Rats!: “Giant Inflatable Rat Has Free Speech Rights”* and probably has had more to say than the anonymous average voter on election day choosing between candidates who are members of one of the two major political parties. The rat in the story is a 10-foot tall symbol of a labor dispute. The upshot is, after lower court wrangling, and an appeals court affirmation of a labor official’s fine, the state supreme court found that the law “was unconstitutional. It said an ordinance ‘that prohibits a union from displaying a rat balloon, while at the same time authorizing a similar display as part of a grand opening, is content-based.’ ” Ah-ha, the typical 10-foot inflatable rat balloon ordinance. I thought so. Finding something unconstitutional these days is more prevalent than insisting on political correctness. It is getting to the point now where a polite Egyptian sumo wrestling asp with a weak metabolism could, in a panel of deadly snakes, decide that consuming rats whole, even inflatable ones, is unconstitutional . . . for reasons, according the rat, that consist primarily of the rat thinking that immortality is Constitutional- quite a healthy survival instinct.
Leadership is action not position: At least Obama gets that. “ ‘The American people are watching,’ Obama said. ‘They did not send us here to get bogged down with the same old delay and distractions. They did not vote for the false theories of the past. They did not vote for the status quo—they sent us here to bring change, and we owe it to them to act.’ ” Speaking of rats- I give you the 111th congress. In their prostrate form, they are being consumed whole by the snake of faction, with both sides ineffectively playing dead, much like collections of Americans in ages gone by whether those Americans were a set of elected officials, say from the 110th congress, or those considering whether to Join (to unite and act in what came to be known as the French and Indian War) or Die. Ben Franklin drew a political cartoon of a snake cut into segments symbolizing the defeat that would surely follow should the colonies not combine forces.
Inaction- a pandemic: We know that within one iteration or another of the stimulus bill are things like smoking prevention programs or expenditures to “combat a future pandemic flu outbreak.” Spending millions or billions on such measures will not make Americans happy with what has been labeled all along as a stimulus bill. Even those who would be left to assume someone’s job, who perished because of the flu pandemic, would not be happy with the state of the economy if 1.25% raises became the norm for the next three years. My employer has let it be known, in order to manage our expectations, that the raises are going to be in the 2% range, give or take. So, congress must act soon and must ration out/remove the illogical provisions to counteract their normal dormancy when it comes to legislating. I can spend my 2% raise on health insurance, gas, school for my kids, heat, a lawnmower, or in case my daughter, who I have to tell to stop riding the vacuum cleaner, contracts a third instance of a double ear infection within the same calendar year, and who would then need antibiotics. I do not want to spend my stellar 2% raise on a liberal’s idea of artistic merit worth promoting, fostering, developing or keeping, or my tax break peace of mind eradicated because the Washington idealists want to build in 5 more months of the analog television equivalent of groundhog day determining that we need more time to prepare for digital television. Go spend your idealism someplace else. If you don’t have cable or haven’t acquired or used your $40 voucher on a digital tv conversion box by now, it is likely because you are trying to keep gators off of the davenport you refer to as looking "sharp" in the front yard.
Sharp: chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said that the white house was not “ ‘sharp enough’ in emphasizing the benefits of the bill as Republicans began to criticize spending on items such as family planning services, anti-smoking programs and reseeding the National Mall.”** Rahm, you would not have to be sharp to explain the economic merits of anti-smoking programs and grass seed, your detractors would have to be so dim and dull that they think Salmonella is the bitch/female of a prized fish species that can be poached, fried, grilled, or broiled and not an illness contracted by a brand of peanut butter named after a Disney character- Peter Pan. Wait, wait- I’m crossing paths with my peanut butter salmonella outbreaks. The Peter Pan incident occurred in 2007. The current strain has been traced to a brand named- King Nut.*** FYI- this (King Nut) is also Emanuel’s new name, if he thinks, in all his brilliance, he could have nuanced the language enough to pacify those who have decided increasing the size of their family because they cannot afford it, given the types of things that were included in the stimulus bill. Presently, Emanuel is searching for that asp I alluded to above to serve all of his ambiguity needs- that is if Madison and Hamilton are done with it (see below). Rahm, you’re lucky you did such a poor job of telling us the merits of National Mall reseeding programs- if your daughter was afraid of bugs, would you point out the fly on her shirt?
