Tag Archives: U.S. Constitution

Have They Even Read The Constitution???

Posted on by under education, Free Press Issues, guns, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

All members of the United States Congress, as well as all state governors and legislators are required, before taking their seat, to swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States.  Now, if I’m going to swear an oath to something, then I am damn sure going to be clear on exactly what it is I’m swearing an oath to.  I take such things seriously.  I’ve never been elected to office, so have never had to swear an oath to the Constitution, but I have studied Constitutional Law at length and have read the full document numerous times.  I keep a pocket Constitution on the table next to me and have another in the drawer in my nightstand.  Apparently, that is not the case for some of the people who have sworn an oath to the document.

My jaw dropped yesterday when I read that Kentucky lawmakers have passed a bill that would make the state a so-called “Second Amendment sanctuary,” prohibiting local law enforcement from enforcing federal firearm bans.  Say WHAT???

The US Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI is a provision in the US Constitution that states that the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the federal government are the supreme law of the land. The clause ensures that federal laws and regulations take precedence over any state or local laws that may conflict with them.

The state of Missouri tried the same crap last year when Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed into law the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which declared that limitations on gun transfers, firearm registrations and other federal regulations are unconstitutional.  A federal judge struck down the law earlier this month, saying …

“While purporting to protect citizens, SAPA exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the Federal Government’s ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens within the limits of the Constitution.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has appealed the decision.

What part of the Constitution do the lawmakers in Missouri and Kentucky fail to understand?  It’s plain as day!  It’s written in English, not Swahili, the language is purposefully kept simple so that anybody, regardless of level of education, could understand it, and yet we have highly paid elected officials who either have not bothered to read it, else are not bright enough to understand it!

Kentucky’s bill passed the state House in a 78-19 vote last month, and cleared the state Senate on Wednesday 27-9.  Apparently there are more than just a few dumb asses in the Kentucky legislature!

Those who represent the people of any state need to understand that this is a nation, the United States of America, and that we stand together, we have federal laws that supersede any and all state or local laws, that have been deemed to be in the best interest of the nation.  We cannot have state after state simply decide which laws they will abide by and which they will override.  That’s NOT how it works!

I sincerely hope the court system sends these bills to the shredder as fast as it can, and sends a loud and clear message to other states that might be considering similar actions.  My concern, naturally, is that when one of these cases works its way up to the Supreme Court, the compromised court may fail to do the right thing, as they have done numerous times in the past year.

If the laws in Missouri and Kentucky are ultimately upheld by the highest Court, then think about the consequences …

  • A six-year-old kid walks into a gun store … as long as he’s got the money, he walks out with a gun
  • A drunk staggers into a gun shop, tells the clerk “Gimme the biggest gun you got … I’m gonna kill that bitch.” As long as he’s got the money, he walks out with a gun.
  • A woman gets out of prison after serving five years for attempting to kill her spouse. Her first stop is the gun shop, and as long as she’s got the money, she walks out with a gun.

Guns are not toys, and I am horrified that gun ownership is more highly cherished than the lives of the children of this nation.  But if states are allowed to override federal laws, it could well get even worse.  What’s next?  Do some states write laws to disregard the 19th Amendment that makes it illegal to deny the right to vote to any citizen based on their sex?  Or the 15th Amendment that makes it illegal to deny the right to vote to any citizen based on their race?  Or perhaps the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery?

People … it’s on US to ensure that the people we vote for are qualified, that they fully understand the Constitution to which they will be swearing an oath, and that they respect the people of this nation enough to follow the laws of the land, not to be wasting their time scheming for ways to uproot the safety and cohesion of the nation.

We are a nation, not just 50 states, but ONE NATION.  The “UNITED” States of America.

