Today's Guardian has an article about an Italian headmaster who has banned Christmas carols from the schools winter concert.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/30/christmas-is-cancelled-italians-outraged-over-school-decision-to-ban-festivities
Last year evidentially, during the concert, a bunch of Muslim students were ordered by their parents not to sing the carols. They stood there silently while the other kids sang. Some of the Muslim parents went onto stage and pulled their kids out of the chorus. The Headmaster Marco Parma decided that it was not a good sight and decided to cancel the carols.
Mr. Parma is wrong. He wants a school that is multicultural. That is not what he is promoting, he is promoting segregation and a heckler's veto (Where a legitimate voice is stifled by a dissenter who creates a scene causing the former to be quieted by authorities to "Keep the Peace". )
In a multicultural world, every religion and every culture is celebrated by everyone. Music is an international language. The notes are the same if you are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or a Sub Genius.
They tell a history, music can cause revolution (See VERDI and the Italian Unification) it soothes a child, it honors heroes. It can expose villains.
Stifling Religious music, teaches nothing but distrust. It causes dislike and hate. What's more, is in Italy, there is an official state religion, it is Roman Catholicism and that makes this kind of decision even more dangerous. It teaches majorities to dislike minorities, to fear that the acceptance of others means that the majority's culture no longer matters.
Now this isn't about making fun of another religion, It doesn't mean that participating in the music of another culture is accepting the ideals of the other culture. It means that one respects the culture of all people. That is what music does. It breeds acceptance. If you don't want to accept the views of others, then go off and be among your own. You may not learn anything, you may be disliked for your parochial attitudes but at least within your bubble you can be what you want to be.
What Parma fails to see, is that he has missed a teaching and a learning opportunity. He is a failure as an educator. He needs to stand down or be fired and let someone who gets it, teach it. Multiculturalism is inclusive, not exclusive. It adds it does not take away. If you do not want to participate, don't, but if you do, you may learn a thing or two about people you do not understand and they may learn about you.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
An Open Letter to President Obama : The Problem With Accepting Syrian Refugees.
Dear Mr. President,
Don't you EVER call me bigoted or frightened or xenophobic because I will not support your half baked plan to admit Syrian refugees into America. Its not b/c of them that I object, its because of YOU!
You have proven yourself to either be the dumbest President since Harding, or the biggest liar since Clinton. You may be both, but I fear more the latter than the former.
You see, in order to engender trust in your work and that of those that work in your administration, you have to be RESPONSIBLE. You are not. You never take responsibility. Any problem you encounter is always someone else's fault. You claim to never know anything when there is a MAJOR screwup in your administration. You find out when you read it in the newspapers. This does not engender trust.
You also say things you cannot prove or back up! You see Mr. President, ISIS was not the JV team; you do not have Isis contained; Your former Secretary of State knew a lot more than she allegedly told you, and she used private e-mails which she later destroyed without your approval, and your staff (ie Ms. Jarrett) planned lies about most if not all of it.
By the way When the President of the United States of America draws a "line in the sand" and then has to let the Europeans pull your foot out of your mouth, that does not engender trust in you or your word.
By the way When the President of the United States of America draws a "line in the sand" and then has to let the Europeans pull your foot out of your mouth, that does not engender trust in you or your word.
You promised transparency, but yours has been the least transparent administration since Nixon. You promised to not spy on us, LOL! Nixon is in the clouds saying "Whoa, this guy is good". Hell even J Edgar Hoover would be impressed. You spied on our allies and lied to them about it. Your IRS targeted your "enemies" but you take NO responsibility for their actions. Instead your administration has covered its wrong doing up. Cover ups do not engender trust.
Personally, I don't think you or anyone working for you, could spot an Islamic or for that matter ANY Terrorist if he was standing in front of them with a lit bomb screaming "JIIIIHADDDDD!" and wearing an Allahu Akbar!!! Pin. Hence I do not think your administration can be trusted to properly vet incoming refugees to determine which of them may be the one to blow something up in the USA.
