Dems Fight Romney/Ryan Plan with No Plan

    Despite America's needing a government led by Democrats, and despite holding the stronger political and economic cards, Democrats could lose in November because they don't know how to play a good hand.  

     Trying to fight the Romney/Ryan plan with no plan is not a winner.  Democrats must retain the presidency, reclaim majorities in the House and exceed a supermajority in the Senate.  Doing all three will be difficult.  Playing the cards right will involve compromise (not capitulation) in a comprehensive plan that acknowledges the dire nature and critical needs of nation's economy.

     Reasonable discussions have already been had and rational conclusions have already been reached:  Simpson-Bowles, the Senate's Gang of Six,  Revlin-Domenici and Obama-Boehner, all are people-supported type compromises.       Unfortunately, too many Democrats and Republicans envision a future for American politics that does not involve the other party.  As a consequence, the November elections will set one of those visions in motion or continue an American governance of perpetual deadlock.        

      That brings us to the campaigns.  If politicians cannot be trusted to tell the truth as they campaign for political offices, how can they be expected to tell the truth when in office if it serves their financial interest and prospects for reelection to continue lying? And if politicians cannot be trusted to tell the truth, how can they be trusted to seriously attempt to do what they promise to do?  Can they be trusted in the kinds of things they will either do or permit others to do?  Democrats and Republicans both have a right to present their cases to voters, but they should not have the right to lie either about what the other has done or about what they intend to do.  It seems to have reached the point in the U.S.  where we are deciding which people will represent us in government based on which one tells more and the best lies, not on careful consideration of what the truth is about each candidate. When only people who lie win, soon only liars seek public office.  

     But voters cannot know what and when lies are being told if they only get one-sided news, information, and opinions from one television channel, one radio station, single-view news columns, and the reporting of one newspaper.  MSNBC and Fox repeat their evening talk shows.  Look and listen to both.  CNN has been a  reasonably good referee. 

     Being able to properly valuate alternatives is necessary in a properly functioning democracy, even when proper evaluation does result in complete agreement.  Having more than one perspective on issues is useful for decision-making, except of course, to those who benefit when people don't think, and don't have alternative to think about.

     People who insist on thinking for others usually are mostly thinking about themselves.  The potential problem with democracy, liberty and justice is that those terms have never meant the same to all Americans.  Someone attributed to Abraham Lincoln the suggestion that liberty to many people means the freedom to take advantage of other people--and we might add to garner unto themselves as much of whatever is available and worth having.  These people believe that only the strong and ruthless survive--or should survive.  They don't say that while campaigning for office.  They just slowly but surely put the pieces in place to make it happen.  

     And that day seems to have arrived.  Those who perceive themselves to be--or are expecting themselves to become--members of the strong and possibly ruthless see a nation of "haves" with only a few "have nots" to work for them at minimum wages and with no rights to vote.  People who have "me" and not "we" in their minds don't have Jesus in either their hearts, plans and treatment of others.  Democrats must ask people how they will like to live on a few bucks an hour and no rights to vote.  

    But Democrats also must campaign by showing how House and Senate Republicans voted against Democrats attempts to address the problems stifling the American economy.  Have ads that show Obama successes (called failures by Republicans) that Democrats have been able to squeeze through Congress.   They should have voters relate to the governments not being able to pay bill with insufficient income to their own difficulty in pay bills because of unemployment or low employment.  Like homes, government can't afford services which many Americans need without sufficient income from taxes.

     During the November elections, many Americans are going to vote their present economic condition, without considering who and how they caused it.  They will be hoping Republicans will treat them better next time.  Many of these people also believe that their votes should not be bought by the highest bidder.  But they will vote for the highest bidder anyway.  Something is wrong with those decisions that neither reason nor criticism can cure.

     A comprehensive, balanced and fully explained economic plan of the sort mentioned earlier would continue and accelerate the economic healing that has begun under President Obama, despite the obstructions of Republicans.  Toward those ends, Republicans have nothing to offer except lies about the achievement of the President and questionable promises about what they would do or would have done.  If, from the beginning of the Obama presidency, the number one goal of the Republican Party, has been to "make Obama a one-term president," how could they be expected to give him credit for any successes and to dare help him succeed?  Their number one goal was not jobs, and it was not accelerating but decelerating where possible the recovery of the economy.  