Live And Let Live

Posted on by under Election 2024, Free Press Issues, Global Issues, Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, religion, Social commentary

Hungary’s “president”/dictator, Viktor Orbán has shared his ideology with Republicans in this nation and they have gobbled it up like dogs will gobble up the last of your steak, given half a chance.  Orbán has explicitly rejected the liberal democracy that his country used to enjoy, saying that its emphasis on multiculturalism weakens national cultures while its insistence on human equality undermines traditional society by recognizing that women and LGBTQ people have the same rights as straight white men. The age of liberal democracy is over, he says, and a new age has begun.  And far too many on the far right here admire Orbán, wish to instill the same ‘values’ here in the U.S. that he has forced on the people of Hungary.

In place of “Liberal Democracy”, Orbán advocates what he calls “illiberal democracy” or “Christian democracy.”  In July 2018, Orbán said …

“Liberal democracy is in favor of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept.”

In other words, he calls for a very undemocratic ‘democracy’, one in which you are free only as long as you live by a prescribed set of religious rules that excludes anyone who looks, thinks, or believes differently than dictated by the state.  The United States is NOT Hungary and frankly I find Orbán’s ideas to be highly offensive.  To say that women, people of colour, or LGBTQ people are somehow not as worthy as straight, white Christians is a slap in the face to more than half of the people in this nation.   Our foundation calls for a wall of separation between church and state, and for good reason.  The First Amendment of the United States Constitution calls for ‘freedom of religion.’  It does not say, “freedom of Christianity”, but of ‘religion’ … and that means any, all, or none.  If you are to have freedom of religion, then you must also have freedom from religion.  Hence, that wall of separation.

The United States is a secular nation, not … I repeat, NOT a Christian one.  There are many religions practiced in this nation, and a growing number of people who claim no ties to any religion.  Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and the like all pay taxes, all vote, and all exercise their 1st Amendment rights.  Orbán’s ideas may be workable for Hungarians, though that is up for debate, but they do NOT work for the people of this nation!

Look, folks … it is nobody else’s business what religion, if any, a person chooses to follow or what their beliefs are, but on the same side of that coin, it’s not their place to dictate to others, to tell an entire nation how it must believe, what religious views it must honour.  It’s a really simple premise – I call it ‘Live and Let Live.’

Beware the politician who praises Viktor Orbán and others like him, for they are out to change this nation — not for the better, but in terrible ways.

What James Madison Would Think Today …

Posted on by under education, guns, History, Political commentary, Social commentary

Another mass shooting in California yesterday.  Two in three days.  Today is the 24th day of the year 2023 and we have had 38 mass shootings in the United States already this year.  There have been 2,790 gun deaths thus far (as of 12:30 a.m. on January 24th), 21 of them children under the age of 11*.  So naturally, those of us who care, those of us who are not gun worshipers, are distraught.

I’ve often wondered how horrified the Founding Fathers would be if they came back to life today and saw the muckety mess we’ve made of the nation they established.  A year or so ago, our friend Roger introduced me to News Thump, a British satire website that had this very timely post today. I thought it hit the mark.

I meant the ‘right to bear arms that existed in 1791’, clarifies angry James Madison

By Andrew

Following another mass shooting that has left 10 dead in Monterey Park in California, author of the Second Amendment, James Madison, has angrily spoken out from beyond the grave to insist he meant the ‘right to bear arms that existed in 1791’.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is one of the most contentious parts of the US Bill of Rights, and Madison has finally seen enough bloodshed to necessitate an intervention in ongoing policy debate.

Speaking through a qualified medium just outside Las Vegas, he said, “Let me be clear about this – the pro-gun lobby really pisses me off.

“And trust me, I’ll tell the pro-gun lawmakers exactly that, right to their faces when they eventually get here – which if they keep misinterpreting my intentions could well be a lot sooner than they think.

“The fact that I wrote the amendment in 1791 should be an absolutely massive hint as to my intentions regarding assault rifles and powerful semi-automatic handguns, don’t you think?

“I was perfectly happy for people to have a muzzle-loaded single-shot musket for home protection – 1791 America was a dangerous place. Not a ‘Disney is too woke for my kids’ dangerous, I mean actually not made up hallucinated dangerous.