Buy American: One stipulation in the stimulus bill made me quite pleased until I remembered that the bill that was passed had only made it through the house and that the America-well-being-butchers hadn’t carved it up by bogging it down with provisions subject to international trade agreements- in short, by not ACTING with America's best interests at heart. The most noteworthy provision, of the Buy American clauses within the house passed version of the stimulus bill was the requirement mandating that only American steel is to be used.
Short poem:
Like I wrote last time, albeit less poetically:
politicians most fail us, it is a proven fact,
nowhere else as when they Fail To Act.
Softened hardening: The house of representatives passed its version of the stimulus bill stating that “only U.S.-produced iron and steel be used for construction” unless it is priced 25% more expensively than the going rate elsewhere. After the house version of the stimulus bill was passed, it went to the senate whose international trade agreement hard-liners took a defiant stance against the “Buy American” language in the bill. Former presidential candidate John McCain wanted to “strip” that kind of language completely from the bill. Boy am I glad I did not vote for him. Senators decided to “keep the provision in place while ensuring it respects international treaties.” So, we want to ensure that America gets out of this recession while placating everyone else in the world, which could pretty much prevent that very hope. That is a little like intending to clean the house by removing each toy from the floor, and commanding yourself to forget to pick up a hundred jacks at the bottom of the stairs and then allowing someone to convince you that you must jump on them each time you come down the stairs.
Floatation devices and oxygen masks: If this country is in such dire straits that a stimulus bill in the neighborhood of$800 billion is proposed, introduced, debated, voted on and passed, shouldn't it attend most to the country's needs that passed it? We are told on our airline passages that if the need arises, such as in a crash situation, we are to secure our own oxygen masks first, prior to assisting our children with theirs. Next, the other countries playing hardball with the international trade agreement provisions will tell us to use ourselves as floatation devices.
Buy American . . . or not: “The White House and many U.S. trading partners—including its largest, Canada—want lawmakers to craft their bills in a way that they don’t run afoul of international trade agreements.”**** A couple weeks ago my son used an Elmer’s glue stick on his sister’s lips, luckily the bonding properties aren’t as effective as when two pieces of paper are getting stuck together. It is unclear if my son considered the ramifications (and by ramifications, I mean benefit) of gluing anyone’s lips closed. Mr. Emanuel apparently wouldn’t either (see above). However, I do. I see both the benefit of me gluing my own fingers together in order to discontinue this blog saga and the benefit of gluing some of the more “principled” senator’s brain nerve endings to keep them from worrying about our neighbors international trade agreement concerns. The only time I would worry about what my neighbors were doing is if I heard a lot of yelling, a gunshot went off or if the stench from the 118 cats they own started coming in my kitchen window. The last time I saw a trade agreement run more afoul was when two of my friends were trading baseball cards on the back step; one threatened never to play with the other again if he didn’t make a ridiculously unfair deal. The threatened friend’s mother was watching from the screen door and overheard this ultimatum. In this scenario Canada will be playing the role of the out of line baseball card trafficker and we’ll just imagine that the American politicians who should be playing the role of the arbitration judge/mother simply walk away and decide not to protect their own son. I may have been 8 or 9 at the time. Our government is 220 years old- and I have just two words for its conciliatory manner- GROW UP!
Oh-bama: “President Obama ‘wants to ensure that any legislation that passes is consistent with trade agreements and doesn’t signal a change in our overall stance on trade.’ ” (from the buy American article) Boy am I glad I didn’t vote for him. So, you cave to the European Commission and the Canadians when they whine about probable trade agreement violations, and you allow “lawmakers from Pennsylvania Indiana and elsewhere” to include tax relief to those who purchase motorcycles and recreational vehicles (from the Dems power stimulus bill article- see above). Yes, collectively, you politicians are so good at what you do. I told my son that he couldn’t lick a butter knife until he was at least ten for fear that he wouldn’t be good at it. We keep complaining that lawmakers aren’t very good at what they do, but we keep telling them they can do it by voting for them every 2, 4, or 6 years. You wonder at this portion of the argument? Consider the possibility of a person, in these economic times, well-off enough to purchase a recreational vehicle when you have to save for a new roof, for which the government has not provided you any tax relief, unless it falls under the weatherization provision that still may be in the version of the bill Obama has signed.
ECONOMY, STIMULUS AND BREAST IMPLANT REGULATIONS
Implants: This economy is so bad a man stabbed his ex-girlfriend six times for the breast implants he paid for. Ok, so the reason given for the action wasn’t because of the economy. (See “Witness: Man Stabbed Ex to Reclaim Implants”- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28926834/.)
