Bill Of Rights? We Don’t Need No Stinking Bill Of Rights!

Actually we do, but listening to certain people talk around Washington, I wonder whether there are people around on the right who actually believe that.

__________________________________________

Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being “pushed to an extreme”; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

__________________________________________

In normal times, the following would be a fairly innocuous statement:  I am for the 14th amendment.  It is after all part of the bill of rights. But these times are anything but normal.  So divisive are the politics of this day and age, that basic freedoms and simple concepts placed within the the bill of rights, are somehow deemed Un-American, or at the very least improper,  because of the power of the media to sway minds by making cases that would seem absurd in normal circumstances.  As if simply by making a case for questioning the Bill of Rights, it somehow validates the questioning, makes it plausible.

When Sens. John McCain and Jeff Sessions join a chorus of idiots in calling for hearings into whether we should get rid of even a portion, even a single sentence of the 14th amendment of OUR bill of rights, he sent a sign to all the freedom haters of America.  A sign that says, if we don’t like our freedoms, lets just have a hearing and see if it’s OK to get rid of the ones we don’t like. 

It’s really only one sentence they say, one little sentence.  We’ll change it so people who aren’t born here who have children here won’t be allowed citizenship, they say.  Do you want to know what a great many Americans say?

LEAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS ALONE.

_________________________________________

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

Abraham Lincoln

_________________________________________

Viddy of the day:  Thom Hartmann talking about Immigration.

_________________________________________

Tuesday’s links:

United States Vs. Wong Kim Ark

Republicans want review of birthright citizenship

Whither the 14th amendment?

Forer effect 

_________________________________________

If you change one sentence of it, you can change another sentence, to deal with a pesky problem in the prevailing political winds in the future. And of such actions is oppression born.  Do we want those who come after us to think we, any of us, thought it fair, or good or right, to tear out freedoms from one of our most important documents, and the one that actually guarantees our freedoms, no less? Let’s look at the actual problem here.

Children being born on our shores, by mothers who are not citizens.  Illegal immigration is an issue, but you want to fight about this particular bit? Seriously?  Those infants are…what? A threat to our way of life? In what way? What are the grounds upon which you are actually going to alter the Bill of Rights? How deeply will you affect Illegal immigration by denying a child citizenship? I see no realistic effect on Illegal immigration.  Or do you think a few words will stop people from coming across the border when fear of death itself does little to stop them now?

Please.  George Bush’s tax cuts are more of an existential threat to the populace than Juan and Esmerelda’s baby(to pull two Spanish sounding names out at random) is.   Sens. Kyl, McCain, Graham and Sessions attack on the worthiness of the first sentence of the 14th amendment is seriously a much greater threat to our freedom than any Honduran trying to have a baby in Texas.  Or Arizona.  Or… wait… I see a pattern, and maybe just a little bit of funny.

These children are being born in red states to parents who would, when they become citizens in all likelihood vote democratic, remembering how they were treated by those self serving right wingers, and those children would in time do the same, just like generations of Latino immigrants have before.  These Republicans are trying to keep them out to keep their strongholds for future generations of Republicans, so they can stay Republican strongholds, by any means necessary. 

Ya know, they might vote for you more often if you were just nicer to them,  worked with them, and stopped calling them wetbacks and other epithets.  Srsly.

These right wingers really don’t have to go changing the Bill of Rights just to save their political hides, or score political points.  They could just try to pass proper immigration reform legislation, hell they might like to try proposing it.  T’would be nice.   But then again, they like kinda stupid crap. Proof?

Think about this, they created (out of thin air, flag burning never being a serious threat to America, ever)  the waste of space that was the flag burning amendment, trying to make it look like they’re patriotic while doing the bidding of their corporate masters(that is, perhaps, why most of them bear a passing resemblance to Quasimodo) and hold power through fear, and steal freedom in the name of profits.   Or the defense of marriage act, partly because they… well… because they’re scared of gay people.  Probably afraid they’ll catch it (that’s just how they think, the bozos) and become gay themselves, I guess.  Bunch of stinking Anti-American right wing homophobes.

Oh, and one other thing back on point.  Amending the constitution takes a super-majority in both houses and then ratification by 3/4 of the states. Do you seriously think, with the nation as bitterly divided on this subject as on any other, that any attempt to alter the 14th amendment will succeed with those requirements needing to be met? 

Not gonna happen.  Buenas noches, America.

Basic Fairness

The task of the mind is to produce future, as the poet Paul Valery once put it. A mind is fundamentally an anticipator, an expectation-generator. It mines the present for clues, which it refines with the help of the materials it has saved from the past, turning them into anticipations of the future. And then it acts, rationally, on the basis of those hard-won anticipations. 

Daniel Dennett, Kinds of Minds  

______________________________________ 

I read the news today, oh boy.  About a lucky man who made the grade.  Well, OK,  he didn’t.  And I really don’t know about anyone being lucky in this instance.  

A man, Johannes Mehserle, a police officer who shot another man, Oscar Grant at point blank range, put a bullet in his back and killed him, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, which is punishable for up to, I believe, 4 years in prison. He could have been found guilty of second degree murder, with a possible sentence of 25 years in prison, but was not. Oscar Grant may have been a great many things, but one thing he wasn’t; someone who needed to be either shot or tasered while some knelt on his neck. 

Do I blame the man who did the shooting for killing the man in question? Hell yes.  You pulled the trigger, you committed a murder.  End of statement.  Do I think he wanted to kill the man in question? That I don’t know, he clearly didn’t want to have a meaningful in depth conversation with the man, that much is clear.  Was his pulling the trigger a voluntary motion? It would kind of have to be, wouldn’t it? 

I guess I don’t know enough about the justice system.  How is it possible for this to be involuntary manslaughter?  If I were of a more sarcastic frame of mind at the moment I would ask if  the shooter was shooting against his will.  Since I’m not though, let’s be serious and ask, how is the act of drawing a weapon to do grievous bodily harm to another, to a man already pinned to the ground, involuntary? Even a taser here would have been overkill, unless you think it’s OK to use a weapon on defenseless people, who are being knelt on.  

More on this later. 

______________________________________ 

Thursday’s Links: 

Officer guilty in killing that inflamed Oakland 

Oakland police report no arrests despite protests 

Issa; Steele is ‘not my leader’ 

Appeals court, 2-1 rejects Obama plea on drilling moratorium 

Same sex marriage law unconstitutional 

______________________________________ 

Viddy of the day:  Darrell Issa, Republican from California, talking about the focus of the Republican party and Michael Steele.  He is not kind to the chair of the Republican National Committee.   He does a hell of a lot to distance the party and Mr. Steele. So much for party unity. 

 

______________________________________ 

[L]et your self go. If you can approach the world’s complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. 

Daniel Dennett; Breaking the Spell 

______________________________________ 

More legal stuff. 

justice

 

The defense of marriage act, the act of congress that states, nay, defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman, has been struck down as unconstitutional.  The ruling, passed down by Massachusetts state judge Joseph Tauro, states that not only does the law encroach upon personal rights, by excluding certain benefits to gay couples that straight married couples can have, it compels the state to discriminate against its own citizens.  

These two cases make a clear statement that the court will not tolerate the creation of second class marriages or tolerate the continued existence of second class citizens, who would only be second class because of the judgment of the federal government’s defense of marriage act. 

This is also going to be a doozy of an argument about the 10th amendment, that great friend of the far right, and just how much power the government has to tell people how exactly to live their lives, insofar as making it clear that one group can get benefits that another group cannot solely on the grounds of their sexuality.  And while that sounds like the argument for the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, and it is, it also has strength as a 10th amendment argument, due to the simple fact that the federal government, by enacting DOMA, stepped heavily on the rights of the states to make their own laws, in an area where there was no previous encroachment by the federal government. 

And anytime, in this day and age, when it seems that the personal protections afforded by the bill of rights are eroding away daily and have been for years, a victory for them feels especially refreshing. But you know how these things go, so this last sentence should come as no surprise. 

The case will be appealed.   

______________________________________ 

A final  aside:  Justice is about bringing order to the world, order of a moral and ethical variety, and resolving disputes where there is a dispute about the ethical order in the world.  Justice is, in those terms, what people in the world seek for themselves, and only occasionally for everyone.  

When justice seems invisible in the system, or if there is a seeming breach of it in that system or when it seems absent in the world in which we live, we are right to stand up and speak out against the lack of justice.  We are right sometimes to raise our fists in anger and fight for justice, when the injustice is severe enough.  

These are only two cases of injustice that America has seen and lived through.  One a very personal breach on the part of a young police officer, the other a very impersonal breach towards an entire group of people.  The ones who were done wrong here did no wrong except live their lives.  

For Oscar Grant, nothing can be done.  The young man is dead, and no amount of talk or action or legislation or apologies will bring him back to life.  A prayer for his family is about the best we can do.  

For the GLBT community that has been hard done by here, there are things we can do. Stand up and make it known that, no matter what else goes on in the world, we will not allow any members of our citizenry to live as second class citizens, that any benefit that I can receive, all can receive.  If the government can hand out benefits, and it is clear that it can, it must not give to one group, and not to another.  That injustice is very much against the very fabric of our nation, and all that it stands for.  

“With Liberty, and Justice, for all” means something, something vitally important.  Stand up for it. 

_____________________________________ 

 Updates from the job front tomorrow.  That’s all from me America.  Go to sleep.

Today Was A Good Day

     I believe in freedom. 

  

    The following words were altered today, at least as far as the ability to affect political speech in this country.
  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

   How, you say, has this, the first amendment, been altered?  Simple.   Before today, you and I had the capacity to affect a candidate for congress by giving money.  That money would then be used by said candidate to tell the world what they were going to do, and the amount given affects exactly how effective the communication could be, the more money candidates have, the more places they can have their words heard being the basic premise here. 

    Now, thanks to the Roberts court, A multi billion dollar corporation can chime in just the same as you and me.  Your $25 contribution, you and millions of people like you, when you have the money and the inclination to give, against the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, from multi billion dollar corporations, hundreds of them, with both the inclination and pockets much deeper than you and I and the vast majority of Americans. 

   Kind of makes something of a mockery of the concept of political free speech, when the worlds largest corporations can potentially outspend every single middle class American with the swipe of a pen, and not blink an eye.  Kind puts a damper on that whole freedom thing. Reminds me of a song lyric.

Independence limited
Freedom of choice
Is made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech is words that they will bend
Freedom no longer frees you

______________________________________________________________

      I still do believe in justice.

  

       But those beliefs are tinged today, with a little more anger at the system, one which I was already angry at for a million reasons.  I am less free today than I was yesterday.  Economic freedom is not freedom and never has been, but when that much money is freed up to affect the minds of the American electorate, when elections, which are supposed to be the exercise of a franchise of the electorate acting in their own “enlightened self interest”, can now have those interests guided for them by multi-billion dollar conglomerates, that is no longer “enlightened self interest”, that is “guided corporate interest”.

   And that is not freedom.  Today the Supreme court declared war on freedom.  Let’s hope that those who fight for the little guy have enough guts, guile and strength to defeat, or in some way weaken at the very least, this clear abuse of the concept of political free speech.

   I am less free because I cannot hope to match a corporation, should it stand against me and my views, my voice will be drowned out by the sound of their dollars.  Which means my political free speech is being trampled.  I don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell.

    And neither do you.

  And yet,  I believe in America.

 

   Have a good night.

Today’s nuggets,  Via wikiquote:    To be shaken out of the ruts of ordinary perception, to be shown for a few timeless hours the outer and inner world, not as they appear to an animal obsessed with survival or to a human being obsessed with words and notions, but as they are apprehended, directly and unconditionally, by Mind at large  — this is an experience of inestimable value to everyone and especially to the intellectual.   Aldous Huxley

Civil liberties had their origin and must find their ultimate guaranty in the faith of the people. If that faith should be lost, five or nine men in Washington could not long supply its want.  Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

Anagram: I Don’t See An Anagram/Animate Orange Sand

         Just a few videos to go along with the Pretty picture of Orange sand. 

      First up we have Presidential candidate Bob Barr in front of the Judiciary Committee entering into the record for the “Not Quite Impeachment hearings” something he called the Vanishing Bill of Rights.  It’s actually worth a giggle, but it has a serous point behind it.  The simple point that this President has taken away a great portion, at least as far as Mister Barr is concerned, amount of the rights that should be ours.  I don’t know if it’s quite as bad as Mister Barr says it is, but It clearly has seen better days.  a little over 90 seconds worth of video here.  Enjoy!

     

       Next up we have Dennis Kucinich from the same proceedings.  A Truly powerful statement by the Representative from Cleveland Ohio.  This man wants to make right what clearly is wrong.  Wants to do his level best to demand culpability for the actions of the President.  To Make sure that this is the Last time that a President misleads the public the way George Bush has over the last 8 years.    The Only issue I have with this move, and I have said it before and I will say it again, is that this is too little too late.  a few years ago this would have been the right thing to do.  Last year this would have been not good but great for the American people.  But with only a few months left for this Lame Dork President, it would serve only to distract when what we should seek here is to try our best to take as many of the Republicans out of office as possible.  Through their standing with the President when he has stood against the best interests of the people, we see that they simple cannot be trusted, so they must be ousted. Impeachment hearings would distract us from our purpose and make the road to regaining respectable government harder because of the distraction.  About 6 and a ½ minutes worth of Video here.

    

    This next Video is …well….Watch and listen closely.  This viddy is a Compilation of statements about the war in Iraq from the standpoint of John McCain.  He says at points that he was The most ardent critic of the War in Iraq.  But if you watch, you can see that the man has said repeatedly that we have to stay the course, that the war is going well, and this is pre-surge Iraq.  This guy is full of crap.  If he only said that he was for it once and said he fought the president on Iraq behind closed doors, I could see the Ardent critic statement.  But it doesn’t fly. He’s been a Cheerleader for the Iraq war from day one.  You can see the Unmitigated arrogance and gall of the mans viewpoint on Iraq.  Listen to the response to the late great Tim Russert’s questions starting at the 8:17 mark of the video to see what I mean.  This man is wrong for America.  Watch and see why for yourself. a Little over 9 minutes of Viddy here.

      

That’s it from me.  Later!

Today’s Nuggets, courtesy of Newspeak: The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.  John Philpot Curran

In order for an act to be a crime, libertarians say, someone must be harmed — there must be a victim. Anything that’s peaceful, voluntary, and honest should be tolerated regardless of whether we agree with it. Part of the price of our own freedom is allowing others to be free.   Scott Banister

Anagram: American Balls/Amicable Snarl

      My Three American Balls  THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

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.


Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        It’s a nice little document, isn’t it? Government Archives is where i cut and paste this from.  Hope they don’t mind too much. 

  A few questions here. 

1)  Is the current amendment to Fisa a breach of the fourth Amendment if an american is involved?  Is Fisa itself a breach of the fourth amendment? If so how, if Not how not?

2) Is The “right to choose” covered by the ninth amendment?  It would seem so, but no one seems to talk all that much about that. 

3) As far as Amendment three goes, does anyone know of any specific law on the federal level prescribed for the quartering of soldiers? Is it relevant in any real way at this point? Inquiring minds want to know!

4) Privacy is covered in part by the fourth amendment, but can it also be said to be covered more completely, if more vaguely, by the ninth?

       I am not one of these paranoid freakazoids who think all my freedoms have been squashed, or that I no longer have any of the freedoms that were initally laid out in the bill of rights, or the Constitution.  I do however think that some erosion of them has happened, thanks to a lack of judgement on the part of The Supreme court, Congress, and The President.  And I also think that that damage can be reversed with careful intelligent planning by the people working within the framework of the law as it currently exists.

      Sometimes I get exasperated with all the bullshit that goes along with that erosion, though.

     The video that follows is of Robert Reich speaking about capitalism and democracy.

    

That’s it for me.  Later.

Today’s Nuggets, Via Wikiquote: Liberty and good government do not exclude each other; and there are excellent reasons why they should go together. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.   Lord Acton

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.    Thomas Jefferson