“But I was safe in the knowledge no one was ever going to go on a killing spree, as they’d have to be within ten feet of you to be sure of hitting you, and would need a couple of minutes or so reloading their musket before having another go.”

Madison also explained his dismay at the use of his words to promote weaponry he could not even have conceived of back in 1791.

He continued, “A rifle capable of firing dozens of bullets in just a few seconds, which can be reloaded even more quickly, kills reliably from hundreds of yards away and is available in every shopping mall to any unstable moron that wants one? Jesus H Christ, are you people mental?

“I suppose in fifty years’ time you people will be claiming it was my intention all along that every American should have the right to carry a laser capable of slicing you into pieces from a mile away?”

Pro-gun lobbyists have reacted angrily to Madison’s outburst, insisting he clearly doesn’t have the first clue about what he meant when he wrote the Second Amendment all those years ago.

An NRA spokesperson said, “How dare he tell me how to decide what he meant by telling me what he meant?

“What gives him the right to speak out about the intention of the words he wrote down himself, which I have subsequently decided to interpret in support of my pro-gun arguments?

“No, I think I know much better than James Madison what James Madison intended.”


*  Data per Gun Violence Archive

A Republic — If You Can Keep It

Posted on by under education, Election 2020, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

Legend has it a woman asked Benjamin Franklin a question as he exited Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787. “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” Franklin supposedly replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

As I’ve expressed before, I keep looking around at what’s happening in this country, both in our government and among our society, and I’m not liking what I see in either place.  I see a nation divided, one in which half the population is increasingly bigoted, intolerant of those who either don’t look, act, or think in the same manner as they do.  I see a nation in which violence is becoming an accepted norm.  I see a situation that is untenable, that must either be resolved by peaceful means, by acceptance and mutual cooperation, else will be resolved by violent means.  With the Big Lie that began even before the 2020 election results were finalized, and the resultant attempted and failed coup on January 6th, 2021, I see red lights flashing, warning that this is anything but “business as usual.”

There are many ways in which an authoritarian government can gradually take over a nation whereby people don’t even realize what is happening until it’s too late.  The first and most obvious, of course, is “divide and conquer.”  Tell people lies long enough and loud enough, and ultimately they will believe the lies.  Another, more subtle one, is to ‘dummy down’ the populace, keep them from learning true history or the role of government, keep them from learning how to think for themselves, and educate only the children of the wealthiest and most powerful.  But it is the people in a nation who have the most power over whether a democracy can remain so, or whether it will transform into an autocracy.

In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, authors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt write about about how elected leaders can gradually subvert the democratic process to increase their power.  The book warns against the breakdown of “mutual toleration” and respect for the political legitimacy of the opposition. This tolerance involves accepting the results of a free and fair election where the opposition has won, in contrast with advocacy for overthrow or spurious complaints about the election mechanism.  Sound familiar?

The authors also assert the importance of respecting the opinions of those who come to legitimately different political opinions, in contrast to attacking the patriotism of any who disagree, or warning that if they come to power, they will destroy the country.  Other threats to democratic stability cited by the authors include economic inequality and segregation of the political parties by race, religion, and geography.  Sound familiar?

Published during Trump’s second year in office, the authors dedicate a number of chapters to the study of the United States, Trump, and the 2016 presidential election, and end with predictions for three potential scenarios for the post-Trump United States.

Levitsky and Ziblatt, both Harvard professors, have spent 20 years studying the breakdown of democracies in Europe and Latin America, and they believe that democracy no longer ends with a bang—in a revolution or military coup—but with a whimper: the slow, steady weakening of critical institutions, such as the judiciary and the press, and the gradual erosion of long-standing political norms.  Again, sound familiar?

