opa-opines.net

Isn’t the election of 2008 finished? For what reason are the members of the defeated party still giving speeches against the winning party? Why do the republicans find it necessary to provide their own “budget” before even voting upon the one proposed by the democratic leaders? When will the election cycle be completed? If I remember correctly, we have a tradition in America. We campaign hard for the candidate and/or policies that we prefer, then accept the winner and get on with our lives until the next election cycle. In that vein, although we may have voted for the loser in an election, we give the winner a chance for success. Unlike some countries that regularly stage coup against their “leaders”, our cultural tenets helps us maintain a stable society.

The election of 2008 was a long, rough, and very expensive campaign. The “primaries” lasted a year, and raised many millions of dollars. We were treated to about 25 presidential “debates”. The issues presented showed a very clear difference among the candidates and between the parties. In November 2008 it seemed that an actual mandate had been received as “the people” gave the winning presidential contender a more than 8.5 million vote victory and a clear majority in both houses of the congress. Most Americans breathed a huge sign of relief, no more politics for awhile.

Little did we know.

The campaign is still raging. Republicans regularly release statements defining their “agenda”, and act like they still believe they are in control. When the majority party proposes a bill, the minority tries to vote unanimously against it – often succeeding. For many years, the citizens of the USA have complained about partisan bickering. That bickering seems to be worse after the election than it was before or during the election.

To fuel the partisan fighting, many congressmen and several committees or groups are still trying to raise money. These financial appeals are not directed at removing old campaign debt, but to battle against the other party. And, of course, both parties are frantically raising money.

When will they realize that we already cast our vote? When will they yield to tradition and simply do their work? Don’t they realize that if this does not stop “the people” may increasingly avoid both political parties?

I don’t know anyone that likes the bickering. Listening to the news, we believe that our nation has many serious problems. Health care is in crisis. The economy is sputtering. We are involved in two wars. The people I know prefer that our representatives just solve the problems.

 

Who does the economic crisis really hurt? Some politicos claim they are not hurt, that they have yet to see a recession. Maybe that is because they are somehow insulated from “main street”, as I frequently see people in pain due to our ailing economy. So, what is the face of a person hurt by our current economic crises?

First, we have the unemployed father of six children, who recently lost his job due to a “slow down”. He is a single dad since his wife was killed In a automobile accident ten months ago. How will he survive, how can he earn enough money to feed and clothe his children, pay for rent and utilities, and gas for the car? He knows that on unemployment compensation he cannot meet his obligations.

Then there is the teacher who was let go and no longer has a job because of low funds in the school district. He may survive on his job at a fast food restaurant. It is his students, now in a much larger class, whose education is suffering. One of his classes needed to be eliminated. so the students who can no longer take the subject he once taught are the ones whose education is hurting.

Others are the fireman and rookie police officer fired because the city budget can not afford their salaries. Yes, both are having some financial problems, but it is the city than suffers. Without an adequate force some

homeowner’s house may burn down. With fewer police the crime rate may increase. Due to budget problems caused by a lowered tax base, the city is not as safe.

Finally, workers nearing retirement are losing their nest eggs. Many, after decades of carefully building for their retirement have had their funds nearly eliminated. People who planned on retiring in the next few years now face long delays in their planned retirement. A few may need to work the rest of their lives.

So, I doubt that many politicians are really experiencing difficulties due to the recession as their salary and benefits are not sensitive to the economy. Some bankers lost their jobs but most left with huge bonus payments. Many companies went bankrupt but only the small business owners are in dire condition.

Typically it is those in poverty, the homeless, and the middle class who have real problems in a recession. If our politicians do not see that then they are not really in touch with the majority of the voters.

The question of whether the US should torture (enhanced interrogation) any “detainees” keeps bubbling. Some commentators insist there are two issues: Is torture legal, and does torture work to get us vital information.

I strongly disagree! There is only one question: Does the US believe that torture is the “right” thing to do. Do we believe a human – even an enemy – should have the “right” to NOT be tortured. Is there any possible justification for the “beacon of freedom”, the symbol of human rights, to ever stoop to inflicting pain and near death to another human just to make ourselves “safe”?

