Gun control and the presidential candidates

Gun control is at times a hot subject in politics, but it is taking a back seat in this Presidential race.  Obama has not taken a direct and strong stand on the issue and Romney has stated that he is a strong supporter of gun rights.  But, the issue has not risen to the top even when we had a couple of big events that have come up in the last few months.

There is no doubt that the Constitution has guaranteed the right for individuals to own and carry guns.  That is true if you believe the document insured that right in a limited way through regulate state militias, or, in the most extreme unlimited way of packing heat anytime, anywhere.  A reading of the Federalist Papers and the documents collected on the debates of the Constitution do not provide any more clarity.  But, one thing is for sure, guns were a part of the frontier life of individuals at the time of the signing of the Constitution.

But, there is another thing for sure.  The Second Amendment, or any of the other amendments for that matter, where not intended to be absolute.  There are reasonable and narrow limits on all the other rights, why should the most volatile of the rights be absolute? 

The Constitution was established for many reasons, but one of the most pressing at the time was that the Articles of Confederation were not working and was not protecting people.  The leadership at the time gathered together in an effort to fix the Articles of Confederation.  But, they found it was best to create a new government.  In the new document that outlined the process of making laws, the Constitution, there were no rights guaranteed.  It was felt that if the government went too far in restricting rights to provide for the safety of the community, the elected officials would be voted out of office and the restrictions would be drawn back.  (This is the reason many at the time believed that voting was more important than all the other rights that could be listed on a piece of paper.) This process created a balance between the freedoms that individuals can practice and the responsibility of the government to protect people.

But, there is a Bill of Rights and all the amendments that have followed over the last two and half centuries.  Also, many rights that are not numerated in the amendments have been carved out to protect an individual’s rights.  These rights, numerated and un-numerated, were added to the Constitution as a base line to guide the legislature, executive and judicial branches not as a proverbial line in the sand. 

There is no argument that can be made, based on the above, that means the ownership, use and possession of guns cannot be limited as long as there is a clear and present danger if action is not taken. 

As stated in the opening, Obama has not taken a direct and strong stand on gun control and Romney made statements in support of gun rights.  Obama having not made a clear statement about his position on gun rights, at the very least, suggests he is in support of reasonable gun control.  Romney, having made his clear statement about the issue, suggests that he is not for reasonable control of guns. 

The Responsible Community supports reasonable gun controls.  The current president, Barack Obama, receives the Responsible Community’s endorsement on this hot issue.

Review of the candidates

Let’s take the next two weeks to review the candidates for President and their parties. 

As a basis, this blog is about individuals and communities.  So, the list of issues that we would compare and contrast the candidates about would be those issues that most impact individuals and the communities they live in.  A review of the blog subjects and the positions taken will provide the basis for the conclusions.

Perhaps the first issue is the candidate’s party affiliation.  It was decided to judge the candidates and their party because it is very clear in America today that the parties have taken more control of the debate on issues.  There was a time in American when those holding office in local, state and national positions were independent in their views and did not always support the party they were affiliated with.  As proof of this and with recognition of the passing of someone that crossed the aisle many times, it is important to mention the recent passing of Arlen Spector, the longtime senator from Pennsylvania.  While Republican in party he was an independent in thinking. Using his own conscience to help him decide on issues and not what the party supporters dictated.

Whoever is president, if the president’s party shares power with him, it is the party that will dictate the position on the issues and how they are addressed.  (I say him here because, unfortunately, it is only men who are running for office.) 

As I have discussed before, it is not likely that Romney will be able to stand up to the powers that support the Republican Party.  That doesn’t mean the leadership; it means those that drive the support and the money behind the party.  If the positions he has taken in the past are any indication, he is a moderate leaning to the right.  He was at one time pro-abortion; he did author the health care law in Massachusetts and did support reasonable control over guns in that state.  But, since he began running for president, he has said himself he is an arch conservative.  If Romney was a stronger man, he would have pulled his party into the middle where most of the voters in America are.  But, instead, he took the money and support of those that hold extreme views on the right.  Now, he is stuck and must continue to support his party’s extremist.

As for Obama, if he wins the election, he will be a lame duck president.  Obama will not need to watch the polls for his own good because he is unable to run again.  Knowing this, the powers of the Democratic Party will do everything they can to have him work on their behalf.  As is with Romney, Obama is a moderate but leaning to the left.  He did preside over the enactment of the health care law, is pro-abortion but has done nothing to restrict guns and other civil rights.  The leadership and supporters of the Democratic Party are left leaning.  Obama will be pulled in that direction. 

After considering the above arguments on both sides, it is believed that both Romney and Obama will be under control of their individual parties more than they should be.  Both candidates receive a pass.

Selling, teaching and building cars

Selling has been my profession for many years.  There are a lot of reasons I like sales, but one of the biggest is the possibility of commissions. The harder I work, the more people I see, the greater the possibility that the big sale will come my way. 

You might ask then, why I am against merit pay and promotions for teachers based on test scores of the children they teach?  Simple answer, the control of my client base is in my control.  Teachers don’t have that some control.  Teachers must deal with whoever is placed in front of them. 

If the prospects on my current list will never make a purchase, I find new prospects to replacement them.  If the people that are buying from me can only spend a small amount of money, I find others that can spend more money.  With some exceptions, if the geographic area that is my territory is economically depressed, I can move away from the territory.  In short, I find a client list that will purchase, that can spend lots of money and in a territory that allows a return.  I then build a long term relationship with them.

Teachers are not able to do that.  If the students in the class are not interested in learning, if they family doesn’t support the children and the community ignores them at best, the teacher can do a lot of things, but she is working against the culture.  The teacher has no control over the family life and the community the kids live in.  Finally, they only have most of the students for nine months of the year.  A new batch clears the old out each school year.  Starting over from scratch is a tough thing to do.

It is like working in a factory building cars.  The people that work in the factory are always blamed if the cars are lemons.  But, in many cases, the material that the parts are made from are bad, the parts will be defective.  The worker assembles the car the best he can, but when the parts are bad, the car will not run like it should – if at all.  Would it be appropriate to reward the workers that assemble cars made from good parts but not the workers who worked just as hard but were provided defective parts?
Don’t take any of this the wrong way.  It is not my intention to let bad teachers off the hook.  I worked with schools professionally for six years as a public relations director.  There is nothing more frustrating for administrators then teachers that don’t care and do nothing to improve their methods.  Administrations work with them for as long as they can, then find ways to get them out of the classroom. 

Every teacher should work as hard as they can to get the interest of the kids they are given and get them to learn.  Over 90% of them do just that.  But, without the control of the product, you can’t make judgments about the teacher.

Romney will not be able to control the agenda

In the last post, I suggest that Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, is not strong enough to hold back the extreme conservative agenda.  As if custom made, the Todd Akin issue offers proof of my case.  While the issue is much deeper than just Todd Atkin’s comments on Fox News, Romney was not able to get Atkin to back down for the best of the party (and the country for that matter.)

Atkin is just one of the extreme conservative representatives and senators that will be running the government if Romney wins.

Oh, and more on Atkin and the abortion issue in the next post.

More concerned with the right than with Romney

Romney’s problem with the Responsible Community isn’t so much his stance on the issues, we all know them. (well, we know them today, perhaps they will change tomorrow.)  He is against abortion, medical marijuana, wants less restrictions on guns, less restrictions on the financial industry, he will change Medicare in ways that will harm the coverage for some in the short term and many in the long and says he will do away with the health care act.

The problem is the unknowns.  If Romney wins in the fall, he will bring with him a Republican majority in the senate and the house will maintain its majority.  This will empower Romney to enact many of his proposals for the economy and the culture.

But, it will not stop there.

If Romney wins the Presidency and sweeps in Republicans, they will be controlled by the Tea Party or the extreme right.  Evidence of this is the amount of Republicans that are winning in the primaries right now that are supported by the Tea Party and other conservative groups.  Many of these individuals do not understand running on the right as a position and governing from the center.

Every extreme idea will be built into almost every piece of legislation that passes.  Even if the riders have nothing to do with the original bill.  Romney, someone who has switched positions on almost every issue, will be powerless to stop them.  Not because they will such a strong force, of which they will of course, but because he will be weak to stand up to them.  He will want to run for a second term and will need their support.

That would not be bad for those that agree with the positions that Romney holds in the first paragraph.  But, you have to ask yourself, how far right are you willing to go?

States can't have it both ways

States can’t have it both ways when it comes to DNA evidence and other modern law enforcement tools.  They use it for all cases that are relevant or not.

Law enforcement officers in Maryland arrested Alonzo Jay King, Jr. on an assault charge.  The state requires that people arrested for certain crimes have a DNA sample taken.  It was later found that his DNA matched a sample found during a rape investigation of a cold case from a few years early.  Alonzo, partially based on the DNA evidence, was convicted of the rape.

Alonzo’s lawyer contested the evidence on the grounds that it was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.  The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

After moving through the state courts, a Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with Alonzo and overturned the conviction on the rape.

Chief Justice John Roberts was watching the case.  The chief justice after conferring with the other judges on the court placed the lower court ruling on hold.  Roberts believes it is a case that is likely to be taken up by the court when its term begins in October.

Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler said in a statement that he applauded the chief justice’s decision.  Gansler said it allows the state “the uninterrupted use of this critical modern law enforcement tool” that helps authorities solve crimes. Since Gansler wants to continue using “modern law enforcement tools” to solve crimes, he will file an application to the high court in August to overturn the lower court ruling.

There are two issues in this case that is important.  The first is the obvious Fourth Amendment issue that asks if evidence from one case can be used in the investigation of another case.  Keep in mind, the DNA sample taken from Alonzo on the assault charge is legal.  It is important to identify an individual charged with a crime and match it against any evidence found on the crime scene.  This would be no different than taking finger prints, or for that matter, a photograph.  This evidence, once collected, is now part of the public domain.  If police have DNA evidence of the suspect, they should be able to use it just like finger prints or a photograph.

But, there is a paradoxical problem here.  It isn’t about using collected evidence from one case to identify a suspect in another.  It is about using “modern law enforcement tools” as the attorney general of the state of Maryland said, to help solve crimes.

If government is tasked with any job, it is to protect individuals living in the community.  The obvious task is to protect individuals from other people that may do them harm.   But, it is also to protect individuals from the system.  Communities need to also be sure that a suspect is the correct person, even after conviction.

Before DNA testing as a modern law enforcement tool was widely available, samples were not collected from individuals or from other evidence discovered by the investigating authorities.  In most cases, it can now be collected, even from much smaller samples then previous thought.  Some people that have been convicted of a crime are asking the states to use DNA testing on the evidence used to convict them.  But, in many cases, states have refused to or would only conduct the testing if forced to by the courts.

States claim that there must be certainty in a conviction.  The theory is that since the cases were prosecuted with the best resources available at the time, the conviction should stand.  That any review opens up the community to an endless drain on resources that could be better used to pursue current cases.

But, that is the paradox.  Prosecutors may not want to reopen cases that ended in a conviction, but there is no prosecutor, that wouldn’t reopen a cold case if DNA could be used to enhance the evidence.  (That is exactly what happened here.)  If they are willing to use modern law enforcement tools to reopen cold cases they should also use it to re-assure the community that they have the right person in prison.

As a community, we start with the presumption of innocence to anyone that is the focus of a criminal investigation and prosecution.  (The phrase presumption of innocence, by the way, is not used in the Constitution.)  After conviction, there is no reason that when new evidence presents itself by advancements in law enforce tools we should not at least give the benefit of the doubt to the individual.

Chick-fil-A

Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-a could have ducked and weaved his way around questions about his support of “Biblical” definitions of marriage.  But, instead he chose to stand his ground saying he doesn’t support gay marriage.  Well, good for him.  At least he has the guts to support his convictions.

Many around the web are now asking for a boycott of the Chick-fil-A restaurants across the nation.  There are a few locations in Michigan.  The response has been polarizing as you can imagine.  Others say that Cathy should be supported because he stands his ground and doesn’t hide in public relations no man’s land.  To boycott the restaurant is to be against free speech. 

But, Cathy made it an issue.  Those that will boycott the restaurant would perhaps have never known about the support provided to anti-gay groups either by the company or Cathy himself.  Their hard earned dollars would have continued to be spent at the restaurant so that some of those dollars could work against them.  It is almost like buying the gun that will shoot you.

But, the great issue here has nothing to do with Cathy’s support of anything.  It has everything to do with the political PACs that spend billions of dollars in political races throwing around a lot trash talk that isn’t supported. 

How is it that I can make that connection?  This seems a long ways away from keeping your name or your company’s name out of the political arena but spending lots of money to influence elections that will benefit you.  Can you see the connection now?

If the name of every person and company was known who donated to a political PAC, it would place a target on their company sales.  People who have a pet political agenda would boycott the companies because of its support of an opposing agenda.  But, companies can give money and other material support to organizations that are not required to provide a list of where the money comes from.  Unlike Cathy, many hide behind this wall of silence.

This is all the result of Supreme Court rulings.  It struck down campaign laws on the federal level and recently struck down laws on the state level that required full disclosure.  Even arguably the most conservative justice on the court disagreed with the ruling.  Anthony Scalia as recently as today during an interview with National Public Radio said that to understand political speech you must know who is speaking. 

In a community, an open discussion of the issues is important.  To have some that are involved in the discussion to be unknown is in violation of the political process.  We all condemned the “decisions made in smoked filled rooms behind closed doors” of many years ago.  Well, by not knowing who the supporters are of any speech means we are right back there. 

I am glad that Cathy has the guts to support his convictions.  I will have the guts also to not visit my local Chick-Fil-A for lunch, just because of his public announcements.  This is the way the process is suppose to work.