I bought and skimmed this book shortly after it first came out, but I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t give it much credence at the time.  Back then, I thought Donald Trump was simply a stupid, arrogant buffoon who, while I despised him and his every move, I didn’t think he posed a serious, enduring threat.  I’m still not sure that he, in and of himself, poses a threat, but the movement that he started, the “maga” cult he created, has permeated the halls of Congress, the Supreme Court, and even state governor’s mansions and legislatures.  Not only that, but it has riled a large portion of this nation, largely those with less education, less ability to understand the real issues the nation faces.  So yes, now I see that as a very real threat.  Levitsky and Ziblatt were prescient and saw the threat long before I did.

This week, I plan to read, not just skim, How Democracies Die, with a sharper eye, for I believe the authors are on to something here.  I’ll let you know my conclusions, may even write a review of the book, when I am done.

Hakeem Jeffries — Man Of The Hour

Posted on by under Economic issues, education, Election 2022, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary, voting rights

While the Republicans played games and conducted a three-ring circus from Tuesday until the wee hours on Saturday morning, finally doing just what we expected all along by electing Kevin McCarthy as the Speaker of the House after 15 ballots, the Democrats remained consistent, staying for all 15 ballots and voting unanimously for the House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries.  Nancy Pelosi left a pair of mighty big shoes to fill, but while I do not know a lot about Mr. Jeffries, from what I’ve seen he will do a good job at filling those shoes as the House Minority Leader.  His speech on Saturday, after House members had taken their oaths of office, was inspired and inspiring, and in some ways his demeanor and passion reminded me of President Obama.  He is passionate and I believe he will fight hard to work with the majority Republicans in the House, without sacrificing the values he speaks of.  His job for the next two years will not be an easy one, and he will no doubt sometimes be discouraged as he tries to work with a group of people whose values, or lack thereof, differ greatly from his own, from ours.  But if anybody can survive it and make a difference, I think Hakeem Jeffries can.  Take a look for yourself … what do you think?

Second Civil War

Posted on by under Election 2020, Election 2022, Free Press Issues, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Re-blogs, Social commentary

Blogging friend Brosephus doesn’t speak often, but when he does, his words have meaning. Today, he asks a relevant question: When does democracy begin to defend itself? Some food for thought here, folks …

The Mind of Brosephus

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second American Civil War. If you haven’t already realized it, we’ve been living through a war since December 2008. War has not been officially declared, however I’ll suggest that the moment the GOP decided to go full obstruction as opposed to actually governing in the best interest of America was the day the war began.

I can already hear the questions and see the puzzled looks. “What war?” you ask. “Isn’t war supposed to be violent and deadly?” Well, the Cold War between the US and Russia was fought for decades without direct battle. Likewise, the second civil war thus far has not been fought as a traditional war.

This is a war against the Constitution itself, and the fight became visible on January 6, 2021. Since that time, we’ve had numerous people convicted for their actions that day on charges that include seditious…

View original post 376 more words

The Week’s Best Cartoons 12/11

Posted on by under Bits 'n Pieces, cartoons, Election 2022, Global Issues, Humour, Political commentary, Re-blogs, Social commentary

It’s been a rather crazy week … but then, this is a rather crazy world we live in, isn’t it?  The crazier it gets, the more material the political cartoonists have to work with, and they haven’t let an opportunity slip this week.  I just wish I had a teensy portion of the talent they have to say so much with few or no words.  Our friend TokyoSand over at Political Charge has, as she always does, gone out and found some of the very best ones for our enjoyment.  Here are just a few, but be sure to click the link at the bottom to see all the rest!  Thank you, TS!!!

It was a very bad week for Republicans and Trump. Here’s how editorial cartoonists covered some of the biggest political news stories of the week. You can enjoy more of each cartoonist’s work by clicking on their hyperlinked name.

By Drew Sheneman

By Chris Britt

Throwback by Lalo Alcaraz

By John Buss

By Pat Bagley

Be sure to check out the rest of the ‘toons!

