Keep an open mind when on a jury

Hadley Jons of Warren was removed from jury duty because she declared in a Facebook post that the defendant was guilty before the trial was over.


This blog isn’t about what we should all know, but apparently some of us don’t know. Even if we never attended a government class in high school or college we should all have seen enough cop and lawyer shows to know what jurors should or shouldn’t do. Of all the things, don’t talk about what is going on till after the trial.

This post is about how the Macomb County Circuit Judge Diane Druzinski is punishing Hadley Jons. She has to write a five page essay on the 6th amendment. It would be easy enough to fine Hadley the $250 and remove her from the jury as the judge did. The Judge Druzinski would have rid herself of the trouble of seeing Hadley again and perhaps save the case. (The remaining jurors and the replacement found the accused guilty.) By making part of the punishment the writing of a five page essay, the judge insures herself and the community that Jons will have a deeper understanding of the crime she committed beyond just that she shouldn’t have done it. The essay should be posted on Facebook and made required reading for every juror in the future.

It is of course important that people living in a community know what is wrong. It is also important to understand why things are as they are. This will enable all of us to not only obey the letter of the law but also the spirit. In this situation, the foundation of any fair and equitable system of justice is a trial by jury. This removes the system of prosecution from the hands of law makers, police, lawyers and judges. It places it squarely in the hands of every day people that live in the community. When called on to be part of a jury, the people on trial are owed your open minded consideration. Even if you come to an opinion before the end of the trial, by allowing the evidence that is presented to challenge your opinion, you can feel certain of the correct decision.

The community then can have confidence in the justice system.

-----

Is he Muslim?

We shouldn’t care if President Obama is a Christian, Muslim or any other religion. It doesn’t matter as long as his decisions are in the best interest of the country and of religious freedom. In the Constitution it states that no religious test should be given so the country can’t even make that part of the requirements for office.

President Obama’s religion continues to come to the top of the news stories. This latest reason is a survey taken recently of Americans asking, among other things, if they think the President is a Muslim. 20% of the average Americans believe he is and 31% of Republicans believe he is. High profile personalities have either said he is a Muslim or profess doubts about the President’s claims that he is a Christian. Many think that because his father was a Muslim that he must be also.

If he is a Muslim, no proof has ever been offered that can be cited from a reliable source. (Fox “News” doesn’t count). There are no hidden videos of him attending a mosque or pictures of him praying while facing east. Even if there were pictures of him reading the Qur’an it doesn’t mean he was Muslim. If it did, President Thomas Jefferson would also be Muslim. Jefferson openly admitted he read the Qur’an to further his education of religions.

President Obama has openly said that he is a Christian. He has repeatedly said that he believes in Jesus Christ. Until proven that the statements are not true, we should take him at his word.

The thing that all of us should be concerned about is our fear of Islam. In the early years of our country and even as late as the Kennedy administration, we feared Catholics. The popular belief was that the Pope was coming to America and would take over the government. Just as they did in England during the time of Queen Mary (Bloody Mary she was called) the Catholics would then purge Protestants from the government and establish just one religion in the country. During the election of Kennedy in 1960, it was rumored that the President had a secret agreement with the Pope to move the Vatican to the states.

Does all of that sound familiar? Urban legends now have it that President Obama will hasten the establishment of Sharia Law here in America. That Muslim Imams will take up residence in the White House and “guide” the president’s decisions. Any day now, we will all have to stop what we are doing and pray five times a day while facing east.

The courts of this country have stood firm in removing all religions from government. That is why we must continue to support rulings that keep government and religion separate. If we allow one religion to be part of the operation of government because it happens to be the most favored or majority religion at the time, then the community risks a change when another religion becomes more popular.

It shouldn’t matter to anyone what one man’s religion is, even if that one man happens to be the President.

-----

Show the proof

Candidates in this November’s election all across the state are screaming that the new Tea Party approved by the state of Michigan is a ruse. Many Republican officials and candidates say that the party is a front for the Democratic party to pull votes away from the Republican side of the ticket.


The latest is Mike Bosnic, a Republican running against current Oakland County Commissioner Tim Burns, a Democrat. (1) But the state’s Republican party also made the claim when the party filed with the state. Even Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, who has denounced the Michigan Tea Party as a front for the Democrats, said, “That Tea Party is Democrats who have gone out and pretended to be tea party activists to create their own party…”

It may be so. It is often hard to tell what is going on in politics. Dirty tricks have been part of the profession for a long time, perhaps from the very beginning. (Don’t you just wonder if this stuff happen when the Greek’s started to vote about 2,500 years ago?) Every party has done things that if given the light of day would be embarrassing at best.

