When people think of the Declaration of Independence, the following words come to mind.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But the words that immediately follow are equally important. 

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

This idea that government gets power from the consent of the governed should not be taken lightly.  Our country fought a revolutionary war over this understanding and the US Constitution was designed to protect the sovereignty of our citizens as well as the states in which they live.  The idea that a King could try our people in a foreign court of law didn’t set well with the founders. It was one in a thorough list of grievances submitted as justification for our separation from England.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.

In fact, most of the grievances listed stem from this idea that the colonists were not represented in the legal system under which they were ruled. So, when we established our own system of government it was a pretty big deal that those who rule are the same as those who are ruled.  Those who represent the people when holding political office are less inclined to pass unjust laws because they are subject to the same system of laws. 

Recently, on September 28, the United States Congress passed JASTA, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, but I think that was a mistake. The United States is a sovereign state on the world stage meaning it sets its own foreign policy and decides how things will operate inside its boundaries.

“JASTA reduces foreign sovereign immunity by allowing U.S. courts to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that occur inside the United States as a result of a tort, including an act of terrorism, committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.” Washington Post

JASTA permits private parties to sue foreign governments for damages resulting from terrorist acts.  The plaintiffs would have to prove that government officials were complicit, but it doesn’t take much to start a lawsuit.  Soon, other nations will do the same and then our government or its officials could be sued in foreign courts that don’t give us the same sort of rights that defendants have in our courts.
​
It is imperative JASTA be repealed.  JASTA erodes the principle of sovereignty…that all states are considered equal to each other, and no state may interfere in the affairs of another state. If you feel that JASTA is not in the best interest of our country, you can exercise your civic responsibility -and express your concern by contacting your states senators http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/ or representatives http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and letting them know that JASTA is contrary to the founders’ vision for our country and that they have sworn an oath of office to uphold the laws of our constitution, therefore, it is their responsibility to repeal this law.

In the beginning, what excited people most about traveling to the new world was freedom to practice their religion without persecution or being treated differently for not adhering to a state mandated religion.  As time passed, people were compelled by the idea that they could grab a piece of land and create their own wealth.  These two ideas best characterize the American dream, the freedom to have a set of beliefs and not be compelled to follow the group and the freedom to build wealth from a wing and a prayer.  Our governing system evolved from these two important rights. 

Our country suffered 25,000 casualties, not to mention as many wounded in the revolution to gain our freedom from England.  Once we had tasted freedom, it was hard to imagine allowing ourselves to be ruled by a king and a parliament determined to wield their authority over colonies that had been essentially governing themselves independently for years.  To be told where goods could be sold and where they could trade, to be taxed indiscriminately, to be tried in courts without a jury of peers…these ideas were recognized as unjust and intolerable. 

With freedom came wealth and power.  This is because in our country there was no built in ruling class or proletariat class.  In America, people were not seen as belonging to any particular class and it was a given that anyone could make it.  Andrew Jackson was the first president who exemplified that idea, having beat enormous odds.  He was not born of wealth and despite having lost both parents before he was fifteen, survived fighting (under age) in the American Revolution, being imprisoned, and smallpox.  Yet he managed to become a school teacher, and later a lawyer, before running for and being elected to the highest office in the land. 

What characterized the people who immigrated to America was that they wanted to become part of a country where people were free to pursue their happiness.  There was no expectation that the government would take care of them.  What drove settlers and foreigners to populate our country was the idea that with hard work and faith they could make something of themselves.  When did this change?

Historically, there are some landmark events that we can look at as contributing to the downfall of our country.  The passing of the 17th Amendment is one.  Senators no longer represent the state; the senate is not the state’s house.  It is just an extension of the people’s house.  This has eroded state’s rights and upset the balance necessary to prevent any part of the government from gaining too much power or forgetting that they are there to serve the people.  Another is Marbury v Madison, in which the judiciary branch of government could determine whether a law is to be followed, not whether a law is being applied fairly. Every time a president uses executive power to create law through regulation, instead of the congress, the balance is being eroded. 

In the past eight years, we’ve witnessed the decimation of the middle class.  With the economy tanking and the result of a government manufactured housing crisis, people who’d invested years of their savings into homes, found themselves in foreclosure. Forced to move and rent because of bad credit, their homes were often purchased by the wealthy and redistributed to people who qualified for section 8 and received government supplemented housing. Demographics of entire neighborhoods changed, bringing in people whose interests and values did not coincide with the established culture, changing political voting blocks. 