     These should be jokers and wild cards for Democrats.

     But Democrats must take the political risk to trust the better judgement of most Americans, those who are motivated more by prospects of better government and an accelerating economy than by party loyalties.  They must remember that their card-playing partner is the American people.   And all voters want from Democrats is some idea about how this winning hand is to be played.  

On Same-Sex Marriages

     Vice President Joe Biden recently spoke with some difficulty--and perhaps untimeliness--about his and President Obama's feelings about Gay Marriages.  .  This was an example of the difficulty many American are having trying to properly identify the rights to certain behaviors that Americans have because laws, courts or the Constitution says they have, and other rights which are perceived to have been endowed by the Creator. 

     The President says that his opinion on the matter has evolved.  My own has both evolved and devolved over the years.  For individuals who are gay, the desire to have both their nature and their relationships with each other legitimized is no less than human.  They did not cause themselves to feel and be urged to act as they do.  They are products of time, nature and the hands of God just as are heterosexual individuals.  

     Heterosexuality propagates the human species.   The benefits of homosexual relationships, however, is not clearly evidenced in nature, and any future benefits are difficult to conjecture.  We therefore cannot predict whether socially accepted same-sex unions eventually will be an asset or a detriment to the future of mankind.

For example, time could prove that, while heterosexuals can have children, homosexuals will be better at rearing them because they will appreciate them more.

     But even as members of the gay and lesbian community want their feelings and needs acknowledged and legitimized by members of the religious community, they must understand why many people of faith, who find such behavior to be contrary to the teachings of that faith, have trouble embracing gay unions.  People whose religious faith is firm, whose lives and convictions are inextricably intertwined in a relationship with God cannot divorce themselves from the convictions of that faith just to accommodate people whose nature puts them, through no fault of their own, at odds with that faith.  The evolution of attitudes must be a two-way proposition.  

     It is no different from the evolution that must occur for people of one faith to conclude that, if there is but one God, He must be the God of all faiths.  Just as heterosexuals must be considerate of the need for homosexual relationships to be legitimized, members of the homosexual community must recognize the possible negative consequences if a society satisfies their needs by ignoring the teachings of the faith which is the foundation of its existence.  

    The sexual urges some priests showed toward young boys cannot be made right just because the priests' urges were strong, natural and beyond their ability to control.  The same can be said of sexual behavior of teachers with students, and pastors with members of their congregations.   Strong natural urges do not justify such actions, even when there is mutual consent.  There are many other human urges which our society also expects members of the society to control.  Otherwise, eventually, nothing will be wrong. 

     Many people of faith who condemn homosexuals, their relationships and their desire to have their unions called marriages themselves accept adultery, bearing false witness (lying), covetousness (greed) and other behaviors that are contrary to the teachings of their faith.  The gay community is asking: If members of the Christian faith accept or ignore these behaviors which are contrary to the Judea-Christian teaching, for others and themselves, why object to their condition, their feelings and their need for meaningful and loving relationships.  After all, same-sex monogamous unions are more consistent with Biblical teachings that individuals have only one partner. 

     Love causes people of faith to be considerate of the needs of the gay communication, but perhaps cannot compel heterosexuals to believe that same-sex unions should be labeled marriage if that's not what they believe. To many Christians, marriage refers to the union of a man and a woman.  The union of two people of the same gender has to be something else.  But being something else does not mean being something less, anymore than being being male or female means being less than the opposite gender.

     I previously suggested Marriage is for Mixed couples. Larriage for Lesbians  and Garriage for gays--or some other name--as ways to distinguish among the couples with the same legal standing.  A woman does not have to be called a man in order to be equal to a man, equally respected and have the same rights.  Gays may be putting too much emphasis of what the union is called.  Not all roses are red.     

     Homosexual Americans cannot help who or what they are and how they feel about each other any more than heterosexuals can control how they feel about members of the opposite sex.  Denying them the right to unite in what they choose to be called a marriage forces them to live together in unmarried and sinful unions.   Most gay people also are people of faith and consider such living together to be sinful.  Granting legal same-sex unions the title marriage, to them, also implies divine approval.  

