KING GEORGE - “WE DON’T NEED A CONSTITUTION AS LONG AS I AM KING”

Apparently Bush has decided, along with his “War Czar” General Douglas Lute, that permanent bases in Iraq don’t require the approval of either house of Congress. Lute said the White House intends to conclude negotiations on an enduring security guarantee with the Maliki government in July. Permanent military bases and residual troop levels will be specified in the final accord.

The following is Lute’s high-minded view of permanency in Iraq:

Q General, will the White House seek any congressional input on this?

GENERAL LUTE: In the course of negotiations like this, it’s not — it is typical that there will be a dialogue between congressional leaders at the negotiating table, which will be run out of the Department of State. We don’t anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.

Q Is the purpose of avoiding the treaty avoiding congressional input?

GENERAL LUTE: No, as I said, we have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty.

Below the level of a treaty? I doubt that the Founding Fathers even had something “below the level of a treaty” in mind when they wrote the Constitution. After all, we were a fledging nation with no real Army or Navy and with little military might. There would have been no reason to even think of agreements with other nations as anything other than treaties.

But never one to be deterred by the Constitution, Bush has again decided to ignore the checks and balances carefully crafted by the Founding Fathers by using semantics. The Bush administration announced the Declaration of Principles for a Long-term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship with Iraq, an agreement to start formal negotiations with Iraq about a long-term security pact between the United States and Iraq.

The Declaration sets a goal of concluding this final agreement by July 31, 2008. The “agreement” will not be called a treaty - as he so imperiously reminds critics that many other agreements do not bear the label “treaty.” His logic is, of course, that if it isn’t called a treaty then there is no need for Congressional input as required by the Constitution. Here’s what the Constitution and the Founding Fathers said about treaties:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

He shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur….

In order to enter into formal agreements called treaties, the president must get advice and consent from the Senate. If something is not termed a treaty, then the Senate can be bypassed and thus prevented from providing input as the Founding Fathers mandated.

The issue was raised long ago by the New York Times. On April 20, 2003, The New York Times ran a story citing unnamed sources indicating the U.S. military was planning as many as four permanent military bases in Iraq. The next day, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed the story as “inaccurate and unfortunate.”

The national media, mesmerized and enamored by the “shock and awe” tactics of the recently initiated occupation and not willing to criticize a war only a month old, dropped the story after Rumsfeld’s disclaimer. Later that same year, the November 19, 2003, edition of the Jordanian daily al-Arab al-Yawm reported that the U.S. government had plans for six bases. The sources revealed the names of these bases and the planned positions for permanent deployment. They were:

• Al-Habbaniyah Airbase [already an RAF airbase for much of the last century] near the city of al-Fallujah, 65km west of Baghdad;
• Ash-Sha’biyah Airbase in Basra, 600km south of Baghdad;
• ‘Ali ibn Abi Taleb Airbase on the outskirts of the city of an-Nasiriyah, 400km south of Baghdad;
• al-Walid Airbase about 330km north west of Baghdad;
• al-Ghazlani Camp in the city of Mosul, 400km north of Baghdad;
• A permanent deployment of forces in the east of Iraq in what is known as the Hamrin mountain range that extends from Diyala Provice, 60km east of Baghdad, and borders on Iran and extends to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, 260km north of Baghdad.

Five years later, it looks like the story was accurate. Bush and his neocon supporters had a plan all along to go into Iraq and stay. The American public, so hungry for revenge after 9/11, gave the “King” a blank check. His plans are made, and he has utter disdain for our Constitution and its checks and balances. By calling this an informal agreement and not a treaty, he hopes to circumvent Constitutional protections that were structured to guard against just such a dictatorial frame of mind.

However, in an attempt to thwart King George’s most recent power grab, Rep. Barbara Lee recently introduced a bill to prevent Bush from signing any agreement emerging from the Declaration of Principles without consulting Congress. A parallel bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Photo Credit: Hillary for President

____________________________________________________________

Since November 2007, attacks on the Bush-Maliki agreement’s constitutionality have mounted. Bill Delahunt, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, has held a series of hearings on the legality of the Declaration of Principles. During the most recent Delahunt hearing, experts almost universally concluded that the agreement violates the Constitution, since Congress was not consulted in the process of its approval.