At issue this election are several concerns.  We are at war with political factions of a religion that calls itself peaceful.  We need to determine how this war is to be fought and eliminate this threat.  Will it be fought like Vietnam or will we eradicate the problem completely?  Domestically, our government is in debt because of all the entitlement programs that were passed by preceding congresses and foisted onto generation after generation to fund.   The economy has not recovered, despite the rhetoric.  The reality is that many people can no longer apply for unemployment because the timeline for when they can receive benefits expired.  Others have found jobs but they are not full time and they do not qualify for employee benefits.  Those who take advantage of Affordable Health Care policies are funded by taxpayers, as with any entitlement program.  They are not free. 

This election is the last gasp for the middle class.  Those running for office on the left have openly voiced that they would usher in socialism. Those feeling the bern or backing a progressive truly believe in the idea that the government knows best how to spend our hard earned wealth.  This is an election to determine whether we still believe in equality of opportunity or if we now believe in the idea of equality of outcome. 
It’s ironic that the sector that continues to show growth is the service industry.  As we watch our class structure fall, an entire servant class is being created. It reminds me of the world before America was settled, a world where there were upper classes and lower classes who served them. 

I used to enjoy following the election. For me, it was like following baseball or football.  Now, when I listen to the media interview the candidates, I feel like I’m watching the show in the Hunger Games hosted by Caesar Flickerman.  The media is whoring the candidates out for ratings.  I wonder why these are called debates? The candidates are coached to say what will get them ratings.  As Gale from the Hunger Games remarked to Katniss, “What if they just stop watching?” Unfortunately, Katniss was right when she replied, “But they won’t, Gale. They won’t.” We’re gawkers at the scene of an accident, compelled to watch the election process going down in flames. 

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. –Abraham Lincoln

Last evening, we shared a table with a young group of marines en route to SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) training in Maine.  I woke up this morning feeling especially thankful to those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect our nation and yet I kept thinking about the Gettysburg Address. This is because I worry whether our soldiers (and their families) deployed after 9/11, many injured or in coffins, sacrificed in vain. Did the soldiers who liberated our country from England, as well die in vain? Did the 620,000 casualties of the Civil War die in vain?

At 10 years of age, I became aware of terrorism. I watched it play out during the television broadcast of the 1972 Olympics when a terrorist group, identifying itself as “Black September”, killed 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team.  Why were these athletes arbitrarily murdered on a world stage? I truly didn’t understand the catalyst until I was much older. Black September was a movement to avenge Palestinians' losses in Jordan. This was one battle in a continuum of battles and part of a larger war.  

Based out of Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, the PLO and the PFLP had been fighting a “War of Attrition” against Israel, but were not necessarily supported by King Hussein in this quest to win back territory lost during the 6 Day War and their refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Jordan’s King tried to, “balance his interests in preserving a peace with Israel,” (Arab terrorists take Israeli hostages at the Olympics) by looking the other way, however, he eventually had to make a stand. The “Palestinians had run a state-within-a-state in Jordan headquartered in Amman. Their militias ruled the streets and imposed brutal and arbitrary discipline with impunity.” (Arab terrorists take Israeli hostages at the Olympics) Displeased with his stance, they were trying to assassinate him and control all of Jordon.  King Hussein ended the Palestinians' reign with a blood bath. It was only by instituting a blood bath that he made his Palestinian problem go away.

Arafat and the PLO went to Lebanon and created a similar state-within-a-state, destabilizing the Lebanese government.  Eventually, the PLO was expelled from Lebanon following Israel's 1982 invasion. Between Neville Chamberlain’s failed policy of appeasing the Nazi’s in WWII and the increasing displays of terror in the Middle East and throughout the world, we should know by now that remaining neutral and hoping others will take care of a problem are never options. One has to either eliminate the problem or make it clear not to mess with the giant. It was President Theodore Roosevelt, an environmentalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner, who best understood how to maintain US sovereignty, summing it up with the words, “Walk softly and carry a big stick.” Since this country’s inception, our leaders have understood that to maintain a balance of power, nations like the United States must lead from a position of strength. 

In high school, one of my history teacher’s was convinced we would see acts of terrorism played out on our soil, not unlike that which fomented in the Middle East all those years ago.  I was very distraught over that possibility.  Though I learned to balance living my life with such existential threats, I never turned a blind eye to this reality. As predicted, in my lifetime, acts of terror have taken place on US soil, the largest being 9/11. Like it or not, we are being called upon to fight a non-conventional war against a group of people who do not believe we have a right to exist. There is no co-existence in their world view. It is our freedom and our lives that are at stake. Civilians are targets and the population needs to prepare for this reality.  Our leaders need to admit this truth and take all precautions to maximize freedom and limit casualties.

This Thanksgiving I am thankful to have been born in the United States.  I am thankful for the opportunities I’ve been given.  And I am thankful to those who put themselves in harm’s way so that I can enjoy these blessings. I am thankful to those who I shared dinner with; en route to SERE during this holiday season. Please let their sacrifices not be in vain. 