My enemy, my friend: “Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that such an intrusion into the internal decision of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector’s recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermined performance-based pay.” I hate to break it to the economic intelligentsia, but the vast number of CEOs in the news are not paid based on performance or they would owe their employer money. Every other employee, salaried or not, is paid based on their performance, subjectively analyzed by inferior superiors in some cases, and sometimes determined by the country’s economic conditions, and for some reason, the most egregiously compensated employees should be those who, it can be proven, do the most harm to the companies that pay for their services (i.e. CEOs). Yes, it is scary to be an advocate of more government involvement in the affairs of free men. But that is just what comforts me, that I am so desperate to improve the boundlessness of the rich that I am willing to engage the services of a quite dysfunctional entity (the government), as I have related about 500 times over the course of this never ending story. They say- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. A python would befriend a mongoose if it helped keep the cobra from eating all of its rats . . . of the non-inflatable variety.
Take it to the bank: The story- “Top Bankers Face Grilling by Dubious Congress” msnbc.com, February 11, 2009. Barney Frank said to them: "I urge you going forward to be ungrudgingly cooperative . . . There has to be a sense of the American people that you understand their anger ... and that you're willing to make some sacrifices to get this working."
Prior to the hearing New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo had “accused Merrill Lynch & Co. executives of corporate irresponsibility by secretly and prematurely awarding $3.6 billion in bonuses as taxpayers were bailing out the industry.” (See- “Bankers to Appear Before a Dubious Congress” Associated Press, February 11, 2009.) The one thing I would say in defense of the loan industry giants well represented in those congressional hearings is that if the purse strings are loosened to allow for a number of loans that ordinarily would not have been made for various, but transparent, documented and justifiable reasons, won’t we have the same problem we had when the Clinton administration asked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ease the credit requirements for prospective loan recipients- see part 36. What I’m contending is that congress, may end up forcing the financial institutions to make, in theory, what would be less than ideal loans, and perhaps some bad ones. Given the number of people who might need a loan, but who may not have a job in six months because of a stimulus bill that may not create or sustain as many jobs as anyone would like- isn’t that bad congressional policy? And where in the Constitution does it read that members of congress can lecture the banking industry when it is the lack of regulations that have provided us with so much economic turmoil, regulations that congress has repeatedly, collectively been against?
Unconstitutional: Isn’t it Unconstitutional for congress to enumerate their own powers, forcing policy improvement on business conducted in the private sector? Congress has been complicit in their lack of providing a regulatory authority to the business dealings of the financial corporations, among others- ensuring their self-righteousness is not well founded.
Commerce: Last time I included a few clauses showing how meaningless certain aspects of the Constitution still are. In 1936 the Supreme Court “struck down a key element of the New Deal’s regulation of the mining industry, on the grounds that mining was not ‘commerce’ ”. Any chance that massive tax shelters for corporations that have obtained their wealth by business dealings would also not be considered commerce? Perhaps a case brought forward by the American people could reach the Supreme Court. I don’t follow the Supreme Court daily news, but I doubt such regulation would be allowed or appreciated by the majority of businesses or the politicians who stand to benefit from certain business’s financial health. Similarly, “Many elected officials, financial experts, industry groups and consumer advocates agree there is a need for a ‘systemic risk’ regulator that would watch for threats to the health of the financial system and that there is no clear alternative to empowering the Fed.” (See- “Fed May Win Sweeping Financial Oversight” Neil Irwin and Binyamin Appelbaum, WashingtonPost.com, January 26, 2009.) I don’t know that lending institutions could be said to engage in business dealings broadly classified as “commerce” even if they loaned money to a business for the purpose of purchasing something they could write off on their capital gains tax. So, how would the Fed or the Supreme Court feel entitled, or legally certified, to so regulate the financial institutions? I applaud the notion and support the enactment of any law or Constitutional amendment providing those powers, but the two instances (the 1936 case and our current economic situation- corporation tax withholding) seem at odds with each other. It is a little known fact that the members of the Supreme Court are in place to support the writings of the Constitution with their decisions. The prospect of the Supreme Court overstepping its bounds in the area of legislating commerce clauses from the bench is more exciting than being a spectator along the parade route and of witnessing a Brazilian samba dancer setting a carnival record by sporting a 1.2 inch honey patch cloth over her vajay-jay. Ok, maybe not AS exciting. (See- “Dancer Sets Carnival Record for Baring Nearly All” Associated Press, February 23, 2009; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29353376?GT1=43001.) If I am removed from my current job, I may have to get an application to become the guy who gets to measure and keep the records of the shortest honey-patch cover.
