Our Lost Moral Compass

The impetus for today's discussion comes from a conversation that I had with a friend a few weeks before Christmas.  Before moving along any further, it is important to note this:  my friend are diametrically opposed when it comes to most things political.  I strongly suspect he voted for Obama, and I know that Bernie Sanders is his preferred Presidential candidate for 2016.  That being said, he is an otherwise wonderful person who cares about his family and friends.

Our conversation happened in the wake of another *mass* shooting that had recently gone down.  In the wake of it, there was another outpouring of anti-gun hysteria.  He felt it was just another example of blaming something that really had nothing to do with the issue.  He pointed back to the 1980s when people blamed music, and to the 1990s when *violent* video games were to blame for all of society's ills.  Given the amount of legally owned weapons in the U.S. (some 200 million, according to reports), and the fact that most gun incidents are perpetrated by criminals, not law abiding citizens, he felt this was just the scapegoat du jour.  I happened to agree with him.


Our conversation then moved towards determining what the problem was, and we came up with a solution:  we have simply lost our moral bearings.  We didn't delve in to specifics, mostly because I deflected the conversation away from it, but it seemed a truth too large to ignore.  When a people have no moral compass, the only thing that matters is what they feel is most important in the moment.  Often, that is themselves.  "Generation me", as a friend of mine has dubbed it.

There could be many moments in our nation's history that would point to a loss of our moral compass, but for me, there is one moment that is so horrendous, I think it's as good of a starting point as any.  That date is January 22nd, 1973.  For those who are aware, that is the day that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in Roe v. Wade, a decision that forever changed the landscape of the United States.

There are a couple of legal problems with Roe.  First, it took an activist Court to state that abortion would be allowed as the law of the land.  In order to do this, they had to completely invent clauses of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the text of which reads:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

They used 'due process' to come up with 'privacy' which was then translated in to 'murder of unborn children'.  To say the least, the original intent was not Honored, nor could any reasonable person infer that such a right is given, unlike the cases of using the 14th amendment to confer citizenship on to so-called *anchor babies*.  The amendment was part of the "Reconstruction amendments" (13 - 15), the original intent of which was to protect the rights of newly freed black, male slaves.  And also, in fine print "kill all the babies".  It was probably written in invisible ink, which is why it took all the way until 1973 for a decision to be reached.

Notwithstanding the Court abusing their Constitutional powers, a second problem exists with the decision, and that is how it is has been interpreted through the years.  The Court's intent had been to write a decision that was narrowly focused.  Whether they failed to do so, or whether is has simply been misinterpreted during the ensuing 43 years, I don't know.  It also doesn't matter.  The net result is that it was made alright in the eyes of the legal system to murder unborn children.

How could there not be a loss of a country's moral compass once such a decision has been rendered?

Others may argue that we lost our way prior to that point, and still others may say it came at a later date.  It doesn't matter at this point, we've clearly lost our way, and until we regain our moral compass, we could write enough laws to fill the entire Library of Alexendria, and we can't hope to gain back our footing.  We may have already gone past the point of no return, and our Nation could be in the midst of its death throes.

Ann Coulter May Be "Right", but She's Still Wrong

The impetus for today's argument comes from an e-mail I received which led to this article, authored by Ann Coulter, and the premise of which is that Fox News Network anchors (namely Bill O'Reilly) are ignorant fools.  On this front, she may be "right", I wouldn't know, as I don't watch Fox News (or any other news, for that matter.)  Her diatribe focuses on O'Reilly, who made this statement to Donald Trump regarding his plan to deal with illegal aliens:

The 14th Amendment says if you’re born here, you’re an American!

 Coulter rightly states that the 14th amendment was not intended to serve that purpose, but was intended to guarantee former (male) black slaves the rights to full citizenship in the United States.  She then 'strengthens' her arguments by cherry-picking 14th amendment cases to support her argument.

Her first cherry-picked case is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 in which an Indian man (John Elk) sued to be recognized as an American citizen, after he had separated himself from his tribe.  Elk lost, in large part because the Supremes (rightly) determined that the opening salvo of the 14th amendment was intended for former slaves and other black Americans, therefore, it was not applicable to him.  This case was decided on November 3rd, 1884.

In her next selected case, Afroyim v. Rusk, she cherry picks this one quote from Justice John Marshall Harlan II:

Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the ‘courts have stumbled on the subject,’ it would be prudent to remove the ‘doubt thrown over’ it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen’s right of citizenship because of birth.

In her next statement, she makes light of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, a case that was cited in Afroyim v. Rusk in support of the majority opinion, which was to overturn  Perez v. Brownell which ruled that Congress, through various means, had the right to take citizenship away from citizens.  Afroyim v. Rusk (in 1967) determined that was not the case, despite the fact that Afroyim was born in Poland in 1893, and did not immigrate to the United States until 1912, and was not naturalized until 1926.  Despite this, the Court ruled that the citizenship conferred by the Constitution, and in particular the 14th amendment, could not be abridged by any Congressional action.

A slight digression, if I may.  In her argument, Coulter taunts O'Reilly with this barb:

I cover anchor babies in about five pages of my book, Adios, America, but apparently Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the scholars on Fox News aren’t what we call “readers.”

Perhaps Coulter ought to look in to the mirror on that charge, because the majority ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk that:

The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race (emphasis added.) Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

So, Coulter cited a case which further proves what those who have suggested that Trump's idea may not pass Constitutional muster.  Whoops.  Maybe actually read the case, instead of just a blurb.  Or, don't grab a single quote and make it seem like that is the entire point of the decision, which it was not.  That's simply dishonest 'journalism'.

And to further clarify for Coulter and all others who think Trump is the cat's meow, here again is the opening line of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

It does not state "all citizens", but rather "all persons", so unless Coulter and her ilk are arguing that children born of illegal aliens are not "persons", the case should be closed as to whether or not they would be considered citizens.  They simply are, and we are left to deal with the ramifications of that, until such time a new Constitutional amendment clarifies the issue.

Coulter quoted Justice Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in her article:

 In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”

Posner may be the most cited Justice, as Coulter claims, but he must have missed the Afroyim v. Rusk ruling, too.  Regardless, the fact that he is imploring Congress to pass a law that would stop awarding citizenship to everyone in the country (and he may be speaking of illegal aliens here, too, for all I know, who do not actually have citizenship, even if they are treated oftentimes as if they do.) should have clued Coulter and others in to the fact that it is the way of the land right now, through Court rulings.

Coulter, earlier in her article had said this:

Still, how could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.

Put differently: Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

I'm not going to waste time making up scenarios to answer Coulter's attack, because it's not necessary.  I'll just present two other cases that used the 14th amendment as their bedrock to make a decision that had nothing to do with its original intent.

First - Roe v. Wade, first argued on December 13th, 1971 and finally decided on January 22nd, 1973, used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to infer a right to privacy, in order to legalize abortion in the United States.  Tell me, Ms. Coulter, was that the intent of those who created the 14th amendment?   I would beg for any scenario in which that might be held to be even partially true.  Yet, despite the fact that it was not the original intent of the amendment's authors, it was cited, and has withstood (right or wrong) for 42 plus years.

More recently, the Supremes decided in OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL that gay marriage would be the law of the land, again through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.  Again, I'll ask (rhetorically), for any scenario where Ms. Coulter or any other right or wrong thinking person might think that in 1868 our nation would have wanted to confer upon its citizenry the right to gay marriage.  In 1,000,000 years, you couldn't come up with such a scenario.  Yet, that is what occurred this past June, through an activist Court.  The same activist Court that would be in charge of the decision regarding any future attempt to remove the citizenship of so-called 'anchor babies' (a derogatory term, if someone had asked me, even if it happens to be factual.), notwithstanding the fact that the Supremes have already ruled that citizenship, once conferred, cannot be revoked by acts of Congress.  However, as I noted in an earlier post, ex post facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution.  So there's that.

I don't necessarily disagree with what Coulter's thought process is, regarding the original intent of the 14th amendment, however, it simply is illogical to presume that we as a nation are going to en masse support original intent.  This is a Nation that cannot even grasp what was intended by the 1st and 2nd amendments, let alone all the way up to the 14th.

A Constitutional amendment, if written correctly, could prevent future children born to illegal aliens from gaining citizenship, and it is something that political leaders in our nation should look in to.  However, it does not correct the 'problem' that already exists with regard to those citizens that are already in this nation.  With regard to the illegal aliens already here, it's a lot like gun laws:  simply enforce what's on the books and do it immediately.  Then, if Trump or another leader wants to build a wall or protect our border better, more power to them.  Until such time, we must deal with the decisions that have been handed down, whether right or wrong.

The World Has Gone Mad

It's stories like this one that are going to make people support Donald Trump's non-Constitutional immigration plan (Presidential candidate Ted Cruz's (R-TX) FB campaign page states that has always been his position, too.), and therefore his candidacy going forward.  If our federal government is so filled with morons who sit idly by while White House directives undermine our nation's borders, then the expectation must be that the people will rise up against a government that does not protect it, and choose someone who at least positions himself of the people who wish to protect our great Land.  Whether he follows through with plan is irrelevant at this point, because we're still 14 and 1/2 months away from the next Presidential election, and my guess is that by that time, Trump will have bored with the campaign trail.  In fact, I imagine that he will have gone back to his Billions, but leave in his wake what others who follow will do with *his* plan (Any plan that involves hardcore isolation such as building a nearly 2,000 mile wall to keep out illegals traces back to Pat Buchanan, at the very least.)

The most striking portion of the story for me is the fact that the Feds never saw fit to alert local officials when they were putting criminals back on the streets, let alone violent ones, without telling anyone.  That seems like criminal behavior to me, but apparently it was standard operating procedure until late.  After years of protests from various local law enforcement officials, the Feds finally capitulated and began to of late notify local communities.  In the most recent incidence in AZ, three violent criminals, two of which were in the country illegally, while the other (Nasser Hanna Hermez, originally from Iraq) is a permanent legal resident who was found guilty of negligent homicide (originally charged with murder 2) of his 7 week old daughter, and somehow finagled a sentence that included only 6 months of jail time, and three years probation.  His most recent offense was a burglary charge in April that netted him 3 months of lockup, and two years of probation.

The other two committed crimes nearly as horrific, and were subject to deportation, but ICE found they could not deport them because "they could not locate travel documents proving...citizenship" in the criminal aliens home countries.  So they $&%(#2 released the two criminals, who are in this country illegally to do whatever they may, which will likely include violent acts against lawful citizens of the state of AZ.  They said, their hands were tied and they were forced to release him into the United States per the current immigration policy directives. 

Well, if current immigration policy directives are what are allowing violent, criminal, illegal aliens to be put out on the streets of America, perhaps it is time for those in charge to re-write those directives, and until such time, for those who are closer to the reality of the situation to stand fast and do what is right for citizens of our nation, rather than following policy dictates of politicians whose heads are clearly up their...

Does Donald Trump's Immigration 'Plan' Pass Constitutional Muster

Alleged Presidential candidate Donald Trump recently unveiled a plan to deal with America's illegal alien (*immigrant*) problem.  Certain aspects of it, such as building a wall along the entire U.S. - Mexico border would simply take cajones to carry it out, along with the resources.  Trump's plan is to bill Mexico for the cost, but even if it came at the expense of the American taxpayer, in the long run, it is likely that Trump is right, and it would be cost justified.

However, where Trump may run in to a bit of a problem with the Constitution is the portion of his plan where he wants to ship out persons born in the United States to illegal aliens back to the land of their forebears.  The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution may have something to say about that. 

It reads, in full:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

For the purposes of refuting Trump's plan, the main focus is provision one of the amendment.  As has been previously discussed, this amendment was part of the "Reconstruction Amendments" that designed how life in the American South would play out.  At its core, it was created to ensure that black males, many of whom had previously been slaves, would get a *fair* shot at Constitutional liberties within the United States.

It's highly likely that those that passed the amendment did not foresee a time when it would be used to protect illegal aliens and their children.  In fact, given the prejudice that existed at the time, it probably wasn't considered because those who would have been in position to become illegal aliens (namely, Mexicans) would not have been considered people.   However, the drafters of the amendment did not specifically state that, and so the clause 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside' sits there, and gives Constitutional protection to everyone that it applies to.

Now, if Trump were to be elected, it is possible that he might be such a strong leader that he would be able to convince 2/3 of the members of Congress, or  the same proportion of states to call for a Constitutional convention to create a new amendment that says that children born to illegal aliens are themselves illegal aliens.  That could happen.

Of course, Congress cannot pass an ex post facto law, so the children born to illegal aliens that are already in the country would maintain their citizenship.  There's not a legal way around that.

The more dramatic, and certainly harder to swing and connect on solution is that you deport all of the illegal aliens, regardless of whether they have legal, resident children living within the United States.  While that's going on, deport all of the other illegal aliens, and especially those that have committed crimes other than breaking our immigration laws.  The parents of legal children would have the option of leaving their children behind, or renouncing their child's U.S. citizenship when they return to their native land.

Of course, such a proposal would automatically label you as a *racist*, and make it impossible to accomplish the stated goal.  Trump's *plan* may garner him some political points, but the reality is, it can't be done legally.

So Kiss States' Rights Goodbye

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In the two hundred and twenty odd years since that amendment was ratified, it has generally been understood that meant that what the Feds claimed as theirs was theirs, and anything else was to be decided by the states at their discretion.  Chief Justice John Roberts explained as much in his opinion (page 10) for the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL

v

. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL

Roberts:

Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,liberties, and properties of the people” were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy. The Federalist No. 45, at 293

(J. Madison).

However, that doesn't mesh with what the Supreme Court recently decided in the OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

In this decision, the majority of the Supremes determined that the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution superseded the powers granted to the states in the 10th amendment.  On one point, and one point only, I would agree with them, however, the amendment has nothing to do with what was in front of the Court that day.

The 14th amendment was the second of 3 amendments collectively known as the "Reconstruction Amendments", and they were passed in 1865 (13th), 1868 (14th), and 1870 (15th.)  For the Court to assert that these laws apply to gay marriage is ridiculous on its face for any number of reasons, no less than the fact gay marriage was not a topic of discussion at that point in time in U.S. History, nor was homosexuality in any real manner of speaking, despite the fact that there anti-sodomy laws on the books dating to the 1600s.  It was not until post-1880 that these laws began to be really enforced, and even then, the focus wasn't an anti-gay stance, but rather one that was specifically anti-sodomy, regardless of the sex of the members engaged, according to Margot Canaday, in her review of William Eskridge's Dishonorable Passion for The Nation magazine.

A further reason it is ridiculous for the Court to have reached such a decision is because it requires the Court to step outside of its Constitutionally appointed role in government, which is to essentially uphold the rule of law.  Its role is not to interpret and reinvent the Constitution as it sees fit their particular political leaning at the moment.  Extending the 14th amendment past its intended goal is absurd, and is without question a usurpation of powers.  To the amendment, which reads as follows:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Points 1 - 4 list out exactly what it is that the amendment is looking to achieve, point 5 says who has the power to enforce the law through legislation.  You'll note that there is no mention of gay marriage, nor is there any mention of the U.S. Supreme Court having the authority to enforce or alter the amendment.  Why?  Because it's not their job, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It is also important to note that in provision 2, the right to vote was extended to all men, ages 21+.  This was underscored when the 15th amendment was passed:

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.

 Women would have to wait until the 19th amendment for their chance to vote, to vote without having to potentially pay a poll tax the 24th amendment, and those who were aged 18 - 20 would have to wait until amendment 26.

The point is, the Constitution is not some malleable, living document that can be changed on a whim.  It should be, and was designed to be, the bedrock upon which our society was built.  If something about it needs to be changed, their is a proper course of action (pass a new amendment.)  Don't believe me?  Let's ask two Founding Fathers who were instrumental in the writing of the Constitution.  First, George Washington's thoughts on how and when the Constitution's might be changed:

 ...Changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people.  If in the opinion of the people, the distribution of modification of the Constitutional powers be in any way particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation; for though in this one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

Thomas Jefferson would write in 1803:

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.  Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

The Court's decision overstepped its bounds, and put our Nation on the path to oligarchy.  The question is not whether or not gay marriage should have become law, but rather the means that goal was achieved.  Instead of putting in the hard work of achieving a Constitutional amendment, gay rights 'activists' chose the short cut of going to the courts.  Instead of thinking of long-term consequences, they thought only of their own short-term desires, and the Supremes kowtowed to pressure from which they are supposed to be immune.  This was a disaster for our nation, in ways that may not yet have been imagined.