Day: April 4, 2012

American World Commitment Now 95 Years And Counting: A Time For Reassessment!

Ronald Leave a comment

This first week of April marks an important milestone, as 95 years ago, during the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who had entered office committed to domestic progressive reforms, he ended up becoming a war time President.

Wilson accomplished his domestic reforms, becoming the most active domestic President in American history, but later to be surpassed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.

But also, after much delay and attempt to avoid entrance into war, he felt forced to go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war against Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Turks, and in support of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Russia, in what was then called first the Great War, then the World War, and then ultimately the First World War.

America had conducted trade with all nations, had gone to war against Spain in the Spanish-American War of 1898, had intervened in Latin America under Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson, and had engaged in diplomacy with Europe and Asia, particularly under TR.

But the thought of committing troops to a continental war was beyond conception of Americans before the first week of April 1917. On April 2, Wilson delivered a war message, and four days of fierce debate began, with the final vote to go to war on April 6, by a margin of 373-50 in the House of Representatives, and 89-6 in the US Senate.

Since 1917, the United States has been engaged in SEVEN wars–World War I (1917-1918), World War II (1941-1945), Korean War (1950-1953), Vietnam War (1964-1973), Persian Gulf War (1991), Afghanistan War (2001-Present), Iraq War (2003-2011).

Additionally, this nation has been involved in military actions too numerous to list, or even to have an accurate count, including many secret interventions with special forces and intelligence agents in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, many of them secret in nature.

America has involvement in close to 160 countries in some form or manner, and we have become an imperial nation, the leader of the “free world”, first against Fascism and Nazism, then against Communism, and now against terrorism, which is an open ended commitment with no seeming end date.

This nation had a military draft in 1917-1918, in 1940-1947, and 1948-1973, but since, it has been the National Guard and the regular military forces that have borne the brunt of war. It has been easier for many in America to ignore our war involvement, since there is no longer mass participation in war. And that has affected the poor treatment of veterans who commit themselves to war, and now are surviving injuries in greater numbers, but often have mental issues not so easily addressed.

We now have very few members of Congress who have served in the military or in a war zone, and very few children of members of Congress who do the same. And now we will have a Presidential election with neither major candidate having served in the military, the
first such case since World War II.

This commemoration of our entrance into the First World War 95 years ago this week is a good time to stop and reflect and reassess what we are doing, and whether we can afford and also wish to keep spending so much blood and treasure on warfare, which is in many ways undermining our economic present and future.

We have become a security state, that is unwilling to face the reality that we cannot control the world, and think it will not harm our domestic tranquility and agenda. We are becoming a nation that can be compared to other empires that ultimately fell, including the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, and the British Empire.

The next President, whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, must get beyond the rhetoric, and seriously review the reality of what we are doing, and come to the conclusion that our national security is not helped by a constant state of war, and military spending getting out of control, and undermining our education, health care, and so many other programs and needs that will have to be pushed aside, if we do not stop the mad dash toward total, endless state of war!

Martin Luther King Assassination Anniversary, And Trayvon Martin As A Symbol

Ronald Leave a comment

Today marks 44 years since the tragic assassination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee.

As we mourn that event yet again, and as more Americans visit the MLK Memorial in Washington, DC, we have to ask how far have we come from that day in 1968.

Certainly, the conditions for African Americans are far better today than they were in 1968, but that does not mean we can sit on our laurels.

Having a President who is African American; having other political leaders in Congress and the states and cities who are African American; seeing the growth of a large black middle class; witnessing more African Americans in the professions; witnessing more interracial marriages–all these signs of progress are wonderful!

But they are not enough, when we still have a large crime rate in the inner city ghettos; when black males are an endangered species when they end up in white neighborhoods and are seen as intruders; when one third of young black males are in prison; when the educational attainment of many African Americans still trails that of other racial groups; and when the illegitimacy rate is still much too high in African American households.

