US Constitution

Gay Marriage Acceptable To Majority In New Washington Post-ABC News Poll

Ronald 22 Comments

It is now clear that the American people recognize that homosexuality is not a choice, but is the way some people are born,

58 percent of those polled thought gay marriage should be legalized, as compared to 36 percent who disagreed with the concept.. The numbers have almost exactly switched in the past ten years.

Among young people, support is at an all time high of 81 percent, with 50 percent of the elderly against it. And a small majority of Republicans and Independents under the age of 50 support gay marriage, although 70 percent of Republicans over the age of 65 oppose it, down from 80 percent.

Overall, 72 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and 59 percent of Republicans support gay marriage.

Overall, 62 percent of all polled feel that the Supreme Court should decide the issue of gay marriage on a national level and based on the US Constitution, not allowing state by state, much like the Loving V. Virginia case on interracial marriage decided the issue nationally in 1967.

This week, what could be the most dynamic case of the Court in many years will be argued on the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act of 1996, and Proposition 8 of the state of California. The decision could transform American society in a dramatic way!

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia Compares Gay Marriage To Murder! Totally Reprehensible!

Ronald Leave a comment

Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has never hidden his ideological agenda on the Court, any more than Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

Both men, the most ideologically right wing of the past century, are clear in their prejudices and biases, and desire to bring America back to the 18th century, the time of the Founding Fathers, and the much promoted concept of both Justices known as “originalism”

The fact that the Founding Fathers included slave owners, treated women as second class citizens, and did not trust the masses of citizens so as to give them the vote for President or the US Senate, and limited the right to vote for white males to those who owned property in that time period, does not have any effect on either Scalia or Thomas.

If it was up to them, nothing would have changed, despite the fact that Italian Americans, such as Scalia, and African Americans, such as Thomas, were not considered human beings by most of the WASPS who dominated American government, and mistreated both ethnic groups well into the 20th century! The fact that Scalia is the first ever Italian American Justice, and that Thomas is the second ever African American Justice, seems not to have made them pause and realize the nature of progress and change!

So we know the narrow mindedness of both men, but to have Justice Scalia, who claims to be a great intellectual, and loves himself publicly, to compare gay marriage and gay rights to the horrors of murder, makes one think he is losing it completely, and needs to announce his retirement from the Court this coming June, after being in the hateful minority with Thomas on discrimination against a group, gay Americans, which has suffered more hate and prejudice than any other group in the history of the world, simply because of their sexuality, when that is none of anyone’s business!

If it is alright to have interracial marriage, or marriage between Catholics and Protestants, or Christians and Jews, all groups which have had to fight for their rights to marry, then it is alright to have two men or two women who love each other and wish to commit their lives to each other, to marry and have the benefits and security of marriage, and no prejudice, bias or hate should be allowed to get in the way of their commitment!

Scalia looked like a fool when answering the question of gay Princeton University freshman Duncan Hosie, who demonstrated great courage and dignity in his approach to Scalia, in front of a large audience.

No one is claiming that any person is free of prejudice and personal opinions, but it is totally inappropriate for a member of the Supreme Court to be so openly hostile and antagonistic as Scalia is on gay rights and gay marriage, and his behavior gives license to religious freaks and other hate mongers to continue to encourage actions and violence against gay Americans, and their and his behavior is therefore, morally reprehensible!

The Constitution, The US Senate, Exceptions To Majority Rule, And The Filibuster Crisis

Ronald Leave a comment

Anyone who studies Congress knows that the House of Representatives is based on majority rule, the need to have 218 votes, if everyone is voting, to pass legislation through the chamber.

One would like to think that the same idea applies to the US Senate, that 51 votes are needed to take action, or 50 votes with the Vice President casting the tie breaking vote.

But, actually, the Constitution, drawn up by the Founding Fathers, set up FIVE conditions, where a two thirds vote was needed to take action.

A Constitutional Amendment requires a two thirds vote.

A vote to remove a President, Vice President, Cabinet Officer, Supreme Court Justice, or a lower level Federal Court Judge, after an impeachment trial, requires a two thirds vote.

