Tag Archives: US Constitution

legal news

Why the ‘faith’ question?

Ketanji Brown Jackson felt compelled Tuesday to remind Lindsey Graham that Article VI of the US Constitution prohibits any “religious test” for anyone seeking public office, to which Graham responded that he agreed and that he wouldn’t apply any test.

Why, then, did the South Carolina Republican ask Judge Jackson about her “faith,” and why did he ask her how often she attends church? Jackson, nominated by President Biden to the Supreme Court, chose to avoid answering the question about her worship frequency.

I am puzzled and concerned, though, by the direction and the tone of the question that Graham asked of the SCOTUS nominee. If he intends to apply no religious test, then what in the name of holy Scripture is the reason for the questioning about the Judge Jackson’s faith?

It was a concerning line of inquiry and one that I hope no one follows down some judicial blind alley.

That kind of question had no place during the Senate committee confirmation hearing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

‘No religious test’

Lindsey Graham today asked what in another era would have been considered a question worthy of scorn and instant rebuke. The Republican U.S. senator asked a nominee for the Supreme Court, “What is your faith?”

Ketanji Brown Jackson answered “Protestant.”

OK, why should Sen. Graham have been slapped down? Because of Article VI in the U.S. Constitution, which reads, in part: ” 
 no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

I watched Graham ask the question today in real time. I was troubled at the moment I heard it. Then it dawned on me. The Constitution disallows any sort of religious test for “any Office or public Trust.”

That includes the United States Supreme Court!

We witnessed today a remarkably ignorant performance by a member of the U.S. Senate who, had he understood the Constitution he took an oath to “protect and defend,” never would have asked a Supreme Court nominee a question that clearly violates the rules set down by the nation’s governing document.

Despicable.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Compromise possible on guns

Guns usually prompt passionate and occasionally unreasonable arguments over the constitutional amendment that says Americans are entitled to “keep and bear arms.”

The issue shows up during election season when conservatives argue that progressives want to “take away your guns.” Well, maybe some ultra-progressive politicians want to disarm Americans. They are swimming against a riptide of opposition to that notion. That won’t happen. Why? Because doing so would essentially eliminate the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

I consider myself to be a good-government progressive, which means I am not a flaming progressive who wants to rewrite the Constitution. The one we have with its 27 amendments (so far) suits me more or less just fine.

What I do want to happen, though, is for our political leaders to find some legislative remedies to curb the gun violence that keeps erupting on our streets. We sit in our suburban Dallas home each day and watch the news tell us of shootings in Dallas, or Fort Worth, or in other suburban communities nearby. Children are stricken by random violence; some of them die from the wounds inflicted.

Then, of course, we all hear and agonize over the mass shootings that kill so many innocent victims.

Some pols want to put more guns out there, believing they create a safer society. I disagree with that notion. I want fewer guns, but to get to that goal requires some remedies to take these weapons away from individuals who don’t deserve to carry them.

Does any of that violate the Second Amendment? It might, but only if it goes too far. Thus, I want our Legislature or our Congress to seek legislative solutions that keep faith with the Constitution.

The amendment that our founders wrote is a bit of a mishmash, if I could offer that critique. It speaks of a “well-regulated militia” and then declares that the right to “keep and bear arms” must stand.

Our courts have ruled that the amendment says the right to bear arms belongs to us all. I accept that.

However, as a law-abiding, tax-paying American patriot, I believe a legislative solution to the gun violence is out there. It’s somewhere in the weeds. We just need some courage to find it and to craft it and to enact it into law. I will not listen to gun lobbyists who insist that there is no solution to be found.

Get busy, politicians. We need some leadership from you.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Not evolving? Sure thing, lady

Check out this Twitter message from one of the QAnon queens of the U.S. House of Representatives, Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican and conspiracy theorist who needs to be committed to the nut house.

I am going to argue that the U.S. Constitution has “evolved” no fewer than 27 times since the Founders created the framework that governs the United States of America. That’s the number of amendments we have tacked onto the Constitution since 1789.

Had it not evolved, Rep. Boebert wouldn’t be allowed to vote for the nut jobs she endorses for public office. That’s just one example of how the Constitution has changed over the years.

You see, this is where the so-called “strict constructionist” philosophy of constitutional interpretation breaks down, at least in my eyes. Simpletons such as Lauren Boebert seem to believe the Founders created a perfect governing document. They didn’t, even though in real time they might have presumed that the Constitution would stand the test of time as it was written. I wasn’t there to know for certain; for that matter, neither was Lauren Boebert.