There is only one principle and it is a moral one. This nation was founded upon human rights. In our Declaration of independence we say “we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal.” In the Constitution, in our “Bill of Rights”, we insist that each person has freedoms and should be protected from cruel punishments*. We say in the fifth amendment that we cannot lose our rights without “due process of law”.* Due process includes the right to not incriminate ourselves.

Does the Constitution limit these rights to American Citizens? No. The Constitution does not say that the rights are limited to citizens, nor should it. When our founders created this nation they saw it as an exception to the abusive countries of the rest of the world.

Do we want this nation to become like the countries that abuse people? I think not. Liberty such as we have in this country must be carefully protected. It was worth the sacrifices of the Wars we fought to ensure our rights. Those rights must not be surrendered now just to gain a little information.    

* Constitution of the United States

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So, Supreme Court Justice David Souter will retire. Already some politicians are making picking a replacement into a political curcus. Personally I wonder how we can criticize a nominee that doesn’t yet exist.

We can, I believe, provide input to the Obama administration concerning the sort of person we prefer to see appointed to the highest court in our land. I have a few suggestions. First let us look at the Constitution.

The Constitution Article 2 Section2 details Presidential powers on this matter.

The President . . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties . . . and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

Note that the Constitution simply says that the President “shall appoint” Judges of the Supreme Court , “with the advice and consent of the Senate”, It does not mention any qualifications for that appointee.

Surprisingly to many people, it is not necessary for a nominee to be a judge or even a lawyer. I have researched numerous issues in law books and court decisions. We have had lawyers and judges for many years and I am not sure that they have made the best decisions. Many politicians complain that recent justices have written new law instead of judging matters on the Constitution and laws already on the books. We may avoid that by appointing someone other than a lawyer.

Read the constitution. It is not difficult to understand. For example the Constitution says that the power of the federal government is limited.

The Constitution Amendment 10

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.

Despite this very clear amendment, Justices of the Supreme Court have decided that their rulings, or a bill passed by Congress, are above the Constitution. How can they make that huge illogical leap? Maybe it is because they are lawyers. Few laymen would suggest that Congress, The President, or the Court have the privilege of changing our Constitution. One example makes the point. Since there is no mention in the Constitution of a right to privacy or a woman’s “right to choose”, how did the Supreme Court decide Roe v Wade? The tenth amendment clearly says that, since those “rights” are not mentioned in the Constitution, the “right to privacy” and a woman’s “right to choose” are reserved to the States or to the people. To a non-lawyer such as myself, the Supreme Court must ask for a Constitutional amendment or leave it alone.

So, who do we want nominated to the Court? We want a non lawyer who can read, and not imagine what is not there. We want a person with common sense. We need a person who cares about we the people. We want a person who knows that the Supreme Court is not a legislature. I think many such people exist, let us recommend some to the President.

It seems that every time I try to listen to a cable news channel I hear argument concerning whether President Obama should prosecute senior Bush Administration officials. During press briefings, news reporters even attempt to push Obama into saying he thinks they are guilty of violating US and international laws concerning torture. This is irritating.

A brief review of history suggests to me that Presidents do not tend to prosecute their predecessor . Historically congress has investigated presidents, for example Andrew Johnson. The Department of Justice has appointed special prosecutors, for example to investigate Nixon and Clinton.

I don’t think it is the President’s job to investigate or prosecute a former President. Further, I don’t want a sitting President to think he has such power. To me that kind of power reminds me too much of a monarchy.

A sitting President must focus upon the needs of the nation, and especially now, we need the President to try to lead concerning the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the looming entitlement mess. I think the President should not be sidetracked by political investigations.

Frankly, if it is necessary to prosecute a prior administration, I believe that congress should appoint an independent special prosecutor. There must be some attorneys who are independent people of principle, driven by the law itself, and not involved in political wars. Hopefully congress will pass a law mandating such an appointment. Then we can concentrate on moving the nation forward.

What do you think?