    In the absence of God's revealing different answers to us in this age where most Americans accept the fact that homosexuality is not a choice,  Robert Shuller says when we are not sure error we sure error on the side of love.  That means by facilitating and wishing happy, loving and faithful unions for these couples, not being on the side of pettiness about what same-sex unions should be called.

     Every person of faith who eventually has come around to support gay marriage has had that change in attitude evolve.  I thought President Obama might need more time.  But others of faith have the right to never believe that the word "marriage" should be attached to what may otherwise become legally, socially, and respectfully accepted unions.    

     But just as most people of one religious faith do not dislike people of different faiths, the same applies about those of different  sexual urges and preferences. They too are our neighbors.

Marriage: Unalienable Right or Religious Duty (A Revision)

     The United States is not a theocracy.  It is a republic governed by a constitution of guidelines that specify the rights, powers and responsibilities of the federal and state governments, their agents and the American people.  And although the Constitution was to a large degree based on or inspired by the source of Biblical teachings and traditions--and on what the Founders perceived to be divine intent--it is not itself a Biblically based or otherwise religious document.  That connection, however, often causes confusion among many Americans between the unalienable rights that all Americans have and the responsibilities which people of faith feel to behave themselves within the confines of the teachings of that faith, and to influence others to do the same.

     The desire of homosexual Americans to marry finds itself in the center of a debate pitting the unalienable rights that all Americans have against the responsibilities that heterosexual Americans of religious faiths may feel not only to live according to the teachings of their faith but, if necessary, to impose those beliefs on Americans who either are not associated with any religious faith or who are American homosexuals of faith. The civil unions of heterosexual Americans are called marriages.  Those of faith believe it was divinely decreed that they be called marriages.  But homosexual Americans with religious faith feel that they too were endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right not only to have civil unions but, like heterosexuals, the right to have their civil unions called marriages.

     But just as states have the rights to called the civil union of a man and a woman a marriage, maybe they have the responsibility to call the civil union of two people of the same gender something, if not marriage, what?  But the states also have the rights to not recognize or sanction same-sex marriages, again making a lawful union depend, therefore, on whether individuals conform to the teachings of certain religious faiths.  There seems to be no clear-cut answer here.  But an acknowledgement that same-sex unions should properly be called marriages because these unions are among the unalienable rights of both heterosexuals and homosexuals seem to be reasonable.

     The President expressed his support of same-sex marriage.  He believes it is the right position.  But right for what reason.  Believing that members of the same gender should be able to marry does not mean that he would establish such as a national policy had he the authority to do so.  He likely would not do it because he realizes that just because he believes in same-sex marriage, it does not invalidate the reasons why many people disagree with him.

     Among the many discussions concerning President Obama's decision to support same-sex marriage has been a reminder of the Golden Rule, a teaching of many religions.  Suppose that, therefore, that here in the United States of America heterosexual Americans of faith were a minority group who believed in the Biblical charge that a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife (in other words, needed to marry) but were denied the unalienable right to do so because of a homosexual majority who opposed the marriages.  Why?  Because they did not believe in couples of different genders marrying.  Homosexual had two options for bearing children either sperm banks or lawful heterosexual mating outside of their marriages for the purpose of propagation only.)  Wouldn't it be an infringement on the unalienable rights of heterosexuals to pursuit of happiness, and have marriage be their vehicle for propagating new generations.?  

     And don't even the poor and powerful find themselves standing on the same Golden Rule and asking the rich and powerful:  Suppose you were sitting where are, wouldn't you want some help getting on your feet?  Would you want those who who were financially and intellectually able to also be lovingly able to do everything they can to help make me independent?

     Religion has traditionally been about how individuals should live their own lives.   That may even involve sharing a faith and beliefs with others.  But while it is not uncommon for members of certain religions to believe that theirs is the only real relationship with the Creator and to try to persuade others of that position, that belief and zeal should not seek to impose their beliefs on others against their will, and especially when they weaken the foundations social, economic and legal justice as portrayed in the Constitution.

