admiralty act, which were added on top of the quartering act of 1765. And finally in 1774 it passed the Boston Port Act, a law designed specifically to punish the belligerent population of Boston.

The 1770s also saw England replacing colonial elected governors with military governors and sending English judges to America to decide the fate of Americans brought to trial. This was meant to quell American resistance to English admiralty law but was used in other situations.

Gen. Thomas Gage, the military governor of Massachusetts and commander of 5000 British regular soldiers, considered Massachusetts residents “bullies.” After the Boston Massacre, December 1770, Gen. Gage said, “America is a mere bully, from one end to the other, and the Bostonians by far the greatest bullies.”  In 1774 Gage was engaging in a series of sorties designed to remove stores of guns and ammunition, gun powder, from colonial militia stores.  Prior to his assault on Concord, he had sent troops to Salem, Somerville, Plymouth, and Portsmouth NH in an effort to control local militia.  And as troops arrived in Boston from England, Gage ordered Boston residents to give them room and board.  That was a month prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord.

When the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1789 it was a compromise document.  The writers of the Constitution, for example, had written in a clause putting an end to slavery.  But to gain the support of 9 of the 13 colonies such a clause was not yet viable.  That basic document established our government, how it would be run, how power was divided, how elections were to be held, and some other basic items.

The full force of the basic Constitution took effect when the first election was finished and the government formed in January 1789.  Congress immediately took measures to amend the Constitution to frame some basic rights for individual Americans.  The basic document makes no such assurances.  In the years leading up to the revolution Americans could not speak freely.  Any words seen as inflammatory to British rule were enough to have a person jailed for treason, sedition, or other acts of malfeasance.  Hence the 1st Amendment is such because it free speech, and particularly that regarding the press, was deemed necessary for a legitimate democracy.  The second part of the 1st Amendment, that government can make no law with regard to religion, was a reaction to the close ties of the Church of England to English government.  That any single religion had power over a people of many religions was not acceptable.

The 2nd Amendment was simply the reaction to Gen. Gage’s overt attempts to keep Americans from having their own organized militia.  The American Revolution was fought largely by individual state militias that fell under the control of Gen. George Washington.  Most Americans believed, and with good reason, that a standing army controlled by a central government would wield its power over state militias.  This was not ironed out until after Thomas Jefferson left office and the War of 1812 commenced.  But the amendment was written specifically to reassure each individual state that its ability to raise and maintain an organized militia would be guaranteed for all time.  But this amendment effectively required states to purchase weapons for its citizen soldiers.  Prior to and during the revolution, each man was required to purchase his own weapon.

The 3rd Amendment seems irrelevant in today’s world, and it probably is.  But the Amendment was a direct response to the British Quartering act.  The American military is banned from quartering its troops in private residences.

The 4th Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.  This too was a direct response to common practice by British troops stationed in America.

The 5th Amendment guarantees due process and the right of Americans to remain silent in cases brought against them.  An important, though less known part of this amendment, is that it separates military law from civil law.  It also indemnifies Americans from double jeopardy.  Again, all these things happened to Americans while they were under British rule and particularly in the decade leading up to the revolution.

Amendments 6 through 8 insure that certain civil liberties in courts of law as being absolute with the 9th Amendment reinforcing the idea of equality under the law.

The 10th Amendment is the first amendment which arose solely from experience between the 13 original colonies.  Those colonies saw themselves as individual republics and were very mistrustful of a superior central government.  The southern colonies feared the power of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.  What they desired was a certain level of autonomy.  They wanted to be able to create laws of their own and that such laws be independent of any law made in any other state and the federal government.  For example, almost all the northern states had passed laws outlawing slavery.  The south was not ready for such legislation and did not want the influence of the abolitionist north affecting their individual state’s law.  This amendment guaranteed that.

There are a total of 27 Amendments, 26 in force the 18th, Prohibition, having been repealed.  It took a year to passed the first ten and the next 17 ever since.  Passing a Constitutional amendment requires agreement of two-thirds states.  With there being only 13 states that made the first ten fairly easy.  But in 1912, when Arizona became the 48th state, that meant an agreement of 32 states, a difficult feat.