A treaty with a foreign nation requires a two thirds vote for ratification.

An attempt to override a Presidential veto of legislation requires a two thirds vote.

The expulsion of a Senator, after investigation of his actions and behavior, requires a two thirds vote.

That is it, no other time when the Constitution requires more than a majority vote.

However, the evil action known as the filibuster has emerged to become a monster, which bottlenecks and paralyzes Senate action in recent times.

A rarity until 2007, the filibuster dates back a century, but was rarely used. But when it was, it required the individual or the group to spend hours upon hours speaking on the floor of the Senate.

Now, with 386 “filibusters” in the past six years by the Republican minority, with none of them leading to debate for hours and hours, but simply blocking action by the threat itself, it has become clear that action should be taken against this weapon of the minority to cripple the Senate,

So action is being planned to lower the filibuster numbers required to stop action from 60 senators to a number likely to be 55, but other plans are also being developed, and the decision will be made at the beginning of the new Senate on January 3, 2013.

More discussion of the filibuster will be done by this author in the weeks leading up to that momentous decision, to try to allow the Senate to act in a manner which allows action, rather than total paralysis, which has made the Senate lose its respectability!

Rachel Maddow Promotional Advertisement For MNSBC So Great To Watch Again And Again!

Ronald 1 Comment

Rachel Maddow, the great liberal intellectual of MSNBC, has done a promotional advertisement since the election, which is shown over and over again, and somehow, never wears thin, or becomes boring.

She points out in the commercial that:

There is no chance anymore of abortion rights, as outlined in Roe V. Wade, ever being repealed by the Supreme Court.

Health care reform, upheld by the Supreme Court with the decisive vote of Chief Justice John Roberts, has no possibility of being repealed.

There will not be a further tax cut of 20 percent to billionaires and millionaires, as Mitt Romney promoted.

The United States Constitution is not going to be amended to prevent gay marriage in the future.

The US Department of Energy is not going to be eliminated, as promoted by several Republican contenders for the Presidential nomination.

Detroit and the auto industry did not go bankrupt, and will not go bankrupt, causing the loss of possibly a million or more jobs.

The DREAM Act, allowing a future for the children of illegal immigrants, who cannot be blamed for being brought to America, is assured over the long term.

All of the above could have been different IF Mitt Romney and the Republicans had won the election, but they did not!

Other points could have been made, and were made by this author in the first days after the election, but it is still so thrilling to hear Rachel Maddow in this commercial, no matter how many times it is broadcast!

America is so much better off because of the reelection of Barack Obama!

The Military Industrial Complex Gone Wild And Reckless! Time For Accountability For Corporate And Military Leadership!

Ronald 1 Comment

In his Farewell Address in January 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of a “Military Industrial Complex” that would undermine our national security, civil liberties and basic ethical standards, as well as monopolizing the American economy.

Eisenhower was so prophetic, and it is slapping us in the face more and more every year!

Not only have big business corporations gained unheard of control over the American economy, but they have also corrupted our political system, and sadly, the Supreme Court, controlled by conservative Justices who had no concept of the true meaning of the Constitution, have hijacked our democracy through the Citizens United Case!

And the military has become corrupted too, and not just in abuses practiced in wartime, but also in the personal behavior of the top officials of our military. It is shocking that General David Petraeus and General John Allen are caught in highly inappropriate contact with women, who might have compromised these powerful men in the area of national security and the fight against terrorism.

It is not a question of morality per se, but rather of judgment, as people at the top of the military cannot afford to be reckless in their behavior, because it does not just affect their wives and families, but also all of us in this nation!

It was not acceptable with President Bill Clinton, and it is no more acceptable in the head of the Central Intelligence Agency or the head of our troops in Afghanistan!

But this is due to the fact that we tend to worship both powerful, wealthy businessmen, and powerful military leaders, both of whom are considered heroes, which builds up their egos in both the business and military worlds, and allows them to think they are unaccountable for their actions and behavior!

There is a need for a major house cleaning in the military, but also full prosecution of those businessmen who have abused their power and caused the economic downturn of the past four years.

Men and women of power MUST be held accountable, and this is the time to do it, in a second term of a President no longer facing reelection, and therefore able to be “free” of political considerations!

