The protection of the Constitution applies to all that live by it

An immigration case out of Chicago, Chaidez v USA (1), makes us question who shall receive the benefits of Constitutional justice and how the community should respond when justice isn’t applied.

The case is about a woman from Chicago, Roselva Chaidez, who was born in Mexico.  She has lived in the United States since the 1970s.  By many accounts Chaidez was the unwitting participant in an insurance scam.  The many details of the case are less important than the resulting issues, but it is clear that she was not involved in any violence and even the fed’s let her plead guilty and let her off with a fine.

Her lawyer worked the deal for Chaidez, encouraging her to tell the truth and end the case.  He did tell Chaidez about the direct punishment she could expect by pleading guilty.  What he didn’t tell her is that it would not allow her to apply for citizenship.  It isn’t clear if the lawyer knew that or not.  It should be expected that if a lawyer makes a strong suggestion that someone like Chaidez should plead guilty, he would inform her of all the collateral damage that would result.  That is the reason an expert is hired in any field, to help understand the short and long term consequences.

When Chaidez did apply for citizenship, she was picked up for deportation.  She was able obtain another lawyer to challenge the case in the courts.  It has found its way to the Supreme Court.

Chaidez’s new lawyer has built the case on a ruling by the Supreme Court after Chaidez’s guilty plea and conviction.  At the base for her case is Padilla v Kentucky.  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens that are not advised that pleading guilty to a felony means automatic deportation were deprived of their Sixth and Fourteenth amendment rights to effective counsel.  Chaidez’s is the same situation, but since she pleaded guilty before the Padilla case, the United States is asking that the conviction stand.  The court is being asked if the ruling only applies to cases after Padilla or should it be retroactive.

The Obama administration is taking a hard stand on the issue.  The administration said that, “[it] will have a significant impact on the federal government’s efforts to enforce this nation’s immigration laws against those who have become removable as a result of pre-Padilla criminal convictions.”

Groups siding with Chaidez have taken an equaling strong stand in opposition.  “The lack of remedy,” the groups assert, “[for pre-Padilla ineffective counsel] imposes harsh consequences on countless non-citizens facing detention and deportation as a result of wrongfully procured plea-based convictions.” (3)

Whatever the legal arguments are, there are four practical issues for the community to consider.  First, the community can’t tolerate ineffective counsel for defendants when charged with a crime.  Second, while prosecutors have a responsibility to pursue their cases as aggressively as possible, they also have a responsibility to keep defendants, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty, aware of the full consequences of the charges applied against them.  Also, there can be no finality to a case when Constitutional rights come to light after convictions, such as Supreme Court rulings that apply directly to the defendant’s case.  Finally, being a non-citizens living in the country doesn’t mean that that you are not protected by the Constitution. 

The right to counsel is a Sixth Amendment issue.  It clearly states that we all have the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his [her] defence.” (4)  To believe any other way means that people could be picked up and sentenced to prison with no trial.  After all, if they are guilty until proven innocent, let’s just get them off the street right away, no need for a trial. 

An innocent person has all the rights and privileges of the community and should expect that the community will defend them against all threats to their life, safety and freedoms.  So, if people are innocent until proven guilty, the logical responsibility of the community is to assure that they are properly defended and understand all the consequences if they are found guilty.  The community must be certain that the lawyer the defendant hires, or is provided, is competent enough to understand the obligations of providing a proper defense. 

As for the prosecution, we expect the prosecutor to aggressively pursue their case against a defendant.  Our system has provided this right to the prosecutor.  But, for every right there is an equally important responsibility.  The responsibility here is that the prosecutor will insure that the accused is fully aware of his consequences if convicted of the crime he or she is charged with. 

Once convicted, no matter the circumstances of the conviction, the case can only be final to factual issues not Constitutional issues.  If a person is convicted under a law that made his action criminal and is later changed, the convicted is to receive the benefits of the change.  This prevents laws from being enacted that make an action criminal just to jail someone, then changed once they are convicted.  Why should it be any different for Constitutional issues?  When the Supreme Court makes a ruling on an issue, it needs to have the same effect as changing a law.

Perhaps the most difficult issue for many is the non-citizen status of Chaidez.  The argument may be that since Chaidez is a not a citizen, she doesn’t have an automatic right to receive the full benefits of the Constitution.  (There is a question as to Chaidez’s immigration status.  It is not clear that she is here “illegally?”  But, it doesn’t matter because of the of the amnesty legislation that has been passed since Chaidez’s arrival.  The only issue that is important to this case is her non-citizenship status.)  All the time that Chaidez was here, she was expected to follow all the laws that the Constitution allows.  Yet, as soon as she runs in to trouble with the law, she is not given the full benefit of the Constitution.  In this case, she didn’t receive a proper defense as dictated by the Constitution.

This is not the intent of the authors of the Constitution.  They intended the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to apply to all.  It is simple to say this because of our own interpretation of the words of the document.  But, this time the proof comes from none other than a founding father. James Madison said, “But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that, whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed that, as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.” (5)

According to Madison, when someone has the responsibility to live under the laws of the country, they also have the right to the protection of the Constitution.  This is the very essence of a Responsible Community; a balance between rights and responsibilities.  You can’t have one without the other.

