One Hell-of-a Head Splitting Election!
My head feels like it is splitting in two; one half wants to pull the covers over my head until November 8th while the other half has an insatiable need to KNOW all that is happening in this most important election of our lifetime. I’m told that the best way to stave off my headache is by taking a few minutes to decompress, but how can I do that. Fox News, CNN, The N.Y. Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and email alerts on my IPhone make decompressing an impossibility. Sure I can turn it all off and finish Clinton Cash or any of the other books waiting on me, but I want to know what is happening right now—this very minute! Nothing neurotic about me!
Okay, so some of you think I am being neurotic! But aren’t you the ones who have occasionally shut down election discussion? Why? Isn’t it imperative that we discuss the issues between ourselves away from the very biased reporting? Although we all differ in opinion, the only important opinion is informed and based on conviction. In stifling all conversation, Saul Alinsky, in his book Rules for Radicals, stated that you should never have a conversation with your adversaries, because that humanizes them, and your job is to demonize them.
It’s people like me who have devoted so much of their time during the last few years who may just have an informed thought. Those who only hear a short bite of election news from the main stream media might as well go back watching the Kardashians or reading Fifty Shades of Grey!
To all those who are sitting out in this election in near to total ignorance—this is the most important election of YOUR lifetime. America has come to that proverbial fork in the road and the direction we take will affect the history of our civilization. We’ve tried one direction with Obama—and how has that worked out? Perhaps it’s time to take the Road Less Traveled!
THE SUPREME COURT future is the most important issue that we face in this election. The nine justice Court decreased by one when Justice Scalia died in February. Obama named federal appeals judge Merrick Garland to fill the position. The Republicans refused to give Garland a confirmation hearing in the middle of an election year. They argued that the Supreme Court has made politically-driven decisions, so the public should have a chance to decide whether they want to endorse or reject that kind of judging at the polling stations on November 8th.
There are two ways in which the Supreme Court Justices analyze and interpret laws and the Constitution.
Justice Scalia was an ORIGINALIST who believed that the interpretation the Constitution of the United States should be consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it; that it is a fixed document whose meaning never changes from the time that they are written until now.
LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISTS hold the opposite vision of Originalists; that the Constitution is a living document that evolves as the culture changes and seek to alter the original Constitutional purpose. In this scenario I fear that the Judges can interpretive the Constitution in accord with their political leanings and then when future necessity arises change that meaning. Once the flood gates are opened they are difficult to close—the Constitution could lose all meaning in any decision the Court makes.
We know that there is already one empty seat to be filled, but the next President will have a significant, long-lasting impact on the Supreme Court. Three of the current justices’ tenure may be ending soon: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg-liberal aged 83, Stephen Breyer-liberal aged 77, and Justice Kennedy-centrist aged 79. Their replacement could signal an ideologicall shift in the Court’s membership that would alter constitutional law on many vital issues.
The present vacant Justice chair and the possibility of other vacancies by any of the other aging Justices trouble me. Here is the issue—“Once a judge ascends to our highest court, firmly seated to exercise life-long power, the judge is expected to embrace a duty of impartiality, rendering decisions reflecting “neutral” legal principles, not partisan politics.” http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/06/the-2016-elections-effect-on-the-supreme-court/
There are three issues that will certainly be sent to the Supreme Court for resolve during the next administration. Our First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Tenth Amendment are being severely challenged now.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
We’ve watched the ACLU bombard our religious freedom in countless suits urging public schools to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and any form of prayer or religious activity (and by extension, all traditional Christmas Carols). “In God We Trust” has been attacked—all under the guise of Freedom FROM not OF religion.
Political Correctness speech has become the Holy Grail of government, military, and education essentially shutting down freedom of speech; the government agency of the IRS cast a wide net to harass and intimidate the Tea Party and other conservative groups when they dared to apply for a 501(c)(3) allowing for tax exemption. Their offense: Speech against big government and taxes—not popular positions among the Ruling Elites.
Obama has turned our Military into a sociological test tube. “Instead of preparing for transgenderism and related social experiments, our troops should be concentrating on combat readiness.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/24/president-obama-leaving-liberal-blueprint-on-armed/ The Department of Veteran Affairs has censored prayers and demands words be submitted in advance for government approval, Bibles and other religious materials are forbidden at The Water Reed Medical Center, and the list goes on!
Our very progressive and liberal Educational system has sheltered the little cupcakes students on college campuses from politically incorrect words that might hurt their little psyches. So called microaggressive words are forbidden. Oh my, the cupcakes are going to get a big awakening in the real world of freedom!
Few of us are aware of the Lyndon Johnson amendment that forced a change in the U.S. tax code in 1954 prohibiting certain tax-exempt organizations from endorsing and opposing political candidates. This legislation was made in the partisan sausage factory—Johnson, a Texas Senator at that time, wanted to squelch groups that opposed him. When Trump announced his intention to repeal the Johnson amendment, I suddenly realized why the Catholic Church seldom if ever addressed the abortion issue from the pulpit.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
WE ARE ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AWAY FROM SEEING THIS AMENDMENT REPEALED. I realize that in light of too many tragic shootings it has become popular to lobby for gun control, yet in 2008 the Supreme Court (District of Columbia. v. Heller) UPHELD that the Second Amendment GUARANTEES an individual right to bear arms.
“If Heller is overruled, then the regulatory state, in all its immense power, can launch a systematic, undemocratic effort to deter gun ownership even without true confiscation. The appeal of regulatory action is obvious…It’s easy to imagine the regulatory possibilities — regulatory action against ammunition; public-employee rules creating “gun-free employment communities” that prohibit or greatly restrict private gun ownership by public employees; aggressive regulatory action against various types of ammunition; OSHA rules that require employers to restrict employees’ gun rights on “work safety” grounds. The list could go on and on. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425156/second-amendment-repeal-gun-rights-supreme-court
A Governing Liberal Elite should not be able to force—by legislation or executive—law abiding citizens, to surrender their own freedom because others may take advantage of it.
THE TENTH AMENDMENT
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The executive branch of our government has become so powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedom of State Rights. This is exactly what Conservative Americans have railed against.
The Obama administration has consistently over-reached in implementing an excessive number of regulations to enforce policies that our representatives in the Congress would not approve.
Obama has made dictatorial (some would even say tyrannical) regulations directly opposing and ignoring our Elected State Representatives. His message is clear. The government knows more about how to live your life, manage your health, and raise your children then you do. This is government at its most arrogant.
As this kind of arrogant governing increases, the problem of reconciling state and national interest as they apply to the Federal powers to tax, to police, to regulate wage and hour laws, etc. becomes greater. These kind of issues that pit the Constitutional Tenth Amendment Rights of the States against the Federal Government will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.