Economic turmoil: See “Government to Back $306 Billion in Citi Loans” Associated Press, November 24, 2008 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27877195/). The article tells of how the government planned to rescue Citigroup by “taking a $20 billion stake in the firm as well as guaranteeing hundreds of billions of dollars in risky assets. . . ‘With these transactions, the U.S. government is taking the actions necessary to strengthen the financial system and protect U.S. taxpayers and the U.S. economy,’ ” by making the same mistakes it did at the close of the last decade (ala the already referenced Clinton administration’s aggressive lending requests of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). This congressional mandate of financial institutions to float more loans to borrowers with suspect credit or repayment ability makes me nervous and I remember being more pleased when my son was teaching my daughter how to jump off of the furniture.
Top dogs: A mother of three, who lost her job in October 2008 said: “ ‘The same people at the top are still there, the same people who made the decisions causing a lot of our financial crisis . . . but that’s what tends to happen in leadership. The people at the top, there’s always some other place to lay blame.’ ” (from the article “AP: 9 in 10 Execs at Bailout Banks Remain on Job” Associated Press, January 7, 2009- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28869701/). Things may have improved some since the time of the Robber Barons, prior to the 1911 anti-trust legislation, but we still have a way to go and appear to have a current crop of robbers nationalizing a rather expensive variety of economic co-insurance- for the heads of financial institutions- who are making the rest of us sick. The middle class’ portion of the bailout/co-payment is draining us of any chance at fiscal health. I am more convinced of this than of how necessary it is for Hom furniture to offer a free in home rug trial if they want to increase sales.
Taking sides: One may wonder- “whose side are you on?” I have advocated for increased transparency of most everything the government does, primarily in the area of the allocation of our tax money and government waste and have feared the government taking sole control (via the Fed) over things like the regulation of the banking industry. I made comments above that should leave us guarded about the government breathing too heavily down the necks of the banking industry, requiring the latter to make loans to people who have questionable credit or a job that may not financially sustain them, considering they would have a loan to repay. I am not on either side. The government and the business sector deserve themselves. There should be transparency without micromanagement, assurances without threats, and a demonstrated responsibility on the part of both business leaders and politicians without complicity.***** Again, just as in the other diametrically opposed issues, such as whether we should drill in ANWR or invest everything in alternative energy resources; let in all illegals or none; insure all of the 47 million Americans without health insurance or none; contend that an Indian boy, who grew a tooth on his upper gum, should marry a dog to protect him from tiger attacks or stay single for a few years to be sacrificed in a real matrimonial service where a true exchange of a dowry does not involve a milk biscuit;****** or vote just for republicans and democrats or vote for independents, the correct path to middle class economic health for subsequent generations lies somewhere between the two extremes in just about every case or issue I have investigated. There are more than two sides to every story, especially when the two sides are overly insistent, and desperately hope, their side is right. And I'm talking about a level of desperation reminiscient of a helium balloon, poverty stricken for the sky, and one very filled with hot air.
THE CONSTITUTION, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Long and short of it: My copy of The Federalist Papers consists of 449 pages written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay in defense of the Constitution which appears on just 20 pages within the same volume. I do not propose that the latter come nearer in scope to the former to confuse or unnecessarily elongate said document so that eighth grade survey of history students will hate me for generations for having more text to learn about. It is simply that the aforementioned founding document is woefully incomplete. Twain, Steinbeck, Kafka, Ellison and Dickens all left unfinished novels at their death; the three men heading this paragraph, there is no evidence to the contrary, added provisions within the document instituting a laissez faire approach to the improvement that has gone relatively unaltered in 220 years- nearly half of what has been added since 1791 (after the bill of rights, which apparently should never have been left out in the first place), is the spacing between the subsequently added amendments. Their is no protection against our giving the Constitution a bit of a Code Red. Please watch "A Few Good Men" one more time- to see if you can handle the truth.