(1)  Chaidez v USA (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/chaidez-v-united-states/ )

(2)  Obama administration response (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Opening-the-gate-to-criminal-alien-appeals/UPI-91941336289400/ )

(3)  Response to the administrations statements (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Opening-the-gate-to-criminal-alien-appeals/UPI-91941336289400/ )

(4)  Sixth amendment to the United States Constitution

(5)  James Madison, Debates to the Several State conventions on the adoption of the Constitution (http://books.google.com/books?id=OL3MdoqSb0QC&pg=PA555&lpg=PA555&dq=If+the+banishment+of+an+alien+...+be+not+a+punishment,+and+among+the+severest+of+punishments,+it+will+be+difficult+to+imagine+a+doom+to+which&source=bl&ots=9pGFIPFT-4&sig=t01lRxRxpUI2iT3G8x7C0-EB0EQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PpKmT-2vHYqXgwe88cTPAQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=If%20the%20banishment%20of%20an%20alien%20...%20be%20not%20a%20punishment%2C%20and%20among%20the%20severest%20of%20punishments%2C%20it%20will%20be%20difficult%20to%20imagine%20a%20doom%20to%20which&f=false )

CEO of GM talks about the government investment in GM

The saving of the Detroit auto industry is a popular thing to talk about during this election cycle.  President Barak Obama was instrumental in engineering the structured bankruptcy and the investment in the industry that was needed.  Mitt Romney, the son of an auto executive, said he would have allowed them to crash.

Even hindsight can’t tell us if the dire prediction about the failure of the auto industry would have ever come true.  But, a threat of some kind was there.  It is too easy to say that they should have allowed the industry to fail because new industry would have risen from the crumbling empty auto plants.  Even if one did, how long would it have been before the benefits of the market failure would have worked its “magic?”

The truth is, in practical terms the auto industry is alive, improving and perhaps in the best condition it has been in decades.

Dan Ackerson, CEO of GM, in an interview with The Take Away’s Celeste Headlee, points out that this wasn’t the first time the country has saved an industry and that the benefits were much more far ranging in practical terms.  Ackerson is a Republican.  As a Republican, he is not likely to give an interview in support of something that a president and congress from the other party did in an election year if he didn’t think it was an important thing to do.

Let’s read what Ackerson had to say about the investment we made in the auto industry.

Dan Ackerson -”This is not the first time that the American government has injected themselves into the American economy. If I asked you, who [was] the biggest owner of commercial property in the United States 1990s, you wouldn't say the United States, but it was. [During] the Savings and Loans crisis, [the U.S.] [pumped] in $394 billion dollars. Call it around $400 billion dollars.  Not $50.  $400 billion.

“So it's not unusual to see governments for a short period of time, inject themselves into a marketplace to stabilize it.  The analogy I like to make, you remember last year when Joplin, Missouri had the terrible tornado or Katrina [in Louisiana], it's in the basic DNA of Americans [that] we don't walk to help our fellow citizens, we sprint.  This part of the country, the arsenal of democracy saved this country in many respects along with many soldiers, marines, coast guard's men.  But it built the arsenal that saved Western Democracies.”

During the world wars in the last century, it was the heavy industry that we had on our home turf and owned by United States companies that built the machinery to defend ourselves and our allies.  Without that heavy industry already in place, it is hard to image that we would have been able to build all the factories needed before we built one tank in time to make a difference.  As another example, during the early part of the last century, the shipbuilding industry was in the same situation as the auto industry was during the last few years.  The United States stepped in to save it because of the importance of having the ability to build on our own shores.  Can you image the need to build heavy equipment in times of a crisis and expecting Honda of Ohio and the other foreign auto companies in Georgia to do the building?  What would happen if we went to war with the home countries of those companies?

Ackerson continues - “[After World War II] what did we do[?]  In the interest of international economy, international trade, we lowered our trade barriers.  We lowered them in Japan, we lowered them in Germany, our mortal enemies.  And they built export economies to the detriment of this part of the country.  It didn't happen overnight with a hurricane or tornado: It happened over 30 years.  So a million jobs were saved, that's what I say.  $150 billion it's been reported in terms of total tax revenues that would've gone by the boards had the company not been saved.”

That doesn’t include the increase in taxes on surviving companies to pay for the unemployment benefits that would have been paid on those that lost their jobs.  Instead, as Ackerson says, many auto workers didn’t lose their jobs and are still paying taxes.

Ackerson - “And all the supply chain that would've gone with us.  And then if you back off and you say, at the time we went under, or we went into bankruptcy, we had about a $25 billion pension deficit.  But think back if we'd gone into bankruptcy and liquidated in '09.  That $25 billion would've gone into the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) which is government sponsored.  Footnote to that comment is, $25 billion would've bankrupted PBGC.  And whose dime would that've been on?  It'd have been on the taxpayer’s dime.  That's never in the calculus.”

It might be said that if we hadn't backed the PBGC, we wouldn’t have had the problem with the pension deficit bankrupting the system.  But, then there would have been no pension money for all those currently retired and those that have worked for many years depending on the pension fund.

As for finding private money to invest in GM, Ackerson also addresses that issue. Ackerson at the time GM was going through its problems was managing private equity money for investors.  This is what he has to say about finding private money.

Ackerson – “So when people say, it should've been saved in another way, it should've gone through a bankruptcy, controlled bankruptcy.  I was in private equity.  I was managing many buyouts, where you do a big buyout of corporations with a portfolio of $50-$100 billion.  There was no way you could've gotten me to put a billion dollars into this thing without the restructuring that was really mandated by the government.

“So, you know I know this is a political year and everybody wants to argue for tactical and political advantage.  Again, I don't have the luxury to do that.  I'm not making a political statement.  I would say, let's be pragmatic about it: It worked.

Finally, Ackerson says, “I think the government does have an obligation to step up and help its people.  This wasn't a giveaway.  It was an investment.  It was an investment from the American people.”

Communities are not a separate entity from the people that live in them.  They are not there to just police the streets and facilitate common services.  Communities form for the safety net and security that they provide.

Thank you, Mr. Ackerson.  Your words represent the best of a Responsible Community.
-----

How far will we go?

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey was sued by 12 nurses who claimed they were forced to assist on abortion procedures. They said that it was against their religion to help doctors and other hospital staff. The university did settle with the nurses before it went to court. But, the precedent is set.

When the nurses originally complained, they were re-assigned so they would not be present at the actual procedure. But, the nurses were required to help out in the pre and post procedure. Other nurses had to be hired to cover for the complaining nurses’ re-assignment.

