And Congress Wonders Why They Are Not Trusted

For decades used car sales people were commonly viewed as the least trusted professions in the United States. Used car sales people have lost their position to members of Congress. Over the last decades trust of politicians has declined in direct portion to the rating of Congress.

 

Constantly the general public sees Congressmen saying one thing during an election but going a different direction during an election. People expect their politicians to take their opinions into account, and for the most part reflect the wishes of their constituents, but do they do so? Today a Senate bill that died illustrates that Congressmen will ignore their constituents and adhere to the wishes of those who threaten to heavily bankroll a primary challenge. Even when over 90% of the general public support a particular bill, Congressmen will vote against the bill and go with the well healed minority. No wonder trust and credibility continues to fall. Politicians may say, the general public are increasingly thinking that Congress is dancing to the tune that people with money and power-brokers are playing for them.  

 

As a further indication of the state of Congress is the story of a scandal ridden Congressmen being propped up by his insider friends, and are helping him to build a deep war chest to win his primary. This is they type of story which fuels the skeptical views of Congress. It seems as long as you vote correctly and issue the right statements that personal morality and upright conduct means little to one’s peers. Regardless what the Congressman may do, it matters little as long the Congressman claims the right thing and votes the right way.    

 

http://news.yahoo.com/why-republicans-raising-money-scandal-plagued-congressman-140343890.html

  

Code Words, Donuts and Peanuts

Every so often a story that seems innocuous sits upon your mind as there is something about it that bothers you. This is one that I do not know whether to laugh or weep.

Ahead of Inauguration Day last month, Krespy Kreme Doughnuts issued the following release:

"Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet 'free' can be."

The American Life League, an anti-abortion group, attacked Krispy Kreme for this add. The American Life League told it’s supporters that if they could be supporting abortion advocacy if they were to buy a Krispy Kreme donuts. Reason, because of the phrase “freedom of choice”. The League and its President Judie Brown sees “choice” as a code word, that when the word is used it is “synonymous with abortion access” and an endorsement by the user of abortion rights on demand.

Ms. Brown goes on to say "Celebrating his [Obama’s] inauguration with 'Freedom of Choice' doughnuts - only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion - is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy. "A misconstrued concept of 'choice' has killed over 50 million preborn children since Jan. 22, 1973. Does Krispy Kreme really want their free doughnuts to celebrate this 'freedom.'”

Ms Brown is free to hold her views and she is free to see conspiracies under every twist of a word. Contrary to Ms Brown’s gravely mistaken views, people use “choice” without any sinister connection to the abortion debate. “Choice” is no more the exclusive domain of pro-choice movement or a code word for the same than is “saved” and “salvation” the exclusive domain of the church or a code word for a person being born-again.

Just as saved and salvation applies to hundreds of non-religious situations so does the work choice. Ms Brown and her mindless minions need to take a deep breath, get a life and use the intelligence that their Lord has given them to know how to discern differences and stop making Christians out to be a group of people who have a bag of peanuts between their ears.

Conservative, Strict-constructionist Judiciary

As noted in my earlier post of November 10 I noted that in America the far political right holds that government has a narrow role to play in society. As part of their argument they frequently speak out about the need to eliminate “judicial activism”, that is, the courts by their ruling expanding civil liberties. They heatedly argue for a strict understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not within an evolving civil context but within the original setting. They hold that it is a travesty to read into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights issues not envisioned or addressed by the Founding Fathers.

Until recently have been somewhat perplexed by the strength of this narrow understanding of the role of the judiciary within the religious right who like Dr. Dobson openly call for the President and Congress to appointment “conservative, strict-constructionist judges.” They want judges who will strike down rulings laws that expand civil liberties, impact personal and corporate property and trade rights that are not in keeping with what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Three issues drive their viewpoint,
1. Abortion
2. Gay rights and marriage
3. Broadening of the definition of the separation of Church and State which has led to the removal of the Lords’ Prayer and prayer in general from schools and the public square.

In all three areas the courts issued created rulings that permitted abortion, accepted the gay lifestyle that citizens are free to pursue rather than imprisoned as sexual perverts, and recognized the rights the validity of non-Christian faiths without being confronted daily in government settings by government sanctioned Christian worship and expression.

Many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians would freely nod in agreement that the courts have been prime movers in these areas. Hence, their stand against judicial activism makes sense, at least within a narrow context of just these issues over recent decades.

Their position puts the conservative strict-constitutionalist in a position of affirming that the courts were:
1. Correct in upholding the Dred Scott ruling and that slavery is an acceptable practice.
2. Wrong is upholding and expanding child labor laws.
3. Wrong is upholding minimum wage laws that helped to break the cycle of indentured servitude to their employers.
4. Wrong in its rulings such as Brown vs. the Board of education that integrated public schools.
5. Wrong in ruling after ruling of civil rights cases that eliminated segregation
6. Wrong in helping to define and uphold truancy laws.
7. Wrong in issuing rulings that eliminated laws that institutionalized the mentally handicapped.
8. Wrong in issuing rulings that allowed the mentally and physically handicapped to attend the same public schools as their neighbors rather than “special schools.”
9. Wrong in invalidating legal contracts with children that were not signed by the parents.
10. Wrong in granting Miranda Rights (the right to remain silent and be interrogated only with one’s lawyer present).
11. Wrong in allowing those who appear before the court to have a translator when they do not speak English.
12. Wrong in addressing in firm terms lynching and other forms of rush to judgments by the public.
13. Wrong in defining due processes that we now all value as part of our judicial system.
14. Wrong in defining slander and issuing other statements that affect the public safety of others, such as screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre, as not protected free speech.

A host of other issues could be added to above list. While the modern strict-constructionist would distance himself/herself from issues on the list, by the very nature of their static view of justice, they are against each of the civil rights issues in the above list. If one is a strict-constructionist, one cannot pick and choose what rulings are judicial activist rulings were appropriate or not appropriate.

Even though the courts may issues rulings with which I do not agree, I am pleased that our judicial system recognizes that society progresses and evolves, and the laws need to be understood afresh within that changing context. Though we hold our Founding Fathers in respect, a dynamic view of the judiciary recognizes that their views and writings are not divine writ. They may have been insightful, but they did not envision our contemporary society with its plethora of issues, nor are their views without flaws that subsequent generations have had to address.

I am pleased with a dynamic posture of the judiciary for a fixed view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not justice. A static posture is blind legalism which as the decades pass creates an unjust judicial system that lacks wisdom.