There's an editorial in The Nation today that reinforces the basic premise that began this blog. It ends where I began, with a quote from Tom Paine that reminds us about what it really means to be a Patriot, a call, as relevant now as it was more than 200 years ago, that "Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth!"
The librarians of this country, under the auspices of their organization the ALA showed the same dedication to freedom of thought and the value of culture when they chose to hold their convention this past week in The Crescent City. Such a move falls directly in line with their dedicated agenda to keep people aware, thoughtful, and free.
The Nation article discusses some of the ways that the ALA's members have kept up the vigil to fight some of the more egregious aspects of the Patriot Act and it's important to remember, on this patriotic weekend, that the U.S. was founded NOT on the principle of beating other people INTO our idea of freedom, but in securing, nurturing, and maintaining freedom at home.
This weekend we come to this greatest of our national holidays - a holiday filled with everything (both good and bad) that makes the U.S.A. what we are. The White House, its current resident and the whole collection of sycophants that gather around him in nearly rabid devotion to every whim of the Shrub and his Gardeners, have made up THEIR minds about what patriotism and love of country are supposed to mean, and their definition is pretty damn narrow. I don't like their narrow vision and I steadfastly refuse to accept it. To me it's people like the librarians of the ALA, the members of Code Pink, the Cindy Sheehans, and the Max Clelands that remind us that part of being a Patriot is loving your country enough to fight for the rights of those at home. In another piece, also in The Nation, George McGovern, the man whom I first voted for at 18 when he ran for President in 1972 (the first time 18 year olds could vote), speaks to the issue directly and personally. That is how it should be, for the issue IS direct and it IS personal.
I have a number of friends, and they are certainly not alone among the populace, that feel one should not discuss politics or argue political perspective. They feel that politics is personal and such discussion only causes unnecessary strife. To me, on the other hand, it's not only important to discuss these things, it is imperative. We do not have the right NOT to discuss them. When we elect officials who send the youth of our land off to be killed on the other side of the world, when we lend our agreement to policies and laws that attack freedoms at home (freedoms that those young people are supposedly giving their lives for somewhere else) and presume - in our name - to declare what is right for the rest of the world, when we agreeably pay tax dollars that are burned by the billions on war while children in this country die of starvation, suffer from lack of adequate education and drown in a cess pool of flood water caused by inadequately constructed levees... WE ARE RESPONSIBLE... WE ARE COMPLICIT... WE ARE GUILTY.
It takes courage, strength, hope and faith to stand against the true believers and the opportunists and speak to the idea that We The People means ALL OF US!
As Little Steven sang some years ago during another right wing manufactured crisis... I am a Patriot, and I Love my Country... Because MY country is all I know.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
MAIG & THE CONSTITUTION
THE EVOLUTION OF PAPER
"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised,'' said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined.''
Of course… when you consider the number of divorces, sexual scandals, and downright bad (often criminal) sexual behaviour of a large percentage of Congress, one might have to say that being a politician does a better job of destroying marriage, and it's supposed protection of children, than any other activity known to humanity. Additionally… the Constitution, that wonderful, amazing document that defines who we are as a nation, already has a good deal to say about how it should be used and what "redefining" actually means.
The Constitution of the United States of America is an evolving document, an always changing declaration of what we want to be as human beings and as a nation. As such it has gone through a number of changes, and most of those are changes that increased the propogation of freedom, that promoted a greater largesse and a more open and positive way of being with each other.
In 1865, we as a nation figured out that slavery (despite being allowed by the Bible) was morally wrong, politically indefensible and abusive to people. The Thirteenth Amendment was passed and our country was improved… The Constitution evolved.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This was further expanded three years later in 1868 with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One of my favorite things about the Fourteenth Amendment is its careful description of who citizens are and what they are entitled to (and where), AND it's shift of language - moving from citizens to persons - to detail the fact that in this country (and in those places under our federal protection) PERSONS do not have to be CITIZENS in order to be guaranteed the benefits of that great cornerstone of the Constitution, "equal protection under the law." This is a feature of the grand document which the President Bystander (to plagarize The Boss) seems to have missed in his high school civics classes.
A goodly number of years later, the country stumbled over fundamentalist obsession and The Eighteenth Amendment took away the right of people to drink. However, 14 years after that the country came back to its senses and the 21st Amendment was passed to repeal that abuse of Constitutional power. In between those two the country decided that women should be enfranchised with the right to vote.
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In 1964, we decided that it was important to remove whatever obstacles to full participation in the electoral system were being placed in the way, and so the Amendment Twentyfour was passed to remove the poll tax as a way of restricting people's right to vote.
Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In 1971, the twentysixth amendment gave the right to vote to 18 year olds just in time to allow me to vote for George McGovern by absentee ballot from my college dorm room in Tulsa Oklahoma.
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It seems to me we could have come up with a few more ways to increase the general benefit and welfare of human beings in this country… ratifying the ERA for example would have been a good idea. A similar amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens regardless of sexual identification or persuasion would be a good one, but in both cases they really aren't necessary, because the Bill of Rights has already provided for this in a non-specific form:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I love Amendment IX … It makes things very clear. Those guys (and they were all guys) actually had the humillity (something our current leaders clearly lack) to admit that they probably hadn't thought of everythhing. Amendment IX basically states that just because we choose to GUARANTEE certain rights, doesn't mean that people don't have all the other rights we didn't think to guarantee.
Amendment X concludes the original Bill of Rights by stating that the power not given to the Federal government belongs to the states and to individuals.
