Tag Archives: US Constitution

Birtherism will live forever

obama

I thought I was done writing about birthers, those individuals who keep insisting that President Barack Obama was born in a country other than the United States of America.

Silly me.

A new poll is out. It says that more than 70 percent of Republicans believe the president was not born in the United States, that he was born in a foreign country, that he’s somehow not a legitimate president.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persistent-partisan-divide-over-birther-question-n627446?cid=sm_tw

This might be the last time I’ll ever write about it. Then again, it might not be.

Allow me to make a couple of points.

First, the president produced a long-firm birth certificate that declares he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in August 1961, two years after Hawaii became one of the 50 states. He showed it to all of us .

That doesn’t seem to satisfy Republicans who continue to insist that he’s a foreigner.

Second, we also had this discussion with former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, who actually was born in another country. He was born in Canada — to an American mother and a Cuban father. Cruz, though, said he was a U.S. citizen by virtue of his mother’s citizenship.

Which brings me back to the point about Obama’s citizenship. His mother was a U.S. citizen, too; his father — who he barely knew — was Kenyan.

And that brings us to the final point.

If Barack H. Obama had been born on, oh, Mars to an American mother and a foreign-born father, he still would be eligible to run — and serve — as president of the United States.

But that partisan divide keeps this non-story alive and kicking.

The Constitution doesn’t stipulate precisely that a presidential candidate must be born within the nation’s borders. It says only that a “natural-born” citizen is eligible to run and serve.

In both instances, Sen. Cruz and President Obama are eligible to run for and serve as president.

However, in the matter involving the current president, he’s produced a U.S. birth certificate. It’s too bad, though, that most Republicans still seem to refuse to believe their lying eyes.

Presidents should speak precisely … and with clarity

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I am not going to ascribe some nefarious motive behind what Donald J. Trump said about the Second Amendment and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I do not know what he meant when he said “Second Amendment people” might take care of Clinton if she’s elected president and appoints judges who might be unfriendly to gun owners’ rights.

The Republican presidential nominee has come under withering criticism for seemingly — according to some folks — suggesting someone should actually harm the Democratic presidential nominee.

The troubling aspect up front for me is the lack of clarity and precision that keeps pouring out of Trump’s pie hole when he makes statements such as his latest stumble-bum utterance.

He wants to be president of the United States, allegedly.

That means he must follow a number of rules associated with being head of state and government.

One of them has to be to speak with absolute clarity all the time.

I’m trying to imagine Trump letting slip some ridiculous assertion about a world leader or an international trouble spot that gets lost in the translation. These things do happen, you know.

What if, for example, he repeats his belief that Japan and South Korea should be able to develop nukes as a defense against North Korea? How is that tinhorn despot Kim Jong Un going to interpret it? Would he then, on a whim, decide to attack South Korea believing that his peninsula neighbors are about to explode a nuclear device?

The kind of loose and careless talk — which is what he exhibited with his Second Amendment remarks in North Carolina — cannot be tolerated in someone who presents himself as a serious candidate for the U.S. presidency.

Trump steps in it … again

BBvrUog

Donald J. Trump has shown a remarkable ability to say things that those who hear them can interpret in ways that he may not have intended.

He did it again today at a North Carolina campaign rally.

The Republican presidential nominee fired up his crowd by declaring that Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton “essentially” intends to dismantle the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

He said: “By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pence-defends-trump-he-was-rallying-gun-owners-to-vote/ar-BBvrMFw?li=BBnb7Kz

Unlike many folks who blog or pontificate on politics, I am not a mind-reader. Therefore, I am not going to presume what Trump meant to say.

Some suggest he meant that “Second Amendment people” could do serious harm to Clinton if she appoints judges to the federal judiciary who will gut gun owners’ rights.

Others, such as GOP vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence, said that he meant only to encourage those “Second Amendment people” to vote for president this fall.

Hmmm.

Trump, to no one’s surprise, hasn’t yet clarified his own remarks. He has chosen, I suppose, to leave it to others to parse his statement.

There is a pattern here. Trump says things with little appreciation for the consequences of what he utters.

It’s interesting to me that at the moment he spoke about the “Second Amendment people,” he never offered any detail, such as, oh: “There’s nothing you can do, folks, although the Second Amendment people can be sure to get out and vote for me, because I will protect the rights of gun owners.”

He didn’t do that.

Now we’re left to wonder what this guy actually means.

Mr. Trump, allow me to be among the many who’ve warned you already: Words have consequences.

Christian, Muslim, Jew … so what?

paladino-1-e1467138490245-300x198

Carl Paladino is a partisan hack who runs Republican nominee Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign in New York state.

He’s also spouting idiocy about the religious affiliation of the president of the United States, who he has labeled this week as a Muslim.

Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he is a devout Christian. I believe the president. I do not believe the idiotic rant of Paladino.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-advisor-carl-paladino-theres-no-doubt-that-obama-is-a-muslim/

OK, then. Now, let’s look at something in the U.S. Constitution.

If you’re a real, true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool conservative, you believe in what’s called a “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution. You choose to interpret as little as possible in the document, much like one might do with, say, the Holy Bible.

So, let’s open our copy of the Constitution and turn to Article VI. It covers several areas of government, such as debt, laws and treaties, the oath officeholders take to support the Constitution.

And, oh yes, it has a clause at the end of it pertaining to “no religious test.”

It states: ” … but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Do you know what I take away from that passage in Article VI? It means to me that an officeholder or a candidate for public office can worship any religion he or she chooses. It doesn’t matter what faith they worship.

Article VI lays it out there with crystal clarity.

That’s in a perfect world. I realize we don’t live in a world of perfection. It is soiled a good bit by those who choose to ignore constitutional tenets that fail to meet their world view.

Carl Paladino chooses, therefore, to declare in public that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, as if that’s supposed to label him as someone evil, sinister … anti-American.

I’ll make an admission: I am not as faithful to my own interpretation of the Constitution. Some constitutional tenets I take literally; I choose to interpret other tenets a bit more broadly. If you’re honest with yourself, you might be wiling to admit to doing the same thing yourself.

The “no religious test” clause of Article VI is one that — in my view — should be understood clearly and without equivocation. The framers knew exactly what they were doing when they expressly prohibited a “religious test.” They wanted to create a secular government run without specific religious influences.

My optimism runs eternal. Therefore, I’ll keep hoping for as long as I’m walking on this good Earth that one day we can apply that constitutional principle cleanly and without fear and suspicion.

Journalists actually surrender some civil liberties

freedom-of-speech-2cd4b4

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

First Amendment, to the U.S. Constitution

Here’s something you might not ever have considered when you think of journalists.

There are times when journalists at least one of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It’s in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the clause contained in that amendment to which I refer speaks to the right to express your political views publicly.

I’ve known journalists over the years who’ve said they never vote because they feel this need to remain “neutral” as it regards political campaigns. Voting, they say, removes the veneer of neutrality and impartiality. I’ve heard of many prominent journalists who’ve said the same thing.

I didn’t adhere to that strange doctrine during the nearly 37 years I was a practicing full-time journalist. I always have voted, understanding that my vote is my business and that since it’s done in secret I was never obligated to reveal who received my ballot-box endorsement.

Lawn signs are another matter. The last sign I ever planted in my yard was in 1976, before I was finished with college and before I became a full-time journalist. It was during the Oregon primary that year and I displayed a sign supporting the late U.S. Sen. Frank Church of Idaho in that year’s Democratic presidential primary.

Bumper stickers, too, are forbidden — in my view — for those of us who have toiled in the media.

The last paper where I worked, the Amarillo Globe-News, did not have a policy banning bumper stickers on employees’ motor vehicles. I saw the occasional vehicle in the company parking lot with a sticker on a rear bumper.

On one occasion, I asked the owner of the vehicle about it and asked him if he thought it was appropriate for him to display that political preference while working for an organization that is supposed to present the news fairly and without bias. This individual sold advertisements for the paper and, thus, he didn’t feel compelled to remove the sticker from his vehicle. We agreed to disagree on that and we remain friends to this day.

Why mention this?

The media get hammered pretty hard by those who think reporters and editors are somehow privileged to say what they want without being held accountable. Actually, they are held accountable by their employers and, yes, by the public they seek to serve.

Their craft, though, occasionally prevents those in the media from responding as freely and forcefully as they wish.

Some media employers demand that their representatives keep their bias hidden; they prohibit bumper stickers on vehicles and signs in employees’ yards. Others don’t, preferring to leave it to the employees’ own good judgment to do the right thing.

On occasion, though, doing the right thing requires those in the media to surrender certain rights of citizenship — even as they advocate for the rights of others to never be “abridged.”

Ironic, yes?

Trump now pitches ‘extreme vetting’ of Muslims

0622trumpmuslim01

Donald J. Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States has morphed into something he calls “extreme vetting.”

Is that any more acceptable?

That depends, I suppose.

If you’re frightened beyond all reason over allowing any Muslims into the country, then the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s apparent change in policy is a “weakening” of his get-tough stance.

On the other hand, if you wonder just how U.S. immigration and customs officials are going to conduct this so-called “extreme vetting” — as I do — then this plan is just another goofy notion that well might change in the next day or two.

Oh, and there’s also that constitutional issue. The First Amendment lists three basic liberties, the first one of which just happens to be the freedom to worship whichever faith you choose.