I hasten to note that the preamble to the document does stipulate that the men who wrote it said the nation should strive to create a “more perfect Union,” which — once again — suggests to me that the Constitution begged for an evolution.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Faith wavers, however …

My faith in this country’s democratic fabric is beginning to stumble, stagger and is wavering in light of what might lie ahead as we slog through the midterm election and then approach the 2024 presidential election.

I keep hearing dire predictions of democratic doom if Donald J. Trump gets nominated by the Republican Party in 2024 and then wins the presidency; FYI, it pains me greatly just typing those words at the front end of this sentence.

I am not going to predict that Trump will be the GOP nominee, let alone be elected POTUS in three years.

You see, I possess a gigantic reservoir of faith in the strength of our governmental system. I will continue to cling tightly to my belief that Americans are smarter than what many of our national pundits are suggesting. The fear is being expressed from the left side of the great divide. Progressives say they are concerned that the coup attempt that failed on 1/6 could be revived if Republicans gain control of Congress after the midterm election; I believe GOP emergence is far more likely than not.

Through it all, though, my sincere hope and belief is that our democracy will find a way to emerge from the smoldering wreckage.

Let’s be clear about a thing or two. We have endured tremendous crises in our history. We fought among ourselves in a Civil War that killed 600,000-plus Americans; we emerged victorious in two bloody worldwide conflicts; we watched a president resign in disgrace just ahead of an impeachment over an extreme abuse of power and constitutional authority; we endured three more presidential impeachments, in 1998, 2020 and 2021.

I agree that the final impeachment was the direct result of a POTUS inciting an insurrection and then doing nothing to call a halt to it as rioters carrying flags with the POTUS’s name stormed the Capitol Building while seeking to halt the certification of the 2020 election results.

And we are still dealing with the fallout of that riot, which has caused those progressive pundits to express fear for the future of our democracy.

I want to stipulate once more than our nation’s founders built a government designed to withstand these challenges. Those men knew what they were doing.

I am going to place my faith in our founders’ wisdom, even as my faith is showing signs of wear and tear.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Roe v. Wade far from ‘settled’

If you thought the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States had become “settled law,” you had better think again.

The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is now under a full frontal assault by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature. Texas now has a law on the books that prohibits a woman from obtaining an abortion as early as six weeks into her pregnancy.

President Biden calls the law “unconstitutional.” The current Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to let the law take effect even though it is being contested by multiple lawsuits.

One of the four dissenting justices, Stephen Breyer, calls the SCOTUS decision “very, very, very wrong.”

The Texas Tribune reports: The Texas law is novel for incentivizing private citizens to police abortions. It empowers anyone living in the state of Texas to sue an abortion provider or anyone else they suspect is “aiding and abetting” abortions after the six-week mark. Those opposing the law say this may be far-ranging and could include the abortion provider or anyone who provided transportation to a woman, or counseled or referred a woman for an abortion.

Stephen Breyer calls Supreme Court decision on Texas abortion law ‘wrong’ | The Texas Tribune

There’s a fascinating bit of irony at play here. Conservatives proclaim proudly that they oppose what they call “judicial activism.” They say they dislike court decisions that go beyond the Constitution’s strict adherence to original intent.

From my perch in North Texas, it appears that most of the court’s conservatives — except for Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the liberal wing — are engaging in a raw form of judicial activism by dismissing the lawsuits and declaring that a law that is being challenged should take effect.

Wouldn’t a “conservative” court just let the litigation play out and stay out of the way?

Settled law? Not when you have a group of judicial activists on the nation’s highest court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot, national news

Optimism put to test

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Those of you who know me best will understand that I am an eternal optimist. I tend to see the best in people; too often, I admit that they let me down.

My wife tends to look more skeptically at individuals she meets for the first time, which is smart in that it saves her the grief of dealing with disappointment.

My optimism extends also to the state and strength of our nation, which I admit fully and freely is undergoing many stresses that threaten its very fabric.

The pandemic continues to ravage our population. We are ending a war in Afghanistan and are watching the bad guys seize the government they once ran. We have a former president of the United States whose cult following continues to wreak havoc on our democratic processes.

Will any of these factors individually doom our nation? Will they do so collectively? Can we stop any of these things from reaching critical mass? Can we stop them all?

No and yes to the first and second set of questions. At least that is how I see it.

Our framers crafted a government built to withstand these challenges. They sought to create “a more perfect Union.” They knew better than to seek absolute perfection. They knew the nation under construction in the 18th century would be an ongoing work in progress likely for as long as the republic existed.

I am going to retain my optimism even as we struggle with these battles. Indeed, any concession to the worst-case scenarios out there would consign me to a level of anxiety that I am not sure I could handle.