As I said at the beginning, we are a growing nation with an amazing evolutionary document that defines who we are. That document has never been used to take away people's rights except during the ill-conceived, fundamentalist driven disaster of Prohibition. A mistake, later wisely corrected. Other than that one false step, amendments to the Constitution have only been used to progressively GUARANTEE rights to MORE and MORE people.
It is a unique and fascinating political example of what my seminary professor, J. Lynn Elder described as the true purpose of life… MAIG - Maximum And Increasing Gratification.
All of that seems to make it very clear that the idea of the Federal Government choosing to TAKE AWAY a right from the states and the people is in itself not only bad form, thoughtless communal interaction, and ill-conceived logic, it's also… most likely… inherently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And THAT makes the whole debate a waste of time… a waste of time at a time when we just damn well cannot afford to have our legislators wasting ANY time.
But more importantly… It's just wrong and stupid. How many people will die in Iraq and Afghanistan while Dubya and the dimwits
in the Capitol argue about a law that is wrong, stupid, unnecessary and doomed to fail anyway (thank God).
It's my belief that most people in this country understand that, and that the necessary ratification for a constitutional amendment would never be accomplished (even if it could pass the Congress). It's a non-starter; an intentional diversion from the debacles of the Bush Administration from New York to Afghanistan to Iraq to New Orleans and it is an unconstitutional cowtowing to a bunch of religious fanatics by a collection of hypocritical sycophants.
I'm sorry… we deserve better than this!
"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised,'' said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined.''
Of course… when you consider the number of divorces, sexual scandals, and downright bad (often criminal) sexual behaviour of a large percentage of Congress, one might have to say that being a politician does a better job of destroying marriage, and it's supposed protection of children, than any other activity known to humanity. Additionally… the Constitution, that wonderful, amazing document that defines who we are as a nation, already has a good deal to say about how it should be used and what "redefining" actually means.
The Constitution of the United States of America is an evolving document, an always changing declaration of what we want to be as human beings and as a nation. As such it has gone through a number of changes, and most of those are changes that increased the propogation of freedom, that promoted a greater largesse and a more open and positive way of being with each other.
In 1865, we as a nation figured out that slavery (despite being allowed by the Bible) was morally wrong, politically indefensible and abusive to people. The Thirteenth Amendment was passed and our country was improved… The Constitution evolved.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This was further expanded three years later in 1868 with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One of my favorite things about the Fourteenth Amendment is its careful description of who citizens are and what they are entitled to (and where), AND it's shift of language - moving from citizens to persons - to detail the fact that in this country (and in those places under our federal protection) PERSONS do not have to be CITIZENS in order to be guaranteed the benefits of that great cornerstone of the Constitution, "equal protection under the law." This is a feature of the grand document which the President Bystander (to plagarize The Boss) seems to have missed in his high school civics classes.
A goodly number of years later, the country stumbled over fundamentalist obsession and The Eighteenth Amendment took away the right of people to drink. However, 14 years after that the country came back to its senses and the 21st Amendment was passed to repeal that abuse of Constitutional power. In between those two the country decided that women should be enfranchised with the right to vote.
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In 1964, we decided that it was important to remove whatever obstacles to full participation in the electoral system were being placed in the way, and so the Amendment Twentyfour was passed to remove the poll tax as a way of restricting people's right to vote.
Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In 1971, the twentysixth amendment gave the right to vote to 18 year olds just in time to allow me to vote for George McGovern by absentee ballot from my college dorm room in Tulsa Oklahoma.
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It seems to me we could have come up with a few more ways to increase the general benefit and welfare of human beings in this country… ratifying the ERA for example would have been a good idea. A similar amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens regardless of sexual identification or persuasion would be a good one, but in both cases they really aren't necessary, because the Bill of Rights has already provided for this in a non-specific form:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I love Amendment IX … It makes things very clear. Those guys (and they were all guys) actually had the humillity (something our current leaders clearly lack) to admit that they probably hadn't thought of everythhing. Amendment IX basically states that just because we choose to GUARANTEE certain rights, doesn't mean that people don't have all the other rights we didn't think to guarantee.
Amendment X concludes the original Bill of Rights by stating that the power not given to the Federal government belongs to the states and to individuals.
As I said at the beginning, we are a growing nation with an amazing evolutionary document that defines who we are. That document has never been used to take away people's rights except during the ill-conceived, fundamentalist driven disaster of Prohibition. A mistake, later wisely corrected. Other than that one false step, amendments to the Constitution have only been used to progressively GUARANTEE rights to MORE and MORE people.
It is a unique and fascinating political example of what my seminary professor, J. Lynn Elder described as the true purpose of life… MAIG - Maximum And Increasing Gratification.
All of that seems to make it very clear that the idea of the Federal Government choosing to TAKE AWAY a right from the states and the people is in itself not only bad form, thoughtless communal interaction, and ill-conceived logic, it's also… most likely… inherently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And THAT makes the whole debate a waste of time… a waste of time at a time when we just damn well cannot afford to have our legislators wasting ANY time.
But more importantly… It's just wrong and stupid. How many people will die in Iraq and Afghanistan while Dubya and the dimwits
in the Capitol argue about a law that is wrong, stupid, unnecessary and doomed to fail anyway (thank God).
It's my belief that most people in this country understand that, and that the necessary ratification for a constitutional amendment would never be accomplished (even if it could pass the Congress). It's a non-starter; an intentional diversion from the debacles of the Bush Administration from New York to Afghanistan to Iraq to New Orleans and it is an unconstitutional cowtowing to a bunch of religious fanatics by a collection of hypocritical sycophants.
I'm sorry… we deserve better than this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)