Throughout his seven years in office, Bush has undertaken an onslaught against liberties and rights as well as undermined the Constitution.   No matter how much power a president usurps, his reign always comes to an end.  King George’s term is about at an end. With its end, perhaps we can get back to a government based on our Constitution and its checks and balances - a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

WE’VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY - BUT APPARENTLY NOT FAR ENOUGH

If you recall, the slogan “You’ve come a long way, baby” was tied to a cigarette, Virginia Slims, back in the ’70s. The notion was that “wow, look at all that has been accomplished by women.” For those women who think we should be satisfied that yet another male will lead this country, let’s step back in history to look at some of the ways that women have been treated since our Founding Fathers and Mothers landed on these shores.

Women truly have been the last recipients of whatever benefits male-dominated state legislatures, a male-dominated Congress, a male-dominated Supreme Court, and all 43 male presidents have been willing to bestow. But women have always been the first recipients of the desire to keep them locked into the dutiful keeper of hearth and home.

The Declaration of Independence declared that “all men are created equal”, and, at the time it was written, it certainly didn’t include women. The typical signer of the Declaration was male, white, wealthy, and propertied. The signers of the Declaration - 56 males in all - were predominantly educated and wealthy. Many were college and university graduates with a professional predominance of judges and lawyers. Women didn’t even enter the equation.

In 1776, years before her husband, John Adams, would become president, Abigail Adams cautioned him “to remember the ladies.” Obviously, he and the other Founding Fathers didn’t listen. At the Constitutional Convention, again women were excluded from participation. The 55 male delegates represented 12 colonies - Rhode Island refused to send representatives. The issue of women’s rights was not discussed; the “ladies” were sublimely ignored. Yet, the issue of slavery was debated.

The delegates decided that it would be impossible to arrive at an agreed upon constitution without the support of southern states - they knew they didn’t need to worry about women. Therefore, efforts were made to accommodate the practice of slavery in the southern states with a Constitutional provision inserted to protect importation of slaves until 1808. Women had no such impact on the debates swirling at the Convention.

In 1868, the 14th amendment actually used the words “male citizens” in section 2 when determining who would be counted in setting the number of representatives each state would receive in Congress. A companion Civil War amendment, the 15th passed in 1870, mandated that the right to vote could not be denied based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Ah, one might think, that means that African-American women could vote after passage of the 15th amendment. After all, they fit the criteria set forth in the amendment. And one would be wrong again. Even though the amendment failed to distinguish male from female in providing the right to vote, our male-dominated society once again said, “no dice” to the right of women to vote.

In 1872, Susan B. Anthony demanded that women be given the same civil and political rights that had been extended to black males under the 14th and 15th amendments. Thus, she led a group of women to the polls in Rochester to test the right of women to vote. She was arrested two weeks later and while awaiting trial, engaged in highly publicized lecture tours and in March 1873, she tried to vote again in city elections. After being tried and convicted of violating the voting laws, Susan succeeded in her refusal to pay the fine. But Susan B. Anthony was not to live to see women enjoy the right to vote. She died on March 13, 1906 - the 19th amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920.

Women were not only left out of the political process, they were also considered chattel - mere property. The doctrine of coverture was imported from England and followed in the American colonies. Coverture was the principle that once a woman was married, her identity was absorbed by that of her husband. They become one, and that one was? You guessed it - the husband. The married woman could not dispose of property, could not contract, could not sue or be sued, could not sign legal documents, could not obtain an education without consent, and could not keep a salary.

If losing one’s identity weren’t bad enough, the legal system also consorted in keeping women in their place. The Anglo-American common law originally provided that a husband, as master of his household, could subject his wife to corporal punishment or “chastisement” as long as he did not inflict permanent injury upon her.

In a series of mid-1800 North Carolina cases, judges likened wives to unruly children who needed to be chastised and physically punished if necessary to be kept in line.

• Joyner v. Joyner, 59 N.C. 322 (1862)
  • A husband struck his wife with a horse-whip and a switch
  • Judge’s response: “But we are of the opinion that it was necessary to state the circumstances under which the blow with the horse-whip, and the blows with the switch, were given; for instance, what was the conduct of the petitioner; what had she done, or said, to induce such violence on the part of the husband?”
  • Judge’s decision: The wife deserved the beatings because she had an “unruly temper.” The judge stated that “if you will amend your manners, you may expect better treatment.” No divorce granted.
• State v. Black, 60 N.C. 262 (1864)
  • A husband, during an argument with his wife, dragged her onto the floor by her hair. He restrained himself from choking her.
  • Judge’s response: “The wife commenced the quarrel. The husband, in a passion provoked by excessive abuse, pulled her upon the floor by the hair…” “A husband is responsible for the act of his wife, and he is required to govern his household, and for that purpose the law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum or go behind the curtain.”
  • Judge’s decision: Jury should have ruled in favor of the defendant (the husband).
• State v. Rhodes, 61 N.C. 453 (186
  • The husband struck the wife three blows with a switch about the size of one of his fingers. No one could remember the words spoken by the wife which triggered the beating, so they were considered “trifling” by the court.
  • Judge’s response: “The violence complained of would, without a question, have constituted battery, if the subject had not been the defendant’s wife. The question is therefore plainly presented whether the court will allow a conviction of the husband for moderate correction of the wife without provocation.”
  • Judge’s decision: ….that family government is recognized by law as being complete in itself as the state government is in itself… and that we will not interfere with or attempt to control it in favor of either husband or wife. …. But then who can tell what had happened an hour before, and every hour for a week? To him they (the words) may have been sharper than a sword. There is no error. [The husband won.]

While not all states allowed wife-beating, the fact that courts legally condoned the activity is ludicrous. But remember, women were seen as chattel rather than co-equal partners in the marital relationship.

And now, after centuries of being treated as second-class citizens, after being the last group to receive the right to vote, after fight after fight to achieve economic, social, and political equality, we are about to see one of the worst examples of just how insidious gender discrimination still is.

Hillary Clinton has all the qualities to be a leader, to be the president of the United States. She has been an excellent senator for her constituents in New York, she has earned the praise of both Democrats and Republicans as being well-informed, she is disciplined and on message when she speaks. Other nations have already elected women as leaders. But I can just hear the responses to that statement. They might go something like, “Yes, but we are the greatest, most powerful country in the world. We can’t trust that position to a woman.”

The media has selected its darling and that is Barack Obama. Even Saturday Night Live did a skit on the extraordinary treatment he gets. And when Clinton referred to it during the Tuesday night debate in Ohio, she got booed. What on earth for? I am guessing those who booed were Obama supporters.

I have not heard anyone say they are not voting for Hillary because she doesn’t have experience or that she can’t handle the presidency. The reasons I have heard go to a real hatred of anything Clintonian and a distrust of the abilities of women. And, I will guarantee you that many of the men in this country would vote for anyone who wasn’t a woman.

Hillary Clinton is a woman, and she bears the last name of Clinton. Those will be the reasons she is not elected. It certainly isn’t because of her lack of qualities. And, it isn’t because Obama has dazzled everyone with his experience instead of his words.

So after a long history of leaving women in the dust when it comes to equality in this country, it is about to happen again. Hillary, just like the moth that gets too close to the flame, got too close to the flame of the presidency for comfort. And, she is about to get burned by reality - the reality that Americans may still not be ready to give a woman the opportunity to be president. I certainly hope I am proven wrong.

But anyone who thinks gender isn’t playing a role in this election is hiding behind a false sense of how far women have come. Yep, “You’ve come a long way Baby” but, apparently not far enough.

HUCKABEE AND RELIGION - TAILOR CONSTITUTION TO GOD’S STANDARDS

Huckabee is getting desperate, and he is getting dangerously close to emulating the Islamic religious view of government. In Michigan, he made the following statement:

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Many Muslim countries base their governments and official duties on Islamic Law:

Saudi Arabia:

Sources of Law. - Word “law” in Saudi Arabia is understood to refer to Islamic law (in Arabic, Shari’ah). All secular regulations are subject to and interpreted in accordance with Shari’ah precepts.

Chapter 1 General Principles

Article 1

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.

Pakistan:

Islam to be State religion

Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.

Iraq:

Chapter One: Basic Principles

Islam is the national religion and a basic foundation for the country’s laws; however, freedom of religion is upheld.

Iran:

Article 4 (Islamic Principle)

Article 4 is immutable and the Council of Guardians ensures that all articles of the Constitution as well other laws are based on Islamic criteria.

Afghanistan:

Chapter 1 The State

Article 2 Religions

(1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam
(2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article 2 Law and Religion

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

These are just a sampling of the countries with Islam as the national state religion. Huckabee’s statements go against the very reasons many of our founders came to this country. The Constitution prohibits both an “establishment of religion” as well as the use of a “religious test” for public officials. The Huckabee clip is below.

Huckabee is the worst kind of presidential candidate. He is a cleric, he is fanatical, he campaigns with his eye to exploiting religion using his beliefs - whether sincere or not, and he sees his interpretation of the Bible and God as the correct one. When Huckabee says “We should amend the Constitution to follow God’s standards”, whose denominational standards would be talking about? Reviewing biblical passages reveals that the Bible does not mention “abortion” or “homosexuality.” But, of course, tailoring the Constitution according to God’s standards really means tailoring the Constitution to Huckabee standards.

ROBERT ROUSE- FIRST AMENDMENT SHUFFLE

Robert, of Left of Centrist, has outdone himself with this one. For those of you who are not familiar with the Constitution, it contains the Preamble, the Body (those 7 articles that established our federal government and its powers), and the 27 amendments. The First Amendment is one of the first ten amendments - better known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the first Congress was held in 1789. One of the first items on the agenda was to pass a Bill of Rights to allay the fears of the citizens that their new federal government would be too powerful. The final offering was what is known as the Bill of Rights and prevents the federal government from infringing certain of our rights and liberties.

But it sure looks like Bush has all but forgotten about those rights in his rush to “Bushify” the rest of the world as well as trounce on us as citizens.

Anyway, here is the video. And I hope Robert does many more.

THE EYES HAVE IT - BEWARE OF BIOMETRICS

Mark Souder has become a crusader for biometrics identification (ID) cards; however, he admits the political climate is not yet ripe. That statement alone indicates he must think sometime in the future it will be ripe.

Biometrics is, generally, the study of measurable biological characteristics. In computer security, biometrics refers to authentication techniques that rely on measurable physical characteristics that can be automatically checked. We are already seeing biometrics in everyday life. For example, the fingerprint requirement at banks for “non-customers” as well as at some larger stores for check cashing purposes.

There are several types of biometric identification schemes:

• face: the analysis of facial characteristics
• fingerprint: the analysis of an individual’s unique fingerprints
• hand geometry: the analysis of the shape of the hand and the length of the fingers
• retina: the analysis of the capillary vessels located at the back of the eye
• iris: the analysis of the colored ring that surrounds the eye’s pupil
• signature: the analysis of the way a person signs his name.
• vein: the analysis of pattern of veins in the back if the hand and the wrist
• voice: the analysis of the tone, pitch, cadence and frequency of a person’s voice

Souder has taken up the biometric cause from his spot as the top GOP member on the House Homeland Security Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. Our Third district is also home to a facility owned by Beaverton, Oregon-based Digimarc Corporation, a producer of 32 states’ drivers licenses, including some with biometric information.

Opponents of biometrics feel that there are lots of ways that biometrics are not as reliable and infallible as people tend to think they are. Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation states, “I would argue that the burden of proof is on the proponents of biometrics to show that it is actually going to be workable as security.”

According to Tien, a major reason biometric technologies do well in labs but perform poorly when implemented is because lab tests haven’t sufficiently simulated people trying to defeat the system. All the while, Tien argues, citizens would pay a steep toll in terms of personal privacy if they had to submit biometric identifiers.

Supporters of increased use of biometrics argue that that is precisely the point — being able to identify, track and monitor bad actors so you know who they are and where they are is essential for national security. But who is bad? And how many non-bad “actors” will get swept into the system?

And, aside from the increased security, there would be practical effects that would improve people’s lives, supporters say.

For example, passengers who are commonly confused with someone listed on the no-fly list could clear the matter up in a few short minutes if they are carrying a biometrically enabled ID card and airport security personnel are equipped with a reader that can verify or disprove a match.

In addition to helping to create an adequate redress process and greater security for airline passengers, Souder said biometrically enabled ID cards would help other homeland security agencies to perform their functions better:

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement could go into American companies and accurately ensure that they are not employing illegal residents.

• Customs and Border Protection could accurately identify people attempting to enter the country via a land or sea port of entry.

• State and local police could identify potential threats when they are enforcing traffic and other domestic laws.

• Bank tellers could ensure that legitimate people are the ones removing or adding money to an account.

Souder is considering drafting a bill that would give financial incentives or direct funding to states that include biometrics when implementing the Real ID Act (PL 109-13). Remember, that is the 2005 law requiring states to comply with minimum security standards for issuing driver’s licenses or identification cards or risk having those IDs cease to be accepted for boarding flights or entering federal buildings.

Souder says he is taking a “patient approach”, assuming time and circumstance are on his side. Let’s prove him wrong.

Keep your eyes peeled on this issue - pardon the pun - because I can assure you, given the Bush administration’s rule by fiat and secrecy, we will see it pushed, and it sounds like Mark Souder is in the forefront of that push.

Let’s hope the American people never let themselves be cowed into accepting a national ID card in the form of biometrics. At some point, enough is enough.

WHERE THERE’S SMOKE - MAYBE THERE’S A GUN

Probably of little surprise to court watchers everywhere, the United States Supreme Court recently announced it would hear arguments on the always-heated issue of the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application. The Supreme Court has granted a Writ of Certiorari to hear the District of Columbia’s request to uphold its power to regulate guns within the district.

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights passed by the first Congress in 1789 and ratified as a unit by 1791. The Bill of Rights, however, only applied against the new federal government and was not meant to affect the existing states’ powers vis-a-vis their own citizens.

Over the following years, and in particular after passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court slowly found that many of the clauses of the various amendments should apply to the states as well. The doctrine the Supreme Court used was known as “selective incorporation.”

But the Second Amendment has never been held to apply against the states, thus states and their derivatives, such as municipalities and cities, have been free to regulate the possession of guns. That application may very well change next year when the Supreme Court takes up the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, 375 U.S. App. D.C. 140 (2007). Only one individual, Richard Heller, was found to have standing in the case, thus the writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court will only address certain issues raised by the decision as to that one individual.

The Supreme Court has limited arguments to the following three statutory provisions:

D.C. Code 7-2502.02(a)(4):

7-2502.02. Registration of certain firearms prohibited [Formerly 6-2312]

(a) A registration certificate shall not be issued for a:

(1) Sawed-off shotgun;

(2) Machine gun;

(3) Short-barreled rifle; or

(4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976, except that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any organization that employs at least 1 commissioned special police officer or other employee licensed to carry a firearm and that arms the employee with a firearm during the employee’s duty hours or to a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department.

(b) Nothing in this section shall prevent a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department from registering a pistol.

D.C. Code 7-2507.02

7-2507.02 Firearms required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked [Formerly 6-2372]

Except for law enforcement personnel described in 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

D.C. Code 22-4504. Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of crime of violence; penalty [Formerly 22-3204]

(a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in , except that:

(1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person’s dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than $ 5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

(2) If the violation of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than $ 10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

The petition for a writ of certiorari was granted limited to the issue of whether the above provisions violate the rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.

An issue that complicates the factual basis is that Washington, D.C. is a unique creation and is a city with boundaries coterminous with the federal district. The District of Columbia and the city of Washington are governed by a single municipal government and for most practical purposes, are considered to be the same entity.

Before the Court can undertake analysis of the statutory sections, I believe it will have to determine the status of the District of Columbia. Since it is a city within a district and not witin a state, the 14th amendment probably cannot be used to analyze the application in terms of forbidding states to infringe citizens’ rights. But since it is a federal entity, then the Second Amendment would apply since the Bill of Rights applies against the federal government. If that is the path that the Court takes, then the ruling will be limited only to Washington, D.C. and will still leave the states free to impose restrictions on guns.

If the Court simply wanted to let the appellate ruling stand, it could have denied cert, thereby leaving the lower court’s decision of the unconstitutionality of the statutes intact. Conventional thought is that the Court does not take cases just to reaffirm a lower court’s decision. I may be incorrect, but I believe the case, while touted as the case to again raise the issues of individual gun rights vs. collective rights through militia participation will not resolve the debate. The Court will limit its decision to those citizens of Washington, D.C. as a federal entity.

FDR, THE FEAR OF POLIO, AND THOUGHTS OF HISTORY

I visited the Franklin D. Roosevelt memorial when I was in Washington, DC a couple of weeks ago. The memorial is long and spread out with insets containing the statues and exhibits of the memorial.

The first “cubby-hole” of the memorial contained a statue of FDR sitting in his wheelchair - his physical disabilities attributed to what was believed to be polio. As I looked at the statue, I couldn’t help but think of how far we have come from the days when a diagnosis of polio was seen with fear and despair and often considered a death sentence. Polio was once one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the 20th century, crippling thousands of people, mostly young children, each year.

Polio is an acute viral infectious disease spread from person-to-person, primarily via the fecal-oral route. While roughly 90% of polio infections are without symptoms, affected individuals can exhibit a range of more severe symptoms if the virus enters the blood stream. In less than 1% of polio cases the virus enters the central nervous system (CNS), infecting and destroying motor neurons. The destruction of motor neurons causes muscle weakness and paralysis.

In the early 20th century much of the world experienced a dramatic increase in the number of polio cases, leading to a series of epidemics. At the height of the polio epidemic in 1952, nearly 60,000 cases with more than 3,000 deaths were reported in the United States alone. The epidemics provided the trigger to search for vaccines to eradicate the disease. Eventually those vaccines were developed by Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin. Today, polio is considered eradicated in the United States but not in other parts of the world.

As I continued through the memorial, I thought also how hard it must have been to maintain the pace of a presidency while suffering from what was surely unending pain each day. Several waterfalls were interspersed among the statues - almost as if placing something calming amongst the tumultuous periods of Roosevelt’s presidency.

In 1932, Roosevelt inherited a country struggling to recover from the Great Depression. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems.

Although recovery of the economy was incomplete until almost 1940, many programs initiated in the Roosevelt administration continue to have instrumental roles in our nation’s commerce, such as the FDIC, TVA, and the SEC. One of his most important legacies was and still is the Social Security system.

After 1938, Roosevelt championed re-armament and led the nation away from isolationism as the world headed into World War II. He provided extensive support to Winston Churchill and the British war effort before the attack on Pearl Harbor pulled the U.S. into the fighting.

During the war, Roosevelt made the United States the principal arms supplier and financier of the Allies who later, along side the United States, defeated Germany, Italy and Japan. Roosevelt led the United States as it became the Arsenal of Democracy and put 16 million American men into uniform.

FDR is, to me, one of the greatest of our presidents. But he made one overriding decision with which I do not agree. He issued Executive Order #9066, which authorized U.S. armed forces commanders to declare areas of the United States as military areas “from which any or all persons may be excluded.” It was eventually applied to one-third of the land area of the U.S. - mostly in the West- and was used against those with “Foreign Enemy Ancestry” - aimed at Japanese-Americans, in particular.

The order led to the Japanese American internment in which some 110,000 ethnic Japanese people were held in internment camps for the duration of the war. Of the Japanese interned, 62 percent were Nisei (American-born, second-generation Japanese American) or Sansei (third-generation Japanese American) and the rest were Issei (Japanese immigrants and resident aliens, first-generation Japanese American).

Although not discussed as thoroughly as the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Order led to the internment of those of the ancestry of the other two Axis powers - Germany and Italy. Approximately 11,000 persons of German ancestry - including many American-born children - as well as some 10,000 people of Italian-American ancestry were interned.

But Roosevelt wasn’t the only one complicit in the internment of Japanese-Americans. The Supreme Court heard two cases - one in 1943 and one in 1944 - either one of which could have been the vehicle to correct the travesty of both internment and the restrictions placed on movements of Japanese-Americans. Both cases involved American-born U.S. citizens - unfortunately for both, they were of Japanese descent.

In Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, an America-born citizen who was in his senior year of college, was convicted of violating a curfew order and a relocation order. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court relying on the exigencies of war.

In Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) , Toyosaburo Koramatsu was also convicted of violating an exclusion order which required that all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from the designated military area after May 9, 1942.

Again, relying on the exigencies of war, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions. But, unlike the Hirabayashi decision which was unanimous, this time three justices found the courage to dissent. Justice Murphy stated in his dissent:

“I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.”

The internments were a travesty generated by fear and racial discrimination. Internment served little purpose other than to highlight fears of those who happened to be of Italian, German, or Japanese descent.

Ironically, in 1933, as Roosevelt stood before his first inaugural crowd, trying to bolster the spirit and the courage of the American people held prisoner to economic uncertainty and despair, he said the following:

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

The very quote so eloquently stated in 1933 was later so blatantly disregarded as fear overtook Roosevelt, the government, and the American people. Roosevelt’s assurance that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” truly became lost in the early days of our entry into World War II.

MIKE PENCE - HYPOCRITE ON RAMADAN RESOLUTION

HYPOCRITE (from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary)

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

A few weeks ago Mike Pence made the absurd observation that being in Iraq was just like being in Indiana on a summer day. I could swear I could hear guffaws from around the world on that one. What on earth would possess someone to liken a day in an Iraqi market to a day in Indiana? Loss of sanity? A true misunderstanding of the Iraqi situation? Blind following of his leader’s path?

Pence just amazes me. On Tuesday, forty-one Republicans and one Democrat voted “present” on a resolution recognizing the commencement of Ramadan. There were zero “no” votes, so representatives voted either “yes” or “present.”

Republican representative Mike Pence of Indiana’s 6th district said, “I voted ‘present’ because I read somewhere that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” Really? He read somewhere? Would that somewhere be the United States Constitution? So why didn’t he just vote no?

When a lawsuit was filed challenging the use of the religious motto “In God We Trust” as an establishment of religion, Pence joined 46 other members represented by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) in urging the federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. The basis for requesting the dismissal? The motto was not an establishment of religion but simply evidence of patriotism and our national religious heritage.

Recognizing the Islamic religious observance of Ramadan in Pence’s eyes becomes an “establishment” of religion and he ducks behind the Establishment Clause. On the other hand, when it comes to the motto, “In God We Trust”, Pence joins in the position that the motto certainly does not violate the Establishment Clause even though the ACLJ Amicus Brief flat out refers to the motto as a reflection of our national religious heritage. And, even though we are a nation of religious diversity, in 2001,76.5% (159 million) of Americans identified themselves as Christian.

Funny how Pence’s reliance on the Establishment Clause changes with his views. What a hypocrite.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ” ITS ONLY KEEPERS, THE PEOPLE.” - GEORGE WASHINGTON

Monday, September 17th, is Constitution Day. This year is the 220th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution - at 4,440 words, it is the oldest and the shortest written constitution of any major government in the world.

The Constitutional Convention convened on May 25, 1787, in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Freshly spread dirt covered the cobblestone street in front of the building, protecting the men inside from the sound of passing carriages and carts. Guards stood at the entrances to ensure that the curious were kept at a distance. The proceedings were held in secret.

James Madison, “the Father of the Constitution,” arrived first in Philadelphia for the Convention. Arriving in February, three months before the Convention began, he brought with him the blueprint for the new Constitution.

Seventy individuals had been chosen to attend the meetings with the initial purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation, the document which up to that point had loosely held the colonies together. Rhode Island was the only colony which chose not to send a delegate to the meeting. Fifty-five men attended most of the meetings, but only thirty-nine delegates actually signed the Constitution.

After four months of debates, on September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention drew to a close. Benjamin Franklin, at 81 the oldest delegate to sign the Constitution, mused:

“I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve of them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”

Frail, in poor health, and barely able to walk, he needed help to sign his name to the document, and, as he did so, tears streamed down his face. Great debates would rage for the next few months as those who supported the new government argued for its acceptance and ratification while those opposed would argue just as fervently against its implementation.

By late June of 1788, the debate was over; the required number of states had ratified the Constitution, and the “Great Experiment” had begun.

OUR CONSTITUTION

Our Constitution is composed of three parts: The Preamble, the Body consisting of seven Articles, and the 27 Amendments.

The first part is the Preamble. The Preamble is much like a vision statement of a business: It contains the goals of the Founding Fathers for the new Nation. The Preamble reads as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The second part is the body. The body contains the seven articles passed to help govern the new Nation. Those Articles are:

Article I - Sets out the powers of the legislature and the requirements to be a representative or a senator. Each state has two senators and a number of representatives based on population. The number of a state’s representatives is adjusted every 10 years based on the census. Population shifts can either add to the number or subtract from the number. The number of senators remains the same - only two.

Section 8 of Article I contains the powers given to Congress to govern the country. It sets out such powers as laying and collecting taxes, regulating commerce among the several states, coining money, declaring war, etc.

Article II - Sets out the powers of the executive and the requirements to be the president. Originally, no term limits were imposed, but, until Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected for a third term and then a fourth, no person had been elected more than twice. To ensure that no person held office for too long, the 22nd Amendment was proposed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. It was ratified by the required 3/4 of the states on February 27, 1951.

Article III - Sets out the powers of the judiciary, its jurisdiction, and the requirements to be a federal judge. The Supreme Court was the only court actually established by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to establish inferior Courts as it saw fit from time to time.

Article IV - Establishes the principle of “Full Faith and Credit.” This principle was meant to create a level playing field among the states by requiring that each state recognize its sister state’s inherent ability to govern by giving “full faith and credit” to the public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.”

Article V - Establishes the process for amending the Constitution when necessary. The bar to amend was set fairly high - 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures - to prevent the amending process from becoming too easy to navigate.

Article VI - Establishes the Constitution and the Laws of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land. When conflicts occur between a state and the federal government, the federal government controls.

Article VI also provides that all debts would be assumed by the federal government. This Article insured that any debts incurred by the national government under the Articles of Confederation would be honored under the Constitution. These Revolutionary War debts were considerable. In addition, many individual states still owed substantial sums for war expenses.

Article VII - Provides the process by which the Constitution would become binding on the states. The ratification of 3/4 of the colonies’ legislatures was required to ratify the new Constitution.

The third part is the amendments. The Constitution has been ramended 27 times. Ten of those amendments were added during the meeting of the first Congress in 1789 with ratification in 1791. The first ten amendments are known collectively as the “Bill of Rights” and were added to allay fears that the new government would take away rights cherished by the colonists - freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.

The topics of the additional 17 amendments range from providing the vote to women, 18-year olds, and minorities; abolishing slavery; changing the method of electing senators, etc.

As George Washington stated, “its only keepers, the people.” As a Nation, we must know how our Constitution was born and what our Constitution says in order to be “keepers”. Many would like to think it is a document set in stone and the words have no life - their philosophy is that what the Constitution said in 1787 on the day of its signing is what it should mean today.

But the Founding Fathers probably realized they could not possibly provide for every contingency and that future generations would see the world in a different way, tailoring the Constitution through interpretations and amendments to meet the needs of the very posterity that they spoke of in the Preamble.

While all of us have busy lives, take a moment on Monday to think, just think, about the feat that was accomplished at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, that September 17th, 220 years ago. Think of the 39 who dared to sign the document, setting the country on an uncharted course. Think of the heated political debates that took place as those who signed returned home to convince their fellow citizens that this was the right thing to do. Think of the courage those at the Constitutional Convention displayed. And, finally, think about this - our Founding Fathers were not perfect; they had their flaws, and they were the wealthy and propertied of the colonies. They did not represent the majority of the colonists. The Founding Fathers were the elite of the times worried about retaining their status and power.

But, regardless of their status and wealth, they gave us a document that is ours now.

Margaret Mead once said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Her statement could read, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed keepers can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” The Constitution is not set in stone; it is a living, breathing document.

We are the Keepers, and Constitution Day is the day we should remember that and commit to our power to change not only our society but also our world for the better.

YOU AIN’T NOBODY IF YOU DON’T VOTE - ALL THE KING’S MEN

I watched “All the King’s Men” recently, and the above phrase stuck in my mind. Many citizens believe they don’t count in the political process, and when enough people feel that way, well, they don’t count. The result is the creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You don’t vote because you believe you don’t count and, ultimately, you don’t count because you don’t vote.

The Constitution does not mention voting in its seven original articles, and it does not address it in the Bill of Rights, yet we take for granted that we were given the “right” to vote. That assumption arises from our Nation’s early history as well as the 15th amendment (prohibits denial based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude), the 19th amendment (prohibits denial based on gender), and the 26th amendment (prohibits denial to those 18 or older). After all, how is it possible to deny something if it doesn’t exist?

In the past, women, paupers, African-Americans, Native Americans, Asian immigrants, and other groups were denied the right to vote. Numerous obstacles were created to block or discourage certain groups from voting - obstacles such as religious tests, property qualifications, literacy tests, poll taxes, and exclusions on the basis of race and sex. As a nation, the road to obtaining voting rights has been a struggle with periods of expansion and periods of contraction.

In colonial America, the basic principle that governed voting rights was the philosophy that voters should have a “stake” in society. That stake was best represented by property owners who were considered committed members of the community. Thus, each of the thirteen original colonies required voters to either own a certain amount of land or personal property or to pay a specified amount in taxes.

By the end of the Civil War, a growing number of individuals began to favor extension of the right to vote to African-Americans, leading, ultimately, to the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870. With the passage of the 15th Amendment, only one major group remained subject to exclusion from voting - women.

Even though the Constitution did not exclude women from voting, they were historically excluded by those in power. That exclusion finally came to an end in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment. In 1971, the voting age was lowered to 18 in response to the Vietnam War and the sentiment that if 18-year-olds were old enough to “fight and die for their country then they were old enough to vote.”

Senator Clinton was criticized by the Bush White House for stating that “we” are invisible to President Bush. I will go even further - we are invisible not only to President Bush but also to every senator, every representative, every mayor, every council person, and every other elected official if we don’t vote.

In 1971, John Lennon recorded “Power to the People.” Power to the People - the title says it all.  That power comes, not from a song, but from voting; it is high time American citizens broke free of their perpetuation of the self-fulfilling prophecy and shed their invisible role.

I certainly don’t like the idea of being invisible - do you?