How far will our community allow people to object to an activity because it is against their religion or personal beliefs? Most of the time, this issue comes up with abortion. There are pharmacists who refuse to provide birth control pills or the morning after drug. There are religious schools that object to having to cover abortions in their health insurance plans.

But, there are other issues as well. There are religious landlords that don’t want to rent to unmarried or same sex couples. A few days ago a post was made to this blog about a women in a department store that would not allow a transgender to use the women’s dressing room in the store because of her personal religious beliefs, this despite store policy that allowed it.

If these types of complaints and actions are given approval by our communities and court systems, there will be many more that will arise. There will be the Muslim food handler that will not serve up the blue plate special at the local dinner because it is a pulled pork sandwich. There may be Christian therapist that will refuse to counsel parents that are seeking a divorce because married couples shouldn’t get divorced.

Individuals do have the right and the responsibility to act in their own conscience. The nurses that were discussed at the opening were trained in the professional long after Roe v Wade. They knew that at some point in time they may be involved in an abortion procedure. The nurses perhaps need to find a situation where they will not be involved. When other people open up a business, like the landlord mentioned above, and seek the protection from the community, they can’t at the same time refuse services to others in the community. People get to their position in life partly out of the help of others in the community. To refuse service to those that had a hand in helping them is just wrong.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that people need to help those that are involved in an illegal act. It is the individual’s responsibility to report such activity or risk being part of the crime. But, all of the mentioned situations here are legal.

It would be easy if we lived in a completely homogeneous society and culture. Everyone would believe in the same thing and there wouldn’t be any disagreement. But, ultimately, that leads to a form of dictatorship known as Racist Nationalism. This is just what happen to Germany under the Nazis. It is also what our culture complains the most about in other countries that have a strong religious leadership and makes all the finally judgments in the community. This is just what the court system is like in Iran; the top religious leader can strike down any law passed by the parliament.

Communities were created not so that they could separate into little enclaves, but so that they may live together in mutual support. By opening the way for individuals and groups to refuse to help others because of some difference between each other, we lay the ground work to break up into sectarian and partisan communities that will become dysfunctional at best. At worst, people from one enclave will refuse to defend another creating a cycle of revenge actions that will not stop.

To live in a community means that you agree to support each other. You still have individual choice, but having choice doesn’t mean you have to refuse to help others with their choices.

-----

Herman Cain is out of touch and doesn't deserve to be President

Herman Cain’s suggestion that the occupy Wall Street protests that have now spread across the country are just playing the “victim card” is dead wrong. It is no truer than the Tea Party playing the victim card because they didn’t get their way about health care.

Mr. Cain, in every crime there are victims and unpleasant consequences. The rip off by the Wall Street bankers and brokers and the resulting down turn in the economy is a crime and those that have lost their jobs and are losing their homes are victims. To suggest in one sweeping statement that all of them are playing off on what has happen to them is to be insensitive to the real issues. If you can’t understand the real issues, you can’t present solutions that are based in reality. Mr. Cain, you are not fit to be president.

Just as in a robbery, a traffic accident or the result of Wall Street Bankers playing with real people’s lives like it was monopoly money; there are those that must suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, because Bush helped those that were taking the risks and because Obama just passed through the same policy, the bankers got off. They made millions, if not billions, off of their risk taking. This despite the bailouts they received from the taxes the people who are occupying Wall Street right now. Do you think the Wall Street bankers and others didn’t play the “victims card” in their board room meetings with the Federal Reserve Chair and the Secretary of the Treasury? The only difference is they still had one more hand to play… the economy would have collapsed if the Federal Government hadn’t helped out.

So now, the Wall Street protesters are asking the system to help them out. They don’t want a bailout like the bankers received, they want jobs. They don’t want their fate left up to boardroom meetings of large multi-national corporations whose only purpose is to make a profit, and whose loyalties are not to any community. They want decisions that affect their lives and jobs made in public so they can have a say in those decisions. They are asking that the community to help them just like the community helped the big Wall Street guys.

We the people didn’t create a community so that when times are tough the community can ignore our pleas and say we are just playing the victim card. If the community doesn’t support us, why do we need one? Why did we create them? We created communities and continue to support them because a shared responsibility between ourselves and the community will get us a lot farther.

It is time the community supports Main Street now.

Editor's note:  Recent health worries and problems prevented me from making posts over the last 6 weeks.  It appears that these problems are now in the past.  I hope to increase my pace back to where it was before the issue arose.  Thank you for your patience. 

-----

BART shuts down cell phone use in subway stations

Cell phone use in San Francisco subway stations was halted Thursday. BART, the authority that operates the subways, “learned” that protests were planned in some of the stations. People wanted to express their anger over the shooting death of a man by BART police. So, electricity was cut off to cell phone towers in the stations from 4 to 7 pm on Thursday in response.

Communities are given the responsibility to protect its citizens. Collective self defense was one of the first reasons people gathered in communities. But, the defense of the community must be kept in balance with the rights of individuals.

According to news reports, it is illegal for people to assemble in subway stations in San Francisco to protest. The law to prevent these assemblies is a reasonable act. The dangers that would exist if many angry people were protesting on subway platforms would go beyond a mere inconvenience of commuters. It is reasonable to think that people would be injured or killed. Also, the law most likely doesn’t choose sides, it just simple states no protests of any kind. There are plenty of other places in the city for people to assemble to express their grievances without endangering the lives of people.

When BART authorities “learned” that something was planned, it sounds like they did develop a plan to protect commuters and prevent a violation of the law. But, sense the plan they developed involved the violation of everyone’s rights, not just those involved in the protests, they should have sought judicial review. This review would have allowed a public examination of the evidence and a evaluation of the dangers that would be presented if the protest were not preempted. (Courts would have responded quickly to a request from BART due to the nature of the issues.)

I used the word preempted about the plan to negate the protests. The plan that was developed by the BART authorities was based on what might happen, as opposed to what is happening. It is dangerous to image a community that would preempt political activity without judicial review. If political activity was allowed to be preempted communities would walk right in to the issues that were explored in “Minority Report”. It was a movie from a few years ago that arrested people based on what they might do, with convictions and confinement based on action they hadn’t taken.