Federal Government Needs To Administer All Federal Elections, Including Registration And Mechanics Of Enforcement

Ronald 4 Comments

The election debacle this year, including attempts to deny registration and voting itself, by partisan Secretaries of State in many states, mostly Republican governed, requires at major reform, taking partisanship out of the election process.

Congress has the authority to do this in the Constitution, and therefore, could federalize all elections for Congress and the Presidency, including national registration and the mechanics of operating the election process, so as to make it fair, and also to insure no discrimination or politics in the voting process.

Of course, states rights advocates will fight against this, because they wish to continue their abuse of power, and deny people the basic right to vote.

But the world watches, and is shocked at how Neanderthalish is our whole process of electing Congress and Presidents, so it is time for reform!

The Supreme Court: The MOST Crucial Issue In The Presidential Election Of 2012!

Ronald Leave a comment

Plenty of attention is being paid to economic and domestic policy in the Presidential campaign of 2012.

Also, now with the Middle East crisis that erupted this week, foreign policy is, suddenly, being given tremendous emphasis.

It is right that attention is being paid to both areas of national policy, as they really matter!

But an area which still is NOT being focused on adequately, if in fact at all, is the effect of the election on constitutional matters, which are determined primarily by the Supreme Court of the United States, along with the federal circuit courts.

First, the circuit courts consistently have vacancies, even in a one term Presidency, which can have a dramatic effect on constitutional law. Also, it must be remembered that the tradition has been to appoint Supreme Court Justices from this level of the judiciary, although that was certainly not the norm in the long history of the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, however, it is the Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the Constitution, as the nine members of the Court, once they have made a determination, rule the day, unless a constitutional amendment can be passed to overrule a Supreme Court decision, or the members of the Court, through changes of personnel, decide to revisit areas of controversy already decided by an earlier Court.

After a decade of no changes on the Court, from 1995 to 2005, suddenly, in a period of five years, from 2005-2010, there were four changes on the Court–Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Associate Justice Samuel Alito in 2006 under President George W. Bush; and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Associate Justice Elena Kagan in 2010 under President Barack Obama.

Now in 2012, there are four Justices in their 70s, who are seen as possible or likely retirees from the Court over the next four years—Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (76), appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986; Associate Justice Anothony Kennedy (76), appointed by Reagan in 1988; Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (79), appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993; and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (73), appointed by Clinton in 1994.

By the end of the next term, if none of these four Justices left the Court, they would range in age from 77 to 83!

It seems certain that one or more will retire, or unfortunately, die, in the next four years, and who is appointing their successors, is all important for the future of constitutional law!

If Obama makes one to four appointments, it will, at the least, keep the present balance, slightly toward the conservative side, but if Mitt Romney makes the choices, it could make the Court more conservative, more to the right, than it has been since at least the 1920s, if not the Gilded Age of the late 19th century!

This is NOT a minor matter, considering the areas of criminal justice, affirmative action, abortion, gay rights, and the constitutionality of laws passed under the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s, and recent actions on health care, campaign fund raising, and many other touchy, controversial areas of policy, and of civil rights and civil liberties!

The Court could turn back a century of political, social and economic reforms, if it turns in the direction of the far Right, a danger with Mitt Romney in office!

We can expect that by 2020, if not 2016, all of the members of the Court will be those appointed in the previous 15 years, with the possible exception of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (64), appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and stating he would not retire or leave the Supreme Court until he breaks the all time record of Associate Justice William O. Douglas, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, and serving 36 years on the Court under seven Presidents, until he left in 1975!

So this issue needs to be addressed in the Presidential debates in October, as it is an issue for voters to consider, and to recognize its significance!

Barack Obama On The Attack Against Republicans And Conservatives: Critical Of The Supreme Court And The Paul Ryan Budget Plan

Ronald Leave a comment

Barack Obama has gone on the offensive against conservative and Republican philosophy, both on the Supreme Court and in Congress.