Constitutional democracy: Walter F. Murphy, “Constitutional Democracy: Creating and Maintaining a Just Political Order” (2007) writes that: “The fairness of constitutional changes deeply troubled Jefferson. His solution was to allow each generation to write a new basic charter. During the debates on ratification, Noah Webster put the point bluntly. ‘[T]the very attempt to make perpetual constitutions is the assumption of a right to control the opinions of future generations; and to legislate for those over whom we have as little authority as we have over a nation in Asia.’ ” It seems that Madison was deeply against continual alterations of the cherished document. And here I thought Madison was the reasonable one. Madison, I love ya, but keeping the Constitution completely intact through even one more generation makes about as much sense as encouraging a bolemic narwhal afflicted with meningitis to only practice his sky-diving when there is a rather extreme cross-wind. Edmund Burke wrote- “[A] nation without the means of its own reform is without the means of its own preservation.” There are other quotes I could include here, but I am over budget on this installment; I am over budget if dollars equate to words.
The ratified Constitution: In the version of The Federalist Papers I have quoted from, the ratified Constitution of 1789, prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, consisted of just 11 pages. The Bill of Rights was added two years later, was hotly debated prior to the ratification of the Constitution, with many personages and states insistent that the Bill of Rights be included or they would vote against it. Only after promises were made that the Constitution could be amended, did certain founders elect to vote in favor of its passage. The Bill of Rights was in the process of being introduced, deliberated upon and voted on, almost immediately following the Constitution’s ratification. The anti-Federalists were strongly opposed to voting on a document without a list of citizen rights included; one man, who was not an anti-Federalist- Alexander Hamilton. Shocking!
The Federalist No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton: In the 84th installment******* of The Federalist Papers, Hamilton defends the absence of the Bill of Rights, in what is among the longest of the papers- nearly ten pages, five of which concern Hamilton's justification of the absence of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. Hamilton wrote that “the constitutions of the several states”, including New York, do not have a Bill of Rights; that the New York Constitution “contains in the body of it various provisions in favour of particular privileges and rights, which in substance amount to the same thing”; and that “the constitution adopts in their full extent the common and statute law of Great-Britain, by which many other rights not expressed in it are equally secured.” Hamilton then refers objectors to Articles I and III of the Constitution for a number of inquiries into a citizen’s rights. I would much rather this lost and found approach to the enumerated rights of the citizen were codified in one location so as to avoid confusion and in so doing, if you are going to enumerate them in one place, expand upon the freedoms and limitations of those for whom they are intended if you are the author charged with accounting for them. Hamilton, in the same number, relates “that the bill of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted, and on this account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted.” Unfortunately, he was right, more or less. It isn’t just because they were included that things have gone awry- it is because they are dreadfully incomplete and counting on the jurisdiction of state constitutions or laws providing the specificity has not seemed to help. The ambiguity, particularly of the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) has provided many a criminal, white collar and blue collar, countless opportunities to claim freedoms not enumerated by the founders.
Right: Hamilton asks rhetorically (as he always knows the answer): “Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government?” I think Hamilton’s answer to that question was no, so is mine. A separate document might have been called for, despite the fact that the Constitution is a contractual agreement with the people and its representatives. People, it is time to renegotiate. We have libraries full of codified laws in each state, a United States Code with thousands and thousands of annotations, refutations, claims, cross references, notes of all kinds from judges rulings, decisions, counter claims, motions, etc. There are appellate, district, and state supreme courts for each state where said judges must interpret the codified legislation. I have agreed with Hamilton only infrequently before, but I actually agree that including an inferior, simplified, ambiguous, subjectively interpreted set of principles was a mistake unless you are going to modify it in the future. I have already looked into the general make-up of the Constitutional Amendments- see part 20, but I have cause for doing so further. Truth is, they have amended some Constitutional Amendments quite often by specifying particulars- which created the precedent, for all of those precedent-loving Constitutionalists. The 21st Amendment, repealed the 18th (prohibition); the 17th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd and 25th amendments all concern aspects of the federal government not initially enumerated within the original Constitution and do not address any legal citizen rights, but rather touch upon a politician’s right to hold office, run for office, or how the legislative bodies are populated. Six times, (amendments 12, 14, 15, 19, 24, 26) an amendment to the Constitution has addressed voting rights, which are all improvements to the vague language included in the first amendment, by making the clauses more particular, altering what was deficient verbiage, or making a citizen’s rights more explicit, giving different sexes or races greater, more well-intentioned freedoms than they had formerly. After most added amendments, congress has been granted the exclusive power of enforcing the amendment which has been passed. I know this because it pretty much says, in English, in subsequent sections/clauses of the approved amendments- “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Is there appropriate legislation in the offing any time soon?