Rights And Freedoms — Part II — Freedom Of Religion

Posted on by under History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, religion, Social commentary

As I noted in my post of December 2nd, I am doing a brief ‘mini-series’ about ‘rights’ as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and how they are often abused or misinterpreted.  This post is Part II of that series.

1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 15 December 1791

The ‘freedoms’ that are guaranteed to the people of this nation under the U.S. Constitution are often misunderstood, sometimes intentionally, and other times out of genuine confusion.  But I would like to make one thing very clear … a ‘right’ is a right for everyone.  If I give you a chocolate bar and tell you it’s okay to eat it, that doesn’t give you the right to force someone else to eat a chocolate bar.

Specifically today I’m addressing a touchy topic:  freedom of religion.  Let’s start with the facts.  This is what the First Amendment has to say about it …

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

These are known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  Together with the constitutional provision prohibiting religious tests as a qualification for office these clauses promote individual freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Where in this simple sentence does it state or imply that any one religion is the sole or ‘official’ religion of the country?  Where does it say that one person has the right to force another to share their beliefs or values?  It doesn’t.  It doesn’t actually even say that anybody has the right to any religion, only that Congress shall not make laws regarding religion or prohibiting religious practices.  For some, that would be enough.  Ask an atheist living in Iran … they would be thrilled to have such freedom.

Through the years, freedom of religion has been interpreted to mean one thing and another, and in recent years still another.  One of the most significant areas of debate is LGBTQ rights.  Let’s return for a moment to the chocolate bar analogy.  Say Judy is allergic to chocolate and cannot eat it, but her neighbor Bobby loves chocolate and is not allergic.  Now, Judy certainly has a right to steer clear of the Cadbury, just as Bobby has a right to buy it and devour it.  Are you with me so far?  What would you say, though, if Judy tried to make it illegal for anybody on her street to buy or eat chocolate simply because she cannot eat it?  Laughable, yes?

But it isn’t laughable when a person whose religious beliefs are that marriage can only be between a male and a female as identified at birth tries to force their views on an entire nation of 330 million people!  Okay, nobody is going to tell those people they can’t believe that, for it is their right.  However, not everyone shares those beliefs.  Other people who do not belong to person A’s church and do not share their beliefs, have rights too.  Joe and Thom have a right to fall in love and marry by law in most states, yet there are some who would take that right from them because and only because it is not in sync with their own religious beliefs.  I’m trying to be nice here, but that is bigotry, plain and simple.  It is saying that you do not have a right to be different than person A.  It is every bit as wrong as saying that Black people don’t have a right to live in your neighborhood or Jewish people don’t have a right to send their children to the same school your children go to, or women don’t have a right to earn the same pay as men for the same job.

Nowhere in the Constitution or any other government document does it say that one religion takes precedence over another.  You have the right to be you, and I have the right to be me, and Joe has the right to be him, as long as we do no harm to others by exercising our rights.  For Joe and Thom to be in love and marry does no harm to anybody, and yet … and yet millions of people would like to see their marriage declared illegal, would like to take away their rights. 

Religion is a choice, and here in the United States it is a choice that we are fortunate to be able to make freely, for there is no state-sponsored religion, no Sharia law, no religious mandates such as there are in other countries.  We should exercise that freedom as we see fit … each of us as individuals … but we should not attempt to force our views on others, for that is depriving them of their rights.  It’s all a matter of respect.  Live and let live.  Why is that so hard for some to understand?

No Snark Today — Just Good News!

Posted on by under Bits 'n Pieces, cartoons, Global Issues, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

Typically, my posts bring you all the bad news, but today I actually have a couple of good news pieces, starting with the news that as I write this, Brittney Griner is on a plane heading home to the U.S. after some ten months imprisoned in Russia.  President Biden announced early this morning …

“Moments ago, standing together with her wife Cherelle in the Oval Office, I spoke with Brittney Griner. She’s safe, she’s on a plane, she’s on her way home after months of being unjustly detained in Russia, held under intolerable circumstances. Brittney will soon be back in the arms of her loved ones, and she should have been there all along.”