     On the other hand, though, those of faith believe that what they believe is not only good for themselves but also for everybody else.  And not only would it be wrong for them to act contrary to the teachings of their faith, it is their responsibility to prevent others from doing so if they can.  For example, if a person of faith sees a man on the edge of a cliff and believes that he is going to take a death jump, despite that potential jumper's feeling he has the right to end his life, the person of faith not only would feel a responsibility to try to prevent the jump if he can, but that it would be a sin not to.  That argument of concern, however, is contrary to the feelings of many of faith that they don't care what homosexuals do with each other so long as they are not allowed to marry. 

     The rights of individuals to pursue happiness and other's responsibilities to protect these individuals from themselves are is a conflict, and the nature of the conflict means that resolution eventually will reflect the will of the majority.  In the United States that means different states may have different laws regarding same-sex marriages, which could put the nation on slippery slopes of rights denials, where states--and eventually the nation--are no longer guided by the teachings of their faith.  Members of the gay and lesbian communities are primarily concerned only about what they perceive to be their rights, while members of the religious communities are mainly concern about what they believe to be their responsibility.  Thus far in American history, freedom and faith have coexisted.  But this new stress further challenges the bonds that have bound the two together, perhaps stretching them beyond their ability to bind.

          

On Regulating Traffic and the Economy

 Today, I was caught in traffic at a business intersection, where traffic is controlled by a traffic light.  And as I was waiting, I became aware of the orderly manner in which the traffic moved: vehicles were going and coming across.  They were crossing from the left and from the right.  Some were turning as other were crossing.  Some vehicles were even appropriately turning right on red.

     Now, that same intersection once had no traffic signals.  It had no signs.  Drivers just respected the right of whomever got to the intersection first to proceed first.  Some even yielded that right.

     But as activities and development in the area expanded, traffic at the intersection increased to the point where courtesy and who got to the intersection first no longer worked.  Some people merely assumed the right to proceed first whether they had it or not.  

      So four-way stops signs were installed, which encouraged to drivers respect the rights of others.  Drivers had to watch different cars headed in many other directions to determine their turn to proceed.  That worked until the traffic increased even more and more people were in a hurry to either get to work or to get back home.  That, along with prospects for even more activities and development in the area, caused the traffic signal to be installed.   It was during this fairly long wait at this traffic signal that the similarity between regulation of traffic and the regulation of the economy became obvious. 

     As the number of cars increased, the need to regulate traffic did not decrease.  Rather, it increased, necessitating further regulation of the traffic.  Individual freedom or liberty to proceed according to one's own need did not trump the need and advantages of safe and orderly movement of the vehicles through the intersection.  Being late for work or an appointment was not sufficient reason to proceed out of turn.  Being impatient was not a good reason to take away someone else's turn to proceed.  A wife is having a baby may not even work--unless she was in the car.  Being parked on the railroad track with a train was coming likely would cause other drivers to yield the right of way if they sensed a problem.  

    I was at the intersection because my wife had sent me to get her a couple of tacos, after telling me she was in a hurry to eat.  That means that I was in a hurry to get back home.  But I had to wait my turn.  When I arrive home with the tacos, my wife heated them in the microwave oven, and everything was find.

    Those who don't believe in regulations will say that regulating traffic and regulating an economy are different.  They are.  But the need to regulate and the consequences of not doing so are the same.  Regulation promotes order; deregulation promotes conflict. 

    The Great Recession is still trying--with the help of Republicans--to defy all efforts by President Obama to stimulate or impose healing on the economy.  Like rude drivers at an intersection, they are asking that traffic signals be taken down.  They say being regulated slow down the damage they can inflict.  They forget that there are drivers of other vehicles (other businesses, institutions, workers and consumers) on the road who also wish they could proceed freely without restraints.  These people who are anti-regulations have come to the collective conclusion that all drivers should be unregulated and allowed to proceed as they choose, at whatever time and speed they choose.  They don't even want anyone monitoring their speed through the intersection and be penalized for the wrecks and injuries they cause at the intersections.

     Now, I don't understand the workings of the economy.  Given the choice to take either economics or sociology in college, I chose sociology after some my smart home boys told me economics was hard.  But I do know that conflicts can occur where mutual needs and common interests converge without rules of engagement.      