This action by BART authorities is similar to laws that are being considered on a national level, the so called “internet kill switch.” This law would allow the president or some other authority to kill the internet in part or whole to prevent illegal or dangerous action by individuals or groups. In that law, I supported the law as long as there was a review of the intelligence that suggested great harm was going to happen if the internet was not shut down. Even then, the action should only take place temporarily.

If intelligence provides evidence that an illegal activity was going to happen, present the evidence to a court. If approved by the court, then stand ready to take action when the activity happens, as opposed to cutting everyone’s rights short.

-----

Charter Schools are not the answer

It is suppose to be the quick fix for everything that is wrong with Detroit Public Schools and public schools in general.  Open many more charter schools in the Detroit district, let parents select where their children attend school and they will do so much better that everyone will want to shut down the city’s school district.

Or, at least that is the promise.

After all, charter schools have everything going for them.  Let’s go down the list.  First, since parents have to be motivated to enroll their children in the schools, the children would come from families that have higher expectations than those that don’t make any changes.  The charter schools can demand that parents attend meetings at the school, volunteer time and be involved in the education process.  Charter schools have greater control over the staff, especially the teachers, so they can discharge those people that are not performing well.  Charter schools are usually operated by a market based philosophy, with accountability standards that are higher than public schools.  Failing students or those that are disruptive can be released from charter schools and set back to public schools.  This list is not all inclusive, but it is the primary reason given in support of charter schools.

Well, guess what?  A new study conducted by a Detroit newspaper demonstrates that charter schools in the city of Detroit overall, are worse then the public school district.  Only 17 percent of the students that attend charter schools in the district perform better than the average public school student.  (Understand here, that half of the public school children do better than average, only 17% of the charter schools students do better.)  But, there is more.  Only about half of the students in the charter schools are on par with public school children.  Finally, about 33% of the children that attend charter schools did worse.   

The difference is what many involved in education know too well.  Until the student, the family, the institution and the community work together, education will not do well.  The student must be engaged and excited about getting a good education.  The family must be fully functioning and prepare the student for school.  The institution must be given the authority to make demands of the student, the family and the community.  Finally, the community must step up and make a full commitment to the future.  (The community in this case includes the private and public sector.)

An analogy here that people in Detroit can understand is what it takes to build a quality automobile (the student).  We can have great people working on the line (teachers/institution) but if the parts they install come from vendors (families) that are shipping defective parts, it will not matter.  If the company doesn’t pay its bills (community), vendors will stop shipping parts.  Until everyone involved in the building of the car is held accountable the product in the end will be sub prime. 

If has been a long held belief of mine that if one part of the quadrangle fails; the student, the family, the institution and the community; the other three have to work twice as hard to make up the difference.  If two parts fail, it will be nearly impossible to make up the difference. 

Detroit schools are not doing a good job at educating the youth of the community.  They do need to be held accountable for their failings.  But, until the other three parts are also held accountable, children will perform poorly.  

-----

Helmet law repeal should be, well, repealed

Without a doubt, those that ride motorcycles and would like to repeal the helmet law in Michigan would disagree, but wearing it is a very small price to pay for better safety and a decrease in insurance cost for every driver in the state.

The Michigan senate has passed legislation that would repeal the requirement for riders of motorcycles to wear a helmet. It was passed along party lines, Republicans in support and the Democrats against. One Republican, a doctor, joined the Democrats. The measure now goes to the house for consideration. Governor Rick Synder said it was not a priority of his administration, but would consider it with a larger insurance reform package later this year.

It is within the rights of the community to respond when people are harmed by another individual’s action. This applies to direct and indirect harm. The helmet requirement law in Michigan for those who drive or ride a motorcycle is a reasonable response to problems caused when an individual doesn’t wear a helmet and is involved in an accident.

When motorcycle riders are involved in accidents, the number of head injury cases are much higher for those are not wearing a helmet. This means insurance costs is greater for the care of the injured. This cost gets passed along to every other individual in the state that purchases insurance – all insurance.

The insurance industry in the state are asking that the legislation die. They know it will increase their cost of doing business in the state. Since there is a benefit to individuals, the Governor should veto the bill if it passes in the house and reaches his desk.

-----

Violent video games should be restricted

The community received a punch from the Supreme Court this week. The court ruled that the citizens of the California community can’t ban the sale of violent video games to children under 18 years of age without an adult in tow. Therefore all other communities that have or are considering such restrictions must abandon their positions.

The people of California working through their legislature enacted a law that bans the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18 years of age. Research has demonstrated a relationship between children interacting with the violence in video games and aggressive, antisocial behavior. It was enacted to support the rights of parents that may not want their children to engage with the games.

The court ruled, with Justice Anthony Scalia writing the majority opinion, that video games are protected free speech, therefore they can’t be banned. The Supreme Court clearly identified three areas of speech that historically have been restricted, that which is obscene, inciting and fighting words. Scalia said the state of California did not prove that violent video games harm children therefore the court could not carve out another form of restricted speech.

The suit against the people of California was brought by the video game association whose only roll according to its function is to sell product not protect speech. The association for that reason should have no standing to bring the suit. In addition, the self imposed rules that the association encourages its retail members to follow are the same as the law codified. If the law is unconstitutional on free speech grounds, then the rules of the association is also wrong.

This ruling takes a long step away from any practical understanding of the First Amendment. It doesn’t separate commercial and political, educational or religious speech. The videos that California is attempting to restrict are videos that have entertainment value only. It states in the law that if any reasonable person can see no value other than entertainment, the sale of the game can be restricted. It avoids any attempt to restrict those that take a political stand on issues, institutions or politicians. It also states that games can’t be restricted that have educational or religious value. Certainly the founders’ intent was to protect political speech and was not an absolute right to say or express anything. As evidence of that, even Scalia in the majority opinion said that there are at least three restrictions.