And the case of Trayvon Martin, a young black male who was no threat to anyone except for his skin color, being murdered by a man who had no right to utilize his gun; was over 100 pounds heavier; and who was told by 911 operators to leave tracking of Martin to the police, so as to ascertain if he was looking for trouble, is just the tip of the iceberg!

As long as we have tragedies such as Trayvon Martin, we are far from judging people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin. Prejudice and discrimination still run rampant, sadly, two generations after King’s death!

Is It The Kennedy Court, Rather Than The Roberts Court?

Ronald 1 Comment

The more one analyzes the US Supreme Court in recent years, it is more clear than ever that we should call it the Anthony Kennedy Court, rather than the John Roberts Court!

Kennedy, appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1988 as a compromise choice who could pass Senate muster, after the well publicized rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, has now been on the Court for 24 years, and is seen more than ever as the “swing vote” on the Court, first sharing that with former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, until her retirement in 2005, but now all by himself as the most significant vote on the Court.

Kennedy, basically a conservative but with an open mind, has leaned to the Right two thirds of the time, and to the Left one third of the time on the average.

It is seen by just about all Court watchers that Kennedy’s vote on the Obama Health Care legislation is crucial, as to whether it survives or goes down.

Kennedy disappointed many on the left in being in the majority on the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, the Citizens United case of 2010, and the Strip Search case of this past Monday. But at the same time, he upheld the rights of gays to privacy in the Lawrence V. Texas case of 2003, enraging fellow Justice Antonin Scalia.

His questioning about the Obama Health Care law last week showed the quandary he is in, and he is getting pressure from many sources to uphold the law, but the belief is that he will not give in to pressure, and might even be tempted to go with the other conservative Justices in overturning the law.

The theory is that IF Kennedy goes with upholding the law, that Chief Justice John Roberts will join him, making it a 6-3 vote, but that if he decides to negate the law, then the vote will be a partisan 5-4 vote against the legislation.

So to call the present Court the Kennedy Court seems very appropriate!

The Need For Supreme Court Reform By Constitutional Amendment

Ronald 1 Comment

THe controversy over the US Supreme Court has grown in recent years, with the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, where the Court, by partisan majority, chose a President; and the Citizens United case of 2010, which also, by partisan majority, the Court claimed that corporations and labor unions had the same right to freedom of speech in politics as did ordinary citizens, and has led to the Super PACs that are now distorting campaign finance in the Presidential Election of 2012.

That, along with the concern that the Court might strike down the Obama Health Care legislation by another 5-4 partisan majority, and the Strip Search decision of the Court this past Monday, also by partisan majority, makes many wonder if there is not a need for Supreme Court reform.

This is nothing new, as a century ago, during their Progressive Party campaigns for President of former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette, Sr. in 1924, as well as proposals of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, suggestions for changes, including constitutional amendment changes by TR and La Follette. were advocated.

Of course, the constitutional amendment route is a very difficult one, and it could be a long road to necessary change, but even if not imminent, the changes that this blogger proposes are worthy of consideration, if not adoption.

These proposed changes would include the following:

A term on the Supreme Court should not be lifetime, but instead 15 years maximum, which in most cases, would mean the Justice would be over 70 at the end of the term.

No one should serve on the Supreme Court past the age of 80, with only a handful who have so served, including outstanding men, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Paul Stevens. Losing such luminaries at age 80 is a shame, but no one can be considered as irreplaceable, as the President and the Pope are replaceable, as well as any other position in any government!

While 5-4 decisions on normal cases would continue, any attempt to override legislation passed by Congress should require a super majority of 6-3 to have such effect. Since we have a two thirds vote for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress and go to the states for ratification; a two thirds vote to override a Presidential veto; and a two thirds vote to ratify a treaty in the US Senate, it seems reasonable that a two thirds vote should be necessary to overturn a congressional law.

What these suggested amendments do is allow turnover on the Court more regularly, and stop the image of the Supreme Court as being out of touch with America, and as an arrogant, unelected group that can hold back progress!