Recently, two articles gave me pause. The first by Alana Semuels, “How Chicago is Trying to Integrate its Suburbs” caught my attention because I spent many formative years in Glenview, the suburb highlighted in the article. Reading about the new low income housing there, a collaboration between the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and Regional Housing Initiative (RHI), I recalled a conversation with a long term resident and respected member of the community (prior to the shut-down of the naval air base and subsequent redevelopment), one in which she explained that Glenview, a Chicago suburb, got around a previous Section 8 requirement by building low income senior housing. She had no qualms about the community’s position in this matter. Many middle class communities felt this way about Section 8 moving into their neighborhoods.  In a SPOA article called The Great Housing Experiment That Failed, the author writes:

Starting back in 1977, families living in housing projects began to be relocated to middle-class suburban neighborhoods with good public schools. If these families could see a different way of life, the middle-class way of life, they could learn to live like the middle class – or so everyone thought…But then the crime rate started to go up in suburbia where they moved. As one former housing project tenant said: “You move from one place to another and you bring the element with you. You got some [people] trying to make it just like the projects.”

Landlords in more affluent suburbs did not want to rent to Section 8 tenants.  Erin Eberlin writes in, “Disadvantages of Renting to Section 8 Tenants”

There is a stigma that Section 8 tenants are very destructive. There have been horror stories about floors being destroyed, cabinets being pulled off the walls, toilets being cracked, garbage and filth everywhere and many more people living in the unit than are listed on the lease… Tenants who do not collect rental assistance may be turned off by the fact that you allow Section 8 tenants in your property. They may believe that you are a “slumlord,” that the property will be dirty or that the tenants will be disrespectful and noisy.

In “Let’s End Housing Vouchers” Howard Husock provides insight into why Section 8 vouchers have failed in integrating classes of people.

Better neighborhoods are not better because of something in the water but because people have built and sustained them by their efforts, their values, and their commitments. Voucher appropriations are based not only on the mistaken belief that it is necessary to award, at public expense, a better home to all who can demonstrate "need," but also that it is uplifting to do so, when in fact it is the effort to achieve the good home, rather than the good home in itself, that is the real engine of uplift.

What he is saying is that the effort and goal to achieve a better life for one self is a major factor in the ability to contribute to and better a community. Those residents who achieve the American dream by saving their hard earned money and purchasing and maintaining their homes in a neighborhood of their choosing understand the sacrifice involved in making that happen.  They want a return on their investment.  They have made a decision to become a part of something larger and want to belong. 

Husock explains how the voucher program ends up segregating classes of people and “accelerate neighborhood decline.” 

For properties in precariously respectable neighborhoods, the government-paid rent is more than the market rent. Reason: the Section 8 program allows voucher holders to pay up to the average rent in their entire metropolitan area, and landlords in working-class or lower-middle-class neighborhoods, where rents are below average, simply charge voucher holders exactly that average rent. Assured payment and a more-than-generous risk premium: no wonder some landlords in neighborhoods teetering on the brink of respectability gladly welcome voucher tenants over working-class families offering lower rents and so accelerate neighborhood decline. South Philadelphia state representative William Keller tells of local property owners who "couldn't rent their place for $500, but they can get $900 from Section 8." The result is a familiar government-subsidized racket: landlords who specialize in Section 8s—who advertise for them and know the bureaucratic rules about what it takes to get paid. 

Homeowners pay more to live in affluent neighborhoods to ensure safety and opportunities for their families.  Residents of these communities are expected to maintain their homes and want to participate in events sponsored by their communities.  Shared values are what makes people come together as a community.  Section 8 disrupts this.

In the Chicago suburb of Riverdale, here is how it went.

EMT crews respond to emergency calls to find callers, accustomed to city emergency rooms, simply saying they're "feeling ill." Riverdale's Potter elementary school, once boasting a top academic reputation, now has the state's highest student turnover. Student achievement has dropped—putting paid to the idea that shipping poor families to good schools in the suburbs will cause an education ethic to rub off. Instead, the concentration of disorganized families has undermined a once good school. School funds, says the mayor, must now be diverted to the legions of "special needs" students. Crime is up, too—"we have real legitimate gang issues now," the mayor says—and the city has had to increase its police force by 35 percent, from 26 to 35. That's pushing the tax rate up, which the mayor fears will discourage new home buyers, pushing the small city into a cycle of decline. A lack of local buying power—a function of the voucher program's preference for very low-income renters—has already left storefronts abandoned on Riverdale's main street.

It’s no wonder that higher socioeconomic neighborhoods fear Section 8.  But it is not about race. As Husock points out, “Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson famously argued that class, not race, is the most powerful divide that separates Americans today.” So, why then does the current administration want to make socio-economic inequities about race?