On another point, the law doesn’t ban the videos entirely. Those that are 18 years of age or older may purchase the videos. The law recognizes that when an individual reaches the age of majority the individual can act with greater maturity. Full freedom therefore is granted at that age including the right to purchase video games that are violent in nature.

The purchase of violent videos is not a life or death situation. Neither is it a case where the child will be burden with a great weight for a long period of time if the purchase isn’t made. There is no reason the community shouldn’t restrict the purchase of the videos unless allowed by a parent.

At the end of the argument, parental control is what it is all about. The law did not ban the videos but stated that a parent or guardian must approve if purchased by someone under 18.

Justice Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court and often a political soul mate with Scalia, did not support the majority opinion. It was clear to him that rights are not absolute and that the founders’ never intended for children to have rights beyond what their parents grant. The California law supported those rights by reserving for parents and guardians the right to make the decision to purchase the games for their children.

The Supreme Court made a bad decision in this case. While the research about violent videos causing harm to children may not be as strong as it could, the court didn’t consider the practical aspects of the rights reserved for individuals in the Constitution. No right is absolute and as long as legislatures are not choosing sides in a debate about those rights but applying rules to all equally, there is no reason a community can’t act to protect their children, even if the threat is small.

-----

Let's not make an example of a 70 year woman in an attempt to stamp our the evil weed

An Oakland County woman who is 70 years old faces the possibility of spending up to 4 years in prison because she used marijuana.

Barbra Argo as reported by the Oakland Press was convicted of one count of delivery of a control substance. She was working in a medical marijuana dispensary in Ferndale. Argo told police that raided the facility that she was growing plants in her Lake Orion home. Sure enough, when police searched the home they found the marijuana plants and other items. Argo is a registered medical marijuana patient and caregiver, which arguably allows her to have the plants for personal use and provide it to others.

All of this confusion over the laws that govern the growing, use and distribution of the weed has come about since Michigan voted to allow it for medical use. The state legislature bungled the job of clearly defining the use of marijuana in medical cases. Jessica Cooper and others in Oakland County including County Executive L. Brooks Patterson and Sheriff Michael Bouchard have been on a crusade to stamp out the use of the drug. All of this, while Arizona (yes, Arizona of all states) is challenging the federal government’s right under the constitution to dictate to states the use of marijuana and other controlled substances.

Authorities on the county level are attempting to force the state to clarify restrictions on the use of marijuana, and could perhaps be correct. But, as a result, they are upsetting the lives of people who need the drug to ease their pain and suffering.

It was clear from the state wide vote a few years ago that the people should be able to have access to the substance. In 2008 the vote was 3.7 million to only 1.7 million in support of the initiative. Every county in the state supported the measure. The state should have made the laws as clear as the outcome of the election. But, those in the legislature that didn’t like the will of the people decided to make it difficult, if impossible, to use the drug with a prescription.

Some cities across the state have refused to enforce the law until the state comes clean with a process to govern the use of the substance. Instead of finding 70 year old grandmotherly types guilty of a crime that hurts no body, Oakland County officials should have done the same thing.

It is within the judge’s power to give Argo a light sentence. The judge should do just that. Let’s move on Ms. Cooper. With limited budgets because of the recession, let’s use the funds to go after real crime, that which injures people.

-----

It is obvious Representative Anthony Weiner needs to leave

Representative Anthony Weiner says he will not resign his house seat in New York.

Last night on national television Representative Weiner admitted that he twitted questionable pictures of himself. This after he said that he didn’t, or couldn’t be sure it was pictures of himself and said his Twitter account had been hacked. Weiner also did not do the one thing that most everyone in the world would do if it happen to them, call the authorities. Instead, he lawyered up, giving the very obvious impression that something was up.

Now, he says he won’t resign? If is almost a waste of the electrons on this blog to ask the question. Is there anyone out there that doesn’t believe he should?

The most basic of trusts, in our personal lives and public lives, is that we need to believe what someone is saying. The fall out in our personal lives can be a marriage that fails and the breaking of other personal relationships. But, in the public sphere, it could be the breakdown of a community and the mistrust of government. Our culture already has trouble believing what politicians say, something like this, where the politician lied and now won’t resign, makes it even worse.

Now is the time for the community to react. This is when the community should be calling on Weiner to leave, petition drives to recall him should be presented and law suits should be filed. While the House itself can take action, it is the citizens of the community that should be working the hardest.

Individuals and communities must be the first to take responsibility. As a way to insure that the right thing happens in situations like this, higher actions can and should be taken at the state and national level. Those actions are necessary to make sure that the entire system at the community level is not corrupt. But, the responsibility to make sure that a community’s representative is honest starts with the community.

Representative Anthony Weiner needs to resign. If he doesn’t, the citizens of the community need to mobilize to remove him.

-----

Innovation is the key to rising above

The election cycle is generating a lot of talk about the role of government. Some tell us that it should stay out of our lives and others are asking for help from Washington. But, if we don’t collectively come to terms with what our expectations are from government then with each election there will be a course change that will undo some of the good from before the last election.

In a series that is examining the goals of a successful community, the blog has outlined four concepts that can be found in any successful community. They are protect, educate, innovate and build. Protect and educate have been discussed in previous blog posts. Today we will examine the importance of innovation.

Sometimes while doing research for this blog, a change in the understanding of the topic can come about. This is one of those times. Innovation is not just an invention though many think of it that way. An invention is the manifestation of an idea. Innovation is a change in the way we think about things and the way they get done. At its root, the goal of innovation is to improve, to renew and make better. It adds value to products, services or systems.

Innovation is developing solutions to problems that haven’t been thought of before. Too often, communities look at problems and bring out the very same solution that has been tried many times before. If as a community, we are to succeed, we must attempt to solve persistent problems with new ideas. That means that even if the current solution is working then we need to make sure that a new approach won’t work better.