      To my knowledge, however, drivers have not been required to clean their vehicles before entering the intersection.  They don't have to wear sunglasses on sunny days.  Their tanks don't even have to be filled with gasoline nor even have recently bathed before crossing.  And there are also other such regulations that might have no--or at best minimal--impact on safe and expedited crossings at the intersection.      

     But in debates over regulations, there seldom identification of regulations that should be eliminated or modified, with reasons why.  Such regulations are referred to as "job-killing" regulations.  It's like preventing the ability to run through a business intersection when the light is red a "job-killing" regulation if it always prevents a worker from getting to work on time.  Just saying that businesses claim they cannot hire because of the regulations is not enough.  Why can't they hire?

     Removing financial regulations that would have or should have prevented the Great Recession extends an invitation to cause the next one.  

      Let's face it, while the Great Recession has devastated some families, it has enriched others.  The Great Recession reportedly produced double-digit percentage increases in the number of millionaires.  One might reasonably assume that those who were already wealthy had their wealth similarly increased.  Where did the wealth come from?  Along with others, it came from the income lost by those who lost jobs, and from those whose homes have either been lost or declined in value.  People who built those homes that people could not afford got paid. Those who built apartment complexes to house those who would lose homes got paid.  Suppliers of building supplies got paid.  And they also got paid who had these complexes built in anticipation that many people would lose their homes.      

      Government must patrol these intersections where business, workers and consumers converge.  Whether that is done with three-way stop signs or with red, green and orange traffic lights is debatable but the need is not.  

      But just as regulations at traffic intersections can be imagined that may not contribute to safety, there can be regulations that may not contribute to the proper functioning of the economy.  Most of us don't know what's best for our economy.  We try to elect smart people to represent us in government.  But too many of them--except for our own, of course--sleep with the enemy.

      From what I have seen and heard, I trust President Obama and Democrats more than Mitt Romney and Republicans to care about and to pursue the best interests of all Americans:  A bigger economic pie should yield a bigger slice for everybody.  If fairness, justice and equitability mean something different, then my college home boys were right:  Economics is too hard. 

On America's Love Train

     Last week, after finishing my tax return, I sat down to relieve my mind of the stress of having waited until the last minute, again.  The O'Jays' recording of "Love Train" came to my mind as I sought some music to relax.  And before I was  stopped, I had replayed it four times or five times.  Those who are familiar with the song will remember that it calls out for the countries of the world to board the "Love train."  

     It starts out with an invitation extended to the people of England.  It invites the people in Russia and China, too.  Then, it invites the brothers in Africa, and those in Egypt and Israel, too.  The song was written and recorded at a time in the 1970s when the United States was commonly believed to already be on board.

     It is, indeed, sorrowful that within 40 years, the appeal is now for the United States to get on board.  And if the writers were to rewrite the lyrics today, they might be appealing to the people of Florida.  They might be appealing to those in Texas and Kansan, too.  The second verse might appeal to the people in Tennessee, and also invite those in Virginia and Georgia.  

     We were aboard then, but there are those committed to our nor riding that train again..  The problem?  We're singing a new song, inviting the world to board a new train: the greed train.  Accumulate all of the wealth you can has become the new gospel, proclaiming that God wants you to be rich, no matter by what means wealth in obtained or who is hurt while getting it.  It's a greed train that everybody wishes to board, but there is limited seating.  Some folk are able to force themselves aboard, but others are being pushed out on the other end as a consequence.

     President and Democrats want to make the train longer, add more passenger cars.  Wealthy Americans don't mind more wealth cars.  But they want them filled with their own children, grandchildren, great-grand children, siblings, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, cousins, even, friends and others who will not have earned a seat on board.  This is what most people would be doing if they have the wealth to do it.  But Americans are supposed to be a team, a family, and, as Christians, all brothers and sisters.  We should, at least, want the least among us to have the means to afford a comfortable--if not extravacant-- quality of life.

     What would be happening on an American "Love Train"?  Would the wealthy on board be helping the poor get on board, or using any means at their disposal to keep them off?  There is quality education on a real "Love Train."  There are good jobs and housing, too.  And there is no shortage of quality health care on board.