Anyway, we call the first 10 amendments “The Bill of Rights.”  But that is a misnomer simply because the entirety of the Constitution is our Bill of Rights.  The elimination of poll tax, the right of women to vote, the end of slavery, all individual rights, are no less a part of a bill of rights.  But the ability of Americans to either misconstrue or not understand each portion of our constitution is shameful.  People cannot defend themselves against intrusion of their individual rights either by government or corporation or individual if they are not fully aware of what they are constitutionally guaranteed.

by

The Trials At Guantanamo Bay


I just watched a segment of the CBS program “60 Minutes” which talked almost exclusively about the legalities of trying the “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay.  But the show failed to even ask one extremely important question on which the entire show hinges, “Is Guantanamo Bay” U.S. soil.  The reason for asking that is simple, the US Constitution only applies, and can only apply, to people located on US soil.  As someone who has lived on foreign soil, and while in the US Army, I was always cautioned that the law of the host nation was always primary and the Uniform Code of Military Justice second.  Even though we were on US bases, it did not afford us the protections of the Constitution enjoyed in the US.  To wit, we could be arrested on the US base, jailed and prosecuted by the host country without any guarantee of due process, legal representation, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.   It is my belief that the detainees in Cuba do not enjoy any rights of our Constitution as they were arrested and have been held outside the legal boundaries of our Constitution.

I think any sort of torture regardless of the reason is evil.  It is also well-known, and long known, that a tortured person will admit to anything his torturers desire to hear just to stop the torture. It is for this reason, among others, that torture has long  be specifically illegal in the US.  But for however a horrible act it is, it is an offense either where it was committed, or at a world court tribunal.

The terrorists about to be tried own both the acts committed by them, the fact that they knowingly conducted a non-traditional act of war, they were not a part of any regular military, and that any justice they can expect is comparable their own world-view.  That is, they are not prisoners of war and cannot expect to be treated as such.  Each was captured as an individual acting upon his own will, and denying agency of any particular nation.  Consider, no country, not even the one they call home, has come to their defense.  Their acts are considered by the world in general as horrendous and indefensible.

The terrorists own lawyers, though well-versed in the US Constitution, were wont to offer any specific portion of the Constitution which protects these people and any rights, whether real or perceived.  Their arguments, while good on US soil, truly have no standing in a courtroom outside the borders of the United States.

by

Holding Politicians Accountable


Within our Federal Government there exists two sets of rules: one set is for civil servants while the other is for politicians and political appointees.  Within the former are a set of very strict standard which must be adhered to.  This group includes the members of our military which has an even more strict set of rules than those for civil servants.  The latter, however, seem to have no particular set of rules save that one indicated in the Constitution, “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  So very vague is that rule that only two presidents and a rather small handful of others have ever been held to it, and none successfully.

The members of our military are held to what is called the Military Code of Conduct, a set of 131 rules to which the must adhere, some of which seemingly contradict the Constitution itself, but which when challenged in the US Supreme Judicial Court have never been found lacking or at fault.  Civil servants are required to undergo an annual code of ethics training course which is given, generally, by a lawyer from that department’s office of ethics.  One portion of those ethics quite clearly set out a standard that states unequivocally any semblance “of a conflict of interest” will not be tolerated.  In any given year, hundreds of federal employees are tried in a court of law for violations of this code, and that is a good thing.  It is meant not only to enforce the law, but to give the public confidence in how federal employees conduct themselves.  To show the strictness of such rules, one states that no federal employee may accept any gift of greater value than $25 which includes meals, educational opportunities, etc.  The lone exception is if such gift is open to the public in general and that anyone, upon application, can avail themselves of such gift.

Now comes our political appointees.  In particular I want to bring about the person of General David Patraeus.  He graduated from West Point in 1972 and got an advanced degree from Princeton University.  He served a particularly distinguished career which elevated him to four stars, the greatest rank any military person can aspire.  Then in 2011 he was appointed to head the CIA.  In every respect he is an American hero who rose the well-earned heights.  It all came crashing down when it was revealed he had had a dalliance with Paula Broadwell.  The shame in all that is not that he had the affair, but that he was forced to resign.  If such dalliances meant an end to political careers the wreckage of such during our history would have easily end the career of half our presidents and probably equal numbers of Congress.  So corrupt was the administration of warren G. Harding that is has long be speculated had he not died first he would definitely have been one President who would have been removed from office by Congress.  If you want to know more about this, look up what is called “the teapot dome scandal.”

Most, if not all, of our US Senators are millionaires and are either so far removed from the middle-class, if they had ever been a part of it, to remember what it is like to be a part of it.  None came from poverty.  The same can be said for much of the House of Representatives.  That might not be so bad if not for the fact that they seldom represent the will of their constituency.  For them, quid pro quo is the only business they understand.  Simply put, that means those who contribute the most to their reelection get the greatest part of their attention and can count on their vote going their way.

They say it is impolite to speak ill of the dead, but to make a point I feel I must.  Sen. Edward Kennedy represented Massachusetts from the early 1960s until his death.  He was a decidedly unethical and devious man.  He was absolutely at fault in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, July 18, 1969.  He was obviously not run from office, as he probably should have been, but was given a 2-month suspended jail sentence for “leaving the scene.”   Even though I have always been a registered Democrat, I never once voted for the man as I felt him incapable of honesty.  When he ran unopposed, I wrote in my own name on the ballot.  I also requested assistance from his office with a problem I was have one time.  After visiting there I never got so much as a polite “we cannot help you” response from them.  But then, that is what unprincipled self-important people do.