But, there is a question about this one. Where’s the proof? If indeed this is a front for the Democrats as Republicans say, then show the proof. Making accusations that can’t be supported is irresponsible. If the Tea Party isn’t “real” and someone has the documents, then come forward. Otherwise, the accusations are merely another dirty trick.

In a survey a few years ago, people were asked who they trusted more, fast food restaurants or politicians. It isn’t surprising that fast food restaurants came out on top. Set aside politicians don’t always vote the way we want on important things in our lives. That can be expected. It is the accusations they make that can’t be supported or are just outright lies that upset people.

Not that anyone should support a candidate just because they tell the truth. Voting for the liberal candidate because he is honest when your values are much more conservative doesn’t make sense. What should be done is that we all call out the candidate to support their statements (and positions as well, it would be nice to know the reasoning behind the politician’s positions also.) Voters should ask when they meet the candidate. Media should demand an answer to the direct questions as opposed to accepting a change the subject answer that politicians are trained to give.

Fast food restaurants know something very clearly, if they promise food that is better than it is, few will return. They need you back every day for many years to come to be successful. It seems that politicians only need to get through the first Tuesday in November. After that, voters don’t get a chance to vote again the next day.

With all of that said, here is the question: Can you prove that the Tea Party of Michigan is a front for the Democratic party? If not, move on.

(1) GOP: Fake tea party candidates targeting local races, The Oakland Press, Charles Crumm, August 19, 2010

(2) Patterson denounces Tea Party Group, The Oakland Press, Charles Crumm, July 16, 2010, http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/07/16/news/local_news/doc4c3f919d38664752153283.txt

-----

Require a return on investment from unemployment

A community can’t afford to make an investment and not expect a return. Sometimes communities make investments for direct economic return. They encourage a company to locate in the community with tax breaks because it brings in jobs. The return on investment from the increase in tax revenue from the income created can be calculated.

Sometimes, a community makes an investment knowing there will not be a direct economic return. A park in the center of town makes the living space much more pleasant. It may have economic value in the rise in housing prices, but many will not benefit from it because they will never sell their home.

In both cases, there is a expectation of a return on investment.

But, the investment a community makes in unemployment and welfare has little expectation of return. Part of that is because of the current system is a compromise between those that want to continue it and those that would like to end it. Some money is provided to help individuals and families, but not enough to have any real effect on solving the problems.

The reality is we need to invest more in unemployment and welfare. That would enable the community to expect much more in return and not just wait for things to fix themselves.

Consider; individuals are expected to live a law abiding life. But, some don’t. If we just asked them to stop committing the crime, nothing would happen. But, if we threaten them with punishment and carry out those threats when they commit a crime, it will reduce crime.

If we give individuals that are unemployed little money and ask them do a few things they won’t if there are no sanctions. But, if we provide enough money for them to make real change in their life and hold them accountable to it, most will.

Let’s make that change.

Make a sizable investment in unemployed individuals. Provide enough income to take care of some of their concerns like keeping up with the house payments, provide health care, pay the bills and provide nourishing food. This would enable them to devote their attention to improving their lives.

At first, they would be given enough time to solve their problems on their own. If they are not able to, then assign them a manager that will both guide them and hold them accountable. Make an evaluation of their life and skills. Find markets that can employ them. Train them for their new jobs. Help them move if necessary to those markets. Now here is the catch, if the unemployed individual doesn’t do everything to help themselves while the community is making the investment, drop them from the program.

The investment needed and the sanctions for not taking full advantage of the program need to be worked out. It was not the purpose of this post to provide all the details – perhaps at a later date, one detail at a time. It is meant to examine the way we invest in the individuals that live in our community and what the expectation of return should be.

We formed communities because there is a benefit in living with others that will help in times of need. If we don’t receive any help, then why are we in a community? In reverse, if the individual that is asking for the help doesn’t help themselves in equal proportions (if not more) then they haven’t earned the community’s help.

-----

Invest more in unemployment and welfare

The value of an investment is based on the return. If little is invested with little expectation of return, that is what will happen. But, if a larger investment is made with expectations of a larger return, it will be there. If the return isn’t, investments will be made elsewhere.


Right now we are investing little in unemployment and welfare. With that little investment we are asking little in return. Both are suppose to be used to get people through a difficult time. Perhaps the economy is in a downturn and companies understandably need to layoff some workers. It might be a family tragedy that means the primary wage earner is injured, unable to return to work or has died. Many more situations may exist that demands help from the community.

To those individuals and parties that are market driven, pro-business side of the equation, there is a belief that there should be no need for unemployment and welfare. They believe that individuals should save more of their income for economic downturns or they should continue to retrain for future jobs. The reasoning in the perfect world is sound.