Already throwing down the gauntlet to the Supreme Court yesterday, Obama pointed out that the commerce clause and Supreme Court case history and two Circuit Court Judges (Laurence Silberman and Jeffrey Sutton) are a call for backing the Obama Health Care law, and it is clear that IF the Court declares it unconstitutional, the Court itself will be an issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign of 2012. And it is certain that the KEY issue of 2012, no matter what happens, is to realize that the future judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the lower courts matter more than ANYTHING economic or foreign policy related, because the judiciary is a lifetime appointment!

If we are upset over a 5-4 Court to the right, imagine a 7-2 Court under a Republican President when and if Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, both in their 70s, leave the Court over the next four to eight years!

But today, President Obama is also mounting a full scale assault on the Paul Ryan budget plan adopted by the House Republican majority for the second year in a row, which includes massive tax cuts to the rich beyond the Bush tax cuts, and major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and all other domestic spending programs that benefit the poor and the struggling middle class, as well as the elderly.

Obama is calling it today’s “Social Darwinism”, the prevalent philosophy of the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, a period being matched and surpassed with the growing concentration of wealth in the top one percent of the population in the past ten years, and now threatening to be even more concentrated under the budget plan of the House Budget Committee Chairman.

And with the growing possibility that Ryan might be the Vice Presidential running mate of Mitt Romney, the future of the nation is at stake on the Supreme Court and lower courts, and also on the Presidential and Vice Presidential level, along with the Congressional actions in future years.

This is a battle for survival of the middle class, and the continuation of understanding the plight of the poor, as class division and the potential for class warfare grows!

Conservatives Who Support The Obama Health Care Law: Charles Fried, Laurence Silberman, Jeffrey Sutton

Ronald Leave a comment

Three major conservative leaders have made clear by statements and actions that they believe the Obama Health Care law is constitutional under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Charles Fried, who was Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, was highly critical of some of the questioning by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court this past week. Fried said health care is interstate commerce, and that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. The arguments utilized in questioning are “phony rhetoric” in Fried’s mind.

Judge Laurence Silberman of the DC Court Of Appeals upheld the Obama Health Care law as constitutional in one of the cases brought by states before circuit courts on the way to the Supreme Court, decided on November 8, 2011. He has been a federal judge for 27 years, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, and is a good friend, of all people, of Justice Clarence Thomas, who is seen as a guaranteed vote against the Obama Health Care law.

And Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th Circuit Court Of Appeals upheld the health care law on June 29, 2011, and is seen as a leader of the conservative Federalist Society! He was appointed by George W. Bush, and is considered a disciple of Justice Antonin Scalia! He is well known as a states rights advocate!

So go figure!

This tells us ANYTHING can happen on this Court decision, and not to come to a conclusion this early that the Obama Health Care law is going to be overturned!

March 4: Traditional Presidential Inauguration Day Through 1933

Ronald Leave a comment

March 4 was set up in the Constitution as Inauguration Day every four years, and every inauguration through 1933, except for the first, was held on that day.

George Washington was delayed in reaching the then capital of New York City in 1789, and did not arrive for the inauguration until April 30, but every other elected President from John Adams to Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4.

Then, the 20th Amendment in 1933 changed the inauguration date to January 20, beginning in 1937 and every fourth year since.

So March 4 was historic, particularly with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln in 1861 and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, at the two most delicate and dangerous moments in our history, the oncoming Civil War, and the worst moments of the Great Depression.

Other March 4 inaugurations which stood out historically include 1829, 1841, 1865, and 1877.

In 1829, the newly inaugurated Andrew Jackson invited the crowd to come back to the White House and celebrate, and a mob descended on the White House, and proceeded to break the windows, and commit other destruction since many were drunk!

In 1841, newly elected President William Henry Harrison gave the longest inaugural address in American history on a cold, rainy day, and contracted pneumonia, and died exactly a month later.

In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address became the most memorable such speech in American history, at least until Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address in 1933.

And in 1877, President Rutherford Hayes was inaugurated, after only learning of his selection by the specially constituted Electoral Commission two days earlier, in a political compromise agreement known as the Compromise of 1877. Many had wondered whether a new civil war was in the offing because of the dispute over the Presidential election results.

So March 4 will always remain a particularly historic day in American history.