Tag Archives: US Constitution

Get ready for big abortion fight

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin speaks during a news conference in Oklahoma City, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2015. Fallin said “it became apparent” during discussions with prison officials last week that the Department of Corrections used potassium acetate, not potassium chloride, as required under the state’s protocol, to execute Charles Frederick Warner in January. "Until we have complete confidence in the system, we will delay any further executions," Fallin said. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

In 1907, Oklahoma became the 46th of 50 states to join the United States of America, an event that subjected the residents of that state to all the “laws of the land.”

That means Oklahomans are bound to adhere to mandates handed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which interprets the constitutionality of the law.

Get set, then, for a big fight as Oklahoma tries to defend itself against challenges to a bill that makes abortion illegal in the state.

Why the fight? Because the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the practice of terminating a pregnancy is legal in all 50 states and that women could make that decision until the time that the unborn child is determined to be “viable.”

The Oklahoma Legislature has sent a bill to Gov. Mary Fallin’s desk that makes performing an abortion a felony, except in the case of rape or incest or if carrying the pregnancy to full term endangers the mother’s life.

The landmark Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973 didn’t spell out any exceptions. It said that women who choose to end a pregnancy have that right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the practice was declared legal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-abortion_us_573df1b9e4b0aee7b8e94b41

The Oklahoma law is seen as being a mostly symbolic gesture, even if Fallin signs it. She has until Wednesday. Gov. Fallin, a pro-life politician, hasn’t yet said whether she’ll sign it.

The cost to state taxpayers, though, could be substantial if abortion-rights groups challenge the law and subject the state to expensive legal proceedings.

Oklahoma lawmakers have made a profound political statement. They have thumbed their noses at the highest court in America and have determined independently that they are able to flout federal law that the judicial system has reaffirmed.

Gov. Fallin should veto the bill. If she wants to make abortion illegal, she should have to wait — and hope — for the chance to change the philosophical composition of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Mayor to Trump: Thanks, but no thanks

Sadiq Khan

Sadiq Khan made history by becoming the first Muslim ever elected mayor of London.

He’s a distinguished man who apparently doesn’t like other politicians patronizing him.

So, when presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee Donald J. Trump offered to grant the mayor-elect an “exception” to a proposed ban on Muslims visiting the United States, Khan offered a terse “no thanks.”

This is precisely the kind of reaction Trump should have gotten in response to his ridiculous — and patently unconstitutional — proposal to ban people from entering the United States on the basis of their religious belief.

Trump issued the call in the wake of the Paris terror attacks. He said he would, if elected president, work to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. Why? He said the threat of Islamic terrorism coming to this country is too great.

Trump does not grasp the idiocy of this proclamation.

Mayor-elect Khan has rejected Trump’s offer to exempt him from the ban. He wonders about how other Muslims would react if they want to come to the United States “on holiday.” What if they want to go to Disneyland, Khan asked, but they can’t because “President Trump” says they aren’t welcome here?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows absolute freedom to worship as one believes. It has been interpreted during the past two-plus centuries to mean that no one should be discriminated against because of their religious faith.

Trump has proposed something that utterly flouts one of the basic tenets on which this country was founded.

Sadiq Khan — the duly elected mayor of one of the world’s truly great cities — saw through it immediately.

He understands what it means to be an American more than the individual who is poised to be nominated to run for the presidency of the United States.

 

Once again: Constitution is a secular document

delay_constution_140220a-2-800x430

Tom DeLay knows his audience and he speaks their language.

In this case, the former U.S. House majority leader was speaking a couple of years ago on a religious program hosted by John Hagee Ministries.

If only, though, he would speak accurately about the very founding of this great republic.

Host Matt Hagee asked DeLay where he thought the nation had gone wrong. DeLay’s response was, shall we say, more than little off the mark.

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/02/tom-delay-people-keep-forgetting-that-god-wrote-the-constitution/#.VTt_WhZmKvw.facebook

“I think we got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government,” DeLay explained. “When we stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles.”

Well …

Where do we begin?

We’ve had a “secular government” since its very founding. The Constitution — as I’ve noted in this blog before — contains precisely two religious references. That would be in Article VI, which declares that there should be “no religious test” for anyone seeking election to public office; and in the First Amendment, where the founders declared there would be “no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

That’s it, folks.

The founders knew precisely what they were doing when they omitted any other religious references in the Constitution. They intended for the government to be free of religious pressure or coercion.

I happen to be totally OK with that.