On the other side of the equation, those that may focus entirely on the needs of workers and families, believe in something different. They believe the individual has little or no control over events and would help for as long as the economy takes to come back. If the individual truly had little control, evolution would not have been so kind to our species.

The answer in the Responsible Community is taking the benefits of both and addressing the downside of both.

That is for the next blog post.

-----

You can’t do that in a Constitutionally Limited Republic

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a community can’t ban the possession of guns. It is a right that is not only safe guarded specifically in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, it is a right that is guaranteed by the Nine Amendment.

That's right, the Ninth amendment. Even if there wasn’t a Second Amendment, the Ninth states that just because the document listed some of the rights that people have (the Bill of Rights), doesn’t mean it is all the rights that are “retained by the people.”

An argument that could be applied is that if the voters of the community decide they don’t want anyone owning a gun, even for a very good reason, then the government should not have the right to trample on the rights of the voters by declaring the law unconstitutional. That would be absolutely true if we lived in Greece 2,500 years ago. At that time, the form of government was a straight forward democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules absolutely. If one more voter supported the banning of guns than the other side, there would be no guns. And, more importantly, the Supreme Court would have nothing to decided, the voters have spoken.

But, we live in a constitutionally limited republic. The difference from a straight forward democracy is that the majority does get to make the rules but they can’t make rules that violate the rights of the minority without good reason.

In California, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the ban on gay marriage passed by the voters of California is unconstitutional. Charles J. Cooper, the lead counsel defending the ban, said, “The decision whether to redefine the institution of marriage is for the people themselves to make, not a single district court judge…” (1) The attorney seems to believe we are living in a democracy and not a republic.

As stated above, something can't be banned just because a majority of voters support it. In this case, the rights of people who would like to marry, the minority, would be violated. In a constitutionally limited republic, the government can not allow the rights of the minority to be violated without good reason.

The U. S. District Judge made the best ruling possible in the case of marriage.

(1) http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/08/13/news/cops_and_courts/doc4c645dd9dfda6976950235.txt

-----

Interpretation of the Constitution

The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the possibility of amending its wording will take center stage over the next couple of years. The interpretation of the Constitution has always given reason for some passionate debating on both sides. Those that believe in original intent suggest that we should examine the words and culture at the time to find precisely what the authors meant. Those that view the Constitution as a living document would interpret it by applying current community standards. The answer lies in the document itself.

As an example of the shifting community standards and how the Constitution applies we should examine the use of pillory and red lettering as punishment. Judges and juries issued both forms of punishment during the time of the writing of the Constitution. There were no appeals at the time for what would be considered today cruel and unusual.

The Supreme Court at the time didn’t take such cases because the punishments were not usual, if they were cruel. In fact, discussion at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, according to the book “Discussion on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution”, was concern that the form of punishment discussed above and others at the time would be made unconstitutional if it was adopted. But, cases that tested the cruel and unusual clause of the Eight Amendment, didn’t come forward until many years later.

In today’s society both punishments, pillory and red lettering, most likely would be ruled by the Supreme Court to be both cruel and unusual. But, by looking at the original intent, both were not considered unconstitutional at the time. So, what is the reasoning behind declaring both cruel and unusual when it was clear at the time that the authors of the constitution and the legislatures that approved it didn’t think they were?

It is that the authors, in this case specifically and in the entire document with some exceptions, intended the Constitution to be interpreted with some consideration to the contemporary standards. The authors used vague language at times, modifiers, conditional phrases and other things to weave together a document that could be approved at the time and would last more than a few years as did the Articles of Confederation.

In this specific case, they used the terms, “cruel and unusual”. Courts would need to rule that a punishment was both cruel and unusual, as they have throughout history. This would allow the community standards at the time of the writing of the Constitution to stay in place, but, as one debater observed at the time, “if a better way can be created, then so be it.”

When there was full agreement on an issue they wrote in very exacting terms. They didn’t use the same phrasing used in those parts of the Constitution where they were concerned about finding a compromise. The primary example of which is The No Religious Test Clause Article VI, section 3. It would appear that no one had any objection to insuring that no office holder or appointee had to be of a certain religion, or religious at all.

The authors of the document tells us by the words they used how to interpret the Constitution. When they felt strongly about an issue and where able to work without much compromise, they used very clear language. This tells us in itself something even greater than the clarity on the issue the authors were addressing. This tells us that when they were able to and wanted a strict interpretation, they could use clear language. But, when the authors were intending to allow contemporary community standards (and, by extension perhaps, community standards) to have some weight in a decision, they used more vague language that would allow some room to shift the application of the established principles.

There is room in the interpretation of the Constitution to consider contemporary community standards. The authors were smart people that had a lot of experience in hammering together a nation. They know that community standards would shift over time and wrote a document that reflected that.

-----