No Mr. President, I am neither a bigot nor a xenophobe, I am just an ordinary American citizen who has lost faith in his government's, and more importantly his President's ability to preserve his freedom OR his safety. That is why so many Americans are against taking in Syrian Refugees right now. If you would step out of your Rose Garden for a few minutes and talk to the part of your constituency that you do not like, you might learn a thing or two. Who knows, you might even apologize correctly for your past behavior and that of your staff and start to get back the trust of the public that you had three short years ago but squandered since.
Yours truly
Anthony Colleluori
Anthony Colleluori
AKA That Lawyer Dude.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Mischaracterizing The Checks and Balances In Our Constitutions Framework: Justice Scalia's Dissent in Arizona v. USA
As promised I have had a chance to read, reread and digest the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona v. United States where a majority of the Supreme Court ruled Arizona's controversial Immigration law a\k\a SB1070 as unconstitutional.
You can read the original decision or get the cliff notes here
What most caught my attention however was not the majority decision which I think is about as correct an interpretation as one could give here, but the very political dissent by Justice Scalia.
Now many of you know how much I am a fan of Antonin Scalia. We might not be from the same political theory family (Original/intentionalist v. Original/textualist see a further discussion here but we are certainly kissin cousins.
With that said, I also have to say that while I understand his frustration, (it has to be hard being so close to having a majority on every issue and preempting the other two branches of government with a ruling) He has allowed his frustration to overcome his understanding of the checks and balances within the Constitution.
Look, in the original Constitution, The Founders contemplated a bunch of things that could be done for one branch to veto the other two branches. The Congress passes a law, the President vetoes it. Congress can override the veto, if they do, the Supreme Court might decide that the law is Constitutional or it is not Constitutional. Ok so we have a law than the Congress wants the President doesn't and the SCOTUS says the law passes Constitution muster. Now what options does the Constitution leave the President? Well enforcement of law is left to.... THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (ie the President). He can choose to enforce that law or not or do it the way he sees fit. Now Congress has another option. It can impeach the President for NOT Enforcing the law, The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over a trial in the Senate and if he loses the Senate vote, he is gone.
Now Scalia's problem here seems to be, he really doesn't like the way the President has chosen to act on the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act (lets remember what Scalia is angry about is the President's decision (through the Dept. Of Homeland Security) not to deport students who came to the United States as children because their parents didn't abandon them when they came to the US to find a better life) by not forcing these children to leave the only country they really know so that they can go back to a culture where they very well know no one and may not even know the language.
(In fact opponents of immigration reform like Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (a well known hate group with ties to the KKK and other Xenophobic entities)want to send children BORN IN AMERICA to undocumented aliens out of their (our)country)
In his frustration, he lashes out politically at the President in his dissent stating:
In fact the Constitution does not allow the states to enforce Federal laws that the President decides he will not enforce. If it did, it would give every state Governor and legislature a separate check on the President and on Congress as well.
Would Scalia say the same thing if the states were disagreeing with the court? In fact after Brown v. Board of Education, many states continued to say they didn't have to follow Supreme Court "law" and had the Presidents at that time decided not to send Marshals and troops to enforce the decision there would have been nothing the court could have done.
Scalia's comments are thus a political attack against POTUS's decision to get some of the rights the Dream act would have granted. It isn't the court's place to rule politically. I have no problem with much of his dissent (though I would not have joined in it as I think it twists to a great degree the law on federal preemption in Immigration enforcement) but I feel he has allowed his dissents to fall into the fanaticism that encompasses most of today's political debate. By suggesting the President was not within his right to set Executive priorities and that states can act on their own, is just not the law, it is not forwarding understanding the checks and balances of our Constitution and frankly it is beneath Justice Scalia's ability as a SCOTUS Justice.
You can read the original decision or get the cliff notes here
What most caught my attention however was not the majority decision which I think is about as correct an interpretation as one could give here, but the very political dissent by Justice Scalia.
Now many of you know how much I am a fan of Antonin Scalia. We might not be from the same political theory family (Original/intentionalist v. Original/textualist see a further discussion here but we are certainly kissin cousins.