Innovation means developing new systems for government. Many systems that are currently being used don’t achieve the policy goals established. To continue without challenging the results is foolish. Keep in mind, just because the system developed to solve the problem hasn’t achieved its goal doesn’t mean we should abandon any attempt to solve the problem. We just need to find the right solution.

Our evolution as a species was based not on following our DNA programming, but by allowing our imagination to see beyond the problems to the solutions. By just following the DNA solutions that was programmed into us, we would still be on the ground competing with every other life form. But, because we were able to think creatively, we were able to rise above and build a world to our needs.

Innovation was a key to that.

-----

Education is more than just teaching the acadmics

More people are jumping into the Presidential race in the United States. They all have their positions and say only they have the answers to the ills of the country, assuming of course, there are ills. The role of government in solving these ills will be debated, in some cases with great passion. How will we be able to make any judgment about what government can and should do if we don’t first think about what we expect from our community and its leaders.


In the first post of this series, a broad outline of the what a community should do to be successful was presented. In that post, the pillars of a success community were listed as protection, education, innovation and building. The last post explored the need for a community to provide protection from threats outside the country and from those that live in our community.

Education is the second pillar of a successful community. If the community can’t perpetuate itself, all will be lost. But, education involves more than just teaching the young about the academics, which certainly needs to be done. The community must also teach the next generation about how a good government should work and contrast and compare that to the one we currently live under.

Learning the basics is essential, but so is moving on to higher education levels. Without engineers, scientists, doctors and the many other professions that demand a longer education cycle, we will not be able to sustain our way of life or keep in front of the innovation curve that successful communities achieve.

We also need to have open and honest inquiry about how well government and the community operate. Without educating ourselves on the performance of the varies functions we expect from our community, we may never know if they are operating in the best interest of all.

Finally, as innovation happens, without re-investment in the education cycle for workers pass the traditional school age years, many will be left behind and present a drag on the community’s success. In today’s world, more so than any other time in human history, innovation takes over within just a few years. Technologies are developed, mass marketed and come to the end of their product cycle within a generation. The people that were needed to develop and build these technologies may need to change their skill set a couple times over a single life time. Without the opportunity to retrain and find other work, they will prevent a community from achieving full employment.

Education is more than “reading, writing and arithmetic”. It is also teaching about our way of life. It is also about researching our successes and failures so that this new knowledge can be applied to innovation.

And that is the subject of the next post.

-----

A common defense is the first purpose of government

As the election cycle approaches, those that are running for office including the presidential suite, will be telling us all the things government should or shouldn’t be doing. If we don’t layout a frame work of the purpose of government in advance, we could be pulled in many directions. We will also shift our own positions a dozen times as we hear good words from each of the candidates at all levels.

In the last post we outlined four primary pillars. They are protecting, educating, innovating and building. Clearly, the first, protecting, was the first reason individuals decided to create a community. Living together in an agricultural setting made individuals and families venerable to outside raiders. If everyone in the community came to the defense of any individual, the outside attacks were less likely.

Life in a community has evolved since that time and the definition of a common defense has expanded. Now there is still the risk of outside invaders. A strong military is needed to protect the territorial boundaries of the country. Not only from other countries with their military but also from their business practices, non military invaders, migration and diaspora.

But threats to the individual and the community come from three other areas. First, there is the criminal threat. This threat comes in big and small packages. It, of course, comes with the common criminal that local law enforcement can tamp down, but also from large organized criminal operations. This needs a national law enforcement agency that can move around the country where ever the threat exists.

Second, there is the threat that develops when there is a lack of standards in business, medical, construction and other industries. By establishing and maintaining common practices and standards, those that are honest can depend on them and those are not can be stopped.

Finally, the last is our own civil rights. This not only includes the encroachment of government on the individual’s liberties, but also those that would like to marginalize individuals that don’t fit a very narrow mainstream definition of behavior. It is just as important to enforce laws that prevent criminal activity as it is to prevent marginalizing individuals whose behavior may not be common, but their actions do not cause any injury or loss to any other individual.

As you can see, defense comes in many forms and at many levels. The ability of a community to defend individuals from many threats is the first priority of government. By creating an environment that allows individuals to freely live their own lives is the healthiest environment for the other three pillars.

More to follow on education, innovation and building.

-----

An arguement for small communities

People have, as it is said, voted with their feet when they left the City of Detroit for other places. The other places are both to the northern suburbs and other states.

Yesterday, the United States Census data was released for the City of Detroit and surrounding areas. It shows that the population for the city is as low as it was a hundred years ago, down to just over 714,000. The counties of Macomb and Oakland showed small increases. The increases were not enough to keep the state of Michigan from losing population also. It was the only state that lost in the last ten years.

Dave Bing, the mayor of Detroit, has said that he will fight the numbers. He claims that the city was under counted by about 40,000 people. If the mayor can raise the count to over 750,000 it will enable the city to keep more state and federal dollars rolling in than at the lower number. But, none of the reasons he provided for the under count sounded very positive. The truth is, your honor, Detroit is suffering just like the rest of the region.

Detroit and most of the surrounding cities like much of Michigan will have to make do with less. Less people, less tax dollars and less sales for the businesses that employ the residents. With a lower population, revenue sharing from the state and federal government will not be as great. Yes, most revenue is shared on a population basis so there will be a cut. But, less people will also mean less representation in both the state and federal governments. States that have more representation will now demand a bigger share of the dollars.

But, there is something else going on that most don’t know about. It is the Headlee Amendment. With property values falling like they have because of foreclosures and people leaving the state (creating less demand) taxes generated from the property are also falling. Cities are having to work with budgets that are far less than they were just a few years ago. Services are being cut, personnel are being laid off and the security of communities is being affected. Many people are assuming that when property values start to grow again, so will tax revenues. But, the Headlee Amendment only allows a small increase in property tax revenues each year. Local governments now need to examine every means possible to make up for the loss of revenue over the long haul. They could ask for a Headlee override, but that is not likely in the short run.