Trump is going to accept the GOP presidential nomination this week in Cleveland. He’s selected Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate. Pence, interestingly, has declared Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric to be antithetical to American values.

Aw, but what the heck? What’s wrong with a few disagreements among political allies? That sounded like Trump’s rationale for selecting someone with whom he has some serious policy disagreements.

Does the “extreme vetting” bring the two GOP candidates closer on this particular difference of opinion? Time will tell, I suppose.

Whether it’s an outright ban or a regimen of “extreme vetting” of people based on their religious faith, the GOP nominee’s precept is built out of fear and panic. It also ignores the reality that federal security forces are intercepting and detaining suspected bad guys every single day.

Trump keeps insisting that we need to be more vigilant, more alert, more resolute in defending ourselves against terrorists.

The 9/11 attacks nearly 15 years ago — Can you believe that? — exposed the nation to the harshest reality imaginable, which is that we were vulnerable to that kind of horror. We were vulnerable to such evil for a long time before it actually happened.

I believe we are a lot less vulnerable to it today, based on the terrible lessons learned from that horrifying event.

What’s more, defending ourselves against a lone-wolf attacker is difficult in the extreme, as Secretary of State John Kerry noted over the weekend.

He made a fascinating point Sunday morning, which is that U.S. national security forces have to be on guard and totally alert every minute of every single day of the year. Meanwhile, a terrorist has to be sharp for just a few minutes in order to conduct a successful strike against us.

“Extreme vetting” or an outright ban of Muslims will not protect us totally and fully against the evil that lurks out there.

Such language, though, does create a catchy political sound bite.

Let’s stop the ‘consequences’ talk

ginsburgruth_012814getty

How about settling down just a bit, Republican members of Congress?

They’re all up in arms over remarks Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made about presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, about how she cannot imagine a country with Trump as president.

Rep. Randy Weber of Texas said Ginsburg ought to resign. Trump said the same thing. As the Hill reported: “The recent comments of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg on Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump are the antithesis of Lady Justice and in direct violation for what the highest court in the land stands,” he said. “Justice Ginsburg’s actions must be met with consequences. I agree with Donald Trump that she should resign.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/287537-house-republican-ginsburgs-actions-must-be-met-with-consequences

While I agree that Ginsburg crossed a line, violated an unwritten rule about justices getting too politically partisan, let’s take heed of what the framers did when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

They created an independent branch of government called the “judicial branch.” Judges get lifetime appointments to their posts. The idea was to enable them to be free of political pressure brought by the executive or legislative branches of government.

The founders got it right.

Ginsburg didn’t need to pop off as she did about Trump. But she isn’t the first justice to get involved in politics. In the earliest years of the Republic, justices ran for political office while sitting on the Supreme Court.

That kind of overt politicking, of course, hasn’t occurred in many years.

I don’t expect the Supreme Court to hear cases involving Trump while Ginsburg is sitting on that bench. However, I don’t doubt the justice’s ability to judge any case involving Trump fairly.

Although the framers had the right idea when they created an independent judiciary, they could not possibly remove politics from its actions.

I bring you Bush v. Gore in 2000, in which five Republican-appointed justices stopped the ballot-counting in Florida with GOP candidate George W. Bush leading Democratic opponent Al Gore by 537 votes out of more than 5 million cast in that state. Bush won Florida’s electoral votes and became president by the narrowest of margins.

Do you think politics played any role in that decision?

Well, that’s how the system worked.

As for the present-day dustup over Justice Ginsburg’s remarks, she made them, but let’s quell the talk about “consequences.”

Ginsburg was entitled to say what she said.

SCOTUS upholds ‘due process’ in rejecting abortion law

SCOTUS_Abortion_rulingTT_jpg_800x1000_q100

It had been some time since I looked at the constitutional justification for the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in the United States.

So today, I did in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that strikes down a Texas law that made it more difficult for women to terminate a pregnancy.

Roe was decided on the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which the court said in its January 1973 ruling guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion.

Yes, I am aware that constitutional purists will declare that “abortion” isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution, unlike, say, “the right keep and bear arms.”

But these amendments cover a multitude of rights that aren’t necessarily mentioned by name in the nation’s government framework.

The court today ruled 5-3 that House Bill 2 was too restrictive and that it violated a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. The bill became law in 2013 after that famous filibuster launched by then-state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who temporarily halted the bill’s progress in the waning hours of the Texas Legislature.

Not to be deterred, then-Gov. Rick Perry called a special session and the Legislature enacted the bill anyway.

According to the Texas Tribune: In a 5-3 vote, the high court overturned restrictions passed as part of House Bill 2 in 2013 that required all Texas facilities performing abortions to meet hospital-like standards — which include minimum sizes for rooms and doorways, pipelines for anesthesia. The court also struck down a separate provision, which had already gone into effect, that requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion clinic.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/27/us-supreme-court-rules-texas-abortion-case/

The result of HB 2 was to force clinics that provide abortions to shut down. It made access to the procedure unconstitutionally difficult for women to obtain.