With that said, I also have to say that while I understand his frustration, (it has to be hard being so close to having a majority on every issue and preempting the other two branches of government with a ruling) He has allowed his frustration to overcome his understanding of the checks and balances within the Constitution.
Look, in the original Constitution, The Founders contemplated a bunch of things that could be done for one branch to veto the other two branches. The Congress passes a law, the President vetoes it. Congress can override the veto, if they do, the Supreme Court might decide that the law is Constitutional or it is not Constitutional. Ok so we have a law than the Congress wants the President doesn't and the SCOTUS says the law passes Constitution muster. Now what options does the Constitution leave the President? Well enforcement of law is left to.... THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (ie the President). He can choose to enforce that law or not or do it the way he sees fit. Now Congress has another option. It can impeach the President for NOT Enforcing the law, The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over a trial in the Senate and if he loses the Senate vote, he is gone.
Now Scalia's problem here seems to be, he really doesn't like the way the President has chosen to act on the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act (lets remember what Scalia is angry about is the President's decision (through the Dept. Of Homeland Security) not to deport students who came to the United States as children because their parents didn't abandon them when they came to the US to find a better life) by not forcing these children to leave the only country they really know so that they can go back to a culture where they very well know no one and may not even know the language.
(In fact opponents of immigration reform like Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (a well known hate group with ties to the KKK and other Xenophobic entities)want to send children BORN IN AMERICA to undocumented aliens out of their (our)country)
In his frustration, he lashes out politically at the President in his dissent stating:
...U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.”6 The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror—“[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
In fact the Constitution does not allow the states to enforce Federal laws that the President decides he will not enforce. If it did, it would give every state Governor and legislature a separate check on the President and on Congress as well.
Would Scalia say the same thing if the states were disagreeing with the court? In fact after Brown v. Board of Education, many states continued to say they didn't have to follow Supreme Court "law" and had the Presidents at that time decided not to send Marshals and troops to enforce the decision there would have been nothing the court could have done.
Scalia's comments are thus a political attack against POTUS's decision to get some of the rights the Dream act would have granted. It isn't the court's place to rule politically. I have no problem with much of his dissent (though I would not have joined in it as I think it twists to a great degree the law on federal preemption in Immigration enforcement) but I feel he has allowed his dissents to fall into the fanaticism that encompasses most of today's political debate. By suggesting the President was not within his right to set Executive priorities and that states can act on their own, is just not the law, it is not forwarding understanding the checks and balances of our Constitution and frankly it is beneath Justice Scalia's ability as a SCOTUS Justice.
Monday, June 25, 2012
THIS JUST IN:US SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS MOST OF ARIZONA'S ANTI IMMIGRATION LAW!!
I hope to have more details on this later after digesting the 76 page decision but it seems SCOTUS has knocked out everything in the law that Civil Rights advocates attacked except for the stop and check of status.
Immigrants do not have to "carry registation papers"; the State Police cannot arrest allegedly illegal aliens without a warrant and they cannot get such a warrant from the state courts;and overturning the law which allowed the state to charge a misdemeanor against an undocumented alien from holding a job.
Even the "stop and check" portion of the law is in danger as the court invited civil rights advocates to bring other attacks against the law.
The majority has upheld federal exclusivity in setting and prosecuting Immigration policy. Interestingly both Kennedy and Chief Judge Roberts were in the majority.
More later I hope.
Hattip: The New York Times on Line
Immigrants do not have to "carry registation papers"; the State Police cannot arrest allegedly illegal aliens without a warrant and they cannot get such a warrant from the state courts;and overturning the law which allowed the state to charge a misdemeanor against an undocumented alien from holding a job.
Even the "stop and check" portion of the law is in danger as the court invited civil rights advocates to bring other attacks against the law.
The majority has upheld federal exclusivity in setting and prosecuting Immigration policy. Interestingly both Kennedy and Chief Judge Roberts were in the majority.
More later I hope.