Another way is begin consolidating services with other communities or create regional consortiums to provide base services. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder in his government restructuring drive, is planning on asking the legislator to reduce revenue sharing to communities that don’t consolidate services with other communities.

Tight knit, well run communities may not want to consolidate with neighboring communities. The communities that they may need to consider consolidating services with may not be very well run. They also may have other problems like high unemployment or crime that wouldn’t make it a good fit.

But, let’s move back to the opening of this post. Detroit is losing population because people don’t like the way the city is run, they can’t make a good enough living, because crime is bad, or, for a long list of other reasons. If a community creates a large, intertwined system of services with other communities, people will not be able to just move across the street to avoid the problems in one community. They will have to either stay put and suffer or move much farther away, like out of state. Neither would benefit the local communities or the state.

With few exceptions, many small players is always better than a few large players. This is true in business and government. In business, many small players means no one business can dominate the market, if one fails there are plenty more and competition is much greater. Government works the same way. If people live in a region with many small communities, if one community turns bad, they can leave and go to another. But, if there is a large, regional consortium that is managing the entire region, there is nowhere to go except far away.

If the latest Census has taught us anything it is that people will vote with their feet. If we move to consolidating many of the small communities that we have now, we run the risk of people leaving the state.

Let’s not go there so people will stay here.

-----

Don't punishing school districts for good budget practices

Save money and spend wisely, but not too wisely.

What?

That’s right. A state senator thinks that school districts that save money should be punished for saving too much.

School districts in the state of Michigan have a cumulative savings account in so called “rainy day” funds of $1.6 billion. The districts have scrimped and saved as much as they could so they would have a cushion against drastic cuts in state aid or other funding. This not only is a wise thing to do, but fits very well into concepts supported by the Responsible Community.

State senator Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison, thinks this is “obscene.” He is the chair of the Senate finance committee. It is Brandenburg’s belief that in the slow economy and with the state’s budget problems, each school district should spend their fund before they receive any more state aid. For each school district with a budget surplus the bill that he wants to offer would cut off of school aid until the fund is below 15% of the district’s annual budget. It would seem that Brandenburg would want it to be the other way around. He should offer incentives to school districts to save money and be financially responsible.

Brandenburg is a member of the party that demands government be operated like a business. Any business around, large or small, would be happy to have a reserve of more than 15%. A responsible community, school district or municipality, should save as much money as it can while still providing the services that its citizens expect. The fund, besides being a cushion against swings in funding, can be invested to help provide income to defray the costs of operating, or perhaps, be self sustaining.

Brandenburg is also a member of the party that believes in local control. Making sound budgeting decisions by each of the school districts that has enough of a surplus to establish a rainy day fund reflects exemplary local control. The state should not dictate the budgeting principals of these school districts.

When a community operates out of the establish norm, such as not being able to pay its bills, it is taken over by the state to bring its budget in alignment with general accounting and management principals. But, if that a community swings that other way, operating in a way that reflects sound business practices, it should not be punished.

-----

Personal responsiblity in the news this week

Personal responsibility is making head line news this week. Two of the best examples – or worse, depending on your point of view – are Bernie Madoff and Charlie Sheen. 

Let’s start with Madoff. Most of us know that he took billions of dollars from the rich and poor to run his own ponzi scheme. Banks, the government, security firms and other organizations that were suppose to catch this type of criminal activity missed it for many years. The organizations missed it because Madoff was making money for everyone and nobody wanted to risk that changing.

In an interview with Madoff that has received a lot of air play recently, we never hear him say he accepts full responsibility for his actions without conditions. He may say he did the things he is accused of, but says he is a good man. Madoff says that the many people that gave him money enabled made him. Or, that it was just a mistake that he could not get out of. The bottom line is, he is a crook and is right where he belongs, in prison. Those that looked the other way all this time should be there with him.

In another high profile interview, Charlie Sheen never takes full responsibility for any of his actions. He is in his mid forties and has the behavior of an unrestraint teen. Beside his abuse of alcohol and drugs, he has abused his wives, children and friends. (I am using a loose definition for abuse that includes mistreatment and not just physical abuse.) If it wasn’t for his money that enables him to continue his lifestyle, he would be a bum on the street if not in jail. Right now, CBS has cancelled the rest of the season of the show he headlined in, “Two and a Half Men.” The other stars in the show most likely are financially okay. But consider the others that work for the show that are just regular people. They are now out of a job because Charlie is a drunk.

Charlie has a high profile interview being shown on many media outlets. Again, like Madoff and many other people like the two of them, Charlie never takes full responsibility without any conditions. He says that he is a misunderstood person. That people need to see things from his point of view to understand his behavior. But the irony is that his self centered ego doesn’t allow him to see things the responsible way, that he is hurting other people.

In a community, let’s set about being responsible. The two of them certainly are wrong, we can all agree to that. But the reason Madoff did so well is because everyone around him didn’t do the responsible thing of asking questions. The most basic being, how is it you are doing so well when everyone else is not? As for Charlie, the show, “Two and a Half Men” is one of the most watched shows on television. With so many people tuning in each week to see Charlie act out his real life, all of us have enabled him to continue abusing the people around him. Stop watching the show and CBS will replace it with something else.

A responsible community can set a goal of a safe environment. But, unless people accept responsibility for their actions; not only after, but before; the community will never be able to fully achieve that goal.

-----

Governor Synder, please consider this

Arizona and Missouri have a good idea, but it only goes half way. Michigan would be smart to do the same thing only complete the job.

Since November of 2009 Arizona has required that welfare recipients not use drugs. If they do, they will lose their benefits. The state uses a survey of the applicants, as well as police and court records, to determine if someone should be tested. Since the start, only 16 have been identified. Eventually, one of the 16 was tested for drug use and denied benefits.

Missouri would like to do the same thing and legislation to allow it to do so was passed last week.