So, perhaps my optimism is a self-defense strategy. Whatever. I’ll maintain it until the bottom falls out and rely on the wisdom that President Ford offered when he took office at the end of an earlier monumental crisis.

He told us: “Our Constitution works.”

national news

Biden calls out ‘Big Lie’

3 Comments

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

By all means, President Biden is correct to call out the Big Lie for what it is, an assault on democracy itself.

Moreover, the president is correct to lay the blame for this assault directly at the feet of the individual he defeated in the November presidential election.

Biden has joined the fight against Republican efforts to subvert Americans’ ability to vote. He also has joined the chorus of those of us out here who are appalled that POTUS 45 — who once swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution — has been leading the effort to undermine it … even while he served as president!

As The Hill reported:

Biden blasted efforts from Trump and others to sow doubt about the election months after it concluded, which have spurred action from GOP-led state legislatures to push new elections laws that would limit absentee voting and make it more difficult for certain groups to vote.

“It’s clear, for those who challenge the results or question the integrity of the election, no other election has ever been held under such scrutiny or such high standards. The Big Lie is just that, a Big Lie,” Biden said at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

Biden rips Trump’s ‘big lie’ in voting rights address | TheHill

By my understanding of the term, I consider the ex-POTUS’s effort to undermine a free and fair election to be an act of treason. He incited the Jan. 6 insurrection. He continues to tell the Big Lie about alleged voter fraud. He has broken state and federal laws by seeking to get state election officials to overturn balloting results.

And yet there are those among us Americans who want the ex-Liar in Chief to return to the White House? So help me, I don’t which factor angers me more: that the ex-POTUS keeps telling the Big Lie or the cultists continue to believe it … and act on it!

The duly elected POTUS has weighed in. I am glad to hear the stern language he has used to call the Big Lie what it is.

State news

How much will it cost, governor?

1 Comment

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

The individual who preceded Joe Biden as president of the United States used to proclaim that “Mexico is going to pay for the wall.”

It didn’t happen. It won’t happen. Not ever.

Now we have the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, declaring his intention to build a wall along the state’s lengthy border with Mexico. He isn’t making the same preposterous claim that the ex-POTUS did. However, we need some specifics on this matter if it manages to survive the expected challenges to whether it is even constitutional for a state to assume a federal responsibility.

Texas border wall may not be feasible, or even legal | The Texas Tribune

How much will it cost, Gov. Abbott?

You see, the U.S. Constitution requires in the Fifth Amendment that the government provide “just compensation” for any private property seized for public use. Texas’s share of public land comprises a tiny fraction of its total land mass along the border, which will require the state to pay a whole lot of money it takes from private ownership. So, we have that expense.

As for the rest of the price tag, which would be bound to skyrocket as the state grapples with ways to erect a secure border, well, we haven’t heard a word from Gov. Abbott on how much that might cost you and me.

The state’s economy happens to be performing quite well in the wake of this COVID pandemic. However, we shouldn’t be asked to spend an unspecified amount of money to seal off our southern border from “hordes of criminals” who, in my view, do not exist.

national news

Not ‘too soon’ to debate gun violence

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Eight more Americans died this week in a shooting that erupted in Indianapolis, Ind., and once again we’re sending our “thoughts and prayers” to the victims’ loved ones.

A solution to the gun violence remains a mystery. President Biden, though, is trying to appeal to our sense of national shame. He said, according to RealClearPolitics.com:

“This has to end. It is a national embarrassment … Every single day, there’s a mass shooting in the United States,” President Biden continued. “Who in God’s name needs a weapon that can hold 40 rounds?”

Biden said: “Congress has to step up to act and pass bills on gun reform. We need to ban assault weapons. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t also be working on COVID and the economy.”

Joe Biden on Gun Violence: Mass Shootings “Every Day” Are “A National Embarrassment” And “It Has To End” | Video | RealClearPolitics

The president is preaching to the proverbial choir here, man. But the ongoing spasm of gun violence is a “national embarrassment.” I have difficulty explaining to my overseas friends how American politicians can allow this to continue.

I do my best, though, to explain to them foreigners the nuance contained in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. It reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The one element of that Amendment that I cannot explain is the construction of the single sentence, which seems to contain a couple of non-sequiturs. I cannot connect the part about the “well-regulated Militia” with the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

But it’s written into our nation’s founding government document. That makes it virtually impossible to trifle with.

However, I shudder at the thought of all this violence. I have trouble facing down my overseas friends who challenge the idea that our political leaders cannot find a solution that keeps faith with what our founders carved out.

OK, so here we are. Eight more victims have been slain by a madman. We need to ramp up the debate right now over how we can eliminate this “national embarrassment.”