Hattip: The New York Times on Line
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Mr. Romney, Your Silence is Deafening: Where is the Real Republican Immigration Plan
Yesterday I was pretty critical of President Obama about what I consider to be a basically valueless change in Administrations policy on Immigration. Today I want to make it clear I am just as unhappy with the Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. You see, Obama hasn't really kept his campaign promises to pass comprehensive Immigration reform, however Mr. Romney has yet to even make a promise with any proposal. I am actually more inclined to be angry at Republicans for not trying to come to the table with a plan than at Obama who has at least put forth a plan that Republicans promise to filibuster. Look it is easy to say NO! It is hard to say, "this is what we need and we know what you are looking for and here is our proposal."
Five times yesterday, Bob Schieffer of CBS News asked Romney on "Face the Nation" if he would undo the Napalitano Order to not seek deportation of "Dream actors" for now. Five times he failed to say what he'd do. Thing is, I think Mitt doesn't really dislike the Presidents plan, he just can't say it without alienating every xenophobic wingnut who is supporting him on the right. Here is the thing, George W. Bush had a great plan, but the wingnuts took over and ruined any chance the Republicans had of passing the plan, fixing the problem and winning the day. That is the problem with "Pure" politics. You cannot get anything done with someone who is "my way or the highway."
The Majority of Americans favor a road to citizenship for people who are already here. The majority also seeks a plan that would make it counter productive for someone to come over here and be illegal. The people who vote in the cock-eyed primaries, aren't those people. Here is the thing, Bush was willing to fight his party, but he really couldn't fathom a way to do it. As a result he lost the Hispanic vote for McCain. McCain (who also shot himself in the foot by abandoning everything he ever stood for and with his Sarah Palin Fiasco)paid for it dearly. Romney has caved on EVERY THING for which he ever stood. Now no one, not the conservatives, not the libertarians, and not the American public will ever trust him. If I were an anti-immigration Republican, I wouldn't vote for this guy, I don't know what he will ultimately do. As a Pro-immigration Libertarian, I wouldn't vote for Romney because he is a living disaster for America and especially on this issue, even if I believe a President Romeny will flip (when the pollsters tell him to.)
I will probably cast a vote for Gary Johnson, who is better than either Romney or Obama. Then again, I may be so fed up by November I may not vote at all... (don't get excited, I will probably vote, I like doing it too much to give it up.)
Five times yesterday, Bob Schieffer of CBS News asked Romney on "Face the Nation" if he would undo the Napalitano Order to not seek deportation of "Dream actors" for now. Five times he failed to say what he'd do. Thing is, I think Mitt doesn't really dislike the Presidents plan, he just can't say it without alienating every xenophobic wingnut who is supporting him on the right. Here is the thing, George W. Bush had a great plan, but the wingnuts took over and ruined any chance the Republicans had of passing the plan, fixing the problem and winning the day. That is the problem with "Pure" politics. You cannot get anything done with someone who is "my way or the highway."
The Majority of Americans favor a road to citizenship for people who are already here. The majority also seeks a plan that would make it counter productive for someone to come over here and be illegal. The people who vote in the cock-eyed primaries, aren't those people. Here is the thing, Bush was willing to fight his party, but he really couldn't fathom a way to do it. As a result he lost the Hispanic vote for McCain. McCain (who also shot himself in the foot by abandoning everything he ever stood for and with his Sarah Palin Fiasco)paid for it dearly. Romney has caved on EVERY THING for which he ever stood. Now no one, not the conservatives, not the libertarians, and not the American public will ever trust him. If I were an anti-immigration Republican, I wouldn't vote for this guy, I don't know what he will ultimately do. As a Pro-immigration Libertarian, I wouldn't vote for Romney because he is a living disaster for America and especially on this issue, even if I believe a President Romeny will flip (when the pollsters tell him to.)
I will probably cast a vote for Gary Johnson, who is better than either Romney or Obama. Then again, I may be so fed up by November I may not vote at all... (don't get excited, I will probably vote, I like doing it too much to give it up.)