Ms. Griner was arrested in February on “drug smuggling” charges, for having inadvertently packed a vaporizer cartridge containing less than a gram of cannabis oil.  For this, she was sentenced to nine years in prison in August.  A rather harsh sentence for what wouldn’t even be a crime in the U.S., but that’s Russia.  Negotiations for her release, as well as another U.S. citizen being held by Russia, Paul Whelan, have been ongoing and today she was released in a one-to-one prisoner swap with Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout.  Negotiations for Mr. Whelan’s release are ongoing.

Welcome home, Ms. Griner!

And huge kudos to the House of Representatives today for passing the Respect for Marriage Act (FfMA) that will protect same-sex and interracial marriages by a vote of 258-169.  Last month, the bill passed in the Senate by 62-37 with 12 Republicans voting for it.  Today, 39 House Republicans joined all Democrats in passing this legislation!  This came as a surprise to me, especially after the 12 Republican senators came under serious criticism by their party for working across the aisle.

The bill doesn’t go as far as we might like, as it would not force states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but it will require that people be considered married in any state as long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.  The bill also would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA). In addition to defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, DoMA allowed states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That law has remained on the books despite being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor and its 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry.

Next, the bill heads to the Oval Office for President Biden’s signature, which is all but guaranteed.  👍👍

And that’s the good news of the day, my friends! No doubt tomorrow I will return to my usual snarky self.  Meanwhile, just a few cartoons …

Senator Rick Scott’s Narrow Mind

Posted on by under Global Issues, Personal, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, religion, Social commentary

Speaking of Republicans … I do seem to do that a lot lately, don’t I?  They just give us so much fuel for the fires!  Republican Senator Rick Scott from Florida crosses my radar at least once a week, but I’ve largely learned to ignore him just as I have so many others.  He does, however, manage to make my antennae twitch when he goes all-out riding the bigot train as he did recently.

Last week, Scott was doing a radio interview (seems to me some members of Congress spend more time on the media circuit than they spend in the Capitol) when the host, Martha Zoller, brought up the topic of immigration.  Now, you might think that Scott, being an ultra-conservative Republican in this, the 21st century, would be completely against immigration, but you’d be wrong.  Oh no … Scott has a proposal:

“Why don’t we have a legal immigration system for the people that want to come and live our dream, that want to live, that believe in our Judeo-Christian values? Alright? Why don’t we want more? If we’re going to have more immigration, alright, let’s do that.”

Wow … I dunno, maybe some people would be happy living in a nation that only welcomes Christians, but … I personally value diversity.  Our closest friends are a family of immigrants from Iraq who came to the U.S. seven years ago and almost immediately we began learning from each other, became best friends, and still today remain so. Last year after my 11 days in the hospital, they cooked dinner for us every night for over a month!   I cherish what I have learned from them and our exchange of cultures.  I have tried and loved some Arabic foods, have picked up a few words of Arabic, though with my failing memory my attempts to say something in Arabic usually end in resounding laughter!  No, their skin is not lily-white, and no, they are not Christians, they are of the Muslim faith, but … so what???  They are wonderful people and my life is richer for knowing them!  And yet Mr. Rick Scott would shun them?

The United States was founded in part on freedom of religion.  That gives me the right to be a non-believer, that gives Rick Scott the right to be a Christian, and it gives my neighbors the right to be Muslim.  If this country tilts toward Rick Scott’s vision, then we are no longer the United States of America that was established by the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787.  And if we allow this abominable sort of discrimination, then we are depriving ourselves of a myriad of opportunities to learn more about the world, to open our minds and our hearts. I have zero desire to live in a country of bigoted, narrow-minded people who think everyone must conform to their ways, their beliefs.

One last thing … I came across this a few days ago and found it so apt

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. ~Jimi Hendrix