Michigan should go even farther. The Arizona and Missouri laws, for the most part, use “surveys” to determine if someone may be using drugs while accepting benefits. Michigan should make it mandatory as part of the application process and do random checks during the remaining time they are accepting benefits. The random tests should be at a scale that everyone will be checked at least once a month.

If someone is found to be using any illegal drugs, not only should they stop receiving benefits but they should then be ordered to attend a drug rehab program.

A community needs to take responsibility for those that may be unemployed for an extended period of time. But that doesn’t mean that the recipient should not take responsibility also. As in a post on this blog, Require a return on investment from unemployment, this should be a part of the overall requirements that both helps people become self sufficient and asks for a return from the benefits they are receiving.

Government Synder, please consider what they are doing in Arizona and Missouri.

-----

Short subjects

• Frivolous lawsuits?

Oh, Dennis, have you ever voted to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

Dennis Kucinich is suing the owner of the House of Representatives’ cafeteria. The congressman and one time presidential hopeful, had a sandwich with what was advertised as pitted olives. Well, one of the olives still had a pit much to the surprise of Kucinich. He is suing for $150,000 in damages.

Don’t the members of congress have a great dental plan?

• Parents need to protect their children

It is important to stop the abusers.  It is also important to stop the enablers. The woman in this case needs to go to jail.

A woman, who is not indentified to protect the victims, pleaded guilty to charges of child endangerment and hindering prosecution. Her husband fathered four babies with one of the couples' daughters. If the wife had gone to authorities right away, she could have protect her daughter.

If the father is an abuser, the mother should at least be the defender.

• Keep the news flowing

Reporters would stop informing us about our government if they were afraid of being sued. The Supreme Court understands that. They refused to even hear a case about a media defamation suit against a reporter for accurately reporting the news from court filings.

• Drunk driving in Tennessee

It is very important to get the drunks off the roads forever, but government can’t put someone in jail for an undetermined amount of time. Let’s find another solution. How about in jail for ten years on second time around?

In Tennessee they want to put people that are charged with DUI that have been convicted before behind bars. But, they will be there for as long as a judge believes they are still a danger to the community. The punishment is much to arbitrary.

• Those money grapping politicians! They will do anything for a buck.

Seems that the Hawaiian legislature is going to allowing anyone that will pay $100 to purchase an official copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. While it won’t shut the birthers up, it will raise some money.

-----

Religious freedom is not absolute

Trilochan Oberoi is a United States citizen that lives in California. He is a Sikh. He has applied for the position of a corrections officer with The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He has passed all the tests, his background check is clean and is deemed tough enough. For all reasons other than one, he should get the job. What is holding back the department from giving it to him? He won’t shave his beard.

Sikh’s in part, believe that they should look like their creator made them. If he cuts his beard (and his hair, which doesn’t appear to be an issue here) he would be violating one of the tenets of his belief. But, the department of corrections’ policy is that every man keep his face clean shaved. This allows for a gas mask to fit properly.

Oberoi is suing to have the department’s policy changed because it would be a violation of his religion to shave his beard.

We all know the quote from the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The word “Congress” in this case, via the Fourteenth Amendment, means any law making or policy setting body in the United States. The California Department of Correction and Rehilibation is a function of the state of California. It appears that “congress” in this case, the legislative branch of California, has a policy that prohibits the free exercise of a religion. End of story.

Well, not so fast.

Never did the Founding Fathers, anyone else that voted in support of the Constitution, anyone that has ruled on cases involving religion or people living in any responsible community believe that it means that the right is absolute. Public safety is the most important issue. Of course, congress should not make laws without any reason, but when the public safety is involved, all rights are subordinate.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s policy that men keep their beards shaved so that a gas mask can fit properly is not a violation of Oberoi’s religious freedom. The policy is there for a reason, so that men can be sent into a situation where tear gas will be used. If the commander of the guards can’t be certain about an individual’s ability to perform at the peak of performance, in this case Oberoi, he should not have the job.

The phrase “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not just three words strung in any order. They are in order of importance. Life being the most important. If communities can’t help protect the lives of the individuals in the community, all liberties would be in jeopardy. Mandating that every corrections officer shave his beard is a way that the community can help individuals protect the lives of everyone.

-----

The citizens of Pontiac are losing control of their government

The government of any community has many responsibilities. It is up to the citizens of the community, to a point, to define what they expect from their government. Pick up the trash, manager police and fire, maintain parks, keep the streets in good shape, run the local little league may be some of the things city governments manage.

All of these things must be paid for mostly by local taxes. When there isn’t enough funding the list needs to be prioritized. The item with the highest priority is the security of the community. That means that police and fire should be on the top of the list for funding. Once they are paid for, other things can be funded.

The City of Pontiac is going through some tough times right now. With the city legislative branch essentially replaced by the emergency financial manager, Michael Stampfler, the community has little or no direct voice in the management of their city. They are not able to help decide the priorities that must be set because of the falling revenues that have placed the city in a deficient. Stampfler is setting the priorities and making all the decisions. One of his tricks to force changes in the police department was to lay off 23 officers to bring the total on the road to only 51. This has placed the security of the city in a dire situation and is forcing the outsourcing of the department’s services.

The Oakland County board of commissioners was asked and has approved a proposal to replace the Pontiac police and dispatch services with the Sheriff department. There are many agreements that need to be made before the Sherriff officially takes over, but it is likely to happen.

If there is trash collection, parks that are being maintained, road improvements being made or any other nonessential services being funded by the city, they should all be curtailed or eliminated before the police and fire is outsourced. Not only is police and fire the highest priority of any community’s responsibility, it is one of the ways that a government stays in balance and in control by checking the power of the other branches of government. With Stampfler replacing the legislative branch and the police soon to be controlled by an outside authority, the community is losing nearly complete control of its government.

Successful communities are founded and maintained by having the local citizens directly in control of their government. While the city of Pontiac must find a way out of the financial difficulties it is in, it must do so by not losing control of its government.

-----