In “Obama Collecting Personal Data for a Secret Race Data Base” Paul Sperry writes that the fed is collecting sensitive data on Americans by race… to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.”

In its justification for social and economic engineering, this administration is saying that inequities are a result of prejudice, not the values and work ethics displayed by different classes of people. Yet, social and economic engineering is a means to redistribute wealth, not integrate and diversify communities of people. Probably the biggest redistribution of wealth came during the mortgage crisis when thousands upon thousands of middle class people had to walk away from their homes, which were then repossessed by banks and re-purchased by the very rich or rented to Section 8 voucher holders, creating greater class divisions.  In American Spectator’s, “The True Origin of this Economic Crisis,” this crisis came about in part because of a “1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study of discrimination in home mortgage lending,” which concluded,

While there was no overt discrimination in banks’ allocation of mortgage funds, loan officers gave whites preferential treatment. The methodology of the study has since been questioned, but at the time it was highly influential with regulators and members of the incoming Clinton administration; in 1993, bank regulators initiated a major effort to reform the CRA regulations.

Clearly, the Obama administration is pursuing a policy of social and economic engineering and saying it is about race.

Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.

In a Crain’s Chicago Business article, Why one suburban development soared, and the other staggered, Dennis Rodkin writes,

Because the Glen is a tax increment financing district, all property taxes go into the pot; after the TIF expires in 2018, tax collections will stream into the city's general fund. Planners behind the Glen expect the previous 23 years will have generated $820 million, according to Messrs. Owen and Brady. That figure includes $250 million in land sales, $20 million in federal grants and $500 million in property and sales taxes, Mr. Owen says.

The Glen received $20 million in federal land grants. Therefore, Glenview is a federally funded city. Thus, it is susceptible to the Obama administration’s social and economic engineering plans. 

It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that money has allowed federal overreach to influence local and state decisions about schools, housing, churches, and other services that fall under the states’ purview in our federalist system of government.  This division of power is failing.  Strongholds put in place in our Constitution to prevent centralized government are surely toppling. Our Constitutional Republic, which generates great wealth and allows for social mobility is being replaced by social and economic engineering, i.e., socialism. I am moved to wonder how this will affect voter demographics. 

I spent my whole life running around, Still let the wind kinda blow me around
…And I traded it in for a whole 'nother world, A pirate flag and an island girl –Kenny Chesney

Do you like Pirates?  I know I do.  I could watch Pirates of the Caribbean over and over again.  Many people who live on the coast have pirate bumper stickers that say Salt Life.  But Pirates have bad reputations because they pillaged innocent people, even though we don’t normally associate them in that way. Usually, we associate them with island vacations where people let go of their worries and play instead of worrying about work. Still, maybe we ought to ban pirates because they didn’t respect the rights of those they pillaged? On second thought, that might make some people very sad.  Pirate aficionados derive joy in thinking about living by their own rules and leaving behind their responsibilities. Pirates are so popular among some groups of people that there are toys, flags, clothing, and even a Talk Like A Pirate Day. Besides, just because some people find pirates offensive, the First Amendment protects free speech, so long as it isn’t inciting people to violence. 

Many people like to buy Confederate Flags and clothing with the Confederate flag logos.  Those who appreciate the flag logo most often associate this emblem with the idea of states’ rights.  The flag was first flown by the Confederacy in the Civil War, a war in which many slave holding states asserted their right to secede from the union, rather than change their economy, which relied on slave labor.  In the beginning, this “war between the states” was about preserving the union.  After fighting for two years, however, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which declared that all slaves in states rebelling against the Union were free, leaving slavery intact in the Border States. Freeing the slaves in the Confederate States became a Union war objective. Although the Confederate States of America wanted to maintain a way of life which included the subjugation of a group of people based on their color, today, many people would agree that not unlike the Pirate Flag, the Confederate Flag has come to symbolize states’ rights, not the subjugation of a group of people. 

Recently, in Charleston, South Carolina, Dylann Storm Roof was charged with shooting nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.  Prior to the shooting, the suspect had been photographed “waving Confederate flags and wearing symbols of racist white regimes, and reportedly wrote of fomenting racial violence.” (The Washington Times) Because he was seen in this manner, many groups are demanding that the Confederate flag be removed from the public square because it is associated with white supremacy and incites people to racial violence.  This is particularly interesting because in many acts of terror, law enforcement agencies are told not to profile, i.e., associate certain clothing or associations as increasing the likelihood of violence.  If a person had committed this shooting wearing a pirate shirt, would there be screams to remove pirate paraphernalia from merchandisers and consider those displaying such emblems as inciting violence?

After the Boston Massacre, when John Adams defended the Red Coats in a Massachusetts Court of law, he explained that because we are a nation of laws and not of men, everyone is entitled to a fair trial.  He and the soldiers he defended, recognized that an unruly mob which was angry about British subjugation of the colonies might not be able to look at the specific events objectively.  They would merge their experiences and punish the soldiers, regardless of the reality.  John Adams was a brilliant lawyer and was able to save the soldiers from what at first seemed to be a certain fate.   In his summation he stated,
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

We would be wise to heed the words of John Adams before the wishes, inclinations, or dictates of passions force the removal of the Confederate Flag from the public square, erasing a symbol of states’ rights at a time when the Tenth Amendment has been completely ignored by the Supreme Court in recent rulings on Obamacare.  Freedom of speech is one of the first freedoms.  There is no freedom not to be offended.  And the meaning behind symbols and of words cannot be changed just to fit a political agenda. 

When you think about it, both flags could represent subjugation or freedom.  Yo ho, yo ho, A Pirate’s life for me.

Now that the Supreme Court has redefined what marriage means, what exactly was gained by those who may now participate in same-sex marriages?  According to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, by participating in civil marriage rather than a civil union, same sex couples are afforded many more legal protections.  To begin, marriages are respected across the 50 United States.  As in heterosexual marriages, partners can also file for divorce.  Because of federalism, same sex partners can now benefit from joint federal /state programs and receive tax and public benefits for their families.  They will find it easier to fill out their status of married or single on official documents.  Finally, they will achieve equal, not separate but equal status in our society.

As citizens in this country, certainly same sex couples are entitled to these rights which are available only with a certificate of marriage. Wouldn’t the logical thing to do be to differentiate between a traditional marriage and a civil marriage? Civil marriages by a judge or civil servant are recognized by all 50 states and afforded the same tax and public benefits as a religious ceremony. And both require marital licenses.  Many heterosexual couples choose not to be married in a church because none are in accordance with their beliefs so this is not a new precedent. 

So the question I have to ask is, “Why did the Supreme Court feel compelled to redefine the word marriage, as understood by non-secularists, instead of simply saying civil marriages should be accessible by same sex partners across the 50 states?  Had they simply cited precedent to affirm the idea that all citizens should have access to a license permitting a civil marriage, those practicing a particular religion and abiding by a particular system of beliefs would not now be compelled to practice their religion as dictated by the U.S. government.  Clearly, by telling churches who they must marry or worshippers what they must believe, the Supreme Court has violated the separation of church and state.  The repercussions of this ruling have far reaching consequences; there will now be government interference in parenting, in non-secular institutions of learning, and in private organizations run by people in accordance with their religious beliefs. This ruling is in violation of the 1st Amendment.  Whether you are for or against same sex marriage is not at question here. The goal of marriage could have been achieved without the government elevating one set of beliefs over another.

How can this be resolved?  If the Legislative Branch of government had the stomach for it, they would begin impeachment against the Supreme Court judges who showed such contempt for the rule of law in this country.  Meanwhile, Jonathan Merritt writes in, “If the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage in 2015, how will evangelicals respond?”

If the court were to “redefine marriage,” Moore [Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention] said Christians should “be ready to offer an alternative vision of marriage and family” that doesn’t include same-sex unions. Interestingly, his vision would be promoted primarily within the church rather than changing laws through political action.

As I pointed out in Majority Rules in Judicial Activism,

An easy way around this is to leave religion and marriages to the churches.  We simply must stop expecting government to legislate morality. Morality begins in the home. As the 1st Amendment is written,  

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

This first freedom is a fundamental right, one which is to be protected by our government. If the judges who committed this violation of this fundamental right are not themselves brought to justice, state legislatures need to start exercising the powers reserved to the states.  Following the example of Alabama, Alabama Senate Passes Bill to Effectively Nullify All Sides on Marriage, whose legislature introduced Senate Bill 377,

SB377 would end state issued marriage licenses, while providing marriage contracts as an alternative. It passed through the Alabama state Senate by a 22-3 margin on May 19;

The intent or motives behind this bill are a moot point. By removing the state from the equation, no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government.

“Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission.”

Michael Suede explains in, “Marriage Licenses Are A Racist Crime Against Humanity,”

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

With the 14th Amendment, no states should have even had the authority to outlaw such marriages, let alone license them. At the very least, such a practice would have gone the way of separate but equal during the civil rights movement.  Instead, federal government expanded this power to license, over all marriages. The government took this power in 1923.  Michael Suede continues,

In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

Michael Suede has a very strong opinion about this practice.

Being granted permission to marry someone by a gang of criminal thieves is the lowest form of submission to State authority a plebe could ever engage in.

He suggests his readers follow his lead and, “reject the notion that the State has the authority to sanction [my] marriage.

I am inclined to agree.


AL Update

The Supreme Court has been in the news this week for two different decisions, both of which thrust Justice John Roberts into the conservative spotlight.  In King v. Burwell, Roberts upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, i.e. Obamacare, and in Obergefell  v. Hodges, Roberts voted against same sex marriage.  His opinions are important to examine because in both, it would appear that, he was more concerned with appeasing the popular majority instead of upholding the rule of law, which he is sworn to defend.   Let’s first look at King v Burwell.

Peter Suderman writes in, ”In Upholding Obamacare’s Subsidies, Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law—Again” about how Roberts goes beyond interpreting the law in the majority decision.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," he writes. "If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."

And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges "established by a State," and which defines "State" as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia, actually allows subsidies in exchanges established by a State or the federal government. Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not.

Or as John Podhoretz explains, even more succinctly in his article, “The twisted logic of John Roberts’ ObamaCare ruling,”

The language is plain, as even Roberts acknowledges: “An individual [is eligible] to receive tax credits only if the individual enrolls in an insurance plan through ‘an Exchange established by the State.’”

Should any state decide not to establish exchanges, that is the state’s right.  After all, this is how federalism works.  Citizens can vote with their feet, as it were.    

Suderman then paraphrases Justice Scalia’s dissent for his readers. 

If Roberts had truly wanted to defer to Congress, he could have ruled that the law means what says rather than what it does not, and effectively handed the issue back to the legislature, letting Congress decide whether and how to update the law in accordance with its own wishes. Instead, Roberts made the choice for Congress—taking its power to craft law for itself. As Scalia writes, "the Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude."

Our Legislative Branch abdicated its responsibility by carelessly crafting Obamacare and passing it hastily. The Legislative Branch of government did not perform its duties in the best interest of the people by, using then House House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s  words, passing the bill before knowing what’s in it. One of the reasons why the law passing process is so cumbersome is because the Framers understood how important it is to think through the repercussions of laws and not to act hastily.  By abdicating its responsibility, it left the law -not only open to judicial interpretation- but to actual revision by activist judges on a Supreme Court.

Judicial Activism by judges is not a new development.

Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro writes in, “Justice John Roberts’s Obamacare Decision Is an Orwellian Mess,”

Activism, typified by the four Democratic-appointed justices, finds in the Constitution no judicially administrable limits on federal power.

The law in question forces citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a tax.  The insurance in question is overpriced and citizens who qualify will receive subsidies to make it more affordable.  How does this protect the individual liberty of some people against the concentrated power of a majority? It doesn’t and the precedent has now been established that majority rules.  This is frightening because we are not a democracy; we are a constitutional-republic.  The constitution should not be transgressed because we are a rule of law, not of men. Mob rule has no respect for minority rights.  The founders intended the citizens to elect representatives who could take into account a variety of interests and prevent extremist positions.  State legislatures were supposed to choose senators to represent state’s rights. Yet most citizens in this country think the words democracy and republic are interchangeable. The Framers agreed with Aristotle who equated democracy with mob rule and considered it a perversion of constitutional government.

Just as bad as judicial activism is judicial passivism.  As Shapiro explains,

Pacifism, a knee-jerk reaction to the activism of the 1960s and ’70s, argues that unelected judges shouldn’t overturn the people’s laws. Neither approach considers that the Constitution’s structural provisions, as well as the standard canons of statutory interpretation, aren’t dry exercises in political or linguistic theory, but a means to protect individual liberty against the concentrated power of popular majorities.

In, “9 Need-to-Know Quotes From the Obergefell v. Hodges Opinions,” Justice Roberts writes in his dissent,

"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. ... Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

In this case, Justice Roberts reminds us that we are a government of laws, not of men, in other words, we are a constitutional republic.  Our constitution is supposed to defend minority and majority rights.  Again, this is a state’s rights issue, except for the fact that the 14th Amendment led to the incorporation of the 1st Amendment and federal law now trumps state law around religion. 

Steven Waldman writes in, “Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America,”

Once the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states, judges were left to figure out what the Founders would have done about things like prayer in school, when in fact such issues were far from the Founders’ minds.

An easy way around this is to leave religion and marriages to the churches.  We simply must stop expecting government to legislate morality. Morality begins in the home. As the 1st Amendment is written,

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

In this case, Justice Roberts’ opinion would seem to reflect judicial pacifism, in that he understands that the states’ laws on religion respect the codified non-secular definition of the church, which it is between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.

For all intents and purposes, marriage should be left to the church and the state should stay out of defining it. 

James Madison would have argued,

The “multiplicity of sects” would therefore protect religious liberty. In that sense, each faith owes its power and freedom to the vitality of other faiths. Those seeking the one True Way must tolerate the vibrancy of “false” faiths.

In essence, the Supreme Court traded one definition for another. Perhaps in this case, instead of practicing pacifism, the court should have explained that government only recognizes unions, for the purposes of wills, taxes, etc. and that marriage, as an institution, is regulated by each church as it sees fit.  What this ruling and new definition will mean for those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman remains to be seen.

In both court cases, we see the 10th Amendment being disregarded by the federal government. In both, the Supreme Court is not interpreting the law but crafting language for the law and the Legislative Branch seems to be yielding its power to the Judicial Branch. However, the people are still sovereign in this nation.  For the long term, we must elect representatives to office who understand and uphold the rule of law. To do so, we must understand it ourselves. In the short term, those we’ve already elected must consider their options for removing judges who are not exhibiting good behavior, i.e. legislating from the bench.  If they are unwilling to do their job, this must become an election issue so that the will of the majority does not disregard the will of the minority. Our freedom is at stake. 

In an article by Connor Wolf called This Is The Difference Between TPP And TPA (Hint: They Are Not The Same Thing), he explains that these two bills are linked together because Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is a means to fast track passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  I am confused by this line of reasoning because as a stand-alone bill, TPA is intended to provide transparency to all trade negotiations by soliciting public and congressional input throughout the process, however, TPP as a stand -alone bill, is behemoth and most of the information to which the public has access has been leaked.  Furthermore, it was negotiated behind closed doors.  According to the verbiage of TPA, if TPP is not negotiated using TPA guidelines, the fast track option is negated. So why do news outlets and a wide range of legislators portray these two bills disingenuously? Bundling the TPA and TPP as one idea called Obamatrade is no different than bundling immigration reform and border security, which are two separate issues.  One is about drug cartels and terrorism and the other is about how we manage people who want to immigrate to the United States. 

Challenges TPA hopes to remedy throughout the negotiating process and in resulting trade agreements have parallels to challenges facing the US and its allies when agreeing to make war on the foreign stage.  While one president may assure allies that US troops will assist in gaining and maintaining freedom, i.e., Iraq, a  new administration or congress may change the terms, leaving a foreign country abandoned, with the understanding that the US cannot be relied upon to meet its agreed upon obligations.  When negotiating foreign trade agreements, this same realization comes into play when negotiations that took place in good faith are undermined by a new administration or congress that change the terms.  TPA hopes to create a set of consistent negotiating objectives when hammering out trade agreements, allowing agreements to transcend administrations and congresses.

The following excerpts from a letter written to President Obama from Sen. Jeff Sessions  (R, AL) would alarm any person who understands the division of powers and checks and balances built into our rule of law.  Posted in Exclusive–Sessions to Obama: Why Are You Keeping Obama Trade’s New Global Governance Secret? Sessions explains,

“Under fast-track, Congress transfers its authority to the executive and agrees to give up several of its most basic powers.”

“These concessions include: the power to write legislation, the power to amend legislation, the power to fully consider legislation on the floor, the power to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive a two-thirds vote.”

Understanding that Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Representative Paul Ryan have gotten behind TPA, it would be short sited and irresponsible not to probe further into why they aren’t exposing these violations of our rule of law.

According to The Hill’s Daniel Horowitz in TPA's 'Whoa, if true' moment , Cruz and Ryan have explained, “most of the content of the bill is actually requirements on the executive branch to disclose information to Congress and consult with Congress on the negotiations.”  Congress would be informed on the front end, as opposed to debating and making changes to what was already negotiated.  This is important because as Cato Institute’s  Scott Lincicome and K. William Watson explain in Don’t Drink the Obamatrade Snake Oil ,

Although trade agreements provide a mechanism for overcoming political opposition to free trade, they also create new political problems of their own, most of which stem from the inherent conflict in the U.S. Constitution between the power granted to Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8) and that granted to the president to negotiate treaties (Article II, Section 2) and otherwise act as the “face” of U.S. international relations. In short, the executive branch is authorized to negotiate trade agreements that escape much of the legislative sausage-making that goes in Washington, but, consistent with the Constitution, any such deals still require congressional approval—a process that could alter the agreement’s terms via congressional amendments intended to appease influential constituents. The possibility that, after years of negotiations, an unfettered Congress could add last-minute demands to an FTA (or eliminate its biggest benefits) discourages all but the most eager U.S. trading partners to sign on to any such deal.

TPA, also known as “fast track,” was designed to fix this problem. TPA is an arrangement between the U.S. executive and legislative branches, under which Congress agrees to hold a timely, up-or-down vote (i.e., no amendments) on future trade agreements in exchange for the president agreeing to follow certain negotiating objectives set by Congress and to consult with the legislative branch before, during, and after FTA negotiations. In essence, Congress agrees to streamline the approval process as long as the president negotiates agreements that it likes.