     But the most important quality aboard the "Love Train" is love.  Love does not refuse help to those in need, those whom we are able to help.  Love cannot ignore the condition of the poor as if neither they nor their condition exists.  On the "Love Train," people aren't comfortable having plates and platters of food, while seeing others aboard starve or be threaten with starvation.  Wealthy people, therefore, are not so distant from the poor that they can pretend they don't know they exist.  They cannot say what they would have done had they known the limitations that poor people have to endure to survive, often even each other.   But love on the "Love Train" makes the wealthy want to know badly enough to find out where and how to help.  Why?  It's because of the love thing, the will and the ability to help.

     But there is another problem.  Conservatives are not completely wrong about conditions aboard the American train.  Newt Gingrich talked about schools giving poor kids work to do around school, and paying them for their work so children whose parents who don't bring in pay checks can experience and develop an appreciation for the pay-for-work ethic.  He talked about the poor needing not only to be provided a safety net but a trampoline to elevate their hopes, expectations, preparation and opportunities for economic success.

     You see, there is work to be done on a "Love Train."  There are floors to sweep, dishes to wash, food to cook and serve, tables to cleared and cleaned, windows to wash, linen to laundry, luggage to be carried on and off the train, locomotives to be driven, electrical equipment and appliances to be fixed, sick people needing tending, diesel engines to service, maybe even rail lines to be constructed and repaired.  That means there are opportunities for even the poor to earn a living on board the train.  

     But there must also be quality opportunities that guarantee all aboard learning  to earn.  And there must be enough jobs on board for every person who wants to work to earn a living.  

     And should, as many conservatives contend, those who are unwilling to work be thrown off the train at the next stop?  Republicans are suggesting that, if you throw enough poor people who don't want work off the train at the next stop, there will be fewer--and eventually none, including those who cannot help themselves--needing to be thrown off at future stops.  They're saying that sometimes the love required to get people on their feet and keep them there, even on a love train, is tough love.   

     Finally, another question, though, Is there a place on the "Love Train" for tough love? And how would we distinguish between actions reflecting tough love and those reflecting just not caring about certain other people?

     Let's, first, try to distinguish between two types of poor people on board the "Love Train" who need help finding or keeping jobs.  There are lazy riders who just don't want to work, and there are those who haven't been able to keep a job because they don't know how to work; that is, they don't know how to give quality work performance because they don't know what quality performance means.  There, of course, are those who only want high-paying jobs for which they are not qualified, but there are among them those who have had no quality opportunities to prepare themselves for these jobs.

     There are many reasons why people's attitudes toward work are different, and  most of them grow out of conditions and circumstances that were beyond the ability their control.  Children grow up in the hands of parents and teachers.   Their preparations for the future are in the hands of others.  

     But they can be motivated to control how they will react to present realities.  Someone said--and I paraphrase--we can't control where we came from, but we have considerable influence on where we will go.  And I might add, that is especially true on a real "Love Train."

Ronald

E-Mail:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:     ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner     

  

Preventing Legislative Voter Fraud

     Is the legislative requirement of a photograph to vote fair law just because the stated intent is to prevent voter fraud?  Such laws may be fair law if they prevent more incidents of fraud than is the number of eligible voters they disqualify.  But denying 5 million, otherwise legitimate voters, the privilege of voting in order to possibly prevent 5 instances of fraud sends a loud message about the kinds of politicians Republican leaders and conservative voters are selecting and electing to govern their states.  And it may speak even more loudly about the people who continue to send and keep these politicians in office.  

     This kind of legislative "fraud" is wide open for the public to see, forcing otherwise fair-minded Christian people to rationalize its existence by somehow attributing political motives to President Obama, rather than to elected officials who are making the laws.  These lawmakers certainly can make no claim that the laws were intended to increase the likelihood that the politicians elected will represent as many of "We the people" as possible.  These laws trouble consciences of good people.