Today, Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, is acting in much the same way.  He claims he wants Wall Street reform and stricter regulations on financial institutions.  He says he wants to kill the 15% tax of earned interest that only the very wealthy enjoy.  That means, the top rate paid on all earned interest, by millionaires in particular, is 15%.  An average person who got lucky and won a million dollars would pay close to a 35% rate on that income while the millionaire will be assessed only 15% on his multiple of millions earned in interest.

Members of congress are regularly wined and dined at very expensive restaurants, given expensive gifts, given free memberships in exclusive clubs, and so forth.  It is hard to imagine that these members of congress will concern themselves quite so much with their constituents who sent them to congress to do their bidding than with those who spend lavishly on them.

I think politicians should be held to many of the same rules that civil servants are held to.  I also think campaign finance laws should be written to prohibit contributions to any single person or party except from individual voters, and that such amounts would also be limited.  The only way we will ever get Congress to listen to the will of the people is to limit the ability of the will of the PAC, the corporation, or any non-individual to be minimized.

by

Republican Nominating Process Shows Demise of American Political System?


It was reported in the Boston Globe (June 24, 2012, P. B1) recently that the state Republican Party revoked the delegate status of 17 Republican delegates.  Why?  They had refused to sign an oath of support to Mitt Romney.  Massachusetts, of course, voted overwhelmingly for Romney as the Republican candidate but state Republican party rules do not bind delegates, nor does it require any oath of allegiance.  The state party decided that had to be changed.  Why?  The 17 delegates in question were supporters of Ron Paul.

What state party leaders fear is that the Paul delegates, once at the Republican Convention, would draw attention to Paul’s agenda.  That, of course, has the possibility of gaining support from delegates of other states at the convention and bring on unwanted turmoil.  This is nothing new, of course, but it is showing the power of the super-pacs who now seem to control our election process.

To be fair, I think the same sort of process exists within the Democrat Party but since it is not looking for a candidate this year, it is not nearly so important that party doctrine be held in lock-step at their Republican counterparts seem to need.

This really started about 1994 when Republican party leaders demanded that all congressional members sign their “Contract With America.”  On the outside it seemed not only harmless, but a truly good thing.  Much of what the contract contained were statements that seemed entirely common sense.  But it served as a vehicle to reign in party members in the future.   By the time of Pres. Bush’s first election party leadership brought in their “our way or the highway” by threatening the withholding of election funding.  It has been, to say the least, effective.

The point is, Americans have allowed the election process to be co-opted by extremely well-financed political action committees.  These committees, both conservative and liberal, set agendas.  And now we have the “super-PACs” to deal with.  These PACs have made public financing of campaigns irrelevant.  That means, a single person or business can give as much money as it wants to a PAC that is not directly supporting any single political candidate.  How have the gotten around that?   Simple.  They launch attack ads against opponents’ ideas without ever mentioning the candidate they support.

Campaign Finance Reform of many years ago was designed to keep this exact thing from happening, but there are truly gifted and talented people who can find a hole in a seeminly solid slab.  They have an army of lawyers on the ready, as well, to back up their position should they be challenged.

I fear we are becoming a country where puppets of well-placed people do their bidding in the halls of Congress.  Our elected officials only get there after they have been vetted by rich and powerful groups.   Simply put, the best candidate for office will never get past the nominating process if he/she does not sign on the line with the PACs that support their party.  If Abraham Lincoln had to run his campaign then, as things are now, he would never have been supported.  He was an unknown from Illinois who was not presently in public office and who had only once served a two-year term as an Illinois representative.  Family problems that become known once he was president would have served as fodder for his opponent.

We cannot allow our political system to be taken over by the rich and powerful.  This is at the heart of what the founders of this country feared.  Such had been the case in 1775 England when the Lords of English Parliament held a deaf ear to their American cousins.  And that, as much as anything, is what is at the heart of our Constitution.  No other country had regularly scheduled elections as we do here in America, a purposeful design of the constitution.  No other country in the world has the absolute separation of powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, as we do in America.  And nowhere else is the power of the people so heavily invested in the words of a constitution as is in ours.

The PACs and super-PACs serve only to undermine those powers for their own selfish purposes.  PACs do serve a good purpose but their power and sway have got to be brought into check.  They wield far too much power in our elections and now, seemingly, hold the power of who, at the very least, will be that party’s nominee to any elective office.  This is a serious affront to the ideals that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and so many others fought for.  It is time Americans became not just angry, but furious with the way the PACs are conducting themselves, and in turn, affecting our sacred political process.