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Guest Blogger Alena Shautsova: Bringing Your Family to Safety After You Have Received Asyum
I am pleased to welcome Alena Shautsova as a guest blogger on the That Lawyer Dude Blog. Alena is quite a good young lawyer. She is a leader among young lawyers in the NYS Bar Association and is the liaison from our state bar (Young Lawyers Section)YLS to the ABA's YLD(Young Lawyers Division) and she is also very active in our State bar's Special Committee on Immigration Representation Reform. She is Of Counsel to our Law Firm concentrating on International Law, Immigration and Civil Rights/Employment litigation. She is a rising star in our bar. I commend her work to you.
Can I Bring my Family to the US After I Received an Asylum Status?
A person granted asylum in the United States may bring his spouse and children (unmarried and under 21 at the time the USCIS receives the application for asylum) to the USA.
Such an application (FORM I-730) has to be filed within the two years after the grant of asylum. Failure to file within 2 years however, can be excused for humanitarian purposes.
SPOUSES WHO LIVE ABROAD:
If an asylee would like to bring his or her spouse to the US, the following conditions must be met:
An asylee must be the principle applicant: that means that he or she was the person who applied for asylum and was granted asylum. Received the asylum status though a relative does not make one eligible to bring over other family members as a Principle Applicant ;
An asylee must remain in asylee status or become a permanent resident;
An asylee was married to the spouse he or she is petitioning for before the asylee was granted asylum.
The same rules apply to spouses who live in the US, and who were not included in the application but became married to the asylum applicant before he or she received the asylum status.
CHILDREN WHO LIVE ABROAD:
If an asylee would like to bring his or her child to the US, the following conditions must be met:
An asylee must be the principle applicant: it means that he or she was the person who applied for asylum and was granted asylum, and that he or she did not received the status though a relative;
An asylee remains in asylee status or has become a permanent resident;
The child was conceived prior to the grant of asylum: (Note from That Lawyer Dude: in a rather cruel twist, the mother of the child, if not married to the asylee prior to the grant of asylum is not eligible for these benefits,she must allow the child to leave and continue to face the torture of her original nation-state. Further any children not of the aslylee must also be left behind. Maybe noone in Homeland Security has ever watched the movie "Sophie's Choice") ;
on the basis of an employment-based petition; or
A child was under 21 on the date the USCIS received application for asylum. (True for I-589 filed on or after August 6, 2002);
A child is unmarried.
And now for the Good News:
SPOUSES and CHILDREN Who Live in the United States and Were Included in the Application for Asylum:
Spouses and children who are with the applicant in the United States and were included in the applicant’s Asylum application will receive status automatically as derivatives of the main applicant.
Once again I want to thank Ms. Shautsova for her contribution and look forward to her next one. Also I encourage you to check out her blog at: http://www.shautsova.com/law-publications/law-cases-articles.html
Can I Bring my Family to the US After I Received an Asylum Status?
A person granted asylum in the United States may bring his spouse and children (unmarried and under 21 at the time the USCIS receives the application for asylum) to the USA.
Such an application (FORM I-730) has to be filed within the two years after the grant of asylum. Failure to file within 2 years however, can be excused for humanitarian purposes.
SPOUSES WHO LIVE ABROAD:
If an asylee would like to bring his or her spouse to the US, the following conditions must be met:
An asylee must be the principle applicant: that means that he or she was the person who applied for asylum and was granted asylum. Received the asylum status though a relative does not make one eligible to bring over other family members as a Principle Applicant ;
An asylee must remain in asylee status or become a permanent resident;
An asylee was married to the spouse he or she is petitioning for before the asylee was granted asylum.
The same rules apply to spouses who live in the US, and who were not included in the application but became married to the asylum applicant before he or she received the asylum status.
