Is It Too Much to Ask?

This is John Marshall. He was the Fourth Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. He is credited with establishing the Supreme Court as the voice and power of interpretation and enforcement of the constitution and all federal laws.

Two blogs ago I invoked the world "fascism." It is, no doubt, perceived to be an "extreme" word. And maybe a little scary? It was meant to be.

But having made my POV clear about the choice between having a powerful government that polices corporations OR having corporations with free rein, I want to take another tack. You may find it contradictory. I don't think it is.

As much as I want a strong federal government to regulate and police corporations, I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT INFRINGING ON PRIVATE, CONSENSUAL BEHAVIOR. If government is of, by and for the people, then I, as one of those people, want to protect my rights to privacy, to freedom of speech and expression, to freedom of association and religion (or non-religion), etc..

Ironically, perhaps paradoxically, the Constitution on which our government is based empowers the government to enforce, and restrains our government from infringing, on these individual rights. And the Courts, along with active citizens, are both the guardians of these rights and the restraining hand of the other branches of government - and have been since our nation's infancy. They are not "activists." They are fulfilling a most vital role in protecting minorities and individuals not just from violation of legal rights by the federal, state and local governments, but from the tyranny of the masses. It is both the enforcing and the restraining hand.

When I hear so-called conservatives like Rand Paul criticize civil rights laws because they infringe on people's right to discriminate and exclude people from commerce based on immutable characteristics, I am dumbfounded. People really think that way in 2010?

What kind of freedom is it that is heaped on one group at the expense of the freedom and rights of another group? Are freedom and equality under the law mutually exclusive? Are any of us really free when some of us are oppressed, ostracized, and subjugated by the particular majority in a particular state or region?

Perhaps freedom and equality are at odds to some extent. Perhaps people who wish to discriminate and exclude others just because they are different do have to sacrifice their freedom to act on their bigotry in order to protect those "different" people from being excluded. Is that a bad thing?

This is getting kind of deep and complex. I guess my point is this: I want GOOD government, whatever size it has to be to accomplish these benevolent goals: protect the weak or outnumbered from oppression; prevent corporations from trouncing people and ravaging the environment; protect fair, honest competition rather than rolling over for large corporate interests; recognize and assist when its citizens need help and cannot help themselves; protect us from our enemies and do so in a responsible and as humane a way as possible; respect its citizens and their respective rights; and be a government we can be proud of, even if it is imperfect.

Is that too much to ask?

Is It "Conservative" to Want to Amend the Constitution Every Time There's Something you Don't Like?

Am I the only one who's noticed the rhetoric from the right that is at once decrying liberals for not honoring the constitution (as they see it) while simultaneously promising the make multiple amendments to that same constitution?

Just a few of the proposed amendments:

Declaring marriage to be only between a man and a woman (New Amendment)

Removing the part of the 14th Amendment that declares anyone born in the US to be a citizen

Banning flag burning

Requiring a balanced budget

Banning abortion (Though I haven't really heard much of that this year)

Repealing the 17th Amendment (popular election of senators)

Those are the ones I found in a 10 minute search online. There may be others.

I hope voters realize how very difficult it is to amend the constitution. Since the Bill of Rights was adopted (Amendments 1-10), it has only been amended 17 times. The last three: 27 - preventing congress from giving itself a raise (delaying pay raises until the next congress); 26 - setting the voting age at 18 years; and 25 - dealing with Presidential disability and succession (a reaction to President Kennedy's assassination).

I have several points to make here. First, if your candidate promises you a constitutional amendment on anything, he/she is lying. Amendments are impossible to get passed without an overwhelming consensus (as it should be). So, ignore that campaign pandering and focus on things that actually matter.

Second, amending the constitution is not a serious way to address the real problems our country faces.

Let's assume they prevailed on all these amendments.

(1) You lose your right to directly choose your senators.

(2) We would have legalized discrimination against same-sex couples and banned a form of political protest. (How will that make your life better?)

(3) The return of back-alley abortions and increased death among the women who get them.

(4) The balanced budget amendment would actually cause the government to shut down. Some of you are thinking, "Good!," but you'd be wrong. No matter how conservative you are, when the "fit hits the shan," we all turn to Uncle Sam for help. That is not going to change. Debt is a tool that, if used properly, helps a business, a family, or a government function properly and smoothly. To think otherwise is to be short-sighted IMO. (Think about the things you rely on the federal government for: postal service and protection form our enemies at the very least. Add the interstate highway system, regulatory agencies (that ensure some level of safety when you eat, drive, fly, ride a train, buy a car or other consumer product, etc.), and federal criminal laws that provide some rules for doing business and co-existing, and we already have a pretty full plate. Yet we take all of this for granted.)

(5)And we now have to decide how we determine who is a citizen and who is not. Will there be tests for everyone? Will the government get to decide who is and who is not a citizen?

Scared yet?

In truth, it is difficult for me to imagine myself changing so much to one day wake up and decide to join the GOP, but I can assure you, it will never happen until that party can find some serious people to advocate some serious ideas.

BTW - I'm not buying the "smaller government" and "balanced budget" rhetoric. In the last 30 years, the federal government and the debt have grown more under Republican administrations and leadership than under the Democrats. I'm too old and too smart to fall for that. I just wish more people noticed.

I'm not suggesting that it has always been this way. It has not. But Eisenhower and Nixon would likely be conserva-dems in this political climate. For sure Goldwater would be a as he would likely be vilified by the GOP for being pro-choice.

So, other than pandering to people's fears, and empty words about fiscal responsibility, what do you have to offer me, GOP?

*crickets*