     These laws are better examples of both voter and election "fraud" than the fraud they claim they are trying to prevent.  Their intent is not to increase but to decrease voter participation.  If the purpose of these new photo identifications were as innocent and well-intended as some people would like to believe, providing voters with photos could be easily achieved by having a photo made of everyone who votes in the November election.  That way everyone one voting would have a photo for the next elections.  It would provide an incentive for more of "We the people" to come out to vote.  But that would defeat the Republican intention to disqualify as many likely Democratic voters as possible for the presidential and congressional elections.  This should lay to rest any attempts by good Americans to attribute good intentions to these political shenanigans.

     "We the people" are a strange--and for many--disturbing mix of people.  We are of different races, colors, creeds, religions, and levels of intelligence, integrity, wealth, education, morality, political sophistication, and compassion among others.  Like it or not, that's what and who "We" are.  Unfortunately, state legislatures apparently have a constitutional right to make laws that legalize such fraud to prevent other fraud.  Many of these legislators and governors feel they are doing their Christian duties, probably even after a word of prayer.

      But that is not all.  If politicians lying about opponents can be considered free speech, money to be speech, corporations to be people and now states passing legislation that deny large segments of the pollution of their rights to vote in the name of preventing voter fraud, then the legislatures, supported by the Supreme Court, can manufacture any reasons they choose to deny segments of the population of any rights they choose or declare constitutional rights to whomever or for whatever purposes legislatures and the Supreme Count choose.  Supreme Court majorities can become the dictators of national policies through state and national legislation.  One reason the word "socialism" is thrown out so much in reference to the agenda of President Obama very likely is the attempt to turn the people's attention away from the threat of judicial-legislative rule in America.  Those who are aware feel that the attempts being made to disenfranchise others will not happen to them. 

      But totalitarianism is not a respecter of color, race or religion.  Worldwide, there have been dictators who have persecuted people like themselves.  Dictators--and people with those intentions--do not announce their presence like wolves howling at night.  Rather, they are like wolves in sheep clothing.  Everybody has wished, at some time, that they had the authority to impose their will on others and fix what they perceive to need fixing with a plan which they believe would be a fix.   But for a few individuals, that wish becomes an obsession, and eventually that obsession a compulsion.

     "We the people" are changing.  A group of citizens representing several of America's ethnic groups have marched in opposition to these laws intended to deny the voting rights of people who might vote for Democrats in November.  But this is neither the Congress, the Supreme Court nor the economic state of America of the sixties.  People who had jobs and homes in the sixties are looking for reasons why that is no longer the case in 2012.  

     It is easy--and perhaps natural--for many of "We the people" who are without jobs to blame their unemployment on people who don't look like themselves or don't share their beliefs.  Adversities which once bound "We the people" together to somehow overcome and become more than before have become fertile ground for a  "divide and conquer" strategy by the politically and economically powerful to conquer and control everything and everybody.  The problem is that many Americans who have been conquered don't realize it, yet.

     It is naive to believe that with the moral fabric of the nation breaking down in all aspects of human endeavor and thought that even racism would not now safe to "come out of the closet."  If our once judiciously constrained society is freed of the shackles of civility and released from the imprisonment of ethical restraint, then a complete unraveling of the nation's perception of right and wrong cannot be far behind.  Money becoming speech and corporations becoming people were the beginning of "might makes right."   

     The American ruling class which feeds this transition needs a lead ruler,  and the Republican presidential candidates all seem to be worthy prospects for the position.  They say what they are going to do, as if they expect to be elected absolute monarch.       

     Legislation requiring photos and limiting days to vote restrict voting privileges of otherwise qualified Americans and injects greater voter fraud than it prevents, and gives authors of the scheme to rule more reasons to cheer--and the rest of us more reasons to fear.

     This year's presidential and legislative elections likely will be the most important since America's founding.  The people will either vote for more gridlock and solve none of the nation's serious problems, or they will turn the government over to either Democrats or Republicans.  Whatever the decision, the choice can be no better than the consciences of those voters whom these states will permit to make that decision, and no wiser than their realization of the consequences of their choice. 

     

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:  ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

On Mandates and the Constitution

      One question that has speculators concluding that the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare is seemingly the Democrates inability to answer the question: If the Congress and president can implement a mandate about health care, what kind of mandates can't they implement?  But that seems to be a question that the Justices would have to decide at such time that other requests for mandates are litigated before the Supreme Court.