CHILDREN WHO LIVE ABROAD:
If an asylee would like to bring his or her child to the US, the following conditions must be met:
An asylee must be the principle applicant: it means that he or she was the person who applied for asylum and was granted asylum, and that he or she did not received the status though a relative;
An asylee remains in asylee status or has become a permanent resident;
The child was conceived prior to the grant of asylum: (Note from That Lawyer Dude: in a rather cruel twist, the mother of the child, if not married to the asylee prior to the grant of asylum is not eligible for these benefits,she must allow the child to leave and continue to face the torture of her original nation-state. Further any children not of the aslylee must also be left behind. Maybe noone in Homeland Security has ever watched the movie "Sophie's Choice") ;
on the basis of an employment-based petition; or
A child was under 21 on the date the USCIS received application for asylum. (True for I-589 filed on or after August 6, 2002);
A child is unmarried.
And now for the Good News:
SPOUSES and CHILDREN Who Live in the United States and Were Included in the Application for Asylum:
Spouses and children who are with the applicant in the United States and were included in the applicant’s Asylum application will receive status automatically as derivatives of the main applicant.
Once again I want to thank Ms. Shautsova for her contribution and look forward to her next one. Also I encourage you to check out her blog at: http://www.shautsova.com/law-publications/law-cases-articles.html
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Happy Fourth of July 2011
Well in a few hours our nation celebrates its Independence from the Tyranny of the British Royal Crown. A few years after the decision to cede from British rule and after a war, we finally settled on a Constitution (there was a loose confederacy of states before that but we ultimately chose a federal system of government)to govern us. This Constitution tried to embody as much of the Declaration of Independence as it could, however the original document was thought lacking by the Declaration's author Thomas Jefferson, so he persuaded his friend John Madison to lobby through an embodiment of the Rights of Man our American Bill of Rights.
Jefferson wanted to preserve the fervor and feelings of his Declaration of Independence which begins with a statement about the self evident nature of the rights of man (meaning God Given rights) but he was well aware that tyrannizing politicians could do away with these rights as the King did to the Colonialists. Jefferson, wary of a big federal government wanted to limit the abuses that could become our government if Monarchists ever obtained an upper hand in our government.
In a large sense however, the Monarchists may have won if the goal was a large centralized government and a federal presence in the decisions of our daily lives such that the states have little to say about how they run themselves and we as citizens have little access to our Representatives. Our leaders appear only on news shows and before reporters who will report their views their ways and will not ask hard questions. Both major parties favor large government when it suits them and states rights when it doesn't.
For example Republicans favor states rights on Abortion and Immigration policy because they can't seem to get control of the federal government long enough to shove their view down our throats.On the other hand, they want a federal standard if a state doesn't follow their lead on an issue. In other words "States who agree with us get rights the rest of you be damned."
Democrats want state government to decide issues such as gay rights and gambling because they can't get the votes to work these out to their constituency favor on a national level. They favor state rights to decided what a marriage is, but would not allow states to determine what a "life" is.
I don't care where you stand on the issues of Abortion, gay marriage, Internet poker or the like. I care that things are actually interpreted by our Constitution with a view toward the Jeffersonian approach to our government. I'd also like to see a sense of shame when a party acts hypocritically.
Here is how some of this would shake out under my view of the world. Interstate commerce and Immigration policy are national in scope as are issues of Defense. These areas are reserved for Federal control. The Internet is also a federal issue, why? Because it is EVERYWHERE!
Health, Sex, Gambling, all criminal activity except for terrorism, treason, bank/mail/and wire fraud are state issues. There is an exception to that and that is that the Fraud must not just use the wires or mail to be committed, but must be committed against citizens or corporations on a national scope. Hence just because someone in NY calls someone else in NY to commit a fraud on a NY corporation, that use of the phone would not make for a federal case just because the phone line routed the call through a national grid of phone lines etc.
In my world, elementary education would be left up to the states, civil rights are federal. Secondary education (High school and up would be a mixture of Federal and State control depending on the issue however as somethings (like law or science) are things that need to be shared nationally we do need some national standards.
The feds could set standards that each state need to meet in the area of dealing with the imprisoned or the poor, but it would be up to the states to implement the standards. Economic Policy is a shared item as well. National Parks need to be part of a 3 way discussion Fed, State and local governments need to participate together. OTOH, the feds need to stay out of our homes, our hotel rooms our bank accounts and anything else that concern us as individuals.
