Demand to know who is speaking

The next time you go to the doctor, don’t worry about who he is or what his credentials are.  It doesn’t matter and he shouldn’t have to tell you.  Or, when you go to your financial advisor, if he keeps hidden that he is an employee of the fund he suggests when he leads you to believe he isn’t, he has a right to privacy.  Oh, and your baby sitter – not to worry that you are not able to find out who she is and anything about her past. 

If you think those are really dumb statements, I would agree with you.  But, when a clandestine organization goes on television with information about one of the constitutional proposals or a candidate; you don’t have the right to know who they are.  If you wouldn’t accept advice or trust people in your personal life that you don’t know, why would you trust a group that you know nothing about in your political decisions?

That is what has happen during the last election more than any other time in United States history.  Claims, accusations and downright lies filed the advertising of the political ads.  It should make honest, good people ill.  (Yes, everyone, before you get excited, both sides have committed this sin.)  But, we didn’t have the chance to evaluate their point of view because we don’t know who provided the financial support for the advertising. 

Additionally, people and organizations called “bundlers” skirted campaign laws and used them to hide the source of money for candidates and parties.  Many of us were upset when we found out that Romney said things in private that were difficult to support in public.  Romney himself even said that it could have been said better.  But, did any of us find out who was in the room that night (other than the host, a bundler)?

Is there anyone that thinks that the “smoked filled rooms” of yore where secret deals were made was the proper way to govern?  Well, of course not.  If your local politician takes money from an oil company then votes in support of their petition to drill in your neighborhood, wouldn’t you want to know?  Do black hooded people stand on the floor of the United States Senate and make a speech about policy?  No, because we all demand to know who is speaking.

Yet, we put up with Super PAC's and bundlers that raise, over the last election in this case, literally billions of dollars.  This money flows to candidate’s campaigns and their parties like water down a hill, filling the lowest ground.  In this case, the money fills the coffers of candidates that are willing to accept every last cent.  There are candidates that don’t accept the money blindly, demanding to know where the money came from.  But, many of them, I feel confident, feel great pressure to accept the money so they can compete against a foe that does take the money. 

Don’t be fooled.  When people go to the store to buy a stove, they want certain features and they want it to work.  No one, let me repeat, no one, gives a dime to any campaign if they don’t think they will get the results they want.  Give enough, your voice will be heard.  A little more, your plan will be enacted. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech.  It is an amplifier to your own voice.  This is true.  Also, people do have the right to assemble to combine their resources so that their voice will be louder – and delivered with force.  But, the voters, as the ultimate decision maker in any policy decision, should have all the information available to make an educated decision. 

Let's all cry, "Enough of this lunacy!"  In a Responsible Community, when someone exercises their right, they are to take responsibility for their action.  It is not a violation of someone’s freedom of speech to ask that they take the responsibility to say who they are.  

If it takes a new ruling from the Supreme Court to change the current situation, then let’s find a case to carry to their doorstep.  If it takes more than that, then let’s change the Constitution.

The Constitution is over rated

Every time we get into a discussion about rights, we argue over if it is allowed by the Constitution of the United States.  It has become our go to document on the rights of human beings.

But, think about these issues.  Rick Santorum thinks that we don’t have the right to privacy because the word privacy isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.  Also, don’t look to the Constitution to insure that you are innocent until proven guilty, it isn’t there.  While the Constitution outlines many ways that States can’t deny someone to vote such as by gender or race, the document doesn’t guarantee the right to vote.  As a final example, but not the end of the misconceptions, the words “separation of powers” can’t be found in the Constitution.

The Constitution may be a guide on our rights, but is not the final word.  If we were to only have those rights that are numerated in the document, we would limit ourselves.  Even if we made an attempt to list every right, it would still be an incomplete list.  Many of the people that helped write the Constitution were leery about adding the “Bill of Rights” because there were concerned that it would be seen as a complete list.  They didn’t see the document as the final say on our rights, which we retained, but limiting what the government could do.

Need an example?  Remember a few years ago when cities around the country were taking property and giving it to developers?  The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, led by the strict constructionist, said that property could be taken and given to developers that would increase the tax base of the city.  In just a few short months, states past laws that made it illegal.  Even though the Constitution seemed to allow the taking of property, people across the country realized that we had more rights than listed in the old document and enacted laws that guaranteed those rights.  (This is happening again in our country.  Property is being taken by the states of Texas and Oklahoma for the pipeline.  Something the Republicans have wanted to do for a long time and that Obama was trying to protect until he reversed course.)

Something is over rated if it is seen as being more than it is.  The Constitution of the United States is a great document, one that every country should adopt.  But, it is not the final word on our rights, it is just the base.  We have plenty more than listed and we should work with legislatures to ensure those rights.

-----

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

May this New Year bring you success in seeking your own personal happiness. May the privacy of your body be respected from everyone. That you can personally practice your own religion without interference. May who you love be given the same respect as anyone else in the community.

May you have the freedom to speak your mind and publish your ideas for others to consider. May you continue to have the right to join with others that share your outlook and ask that the community to address your concerns.

May you be safe in the environment. That you are safe and secure from invasion of outside forces and free of crime in your community. That government and business doesn’t intrude in your life any more than necessary.  That you free to own weapons. 

In this New Year, may the privacy of your home and other spaces you live and work in be as hollowed as the most sacred of places. May your personal property be free from intrusion. That if such a situation arises, that you are treated fairly by the courts and provided every opportunity to defend yourself.

As it should be, may the New Year allow you to openly inquire about all things. That you may share all that you have learned. In return, may you also have the right to openly challenge what others think so that the truth can be found.

May the community help when you have done everything possible but still find trouble. When you experience a loss of income, may the community share the responsibility in restoring your potential. That if your health is a problem, the community will be there to help.

In short, may you find that by respecting others and sharing the responsibility of the community with your neighbors, more will be accomplished than you could on your own.


-----

Gingrich's plan for the courts is dangerous

Attorneys Generals for the Bush administration calls presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s position on the courts dangerous.

Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales in a recent television interview on Fox News criticized Gingrich’s idea of just making a law that prevents federal courts from ruling on things Gingrich doesn’t want them to. These are not liberals who might make automatic disparaging remarks about anything the republicans might say. These are two attorneys generals that have hard conservative credentials that were interview on a “news” network that takes hard conservative positions.

At the core of Gingrich’s position on the courts, is the idea that congress can make a law that doesn’t allow federal appellate courts or the Supreme Court to take cases on any issue that he, in agreement with congress, doesn’t want them to rule on. This would be limiting the jurisdiction of the courts that congress establishes.

One of the primary issues is abortion. Gingrich believes that this will stop the federal courts from striking down anti-abortion laws that states enact. It is Gingrich’s plan to return to the states the function of determining abortion rights without fear from the federal government. But, the rights we all enjoy, including abortion, are established in the Constitution by the Bill of Rights. The 14th amendment establishes that those rights fall under the protection of the federal government.

Congress under Article III section 2 does have the power to establish and expand a federal court system. But, Congress has limited power over the jurisdiction of the courts it establishes. Since the Constitution in the first ten amendments states that “Congress shall make no law” that takes away the rights of individuals, congress can’t take away the right of any federal court to make a judgment about federal law that may be in violation of the Bill of Rights.

If congress is given this power, there would be no check to the balance of power that congress or the president may exercise. That isn’t what the framers intended.

-----