      This particular instance of having a mandate should not imply that all legislative mandates would have equal merit.  Requiring all Americans to eat broccoli or exercise because each is good for the health of the nation does not rise to the same level of importance as every American's having access to affordable health care and allowing the nation to control the fastest growing component of its debt liabilities.   

     No one can make a creditable estimate of the effects that requiring everyone to eat broccoli or exercise would have on the national debt.  What cost would be incurred in trying to assure that every American ate broccoli and excise, while necessarily determining when and how often as they should?  How would these activities be monitored?  So the answer to conservative request for other mandates that the Congress and President would not be able to implement with constitutional justification should have been: mandates such as requiring Americans to exercise or eat broccoli.

      The fact that the Solicitor General often appeared not to have adequate answers to the justices questions did not mean that the justices did not have their own individual answers to their own questions--and questions of other Justices.  They presumably will not make decisions based either on the Solicitor Generals answers or on their own constitutional interpretations.  The Solicitor General's role, therefore, is to persuade the justices who may have already formed opinions that their thinking on the matter is somehow flawed, or that their opinions are not the only reasonable interpretation of the Constitution's position on an issue--in this case, of the health-care individual mandate.

      All Supreme Court Justices have been trained in the law, including Constitutional law.  They are not like a jury which a prosecutor and defense attorney are attempting to persuade with evidence and interpretations of evidence to which juries have not been exposed.  A jury also presumably has not made up its mind about a case for the very reason that they have not heard and studied the evidence in the context of opposing arguments.  

          The Supreme Court Justices have the results of attorney arguments and lower court rulings to augment and help shape their own deliberations and conclusions considering the pros and cons of the issue.   Arguments before the Supreme Court only provides further options to consider in shaping their final decisions.  Finally, there are the final ideas that the Justices will bounce off each other.  

     This may an occasion in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy will lead the Court to a 6 to 3 decision, upholding the health-care individual mandate.  It is also possible that the Court can be deadlocked with one conservative Justice not, in good conscience, being able to make constitutional distinctions between the options.  Obamacare could remain the law by default , because a neutral Justice votes to confirm its constitutionality.  On the other hand, it is hard to believe that a Supreme Court that considers money to be speech and corporations to be people can have the frames of mind to find this health-care mandate Constitutional.  

     I don't understand, though, how this issue of a health-care mandate has anything to do with conservatism or liberalism.  What's conservative or liberal about the individual mandate?  At one time, it was supported by Republican and conservative organizations.  How did the mandate become liberal simply because Democrats decided Republicans and conservatives had the right idea?  Even Republican candidate

     Even issues like "money being speech" and "corporations being people" should have been decided by a mixture of liberal and consecrative Justices.  Because  ideas are introduced by conservative or liberals politicians does not mean that the issue is ideological.  Some ideas reside in what amounts to "common ground."  Consequently, most issues should be decided by a mixture of liberal and conservative Justices

     Some of the lines that politicians draw in the sand should be circles that bind Americans together in recognition of and commitments to common interests, rather than drawing lines of separation that either imply or impose significance to ideological differences where such distinctions are really not factors. The Constitution is America's "common ground."  It is should never be considered an ideological instrument that must always elicit left-right divisions in its interpretation.

     But I have not heard of any questions the conservative justices asked the attorneys challenging the individual mandate.  Did their questions suggest reasons why these mandates should be constitutional, as they challenged attorneys supporting these mandates that they weren't?  It appears that a politically neutral  court would have asked such questions.

     The Constitution is neither conservative nor liberal.  No parts of its original intent can be classified as conservative or liberal such that ideological distinctions can be made between the components of the document.   However, the content, instead of providing "common ground" for political collaboration, has suddenly acquired  ideological labels, depending upon whether conservatives or liberals agree with the provisions or with laws which the provisions seem to support.

     Initially, Supreme Court Justices were selected for life-time terms in order to take political or other kinds of influences from replacing the better judgment of each Supreme Court justice.  Well, "other influences" have replaced that better judgment, as divided court decisions have come to be made, without exception, along ideological lines.  

     "Supreme" not longer mean the highest level of legal prudence but the highest level of ideological authority.

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter: Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner