Politics (I'm sure you're all surprised)
I want a more balanced world. I'm tired of being annoyed, worried and angry at my fellow citizens; and of being angry, wrathful and hostile, toward those they've chosen to represent them.
Some day I will tie it all together in one glorious rant on what's wrong with the way we conduct our political business (and solve the problems of mankind, the Tri-lateral commission, war and poverty... all in one blow. Then the Roman will kill me, a cult will arise, a religion from that and distortion of the truth shall follow, as power adopts my views and the masses lose sight of what matters... but I digress).
Until that frabjous day, I will slog in the trenches, with my miserable candle and try not to curse the outer darkness.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
libertango reminded me, indirectly of an issue which has been festering in my mind for months, and brought up because H.R. 2028 was passed this week 247-173, which attempts (I think it more of an election year ploy, than a serious attempt; at the moment) to make it impossible for the Federal Judiciary to hear cases about the Pledge of Allegiance, "`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation."
Forget the problems from the overbroad language (this would make it possible for a state mandate everyone recite the pledge, Jehovah's witnesses, and Atheists alike… and no Federal Court could hear the case) forget the unintended side effect Eugene Volokh notes (that this would make it a purely State's Rights' issue and if Mass. wants to outlaw it, no Federal Court can overturn them, because they have no jurisdiction, neither primary, nor appellate), forget all of that.
Look at the part where I said this wasn't a serious attempt, now, because be very clear, the religious right in this country hate the Court. They hate it even when it is on their side, because it answers to the Law, not to their whims, and not to their interpretation of God.
Don't believe me? Think I see a bogeyman, amplified from my own insecurities; puffed up from my inability to understand the Nation isn't really meant to be run the way I like (I have a dear friend, sane in all other matters, who says we have Freedom of religion, not freedom, from religion, and I just have to accept that Christian references to God, by the Gov't are acceptable, that those who are offended will just have to cope with it).
Then look at this,
"The bill before us claims to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. But protect the Pledge from what? Our Supreme Court has not undermined the constitutionality of the pledge. With the reversal of the Newdow case, there is only one major appeals court decision that has addressed the constitutionality of the pledge, and that court — in the Seventh Circuit -- has upheld the Pledge.
…
"But that does not deter the bill’s proponents. The author of the last court stripping bill, and a key advocate for this bill, the Gentleman from Indiana has even outdone his statement two months ago that 200 years of precedent in Marbury v. Madison establishing judicial review was 'wrongly decided.'
"The Gentleman from Indiana amazingly asserted in the markup of this bill last week that, 'the notion of an independent judiciary is a flawed notion….the notion of an independent judiciary just does not bear out actually in the Constitution.' Is this what the leadership of this House and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee really believe? I suggest that they read James Madison and Alexander Hamilton’s writings in the Federalist Papers. This radical concept is completely counter to our history and our values.
"Two months ago, some assured us that court stripping efforts would stop once they got what they wanted on the Defense of Marriage Act. But as the Gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Dean of the House, so eloquently warned us in July, 'We should expect to see this dangerous approach repeated on a wide range of other legislation.' Today, his prediction has come true, and there is no pretense that this will end. What is next? Voting rights? Laws that prohibit racial discrimination? Civil liberties? Our rights to privacy?"
That was Nancy Pelosi, Minority Speaker for the House.
And she's right. They have an agenda: to make it impossible for the Court to stop them, as they subvert the principles of the Constitution.
HR 3920, has the title, "To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court." Yep, to allow them to reverse the Court. No need to pass a pesky amendment,no need to find out what the People think, just get 2/3rds of the house to say the court made a mistake (silly buggers, telling us we can't make the laws, who do they think they are?) and *poof* that silly problem of the Constitution being in opposition to a law goes away.
The specific text is that clear, The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court-(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
So, if the ruling is on the Constitutionality of the acts of Congress, Congress gets to make the rules. There's a word for that, Common Law; not Constitutional Republic.
How bout the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
That is more pernicious than it seems at first blush (and that's a pretty ugly blush). If some judge decides to sentence someone to death by public stoning, for apostasy, nothing anyone can do about it, because it's an appeal to God, as the source of the punishment.
That law makes anything out of Leviticus, or Deuteronomy enforceable; one wonders what they will do if a community decides to enact Shari'a, or to those who espouse Fundamentalist Mormonism? Who gets to decide which scriptures are valid expressions of God's will?
Combine it with the 2/3rds to overturn, and Nehemiah Scudder becomes possible. Congress passes a law saying only Christians get to use the God defense, and when the court says they can't do that… va-va voom…. The Court is told to piss up a rope. It overturns the First Amendment (or the 13th, there are laws in Lev. and Deut. which regulate slavery... and Paul never said Christians couldn't keep slaves, so...), which makes a theocracy possible. And that, my friends, will lead to ugliness, civil wars and upheaval. The United States will cease to exist (is this a hyperbolic claim, yes… but I don't think it's wrong). The Aryan Nations will carve out a piece of somewhere, the Fundamentalist Mormons will do the same (and we'll see more Mountain Meadow Massacres).
We will suffer, God forbid, the trials and tribulations Europe did in the Thirty Years War.
Angels and Ministers of Grace defend us.
Some day I will tie it all together in one glorious rant on what's wrong with the way we conduct our political business (and solve the problems of mankind, the Tri-lateral commission, war and poverty... all in one blow. Then the Roman will kill me, a cult will arise, a religion from that and distortion of the truth shall follow, as power adopts my views and the masses lose sight of what matters... but I digress).
Until that frabjous day, I will slog in the trenches, with my miserable candle and try not to curse the outer darkness.
libertango reminded me, indirectly of an issue which has been festering in my mind for months, and brought up because H.R. 2028 was passed this week 247-173, which attempts (I think it more of an election year ploy, than a serious attempt; at the moment) to make it impossible for the Federal Judiciary to hear cases about the Pledge of Allegiance, "`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation."Forget the problems from the overbroad language (this would make it possible for a state mandate everyone recite the pledge, Jehovah's witnesses, and Atheists alike… and no Federal Court could hear the case) forget the unintended side effect Eugene Volokh notes (that this would make it a purely State's Rights' issue and if Mass. wants to outlaw it, no Federal Court can overturn them, because they have no jurisdiction, neither primary, nor appellate), forget all of that.
Look at the part where I said this wasn't a serious attempt, now, because be very clear, the religious right in this country hate the Court. They hate it even when it is on their side, because it answers to the Law, not to their whims, and not to their interpretation of God.
Don't believe me? Think I see a bogeyman, amplified from my own insecurities; puffed up from my inability to understand the Nation isn't really meant to be run the way I like (I have a dear friend, sane in all other matters, who says we have Freedom of religion, not freedom, from religion, and I just have to accept that Christian references to God, by the Gov't are acceptable, that those who are offended will just have to cope with it).
Then look at this,
"The bill before us claims to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. But protect the Pledge from what? Our Supreme Court has not undermined the constitutionality of the pledge. With the reversal of the Newdow case, there is only one major appeals court decision that has addressed the constitutionality of the pledge, and that court — in the Seventh Circuit -- has upheld the Pledge.
…
"But that does not deter the bill’s proponents. The author of the last court stripping bill, and a key advocate for this bill, the Gentleman from Indiana has even outdone his statement two months ago that 200 years of precedent in Marbury v. Madison establishing judicial review was 'wrongly decided.'
"The Gentleman from Indiana amazingly asserted in the markup of this bill last week that, 'the notion of an independent judiciary is a flawed notion….the notion of an independent judiciary just does not bear out actually in the Constitution.' Is this what the leadership of this House and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee really believe? I suggest that they read James Madison and Alexander Hamilton’s writings in the Federalist Papers. This radical concept is completely counter to our history and our values.
"Two months ago, some assured us that court stripping efforts would stop once they got what they wanted on the Defense of Marriage Act. But as the Gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Dean of the House, so eloquently warned us in July, 'We should expect to see this dangerous approach repeated on a wide range of other legislation.' Today, his prediction has come true, and there is no pretense that this will end. What is next? Voting rights? Laws that prohibit racial discrimination? Civil liberties? Our rights to privacy?"
That was Nancy Pelosi, Minority Speaker for the House.
And she's right. They have an agenda: to make it impossible for the Court to stop them, as they subvert the principles of the Constitution.
HR 3920, has the title, "To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court." Yep, to allow them to reverse the Court. No need to pass a pesky amendment,no need to find out what the People think, just get 2/3rds of the house to say the court made a mistake (silly buggers, telling us we can't make the laws, who do they think they are?) and *poof* that silly problem of the Constitution being in opposition to a law goes away.
The specific text is that clear, The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court-(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
So, if the ruling is on the Constitutionality of the acts of Congress, Congress gets to make the rules. There's a word for that, Common Law; not Constitutional Republic.
How bout the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
That is more pernicious than it seems at first blush (and that's a pretty ugly blush). If some judge decides to sentence someone to death by public stoning, for apostasy, nothing anyone can do about it, because it's an appeal to God, as the source of the punishment.
That law makes anything out of Leviticus, or Deuteronomy enforceable; one wonders what they will do if a community decides to enact Shari'a, or to those who espouse Fundamentalist Mormonism? Who gets to decide which scriptures are valid expressions of God's will?
Combine it with the 2/3rds to overturn, and Nehemiah Scudder becomes possible. Congress passes a law saying only Christians get to use the God defense, and when the court says they can't do that… va-va voom…. The Court is told to piss up a rope. It overturns the First Amendment (or the 13th, there are laws in Lev. and Deut. which regulate slavery... and Paul never said Christians couldn't keep slaves, so...), which makes a theocracy possible. And that, my friends, will lead to ugliness, civil wars and upheaval. The United States will cease to exist (is this a hyperbolic claim, yes… but I don't think it's wrong). The Aryan Nations will carve out a piece of somewhere, the Fundamentalist Mormons will do the same (and we'll see more Mountain Meadow Massacres).
We will suffer, God forbid, the trials and tribulations Europe did in the Thirty Years War.
Angels and Ministers of Grace defend us.
no subject
I keep looking in my version of the New Testament to see where it commmands Christians to seek and keep secular political power for the purpose of forcing everyone to follow their religion. Just checked -- nope, not there.
no subject
The other two are basically dead, but they show the desires of the Religious Right.
TK
no subject
(Honestly I don't really care that much about saying it, doesn't bother me, but I wanted to put the point of view of SOME Christians out there that do consider the pledge wrong for that reason. Too often these politicians get hung up on the whole "under God" bit, but don't consider the Christians who consider the pledge putting the flag ABOVE God.)
no subject
TK
no subject
I grow more appalled every day by the people controlling the reins of power in this country. Good on Rep. Pelosi for saying what she did. I'm just worried that all these things needed to be said at least a year ago, and that there's a possibility that it's too late. I hope not, for all our sakes.
Good Link
Now the question is this: If everyone in the U.S. read this, too, would it make any difference? And if not, why not?
Assuming the worst-case scenario, there's a second question: Doesn't Canada suddenly seem very inviting for a winter vacation?
Re: Good Link
Re: Good Link
I'm going to stick it out (that and I still haven't decided on what to do about my enlistment. Right now I can't be deployed again, without a change in the law, but...). I figure fighting from here, as opposed to trying to make the arguments from the position of an ex-pat, is probably best.
And if it gets that bad... I just hope I can get on a boat, and make it to Canada (probably via Mexico... worst case I have horses, and know the ways of the desert, so crossing the border somewhere [and not near Tiajuana] ought to be doable. That or a long ride up the spine of the Sierras, though that would be an exodous of a couple of years, because the Cascades and the Siskiyu, are just a tad difficult in the winter. It bothers me that these sorts of thoughts seem far-fetched, but not unthinkable... I am coming to hate these people, really hate them).
TK
Re: Good Link
That's very close to my own thinking. If things get that bad and everyone who's bothered by it flees the country, then who's left to fight it?
Re: Good Link
Trick is to figure out the best time to cut your losses.
If, God forbid, the worst happens, it will be interesting (for certain values of interesting) to see how the balkanized US sorts itself out. It will never again be a player on the world stage, it's best outcome would be to end up like Europe, a web of interconnected states, perhaps a Federation, but the hot-button issues, and the large (in absolute terms) number of people with dichotomous views, will IMO, prevent a successful reconstruction, as was done after the last Civil War.
Then again, it can be argued the last Civil War sowed the seeds, albiet indirectly, for the next.
TK
Re: Good Link
Trick is to figure out the best time to cut your losses.
Well, yes, there is that. I've been sort of background-processing at what point I'd be willing to throw up my hands and just leave, and haven't quite put my finger on it yet. Part of the problem is that I have yet to really find anyplace else that makes me think "Oooh, yes, that would be so much better!"
Our Fellow Americans--?
You nailed (ahem) that one on the head.
Who was it who said that a people don't elect the government they need, but the government they deserve? I often doubt this, thinking that a horrible accident has happened to our country... an accident that has placed monsters in a position to exercise the power to destroy our very nation.
Then I read that "Sky Captain..." is the currently the number one movie in America and I seriously doubt the the accident scenario.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Hoist on mine own petard:
I made a rule that without the poster identifying themself to me, I won't unscreen anymous posts, which means some things in one, which I wish to address, have to be vague (because, while this is my petty fiefdom, I won't break the rules, just because of that, it would be unfair).
It the piece of hyperbole I engaged in (re the Thirty Years War) was called into question for reasons of cost.
This forgets to take several things into account... ammunition for small arms is cheap (in bulk it costs about $.10 to make a round of rifle ammunition. The "match grade" which I order, made to spec, costs me about .$25).
People can afford to shoot at each other with that sort of weapons. If they have to fight the Regular Army... it will go poorly for them, but the scenario in question would have the Army as fragmented as the general populace. The Iraqis, and the Serbs, and the Afshans, et alia, have managed to maintain operations against regular armies, with not much more than such weapons.
Secondly, if it so expensive as that to prosecute, and everyone runs out of the means to use gunpowder... they will resort to knives, swords, etc., if the passions are so strong as to inspire that level of conflict. What has had blood shed to buy, will remain dear, and vendetta and feud are universal (that is part of the problem in the Middle East, the family must avenge itself on the family of the killers, if that was an American soldier, any American soldier will do).
Which means it will get messy, should the Republic fall apart.
TK