Appropriate legislation: . . . is needed for . . . because:
Amendment I- (freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, etc.) so that anyone running for office or seeking to financially support anyone running for office cannot maintain that the freedom to over-fund a politician is an extension of our freedom of speech rights. Also, I would limit the length of money which can be spent on an election (see part 20) and how long an election is allowed to last; all of those would now be considered unconstitutional, but all are necessary for the appeasement of the middle class citizens of this nation, whether they have considered it or not. I would still seek to allow inflatable rats their freedom of speech, but not on Constitutional grounds- that might actually seem weird;
Amendment II- (right to keep and bear arms) so that we definitively know who can and cannot carry a loaded weapon into a shopping mall, to the park, etc. considering they are not members of “A well regulated Militia”;
Amendment IV- (rights prohibiting searches and seizures) so that we can search someone like Bernie Madhoff’s home for precious jewels he is protecting, and dispersing to friends and family while he is under house arrest for costing thousands of people their life savings;
Amendment V- (right not to incriminate oneself) so that presidents of peanut manufacturing corporations cannot refuse to implicate themselves, even after having ordered the release of a known diseased batch of peanuts, swimming in salmonella, which have been linked to the deaths of multiple people ; the sheer volume of criminals who have hidden behind this amendment would save us millions in court costs and hours of time spent watching Court TV, so that we could watch Hollywood Access or Nancy Grace instead;
Amendment VI- (right to speedy trial) so that the term “speedy” might be defined, which might assist the millions of taxpayers from paying the excessive court costs of litigation that drags on for years, and so that the verbiage which protects citizens from paying the court costs of those bringing frivolous lawsuits before the court (see part 37);
Amendment IX- (reference to enumerated prohibitions, maintained individual rights) add some provisions which restrict the present carte blanche freedoms due to non-enumerated rights, so that those proposing to gain an advantage either despite, or because of, their ignorance or their actual or feigned naivete will use one of the other unamended rights to pretend their innocence in the face of an overwhelming state of their probable guilt. This one is perhaps the most dubiously ambiguous of all of the amendments. It reads- “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” I believe this is an aspect of what Hamilton meant when he wrote about the inclusion of a bill of rights being “dangerous.” This amendment allows immigrants from claiming rights not many natural born citizens would declare, not even those who have recently delivered eight children, and not any shameless second generation Corsican mole crickets with a stuttering problem would eventually admit to.
Amendment X- (state’s rights) so that the states would not feel so empowered by the lack of identified prohibitions within the federal Constitution, to go ahead and not pass immigration legislation, pass unified health care legislation, educational standards legislation, commerce legislation, pass legislation to improve the landscape of businesses promising X number of jobs to states in exchange for tax breaks or other concessions, shore up the right to vote in primaries so that the rights are consistent across states.
The best reason given to decide not to amend the Constitution, based on the above list of proposed improvements, can no longer be- because it is Unconstitutional!
Proposed amendments: These are the proposed amendments to the second most important of our founding documents. Anyone who disputes the ordering of the Declaration of Independence as the first, has not read enough history. Surely the second (the Constitution) would not even exist if not for the Declaration that put all the lives of the proponents, their loved ones, their property, their earthly possessions and their peace of mind on trial.
Bill of Rights stimulus: It is strange that as many founders who argued on behalf of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights could not get it included as the Constitution was being ratified. That an enumerated list of such necessary evils (if you take my meaning from the above list, though the founders could never have assumed our generation's collective creativity in the law-breaking area) was not included, and by its absence could have ensured that the Constitution not be approved by the majority, is a lesson to today’s politicians, especially to the democrats who have spent a lot of president Obama’s political capital by including their social agenda items in an economic stimulus bill. Let me say that again- the Bill of Rights was not originally included in the Constitution, but a $50 million pandemic flu research allocation survived within the stimulus bill.
Foundation: People do not buy houses; marriages, relationships, friendships and alliances dissolve, and the complexions of renowned or infamous people are ridiculed if the foundation******** is weak or non-existent either at the outset or in due course of time. Propose to improve upon the serviceable language in the Constitution and you are considered unpatriotic by some who went to law school and think they are the equivalent of a knight templar and have read Dan Brown’s “The DaVinci Code” too many times. There are two fixes for a weak foundation, and coincidentally for a weak constitution there are only three. Support a foundation or constitution by stabilizing the structure in place, adding support, building it up, strengthening it by locating its weaknesses and fortifying it against decay, age, and the onslaught of those who claim an advantage through its debilitation, fragility and Achilles Heels. The other fix for the foundation or one’s constitution (thinking about what the military does to its enlisted men) is to tear it down and begin again. The third fix (for a weak constitution, as differentiated from a decrepit foundation) is a lot of medication, or a wedgie given to suspects who intend others harm or those who would inveigle themselves of more rights than were ever intended, but never enumerated within the Constitution proper, I forget which. One thing is for certain- we no longer have a proper Constitution. (See- “Woman Wields Wedgie to Subdue Suspect” Associated Press, February 17, 2009.)
Why?: This paragraph has nothing to do with the Eurythmics song- I would feel more confident about that if I were comfortable selecting a result from a Google search about lyrics to a song- the last time I did that my computer contracted the George Michael Virus. Why do I talk about hoped-for changes to the constitution and belabor changes to the private market’s hiding of taxable income in off-shore accounts, worry about the elimination of “Buy American” clauses from the stimulus bill and complain about millions of dollars in expenditures to things that many fear will not stimulate the economy? How can all that concern subsequent generations of middle class citizens? Because all of those things, if completely reversed from their current status would benefit the nation’s largest voting group which appears to wield the least political power. Fewer taxes or middle class tax breaks benefit the middle class; forcing corporations to disclose their overseas maneuvers and taxing them on income derived from American consumers or other American corporations will benefit the middle class; Buy American clauses benefit the middle class; proposed and actual Constitutional Amendments benefit the middle class because a candidate, republican or democrat, or conservative or liberal talking heads or corporate CEOs cannot hide behind the first amendment, or the fifth amendment or the twelfth amendment for that matter and all of that benefits the middle class because it forces transparency, reality, responsibility, and integrity upon our elected officials and all who derive an income from the people’s tax money.
You are saved- I was about to include a rather large section about Hamilton that actually would not have directly had a connection to the subject matter. What can I say, all I do is give.
Proposed amendments: These are the proposed amendments to the second most important of our founding documents. Anyone who disputes the ordering of the Declaration of Independence as the first, has not read enough history. Surely the second (the Constitution) would not even exist if not for the Declaration that put all the lives of the proponents, their loved ones, their property, their earthly possessions and their peace of mind on trial.
Bill of Rights stimulus: It is strange that as many founders who argued on behalf of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights could not get it included as the Constitution was being ratified. That an enumerated list of such necessary evils (if you take my meaning from the above list, though the founders could never have assumed our generation's collective creativity in the law-breaking area) was not included, and by its absence could have ensured that the Constitution not be approved by the majority, is a lesson to today’s politicians, especially to the democrats who have spent a lot of president Obama’s political capital by including their social agenda items in an economic stimulus bill. Let me say that again- the Bill of Rights was not originally included in the Constitution, but a $50 million pandemic flu research allocation survived within the stimulus bill.
Foundation: People do not buy houses; marriages, relationships, friendships and alliances dissolve, and the complexions of renowned or infamous people are ridiculed if the foundation******** is weak or non-existent either at the outset or in due course of time. Propose to improve upon the serviceable language in the Constitution and you are considered unpatriotic by some who went to law school and think they are the equivalent of a knight templar and have read Dan Brown’s “The DaVinci Code” too many times. There are two fixes for a weak foundation, and coincidentally for a weak constitution there are only three. Support a foundation or constitution by stabilizing the structure in place, adding support, building it up, strengthening it by locating its weaknesses and fortifying it against decay, age, and the onslaught of those who claim an advantage through its debilitation, fragility and Achilles Heels. The other fix for the foundation or one’s constitution (thinking about what the military does to its enlisted men) is to tear it down and begin again. The third fix (for a weak constitution, as differentiated from a decrepit foundation) is a lot of medication, or a wedgie given to suspects who intend others harm or those who would inveigle themselves of more rights than were ever intended, but never enumerated within the Constitution proper, I forget which. One thing is for certain- we no longer have a proper Constitution. (See- “Woman Wields Wedgie to Subdue Suspect” Associated Press, February 17, 2009.)