DeLay, though, sought to parse the Constitution differently when he told the Hagee Ministries audience about how God “wrote the Constitution.”

This gets to the debate that continues to this day. Indeed, it’s been going on virtually since the United States of America emerged from its revolution.

The Rawstory item showed up on my Facebook feed today I suppose as a reminder that this national debate likely never will go away.

Can’t we just accept the notion that the founders built a government framework that would be free of religion, but which allowed each of us to worship as we see fit?

That happens to be — in my humble view — one of the true-blue beauties of a secular government.

What once was impossible has become probable

trump04-2016getty

I never thought it would come to this.

The Republican Party now looks as though it’s about to nominate a certifiably unfit individual for the presidency of the United States of America.

Donald J. Trump is the man.

I’ve had more conversations with fellow political junkies that I am able to count. Some of them are Trumpkins. Most are not.

To those who support Trump, I am no longer able to persuade them that they have made a huge mistake. To those who stand with me in their utter disbelief at what appears set to transpire in Cleveland this summer, I only can say: I feel your pain.

This individual’s political ascent is utterly beyond belief.

At any level imaginable, he is unfit for the office of president.

Let’s start with Trump’s personal history. He is married to his third wife. He divorced his first two wives. He produced a child with the woman who would become his second wife while he was still married to Wife No. 1. He would boast of his extramarital affairs.

His opulent lifestyle is beyond anything that virtually all Americans cannot relate.

Trump’s ignorance of policy take my breath away. He said he wouldn’t stand in the way of Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons as a hedge against North Korea. He utterly doesn’t understand or comprehend the reason for NATO’s existence in Europe.

How about this man’s initial statement about women deserving to be punished for obtaining an illegal abortion? Can there be anything more ridiculous than to punish a woman for making this kind of decision?

The insults have become almost too routine to chronicle. I won’t go there. You know what he’s said about his foes, about illegal immigrants, about one noted Vietnam War veteran’s captivity during that horrible conflict, people with physical disabilities.

He doesn’t understand the limits of power contained in the office he seeks. The people who wrote the Constitution built in some limits on the presidency. Trump keeps talking about all the things he intends to do unilaterally: build a wall, bring back jobs, make sure department store employees deliver “Merry Christmas” greetings to customers.

How does this buffoon keep getting support? Why, he “tells it like it is,” his supporters say. He hates “political correctness.”

Well, I never in a zillion years thought we’d get to this point.

What in the world has happened to a once-great political party?

Constitution silent about the nominating game

DENVER - AUGUST 26: Ohio delegate Peggy Tanksley displays her Democratic Party pride during day two of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at the Pepsi Center August 26, 2008 in Denver, Colorado. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) will be officially be nominated as the Democratic candidate for U.S. president on the last day of the four-day convention. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

All this yammering and yapping about the delegate selection process has given the 2016 presidential campaign its unique feel.

Interesting, to say the very least.

So-called Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump is getting wiped out by Sen. Ted Cruz in these caucus states, resulting in Trump griping about the selection process. He calls it “rigged” against him.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is wiping Hillary Rodham Clinton out in those caucuses, but can’t seem to make a serious dent in her delegate lead. She owes her lead at the moment to the “super delegates” who pledged to support her; these are the political heavy hitters who are free to declare their support for whomever they wish.

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say a single word about the nominating process. This belongs to the parties exclusively. They make their own rules and force the candidates to play by them.

For that matter, the Constitution doesn’t even mention political parties. The founders wrote only in terms of governance.

We need not amend the Constitution to create a political party presidential selection system that everyone must follow.

How about, though, if the party bosses were to huddle along with selected members of their respective brain trusts to hammer out a uniform system that both parties could follow?

Is that so hard?

My first priority would be a way to apportion the delegate selection process for primaries and for caucuses that make sense for every state. Why not dole out the delegates in direct proportion to the votes they get in a primary election? But what the heck, perhaps the parties could follow the framework used in electing a president: Give the winning candidate all the delegates up for grabs in the primary state. If a candidate wins a state in the general election, he or she gets all the Electoral College votes in virtually every instance.

The caucuses also could be made uniform in those states that choose to select delegates in that fashion.

This whining and griping about delegate selection — which seems heightened this year by Trump — need not cloud the issue of the nominating process.

This is the most serious purely partisan political activity that occurs; I must add that it’s serious in spite of the picture of a 2008 Democratic convention delegate that accompanies this blog post. We do this only once every four years.

It seems we ought to be able to make these choices without quibbling and quarreling over whether the system is rigged.

GOP erects fortress of obstruction

garland

Merrick Garland should be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Why? He’s qualified in the extreme. He is a model of judicial restraint. Garland is held in high regard by his peers and even by politicians of both parties.

So, what’s the trouble?

He happens to have been nominated by a Democratic president in his final full year in office. Senate Republicans, the folks in charge of the body who must confirm these nominees, say that Barack Obama doesn’t deserve to name the next justice.

And why is that? Well, it’s because the next nominee is going to succeed a conservative judicial titan on the court. Antonin Scalia went hunting in West Texas and then died suddenly earlier this year.

The Supreme Court’s balance has been narrowly conservative. Scalia’s death occurring during the presidency of a progressive politician means that the politician — Barack Obama — should get to select the next person to serve on the nation’s highest court.

But, no-o-o-o-o, say Republicans. He can’t do that.

The nomination must wait for the election to occur and for the next president to take office, say Republicans. Their hope, as if it’s not clear, is that one of the Republicans running for the White House will win the election.

Garland has launched what some are calling a “charm offensive” against some targeted Republican senators.

It hasn’t worked. The GOP lawmakers thought to be vulnerable to Garland’s judicial brilliance aren’t budging. They’re standing by their own man, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has said — laughingly, in my view — that “the people deserve to have a voice” in choosing the next Supreme Court justice.

It’s a crock of horse manure. The people’s voice was heard in November 2012 when voters re-elected Barack Obama as president.

Oh, but wait! Didn’t the people speak in 2014 when they voted to hand control of the Senate over to the GOP? Sure they did.

However, as one who believes in presidential prerogative, I also am of a mind to place greater value on the votes collected by the one individual who is elected head of government and head of state than on the votes earned collectively by the legislative branch of government.

Garland’s charm offensive likely won’t — by itself — change enough minds to earn him a confirmation hearing before Barack Obama leaves office.

However, it very well could awaken the people once again this election, who in turn might seek to have their “voices heard” when they toss aside the Senate Republican majority while electing a Democrat to assume the presidency.

Obstruction can be difficult to disguise.

 

Reason prevails in Tennessee statehouse

Old fashionet American Constitution with USA  Flag.

Tennessee’s Republican governor, Bill Haslam, has put his veto pen to good use.

He vetoed a bill that would have made the Bible the “state book” of Tennessee. Frankly, such a law looks like something that might one day find its way to the desk of the Texas governor.

His reasoning is interesting, to say the least. Haslam said giving the Bible such a designation “trivializes” the holy book.

I applaud the governor for making a reasonable decision.

“If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we shouldn’t be recognizing it only as a book of historical and economic significance,” Haslam said.

Indeed.

Here’s another thought: Giving the Bible such a designation quite possibly would violate the U.S. Constitution First Amendment prohibition against government establishing a state religion.

The Bible is a sacred text. It belongs in the homes of families whose faith relies on the Bible’s teachings. It belongs in churches where clergy preach its holy word.

It does not belong as a government-designated “official book.”

Don’t those fine public servants who serve in the Tennessee legislature understand the oath they took, the one that says they would support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

The Constitution they swore to uphold is a secular document. It prohibits governments at all levels from enacting the kind of law that came out of the legislature in Nashville.

And, yes, the Bible is a sacred text. Let’s not cheapen it by making a state’s “official book.” The Bible is a much more profound document than that.

 

No mandatory vote law needed, Mr. President

obama

Barack Obama is frustrated at the political division and the apparent apathy among voters in the United States.

I share the president’s frustration.

However, I don’t share his enthusiasm for a suggested remedy.

Make voting mandatory, he said in a speech at the University of Chicago law school.

The Australians  do it right, he said, by requiring citizens to vote. He said such a requirement would be “transformative” by boosting turnouts to the 70 to 80 percent range.

There are ways to encourage turnout without making citizens do it, Mr. President.

We could declare Election Day a national holiday. Give everyone a day off from work to vote. That’s an idea.

As for mandatory voting, the U.S. Constitution grants us the right to vote. It doesn’t specify it as a condition of citizenship. Our rights as citizens depend on whether we choose to take full advantage of them.

I am proud to vote. I almost always wait to do so on Election Day, whether it’s in the primary or in the general election. There’s just something ham-handed and, dare I say, dictatorial in declaring that Americans must vote.

I also lament the pitiful voter turnouts. Only 53.6 percent of Americans voted for president in 2012. The Australian turnout was greater than 90 percent in its most recent general election. Yes, that is vastly better than our own electoral performance.

“We really are the only advanced democracy on Earth that systematically and purposely makes it really hard for people to vote,” Obama told the law students.

That might be true. There are many options out there to make it easier for Americans to vote. Writing that requirement into law isn’t one of them.

We must remain free to vote — or not vote — as we see fit.

For better or worse, that’s the American way.

Cruz is ‘eligible’ to run for POTUS

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - APRIL 06: Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz listens at the restaurant Sabrosura 2 on April 6, 2016 in the Bronx borough of New York City. Cruz, who won last night's Wisconsin primary, was visiting New York in advance of New York's Republican primary on April 19, 2016. (Photo by Bryan Thomas/Getty Images)

This is fantastic!

The Ted Cruz Birther Movement is slow to die. Heck, it might never wither away!

Constitutional crybabies keep insisting that because the Republican U.S. senator from Texas — and GOP candidate for president — was born in Canada that he isn’t eligible to seek the presidency, let alone hold the office if elected.

Plaintiffs in several states have sought to block Cruz’s candidacy on specious grounds that the senator is a foreigner.

These challenges are doomed. They won’t get to first base, I believe, with the U.S. Supreme Court.

A lower court judge put it well. A natural-born citizen “includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth,” wrote Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Dan Pellegrini.

Young Rafael Edward Cruz came into this world as a U.S. citizens because his mother is an American. Therefore, no matter where on Earth baby Ted was born he became eligible to run for the presidency.

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t define “natural-born citizen.” It doesn’t specify that a president must have been born on sovereign U.S. territory. All it specifies is citizenship — and federal law, by golly, is pretty damn clear on that point.

Still, this birtherism regarding Cruz’s eligibility is nearly as funny as the cockamamie notion that dogged President Barack Obama right up until the moment he won re-election to a second — and final — term in November 2012.

 

Who’s ‘qualified’ to be president?

trust-1

I am now going to weigh in on who I believe is qualified to become the 45th president of the United States.

The qualification issue has arisen in the Democratic Party primary. The candidates keep yapping about the other’s qualifications, or lack thereof.

But look, we’ve got four men and one woman running for president. Why not, then, take a quick look at each individual’s “qualifications.”

First, let’s stipulate the obvious: They’re all technically qualified, even Rafael Edward Cruz, the Canadian-born U.S. senator from Texas who earned his constitutional qualification by virtue of his mother’s U.S. citizenship.

No question about any of the others in that regard.

So, here goes, for what it’s worth — which ain’t much. In order:

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most qualified. She served as first lady during her husband’s two terms as president. She was elected twice to the U.S. Senate from New York. She has served four years as secretary of state. She ran for president in 2008 and won many Democratic state primaries, including the Texas primary, that year.

She knows how government works and has a good knowledge of the limitations of the office of president. She once was a lawyer, after all.

John Kasich is a very close second. The Republican Ohio governor has a record as a member of Congress that should make him proud. He helped balance the federal budget as chairman of the House Budget Committee. He exhibits a good dose of the “compassionate conservatism” touted by former President George W. Bush. He reaches across the aisle and knows to compromise without sacrificing his principles.

He’s developed a solid record as Ohio governor. Kasich, too, understands government and its limitations.

Ted Cruz comes in a distant third. This one really is nearly a tossup with the next person. At one level, he might be the scariest candidate running for the White House. This freshman GOP U.S. senator keeps invoking theology, apparently disregarding that the Founding Fathers worked real hard to create a secular government. Cruz also seems too quick to “carpet bomb” Islamic State targets, which quite naturally is going to produce civilian casualties in direct contradiction to military policies established by two presidents, one Republican and one Democrat.

Bernie Sanders is fourth, but barely so. He’s served in Congress a lot longer than Cruz. However, his campaign for the Democratic nomination has begun to bore me. Why? He says the same thing over and over: Wall Street banks bad; wage inequality preys on women and minorities; we need to make the “top 1 percent” pay more in taxes.

Foreign policy? He remains strangely uninterested in talking about that.

Donald J. Trump is patently, categorically and unequivocally unsuited for the presidency. Sure, he’s a natural-born American. So … he’s “qualified.” But he is clueless about the limits of the office he seeks to occupy. He has vaulted to the top of the GOP heap by appealing to Americans’ darker instincts. His insults go so far beyond the pale that many of us have run out of words to describe them.

Read any transcript of the leading Republican candidate’s answers to direct questions and you are going to be blown away by his absolute incoherence.