The court decision was swayed by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s siding with the liberals on the court.

Is this a happy ruling? No one should be happy when the issue involves an issue that is as emotionally draining and wrenching as this. Women have been entitled to make these decisions ever since the Roe ruling — which also arose from a Texas case.

I feel the need to add that to be “pro-choice” on this issue should not be construed as being “pro-abortion.” Would I ever counsel a woman to obtain abortion? No. Then again, it’s not my call to make. Nor should it be the government’s role.

Yes, this was a difficult call for the nation’s highest court to make. It was the correct call.

No mulligans should be allowed on ‘Brexit’ vote

Brexit

Those silly British citizens just plain surprised the world with that vote to remove the United Kingdom from the European Union.

Now, it appears at least 1.5 million of them want a do-over. They want another chance to reverse what a majority of Brits said they wanted. They’ve reportedly signed their names to petitions being circulated throughout Britain.

A part of me wishes a do-over election was feasible and reasonable. I dislike the idea of Britain exiting the EU. I fear for the future of this stellar alliance of nations and what its potential disintegration might mean to us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

But in reality, the decision ought to stand and the British government should play the hand its been dealt.

Were it possible to grant electoral mulligans, Americans might have sought such a thing after the 2000 presidential election when Al Gore collected more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the Electoral College by a single vote when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the hand-counting of ballots in Florida; Bush had 537 more votes in Florida than Gore when the counting stopped, so he won the electoral vote by one more that he needed to be elected.

Our constitutional system worked.

The British referendum delivered a clear message, meaning that the British electoral system worked, too.

My hope — which is not exactly my expectation — is that the world financial markets will settle down eventually. Maybe it will settle down sooner than we think at the moment. That’s the one element of this tumult that upsets me … as a semi-retired American citizen.

A do-over on this referendum — which, incidentally, was a non-binding vote? It won’t happen. Nor should it.

The British government now must deal wit the harsh reality of re-creating an old relationship with the rest of Europe.

Recall effort, over this?

garagesale

Many communities in America have them.

They’re gadflies. Blowhards. People who raise a ruckus just to be heard. Maybe they like the sound of their own voices. I don’t know.

An individual has surfaced over yonder, in Tucumcari, N.M., who I guess qualifies as a gadfly. She doesn’t like a proposed new city ordinance that puts some restrictions on garage, rummage or estate sales in the city.

She’s threatening to recall Tucumcari city commissioners over their insistence on approving the city ordinance.

But here’s the ridiculous aspect of it.

The gadfly, Dena Mericle, doesn’t like in Tucumcari. She lives in rural Quay County. She doesn’t have any proverbial skin in the game. The ordinance doesn’t affect her. Her garage sale restrictions are set by the county commission.

According to my colleague Thomas Garcia, writing for the Quay County Sun, Mericle said this during a public hearing: “The commissioners are elected by us, the public, to serve our best interest and the interest of the city.”

She then used the R-word — “recall” — to make her point. “If the commission passes this ordinance, then I hate to resort to this, but I’ve collected well over 300 signatures … for a recall of the commissioners.”

Tucumcari Mayor Ruth Ann Litchfield told Garcia that commissioners “often make decisions that are unpopular. If we give in to the threat of recall, then anytime there is an item or ordinance that someone doesn’t like, they will resort to that tactic.”

Earth to Dena: You are entitled to express your opinion, but you are not entitled — as a practical matter — to spearhead a recall drive in a community in which you have no vested interest.

Geez, I hate recalls. They should be done only in the case of malfeasance. Tucumcari commissioners are acting totally within their purview by regulating a legal activity inside the city’s corporate boundaries.

As such, commissioners are answerable only to those who pay the bills, the residents of the city — who also would be financially liable for the cost of a recall election.

This kind of outside intrusion isn’t unique, of course, to Tucumcari.

Do you recall the Amarillo municipal referendum this past November in which residents were asked whether to approve construction of a multipurpose event venue in its downtown district? The referendum passed in a close vote.

One of the main foes of the MPEV was a guy who lived in Canyon, about 15 miles south of Amarillo. But there he was, raising Cain at City Council meetings objecting to the MPEV.

I get that he — as is Mericle — is entitled to speak his mind. If he didn’t like the MPEV, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants him the right to speak out against it.

However, these local issues ought to be decided and argued publicly by those who have a tangible stake in their outcome. That’s not a legal requirement, of course. It just makes sense.

The rest of us are perched in the proverbial peanut gallery, where our arguments and objections will get all the attention they deserve … which isn’t much.