Why?: This paragraph has nothing to do with the Eurythmics song- I would feel more confident about that if I were comfortable selecting a result from a Google search about lyrics to a song- the last time I did that my computer contracted the George Michael Virus. Why do I talk about hoped-for changes to the constitution and belabor changes to the private market’s hiding of taxable income in off-shore accounts, worry about the elimination of “Buy American” clauses from the stimulus bill and complain about millions of dollars in expenditures to things that many fear will not stimulate the economy? How can all that concern subsequent generations of middle class citizens? Because all of those things, if completely reversed from their current status would benefit the nation’s largest voting group which appears to wield the least political power. Fewer taxes or middle class tax breaks benefit the middle class; forcing corporations to disclose their overseas maneuvers and taxing them on income derived from American consumers or other American corporations will benefit the middle class; Buy American clauses benefit the middle class; proposed and actual Constitutional Amendments benefit the middle class because a candidate, republican or democrat, or conservative or liberal talking heads or corporate CEOs cannot hide behind the first amendment, or the fifth amendment or the twelfth amendment for that matter and all of that benefits the middle class because it forces transparency, reality, responsibility, and integrity upon our elected officials and all who derive an income from the people’s tax money.
You are saved- I was about to include a rather large section about Hamilton that actually would not have directly had a connection to the subject matter. What can I say, all I do is give.
________________________________________
* See Associated Press, February 5, 2009- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29034656/.
** “Dems power stimulus bill through Congress” Associated Press, February 14, 2009- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29179041/page/2/.
*** Incidentally, the Peanut Corporation of America president Stewart Parnell “was concerned that holding onto those [peanut] products was costing him money . . . [and] ordered the plant manager to ‘turn them loose’ ” and took the 5th amendment on advice of counsel. Yet another ringing endorsement of lawyers and the Constitution. The released products tested positive for salmonella 12 times. It seems that the FDA, the state of Georgia’s Department of Agriculture and even congress will share the blame. What? Like willingly? Do you think there is enough to go around? See- “Peanut Company Owner Asserts Fifth Amendment in Salmonella Probe” msnbc.com, February 11, 2009- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29145663/. Also noteworthy- the only words capitalized in the title of this article are the first word- (owner) and “Fifth Amendment” as if there is still a modicum of respect due pieces of the bill of rights in all their ambiguous glory. I am still working through my own capitalization rules and have to this point still been capitalizing the word Constitution, because it isn't the Constitution's fault no one pays any attentiont to it unless a right never really granted (to criminals and criminal attorneys) is infringed upon- stay tuned.
**** The article “Senate Eases Buy American Clause in Stimulus” can be found at Cnnpolitics.com February 11, 2009- http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/senate.buy.american/. Within the article is an expressed concern, by many economists and businesses, about the potential backfire of Buy American provisions and whether they would actually help “expand the American job market.” Ah, considering the number of international trade agreement shackles we’ve put around our own hands in this area, shouldn’t we at least give it a shot before proving that it won’t work? When was the last time we tried? My guess is that if we minimize the number of boundaries holding us back from an imagined prosperity, that those economists would still have a job. And those businesses that think the buy American clauses would attenuate our success are exclusively doing business in America? Or might have cause to consider such a provision harmful to their overall foreign-power-building, profits-hiding, international-business-dealing selves? One economic researcher claims that initiating “ ‘protectionist measures’ ” may hurt growth and it “ ‘precludes them from getting less expensive materials from overseas.’ ” It might be time to ask that the steel manufacturers give us a 5% discount and spend the money here.
***** Apparently, there is such an attention to this oversight/governmental transparency thing that the first beneficiaries of the stimulus bill will be auditors and lawyers. See- “Auditors, Lawyers Likely to Get First Stimulus Jobs” David M. Herszenhorn, The New York Times, February 20, 2009- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29296796/. According to the article- $350 million is to be directed to about “two dozen inspector-general offices, as well as a new Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.”
****** See- “Indian Boy Marries Dog to Ward off Tiger Attacks” Reuters, February 18, 2009- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29259293/. According to the extremely illiterate Munda tribe of India, and millions like them, the upper gum tooth growth is considered a bad omen. “The tribal god will [now] bless the child and ward off evil spirits after the marriage” to the dog. Who knew there were dogs, suitable for marriage, still available in India. I would have thought they would have been all . . . swallowed up. Maybe I’m thinking about Mexico. I wasn't this disgusted when Chandler (from Friends) admitted to having a third nipple.
******* It must be written- 44 more installments than I have contributed to the annals of an American government proficiency or insufficiency.
******** No, I do not have a footnote quota. Tabloid magazines are always able to place a picture of Cameron Diaz or Eva Longoria without makeup on the cover to gain the attention of those standing in line. Let's put the visage of the Constitution on the newsstands and see what happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment