Three facts below add up to one very pertinent question regarding health CARE and whether for profit insurance companies have any place in it, or not:

1. In a 1970 NYT article Milton Friedman famously stated “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”. He has been widely quoted elsewhere saying "The corporation cannot be ethical; its only responsibility is to make a profit." Thus, corporations, as a class -- each and every one that is not FORCED by law or rare owners to do otherwise, are institutionally incapable of ethics.

2. As a matter of black letter law and common sense, corporations have no emotions -- they can not bring claims, for example, for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" because they do not have emotions - they're fictional entities authorized by law that the shareholders and officers literally hide behind ("the corporate veil" of limited liability) so that no human being is to be held responsible or liable for the acts of the corporation, if the corporation has its way. Thus, corporations, as a class -- (each and every one that is not FORCED by law or rare owners to do otherwise) are institutionally incapable of emotion.

3. The vast majority of large corporations have actually made threats, or carried them out, to outsource jobs to foreign countries or other states if their demands for tax favors and subsidies are met. The more recent examples of corporate bailouts are among the largest of a long history of such threats and demands. Whenever presented with a possibility of choosing either a loyal action (keeping jobs in the USA or within the current state of employment) or a disloyal action, corporations typically choose, and in fact argue that they MUST choose, the disloyal action of outsourcing jobs, in furtherance of their legally mandated one track minds for profit. Thus, corporations, as a class -- (each and every one that is not FORCED by law or rare owners to do otherwise) are institutionally incapable of loyalty or patriotism.

Why would anyone think that disloyal, ethicless, heartless and emotionless FOR PROFIT corporations have any place whatsoever in Health CARE?

The murder of Dr. Tiller.

The attack on the military recruiters.

White supremacist apparently the one who opened fire at the Holocaust Museum today.

(Post more recent news if you like...)

Does DU think that existing laws are inadequate to deal with this problem, or do we need new tougher legislation AND/OR a "crackdown" in terms of concentrated enforcement of existing laws (which are already fairly draconian)?

This is building up to potentially be the excuse for yet more loss of rights, as I've posted recently, connecting up a very recent US Supreme Court decision as well. Please See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

Will we be seeing Patriot Act II, -- or would it be III or IV by now?

Does anybody think that any special campaign against domestic right wing terror can be isolated to just one side of the political aisle? Can A Democratic administration and Democratic congress really crack down only on the Right wing side? We've lived through these time periods before, and we always consider it overreaction when we have perspective from history, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s, the Espionage Act, internment of Japanese as "threats" during WWII, etc.



Be careful what you wish for, and reply with your thoughts. I probably won't "defend the thread" -- I'd like to see what DU thinks, since my position's already reasonably clear from the linked post.

Clearly, these acts are crimes, and despicable ones, the question is what is the APPROPRIATE response, and why is the normal criminal justice process insufficient, if it is? Just because it's a despicable crime, does that mean even the sky's no limit?

If we call Tiller's murder and these other acts domestic terrorism, aren't we inviting the anti-terrorism gun to be pointed at the heads of all Americans, with officials "connecting the dots" and pre-emptively arresting, harassing or spying on people because they FEAR someone might possibly do something because their political rhetoric is passionate or heated?

Thoughts?

{Satire alert: The Specter of Patriot Act II is real, but I don’t support any such thing, nor do I think anybody on this site does, or would. However, that doesn’t mean the case of Dr. Tiller won’t be cited as the excuse or reason for Patriot Act II, which will probably be a judicial decision, as described below, but could also be congressional.}

In terms of political blowback, the murder of Dr. Tiller presents more than the “issue” of an act of "terrorism" happening on "Obama's watch," a fact that will probably be cited by a smirking Dick Cheney.

The emerging CW, as NOW, Keith Olbermann and other well-respected voices are saying, that we are dealing with "domestic terrorism," and/or an “assassination.” Even more, as the Boulder, Colorado late termination Dr. Warren Hern stated to the Colorado Independent and the LA Times:



Hern also told the LA Times that Tiller is the “fifth American doctor to be assassinated.” Hern told the Los Angeles Times he’s well aware of the dangers. “I get messages from these people saying, ‘Don’t bother wearing a bulletproof vest, we’re going for a head shot.’” The LA Times also points out that Dr. Hern “was targeted by violent extremists as well as principled opponents.”

The murder’s totally heinous nature, especially put into the context Dr. Hern mentions, got me thinking, and an idea popped into my head (warning, satire/irony ahead):

It seems the Patriot Act is not enough to protect us from such outrageous terroristic assassinations of politically controversial persons such as the late Dr. Tiller, whether or not by a “violent fascist movement.” But, I don’t want Patriot Act I -- much less Patriot Act II. Do you?

Let’s “connect the dots” shall we? For example, a disgruntled (or reasonable) ex-wife says “she divorced {Roeder} in 1996 because of his strong views against abortion. She says she kept their son away from his dad when he was a minor because she didn't want him to poison the boy's mind.” http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-scott-roed...

Shouldn’t such persons with such strong views be preventively detained BEFORE THEY COMMIT HEINOUS CRIMES?

May I suggest, ever so delicately, that there but for the grace of God goes many a person of strong views on the Left as well as the Right.

You see, if the game is “connect the dots” and the government MUST keep us safe, then whenever the government feels they can’t be 100% sure that someone’s level of political anger won’t erupt into violence, they’ll be sending the federal marshals to YOUR door.

Let me make it even more clear that the Patriot Act seemingly doesn’t go far enough (as some haters of freedom will no doubt soon argue):



The argument will be, of course, that if only the exclusionary rule of evidence didn't exist, this terrorist named Scott Roeder would have been in prison, instead of killing people in churches.

The argument against the exclusionary rule has always been that “guilty go free.” While this is not the case every time the exclusionary rule applies, up until lately American justice has always said that “Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when trials are fair (Brady v. Maryland)” and when police and prosecutors operate within the confines of the Constitution.

The big legal problem is: Just last week, the US Supreme Court reconfigured constitutional law AGAIN, and threw out the 6th Amendment rights of defendants to have their lawyer present during questioning outside of a Miranda “arrest” situation. In Montejo v. Louisiana, the US Supreme Court took the constitutional right, and “balanced” it against the state’s interest in, among other things, not “letting the guilty go free.” So, it was Bye bye 6th Amendment rights.

The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, which Sotomayor’s presence won’t improve since Breyer was in the minority, decided that punishing the guilty outweighed the “prophylactic” effect of upholding a Supreme Court precedent over 20 years old written by Justice Stevens. In its 3-point test for whether the US Supreme Court needs to follow precedent (stare decisis), the 3rd point is, standing alone, enough to overrule ANY precedent the US Supreme Court doesn’t like:

3. Whether the decision is “well-reasoned.”

Don’t you find, as I do, that every time one disagrees with a decision one finds it not to be “well-reasoned?”

I expect to see heavy pressure to eliminate the Constitutional law based exclusionary rule. When it goes, there will be no deterrent to illegal searches if the evidence isn’t suppressed. What? Will the officers acting illegally be put on administrative leave or something? The late Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that even cops who lie are rarely disciplined, despite what amounts an urban legend that lying is a “death penalty” offense for an officer. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/349169_lyin...

We have the makings of a Patriot Act, round II, to get rid of the exclusionary rule, which has long been a target, but is also the only real barrier to massive breaches of the 4th Amendment search and seizure rights.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL “AVOIDANCE” DOCTRINE

If a case can be disposed of on non-constitutional grounds, the “Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine” says that it should be. This doctrine was the core of the torture memos, which stretched the doctrine well beyond the breaking point in order to argue that a Congressional statute outlawing torture ought not to be read to apply to the Executive Branch because to do so would raise constitutional issues that ought to be avoided. For details, see http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/lazarus/2006081...

Courts are also only supposed to decide the issues as framed by the parties, not issues not briefed or litigated by the parties. Despite the fact that in Montejo v. Louisiana neither party sought to overrule Michigan v. Jackson, the US Supreme Court nevertheless asked for supplemental briefing on overruling this constitutional precedent, and then overruled it. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-overrul... / After asking for supplemental briefing in March, the US Solicitor General weighed in with support for reversing Michigan v Jackson, an argument never made by the original parties in Montejo v Louisiana and Scalia authored the opinion you can read here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08p...

Constitutional avoidance, my ass. On the contrary, it sure appears to me that the US Supreme Court is hunting for rights to overturn, if they’re individual rights at least, and deferring to the separation of powers of a “coordinate branch” all too often if it’s merely a governmental interest at stake instead of a right. (The government doesn’t have “rights” only interests).

If that’s not enough for you, Scalia’s opinion says on “stare decisis” that precedent can be overturned if it is not “well-reasoned.” So, WHAT IS THE LAW? Whatever the US Supreme Court wants it to be, when it wants it to be that, regardless of whether the parties in a case are disagreeing about that law and litigating it, or not.

WILL PATRIOT ACT II BE A JUDICIAL DECISION THROWING OUT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?

When it comes to overturning the exclusionary rule, which arguably “protected” Scott Roeder, pro-choice advocates may find themselves in a difficult position on this issue now, given Roeder’s history. It will therefore be even easier for the US Supreme Court, or at the very least the court of public opinion, to move against the exclusionary rule as a whole than it was to nuke Michigan v. Jackson. If that happens, and the exclusionary rule has long been a target of the right wing, then the primary remaining deterrent to illegal searches goes out the window. (No time to discuss FISA, etc. here…)

What should one do? I can’t say for sure, but you deserve to know your rights, so I’ll “read” them to you, and adlib somewhat from the familiar approved text, in the interest of on-the-ground accuracy in light of the May 26 Montejo opinion and other context:




ALSO REASONABLY LIKELY IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THOUGH NOT EXACTLY THE CASE NOW, BARRING A CHANGE OF COURSE:



THE ATTACHMENT TO YOUR “STATEMENT OF RIGHTS” (above) ALSO CONTAINS: Certain Posts from DU that sound like the quotation from today’s news below, but instead substitute, oh, the proper first and last name of a “Right-wing media blowhard” or politician in the place of for “Randall Terry”

The Right wing will have little difficulty finding troublesome posts on places like DU and claiming a reasonable fear for their safety, no?

CONCLUSION:

I suggest we prosecute murderers to the full extent of the law.

I also suggest caution in playing the fear card,

I suggest caution in playing the terrorism card,

I suggest caution in playing the assassination card, or the fascist movement card,

not because these statements above can’t be argued or can't be justified to be applicable, – I don’t say they ARE, or they ARE NOT, because, quite frankly, I feel a chill to free speech about now.

That chill doesn't come from me but from the political circumstances and recent history of our country:

That chill comes from the known, demonstrated and proven catastrophic damage to the rights of all Americans that can and already has resulted from fear and terrorism arguments which has directly led to the deaths of many thousands of people -- all as part of the Government’s efforts to “keep us safe” from terrorists, and all those who “harbor them,” no matter where in the world they might be found. Even if the terrorists are not really there, like in Iraq.

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” –President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

But I'll admit to slight trepidation at the specter of pointing BOTH BARRELS of the "terrorism" gun domestically, via the phrase "domestic terrorism." Why?

Well, the Government isn't supposed to just "connect the dots" and preventively jail folks on one side of the political debate. It must be fair and preventively jail both sides of the political debate.

"Domestic terrorism", justified or not as a charge, takes the Iraq/Afghanistan/Gitmo/Ghraib "guns" and points them at Kansas. And every other state, because we can't discriminate against Kansas.

It ain't Kansas any more, it's in toto.

As a guidestar for a way out of this pickle, I offer Thomas Paine's "First Principles of Government":

The DEMAND must always be for the full measure of rights. Just google Martin Luther King Jr quotes for the "Tranquilizing drug of gradualism" and his conclusion:

"This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy."

MLK: "‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’"

Half a right, like every other day off from torture, is NO RIGHT AT ALL. Half a right, an incremental gain in non-torture, is just a continuing violation, IF the right is Fundamental (the key distinction of the OP)

The GAINS may sometimes be "incremental" or claimed to be incremental progress (even if not at all progress) because they are only grudgingly given up by the status quo.

But make no mistake, DEMANDS for incremental gains on fundamental rights like voting are ethically, politically and even TACTICALLY highly mistaken, self-defeating and wrong, because it's wrong to ADVOCATE publicly in favor of injustice. Only with public regret and caveats can such be accepted, and even then only if it's not a fundamental right like voting, voting systems, torture, etc.

Even teenagers know to ask for the car for the whole night or weekend and then "compromise" UNDER PROTEST AND COMPLAINT with an agreement for 3 hours on Friday night. Even teenagers don't PUBLICLY (in front of parents) celebrate or approve such "incremental" wins. Possibly, they may privately amongst themselves still have a great time and be happy they can get out just a little, but they'll be back for more.

And they'll be UNDERSTANDABLY back for more. FREEDOM and the yearning for it, even if at too young an age, is human, necessary, and should never be shackled in chains.

"Ralph Waldo Emerson once asked what we would do if the stars only came out once every thousand years. No one would sleep that night, of course. The world would become religious overnight. We would be ecstatic, delirious, made rapturous by the glory of God. Instead the stars come out every night, and we watch television."

--From Commencement Speech by Peter Hawken, May 2009, Portland University

We may gaze up into that starry starry night,

or work in good directions until one sees stars,

or start from the proper and few guide-star principles, but,

in each case,

it is not always to the stars that we go?

"Hitch your wagon to a star." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Nothing can bring you peace but yourself" (Ralph Waldo Emerson) but in the final analysis that's because we always have here and now all that we need, or if not, Emerson assures us it is assimilable via the stars.

I couldn't miss a change to plug the Hawken commencement address in its full text, it will help one to see the stars even on a smoggy day.

See Hawken's address, Hailed by Humanity.org as one of the best commencement speeches of the last 75 years, at http://www.up.edu/shownews.aspx?id=3784 (link to full text)

There's quite a decent diversity of backgrounds here it seems, especially adding Joe Chi Minh's and other contributions above. If I have by chance included one or more that some disrespect, then I have succeeded more than I reasonably hoped for!

“Words are just words, and without heart they have no meaning.”
--Chinese Proverb

“Does this path have a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn't, it is of no use. Both paths lead nowhere; but one has a heart, the other doesn't. One makes for a joyful journey; as long as you follow it, you are one with it. The other will make you curse your life. One makes you strong; the other weakens you.”
–Carlos Castaneda, author of “The Teachings of Don Juan” concerning Mesoamerican shamanism

“We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart.”

--Blaise Pascal – French 17th Century mathematician, physicist, philosopher, inventor, theologian, prose stylist and polemicist, (1) first achieving fame at the age of 16 with a contribution to the projective geometry of a cone, including “Pascal’s Theorem” (2) the original development of probability theory, the basis of statistics, together with Fermat (3) work on barometric air pressure varying by altitude above sea level (4) credit given by Leibniz to Blaise Pascal’s method for infinitesimal analysis as the inspiration for Leibniz’s development of calculus.

“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
--Matthew 6: 21 ESV

“That which is spoken from the heart is heard by the heart.”
–Jewish Saying

“Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
--1 Samuel 16: 76

“The heart of the matter is a matter of heart.”
--Rick Warren “The Purpose-Driven Life” (modern evangelical work)

Especially given recent world events, I wish to describe (using primarily medical terms derived from the available scholarship and biblical testimonies) the humiliation, torture, and death of Jesus Christ in a way that I believe can be appreciated not only by the faithful, but by all people of conscience, as an example of what's wrong with our society today.

I begin by noting that the avidity for punishment is something Thomas Paine noted in his "First Principles of Government" is always dangerous to liberty. To punish him for his perceived atheism in later works, bones of the "architect of the American Revolution" were denied burial in the USA on grounds he was an atheist, yet here he nevertheless grounds his principles in a secularized iteration of the Golden Rule:



Crucifixion, or being nailed to a tree or cross, is a deliberately painful agonizing form of torture, specifically designed in Roman Times especially to humiliate, mutilate, dishonor, and lower the social status of the victim. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#R... In the Roman Empire specifically, crucifixion was used for, and usually reserved for, slaves, pirates and other especially-despised persons. Id. Its "relevance" survives to this day not only in some cases of modern crucifixion, but in language, rhetoric and imagery when we speak of "nailing" someone for something.

The "Passion" of Jesus begins prior to being taken into custody in the Garden of Gethsemane, in which Jesus, knowing his path and fate, prays continually and is reported to literally sweat blood.

For centuries, this blood-sweat, unlike the tears of agony, has been either taken on faith or suggested as metaphorical. But is now known to be a real medical event, known to medical science by the term "Hemathidrosis" - a rare phenomenon reported at least 12-14 times in world medical literature and seen specifically in people under tremendous stress and agony. In hemathidrosis, because each sweat gland has a small blood vessel around it, a person actually exudes blood from every sweat gland in their body as a method of perspiration. http://www.antioch.com.sg/article.php?stor... During the night of Gethsemane, Jesus is arrested. Certainly, the scourging, or whipping with metal ends, causes bleeding and more.

The movie Ben-Hur (1959) is reportedly the first showing the nails being driven through Jesus' wrists, rather than his palms, which is the most likely method used, given that nails in most parts of the hand, unless very carefully placed, will not support enough body weight. The Hebrew word for "hand" includes the area of the wrist, the usual place of impalement that will not cause enough blood loss by itself to kill. Of importance to the central crucifixian purposes of torture and humiliation are the signs placed near the victim, and other events like the crown of sharp thorns (in light of the charge "King of the Jews"). Seven phrases or sentences of Jesus are reported.

Yet, people have survived crucifixion for up to 63 hours in more modern reports, and up to six days in ancient reports, so it is not precisely accurate in most cases to say that crucifixion is an immediate cause of death. Usually it is other actions by soldiers or guards both before and after nailing the alleged criminal that hasten and actually cause the death. Often, this is done so that their torture-duty may end. Soldiers grow tired or bored and they break your legs so that in about four to six minutes you smother or asphyxiate -- no longer push up with your legs to gasp for breath.

A medical analysis of the crucifixion story based on the applicable biblical accounts combined with modern medical scientific knowledge is posted for all to see at http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucif... Other medically based accounts can be found here: http://pinakidion.org/archives/medical-acc... Another in rough agreement with the conclusion of this former account is here: http://www.antioch.com.sg/article.php?stor...

Three people were crucified that day, two thieves and Jesus. Jesus had previously declined a drink including wine and myrrh, a mild pain-reliever, thus declining some relief offered by medical science of that day. He also declined the Roman legionnaire's sour wine as well, declining the soldiers' relief or prolongation of torture. The thieves' legs were broken causing death, but it's reported Jesus was already dead at that point. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc... Instead of breaking the legs, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...

The medical reports, sort of like autopsies based on the medical available evidence available in modern times, conclude:

That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium. -- Dr. C. Truman Davis at http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucif...

Whether or not you as reader accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ, it seems to me that all persons of conscience can agree, on at least a metaphorical level, that taking upon one's self all the sins of the world, including its tortures and humiliations and denials of human dignity and human rights, are indeed enough to break one's heart.

Enough to cause blood, sweat and tears.

And for any, in the broadest sense, doubting Thomases out there, those wounds were still there eight days later when Jesus said to Thomas "Observe my hands" -- inviting him to feel the wounds in his wrists. Those wounds still exist today, in the body of Jesus for all who believe, and in the victims of torture, and in the hearts of all people of conscience.

It is the dehumanization of things like sheer mockery, or the humiliation dismissed as mere "frat prank", that makes the most horrible crimes imaginable much more readily possible.

The Christian churches would do well to tell the story of Jesus' broken heart, instead of merely repeating that Jesus "bled and died" for our sins. He did not merely bleed to death, hardly anybody who's crucified does. In the final analysis, many who reject the teachings of churches utterly do so because they observe the hands of the church failing to feel the Heart, and know the history that so often teaches that religion has too often been a powerful force for making otherwise good people do horrible things.

GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER: IT'S THE ONE UNIQUE THING WE ALL HAVE

“The heart is the chief feature of a functioning mind.” (Frank Lloyd Wright)

“A book ought to be an ax to break the frozen sea within us.” (Anton Chekhov)

“I believe there are two journeys which every one of us must make: into our own heart, accepting what we find there, and into the world, accepting it as our home.” (Lillian Smith, “Killers of the Dream” at p. 252).

“Peace is not won by those who fiercely guard their differences but by those who with open minds and hearts seek out connections.” (Katherin Paterson)

“Everyone can be great … because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't to make your subject and verb agree. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

“And I always have to stop and try to define the meaning of love in this area. And interestingly enough, Greek philosophy comes to our aid in this point. Agape {love} is more than friendship, agape is not something affectionate, agape is understanding, creative redemptive goodwill to all men. It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return. Theologians would say that it is the love of God operating in the human heart. When one rises to this level, He loves men not because he likes them, but he loves every man because GOD loves him.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Speaking about being a published author to a combined class of first and third graders that included my own two children, I urged them not to “write about what you know” but to write about what’s in your heart, because if it’s in your heart, then you will KNOW it. I told them they could, if they wished, learn everything I’ve ever learned if they put their minds to it, but the one unique and irreplaceable addition they can make in the world is sharing with others what they have in their hearts.

One’s heart, or one’s soul if you prefer to think of it that way, is the one unique contribution all of us can make in the world, and that nobody else can do FOR us.

On every level, we must get to the heart of the matter, or else we perish in our uniqueness if not in our physical life, and nobody will remember our name. True heart doesn’t simply turn tables and drive the stake through evil. It joins hands together instead. Then we lift each other up -- and we can all breathe free once again.

Have a heart-filled holiday!

Title 42, section 1983 of the United States Code states:



Under "color of law" = of course lawyers are needed to do dirty work and, of course, a legal opinion from a lawyer is no defense at all where the opinion is unreasonable because it violates civil rights.

the balance of the text declares "emergency state" declarations are all "basically legal" -- a highly dubious legal proposition. "Law" is the tool of every tyrant because mere law is nothing less than force itself. Compliance with Justice, Inalienable rights and proper interpretations of duly people-enacted constitutional provisions as well as their underlying principles are all necessary to rescue law and make it Justice. In the meantime, law may and always does parade around as Justice itself, though it is not.

The portions of the post that deal with historical German coalition facts are unobjectionable, though I can't verify them as facts, I assume they are. The legal conclusions implying that a ruler in a free society can declare an "emergency State" as Hitler did and make themselves Dictator are pure baloney -- unless a very narrow defition of "legal" is used in which case it misleads the reader into thinking Hitler's totalitarian powers were Just in any meaningful sense.

Again, dictators and tyrants ALWAYS cloak their abuses in law, so one has to be careful with using the term "legal" in this and related contexts.

Once again, opposition to Holt's proposed bill for elections in 2009 is described by some as "absolutist" or "idealist." I'm delighted, in this context of our rights to vote and
rights in democracy, to be called or identified with these terms. It puts me in decent company (see quotes below).

But I've got far bigger things to discusss in this OP, believe it or not. I'd prefer to avoid the Holt bill, in deference to the larger issues/ideals/principles I'd like to be informed of BY YOU in the replies to this thread.

A little background on why it's so important not to compromise on one's HIGHEST ideals (as opposed to lesser subjects):

Ideals are but principles. One example of an ideal is to be honest.
We may never fully achieve that ideal of honestly constantly through
our whole life but, on the other hand, to abandon honesty as a
goal-ideal is to steer directly to disaster. Not to be an
"absolutist" about the ideal (even if we often fail in its
achievement) is to abandon the ideal. In the case of honesty that
means one becomes an INTENTIONAL LIAR, the worst kind. So it's a good
thing to be an "absolutist" about ideals, the question is which one's
are the most important such that they ought to be protected or
identified with in an absolute way?

There's been a clear distinction made by all great American thinkers,
leaders and politicians between compromise on smaller legislative
matters, and compromise on important principles. I'll leave it to
each reader to decide if the right that protects all other rights
(voting) is an important principle, or not. Again, this post is intended
to be "bigger" than even the sacred right to vote.

But, in any event, and on any subject, to make fun of, or to diminish in any way "idealists"
or "purists" and such, specifically in the area of core principles, is to
establish a position outside the mainstream of thought about
Anglo-American democracy in my opinion. As examples, let's try Thomas Paine, Lincoln,
Patrick Henry, Barry Goldwater, and these various others below on for size,
for it seems there's a great tension between compromise on usual legislation and compromise on high principle:



The above quotes are from both people I agree with and disagree with on other, lesser
subjects. But on the issue of compromising high ideals, we all agree. Shakespeare is perhaps a bit harsh when he says the damned use that defense of "compromise" and "non-absolutism" in Hell, but he does have a point when the issue is applied to high ideals.

I don't at the moment have the funds to send any one a Valentine heart via DU, but if I won the Lotto I'd send all of you one.

In lieu of that, and not asking anyone to send me one (though one anonymous benefactor already did prior to this post) I'd ask you to take some action toward your highest principle or ideal, and (whether you want me to, or not!) I'll consider THAT to be sending me a Valentine heart.

"Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me."

Explaining one interpretation of the above biblical phrase, the link below says:

"By "me" Jesus did not mean the historical figure. He meant the Christ Energy, which is inherent in all people and all things and is another name for the Mystery." http://www.mayyoubehappy.com/uleofth.html




So, may I ask you to state your most important ideals/principles in response to this post? I promise that I will read/listen to them, and if you can also mention some action you are taking or will take toward that ideal or principle, even if imperfect, that would be a great way to send a Heart to someone else, to the whole World, and, I'm happy to report, that includes me (and You). One example: Donating to DU and spreading hearts of appreciation. But I'm sure DU as a whole has many other incredible principles and ideas and I'd love to hear some of them. I've indirectly indicated some of my own, but again, if you're a practicing atheist or don't consider Love a highest principle, I'd rather have you Teach me what is, than to tell me what Isn't.

In return for the respect of not quibbling with any minor points, I'll closely listen to what YOU have to say, and consider it seriously. Listening is certainly a form of respect, and some would say, Love.

With love,
Paul Lehto
Juris Doctor

Happy 200th Birthday, February 12, 2009, to Abraham Lincoln.

What better way to raise a toast to Abraham Lincoln than with his own words (and three very choice guest toasters!)

To Abraham Lincoln, who, relating to the importance of transparency and the public’s “right to know” concerning government said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on the proper relation of God and humans, never assuming anything:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on his “do-gooder” religion, said:



In these quotes above, Lincoln echoed Thomas Paine, the architect of the American Revolution and author of “Common Sense” who wrote:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, reminding us that Rome was not built in a day, nor the business of America finished by the writing of the Declaration of Independence or the mere adoption of the Constitution, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on the proper attitude regarding compromise of basic principles, said:







To Abraham Lincoln, who, on the weakness of conservatism, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on the primary source of his political ideas, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, explaining that the genius of the Declaration of Independence was not something to be accomplished in a single generation, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on the hope of democracy, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on whether elections should be suspended in time of war or national emergency (like the Civil War) said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, applying the Golden Rule to slavery just as we might apply it to torture in our day, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on the decisive importance of idealism in core American rights and values, implicitly identifying the Golden Rule (which inheres in various forms in all known spiritual traditions) as the bedrock foundation of equality, and why Equality is the path for the Nation to follow, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who,, on what corrupts human beings, including Americans, said:



Abraham Lincoln, on where the gravest threats to America shall come from:



Abraham Lincoln, on which author he’s most inspired to read:



Abraham Lincoln, in his First Inaugural Address:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on why the American Revolution was a real revolution, replacing power of, by, and for the people in place of the “divine right” of kings to rule, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on humanity and virtue, on “good people” and “bad people”, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on the essence of public service as President, said:



To Abraham Lincoln, who, on the American can-do attitude, said:



Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address – one that needs no introduction:







Finally, to a Russian, author Leo Tolstoy, someone who had no particular cause, nor patriotic urge, to reach across oceans to give praise to a President of a foreign country, may have put things about Lincoln in the most remarkable perspective, and shall have the honor of the final 200th birthday Toast: He said, putting it all into the context of world history:

So, let us all toast to Abe Lincoln (and the latest to issue from the land of Lincoln!)

We're told that bankruptcy's not an option for the Big Three, because a Chapter 11 filing would still need DIP financing (Debtor in Possession financing) and, since that's not available, a Chapter 11 reorganization filing would be forced to convert to a Chapter 7 liquidation filing, ending the auto companies.

What's missing from the above analysis is the identity of the "trigger man" that would force a bankruptcy filing in the first place. In order to force a giant company into bankruptcy (and this is true for most individual bankruptcies as well, though not all), the company must be avoiding some worse fate than bankruptcy court. Usually this trigger is an imminent repossession of key equipment, a foreclosure, etc. If suppliers convert to C.O.D. terms and such that will not be cured by bankruptcy so it can't be a trigger for a bankruptcy filing.

So, WHO IS THE SHOOTER, WHO IS THE TRIGGER-MAN who would flush a million jobs per company? What do they have to gain? Are their kids really going to go hungry without immediate satisfaction by one of the Big Three? Why isn't the trigger man at the negotiation table making concessions? (Instead, it seems others are at the table in order to feed the trigger man).

Bottom line: Somebody has to be aiming to take these companies out in order for their to be such a crisis. Is it really necessary for them to be so aggressive?

Democracy is very popular. Thus, those unhappy with the results of democracy have nearly always been forced to undermine it INdirectly --because a direct attack (say, in favor of dictatorship) could not credibly be mounted.

Nevertheless, today there's an unprecedented direct attack on democracy, seeking to overrule the election of Obama by the people of the United States -- either in the Courts, or in Congress at the Electoral College.

These attacks presently take the form of three petitions circulating in the US Supreme Court right now, at least two of which are set to be decided in a secret conference of the full court on Friday December 5. Importantly, because these are applications for stay (requires 5 Justices), they also require that the Justices believe the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits. As a result, on the off chance that a motion is granted, the case IS OVER BEFORE THE PUBLIC EVEN HEARS ABOUT IT. This is precisely what happened with the stay order in Bush v. Gore that terminated the recount in Florida -- the rest was reported by lawyers involved as really feeling like it was just going through the motions.

Because these cases presently at the level of the US Supreme Court seek to overrule the will of the American people they are entirely unlike recounts or election contests. Real recounts or election contests at bottom challenge the election only by saying (in more words than this) "I don't think the certified result is the true will of the people." That's not what these suits do.

These three suits, with more states circulating up the appellate ladder, could care less about the will of the American people: they are direct attacks on democracy and the will of the people, seeking to stop the election they know they lost, based on an issue raised in the primary and in the general that got little or no traction outside rightwing blogs.

THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE FLOATED AROUND FOR AT LEAST A YEAR IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT MEANS IT WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT EXTREMELY HIGH PROFILE LIKE ACORN IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ABOVE. IF THIS WERE NOT TRUE THEN EVERY EXTREMELY MINOR OR FRIVOLOUS CAMPAIGN ISSUE COULD BE RAISED POST-ELECTION AS A CHALLENGE. BUT THE USUAL RULE OF ELECTION LAW IS THAT IT IS A SERIOUS EVIL TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST TO ALLOW ANYBODY TO SIT ON A CLAIM, SEE WHAT THE ELECTION RESULTS ARE, AND THEN SUE. BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

We need to focus on THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN ANYBODY IN THIS WORLD OVERRULE THE UNCONTESTED WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

The answer to this question exposes those who hate or don't trust democracy.

The right wing sees these suits as no-lose propositions. Even if they win nothing, their full page ad in yesterday's Chicago tribune and related publicity at minimum seeks to undermine and split the Obama supermajority, peeling away 1% or more by painting Obama as a liar, a foreigner, etc.

The Donofrio petition for stay claims that Obama, McCain and the Socialist Candidate for president are all unqualified under the "natural born" clause. The Socialist candidate was born in Nicaragua, and was allowed on some ballots and not allowed on others. This will seem to the Supreme Court to represent an Equal Protection issue of differential enforcement/investigation.

IN truth, I'm more concerned about these cases LOSING, believe it or not. A likely ruling by the Supreme Court, if one is made, would defer to the Congressional electoral college process under the Political Question doctrine -- which many law reviews have since opined should have resulted in Bush v. Gore never having been heard by the US Supreme Court at all. The Court could punt the issue to the Congress, who would then, yes, in effect hold ANOTHER ELECTION and some kind of hearing about the issue, since no voter has been deemed to have standing in several pre-election cases. SURELY somebody must have standing to enforce the constitution, --- and we will "discover" that the Congress "does" at the level of the Electoral college. But if through delays, or stays, or Supreme Court ruling the Congress for any reason is allowed to second-guess the election, then we have a new election in yet another guise.

OK, so maybe you think "OBAMA WINS" in the Democratic congress. This is beside the point. While winning is not guaranteed, what will have happened at this point is that in your/our relief at Obama dodging a Supreme Court bullet, we accept what is, long term, a worse situation where the Congress can second guess the people's election, and pick their own president, and there's no likely appeal because of the POLITICAL QUESTION doctrine. This would be a defeat for democracy even if it ended up as a win for Obama or at least some other Democrat, in the worst case scenario.

So again I urge, the question is: Under what circumstances can any court or Congress overrule the clear will of the American people?

None.

This country is owned by We the People. We created the Constitution to limit and shape the powers of government. We can, in point of fact, knowingly elect a felon to the House or Senate and prior US Supreme Court precedents like Powell v. McCormack uphold the inability of the House or Senate to remove the people's choice for any reason other than the qualifications clauses in the Constitution, which are minimal.

In turn, at least six US Senators and Representatives have served full terms even though elected when they were TOO young under the constitution. Henry Clay is one example. Here again, this is not flouting the Constitution, this is a recognition of the power of the people to hire whoever they please.

As the "boss" of this country, if our qualifications in our Constitution require a "Ph.D." so to speak, we can damn well hire a Master's if we please.

Can we "hire" a politician who makes huge campaign promises about war and peace that turn out to be lies?

Unfortunately, Yes We Can. Did we? No we didn't.

Can we elect a felon and ratify that/assume the risks of that?

Yes We Can.

Do We the People, the sovereign power of this country, have the power to resolve conflicting claims on a birth certificate where one side claims Kenyan birth and ratify that or assume the risks of that?

Puh-leeze. Of course We Can. And yeah, we can ignore discriminatory claims about kenyan birth that, even if true, just don't matter.

Can the Courts or Congress, on a basis completely independent of the will of the people, second-guess the election, tell us to "try again", or veto our choices?

No They Can't.

As I've written before, the American people would never lose a struggle for democracy on their own country -- IF they understood it as such. So, of course, this direct attack (seeking to re-decide or overrule the election of Obama) is styled as "upholding the Constitution." In effect, our own national hunger for the restoration of justice, the rule of law and the Constitution is being harnessed -- in a twisted way -- so that the Constitution can start being enforced FIRST against Barack Obama. That's why it's important to see these suits for what they are -- and go on offense against those who dislike democracy.

WE SHOULDN'T EVEN GO TO THE "MERITS" ON THESE CASES BECAUSE NOTHING IN THE NATURE OF WHAT THEY SPEAK OF JUSTIFIES A JUDICIAL OR CONGRESSIONAL OVERRIDE (OR RATIFICATION) OF THE PEOPLE'S DECISION. We don't need their "help."

But if you must know what "natural born" means, here you go:

The 'natural born' clause in the Constitution sets forth two, and only two, classes of people, as does citizenship law: There are (a) "natural born" citizens, and there are (b) "natural-ized" citizens, what you might call "adoptive" citizens. All citizens who are not naturalized (and therefore choose our country freely) are natural born, or citizens from birth. There are no other classes.

But the rightwingers want to create a third class of people like Obama and Mccain who fall between the cracks somehow and are "mere statutory citizens." They speak of needing to be born on "american soil" and argue in effect that accidents of birth, such as parents vacationing in Europe, Africa, or Canada, are enough to disqualify an american citizen from ever being president. The notion that "soil" controls citizenship and allegiance is a core concept of feudalism. We are a nation of rights, Constitutions and laws, (in that order) and not a nation of men and not of "soil" either.

Even more fundamentally, our nation is the first nation in the world founded upon just IDEAS, not territory, not race, not class and not culture.

YES, We Can.

No They Can't. (overrule our elections or re-decide them in Congress or Courts)

That's all you really need to KNOW. But you must KNOW it. That way you don't get dragged into debating false frames that presume that if the rightwingers find another forged African document, this time from Kenya instead of Niger, that they've got themselves a "gotcha" that matters.

Instead, we should tell them that if American history of elections means anything at all, it means that We are NOT going to lawyer, subdivide or debate who "We" is in "We the People" like they did in the past to exclude blacks, women, etc. We the citizens means everybody. And the parts of the Constitution that accepted slavery but tried to sunset the slave trade, or that didn't accept women, like the 16 references to the President as "he" in the Constitution, have all been amended out of existence.

We may need to teach a little history as we win one for democracy.

The issue was raised in the campaign and rejected. We sure get the downside of being stuck with presidents for four year terms who lie us into wars and so forth. We can't enforce campaign promises like "warranties" -- only at the polls and via impeachment, there is no recall. We get our politicians "as is" after the campaign practices of "kicking the tires".

The real crime here is the crime against democracy. They want to weaponize the Constitution and use it against the sovereign We the People when no fundamental individual rights are implicated, nor are fundamental rights of public participation implicated.

Several people have served in the House and Senate who were "unqualified" under the Constitution's age requirements, -- another birth certificate issue. They served their full terms.