For a really good argument for fast tracking, watch the video that can be found here:

Here's why the TPP is such a big deal 03:24

K. William Watson explains in What’s Really in the New Trade Promotion Authority Bill? TPA will actually bring more transparency to the negotiating process.

The current bill would require the administration to provide public summaries of its negotiating positions.  This will give the public something concrete to debate without having to resort to conspiracy claims or wild theories.  It will also help everyone see more clearly how negotiators intend to implement the negotiating objectives of TPA.

It will also require that every member of Congress has access to the full text of the negotiations from beginning to end.

If TPA actually does what it is intended, a bill like TPP could not possibly be held to an up or down vote because it would not have been negotiated using the processes as outlined.  Or could it?  This administration passed Obamacare, which is a tax; they wanted comprehensive immigration reform and secure borders yet they openly courted Latin American countries to bring their kids to the border; they said they’d be the most transparent administration but there has been a dramatic lack of transparency, one must pass the bill before knowing what’s in it.

Perhaps what it all boils down to is what Rick Helfenbein writes about in Trade promotion authority, a Washington drama

There are other conservatives like Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) who remain adamantly opposed to giving the president (presumed) additional authority. Jones said of Obama and TPA: "Given his record, I am astonished that some of my colleagues are so eager to fork over even more of their constitutional authority to the [p]resident for him to abuse."

While this article addresses the issue of TPA, it doesn’t begin to address the arguments against TPP, for example  The Guardian’s C Robert Gibson and Taylor Channing’s conclusion that, “Fast-tracking the TPP, meaning its passage through Congress without having its contents available for debate or amendments, was only possible after lots of corporate money exchanged hands with senators.” That is an article for another day. 

Read More


On upcoming vote

How many Americans remember learning about the Boston Massacre when they were school children? I wonder, does anyone truly understand why we are required to learn about incidents like this in our school’s curriculum? In the aftermath of the Boston Massacre, John Adams agreed to represent the British soldiers who were forced to defend themselves against an unruly mob. This was not a popular position to take; yet John Adams was not one who would concern himself with such things.  He took on the challenge because of his understanding of and respect for the law.

Below, is an excerpt from John Adams’ speech at the Boston Massacre Trial.

-Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defence; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was a provocation, for which the law reduces the offence of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated.

As explained in John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution ,

Adams contended,

Because the evidence was unclear as to which soldiers had fired, it was better for the jury to acquit all eight defendants than mistakenly to convict one innocent man. "The reason is, because it's of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished." He believed that the soldiers had a right to a fair trial. 

John Adams won the acquittal of six British soldiers and two defendants received convictions for the lesser charge of manslaughter, for their role in the deaths of five colonists.

Few people understand the legal origins from which our rule of law is derived, beginning with the Magna Carta which established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law. Nor are people cognizant of the subsequent history and philosophy influencing the framers of our U.S. and many state constitutions. Sadly, this lack of understanding is what allows so many people to disregard system a system of justice intended to be impartial and to afford each citizen equal protection under the law. It is this disregard which propels mobs to demand social justice and influences politicians to entertain the passion of the people.  The founders and framers were afraid of mob rule.  They understood that emotion impairs judgment.  John Adams so eloquently explained during the trial:

The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or
flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men.

Whether or not Stand Your Ground laws should be repealed is up to the legislating bodies in charge of implementing and repealing legislation in their consecutive states.  Perhaps Stand Your Ground violates a historic perspective on manslaughter, perhaps not.  But historical precedence does constrain our ruling bodies from double jeopardy or from holding a person accountable for violating a law which did not exist at the time it was broken.

The study of our state and U.S. constitutions does not receive nearly enough attention in our nation’s schools.  While reading, writing, and arithmetic are critical to an educated citizenry, understanding how our rule of law is designed to limit government and maximize freedom is critical to the liberties for which our forebears fought so hard. To allow a witch-hunt in the form of our own government asking our citizenry to report incidences of possible malfeasance by the recently acquitted George Zimmerman in order to prosecute him a second time for his role in Trayvon Martin’s death would be a travesty and antithetical to our system of justice. 

We live in a constitutional republic.  The founders and framers understood that we needed written law under which everyone is treated equally.  They also recognized that a representative government in which there was a people’s house and a senate, as well as a judiciary that practiced good behavior, would constrain the passions of the mob and allow those holding office to impassively legislate, enforce, or adjudicate.  Allowing the media and special interest groups to demand the government take additional legal action against George Zimmerman establishes very dangerous precedent.  The people and their representatives need to rethink this course of action before we irrevocably damage the rule of law under which we are afforded our equal protection and under which our rights are guaranteed.