Anyway, I could go on, and I will, but I want to know what you think of this whole concept of Independence. What does it mean to you, not personally, but as it relates to how we as citizens obtain a government that will uphold our right to live and conduct ourselves in the freest of fashions.
Edited to add a couple of links and clean up some spelling errors.
Jefferson wanted to preserve the fervor and feelings of his Declaration of Independence which begins with a statement about the self evident nature of the rights of man (meaning God Given rights) but he was well aware that tyrannizing politicians could do away with these rights as the King did to the Colonialists. Jefferson, wary of a big federal government wanted to limit the abuses that could become our government if Monarchists ever obtained an upper hand in our government.
In a large sense however, the Monarchists may have won if the goal was a large centralized government and a federal presence in the decisions of our daily lives such that the states have little to say about how they run themselves and we as citizens have little access to our Representatives. Our leaders appear only on news shows and before reporters who will report their views their ways and will not ask hard questions. Both major parties favor large government when it suits them and states rights when it doesn't.
For example Republicans favor states rights on Abortion and Immigration policy because they can't seem to get control of the federal government long enough to shove their view down our throats.On the other hand, they want a federal standard if a state doesn't follow their lead on an issue. In other words "States who agree with us get rights the rest of you be damned."
Democrats want state government to decide issues such as gay rights and gambling because they can't get the votes to work these out to their constituency favor on a national level. They favor state rights to decided what a marriage is, but would not allow states to determine what a "life" is.
I don't care where you stand on the issues of Abortion, gay marriage, Internet poker or the like. I care that things are actually interpreted by our Constitution with a view toward the Jeffersonian approach to our government. I'd also like to see a sense of shame when a party acts hypocritically.
Here is how some of this would shake out under my view of the world. Interstate commerce and Immigration policy are national in scope as are issues of Defense. These areas are reserved for Federal control. The Internet is also a federal issue, why? Because it is EVERYWHERE!
Health, Sex, Gambling, all criminal activity except for terrorism, treason, bank/mail/and wire fraud are state issues. There is an exception to that and that is that the Fraud must not just use the wires or mail to be committed, but must be committed against citizens or corporations on a national scope. Hence just because someone in NY calls someone else in NY to commit a fraud on a NY corporation, that use of the phone would not make for a federal case just because the phone line routed the call through a national grid of phone lines etc.
In my world, elementary education would be left up to the states, civil rights are federal. Secondary education (High school and up would be a mixture of Federal and State control depending on the issue however as somethings (like law or science) are things that need to be shared nationally we do need some national standards.
The feds could set standards that each state need to meet in the area of dealing with the imprisoned or the poor, but it would be up to the states to implement the standards. Economic Policy is a shared item as well. National Parks need to be part of a 3 way discussion Fed, State and local governments need to participate together. OTOH, the feds need to stay out of our homes, our hotel rooms our bank accounts and anything else that concern us as individuals.
Anyway, I could go on, and I will, but I want to know what you think of this whole concept of Independence. What does it mean to you, not personally, but as it relates to how we as citizens obtain a government that will uphold our right to live and conduct ourselves in the freest of fashions.
Edited to add a couple of links and clean up some spelling errors.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Judge Scalia: The Constitution Permits Sexual Discrimination
In an interview with the California Lawyer Magazine US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declares that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on one's sex or sexual orientation.
Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.
A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here
As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.
I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.
Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.
I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:
Section. 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.
Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (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.
I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.
I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.
Hattip: Huffington Post
Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.
A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here
As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.
I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.
Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.
I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:
Section. 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.
Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (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.
I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.
I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.
Hattip: Huffington Post
Monday, April 13, 2009
Response to the Ridiculous: A Measured Rant in Resonse to an Idiotic Argument Against the DREAM ACT
The DREAM ACT was reintroduced last month followed by President Barack Obama stating his intention to begin debating true immigration reform.
A twitter tweet lead me to this ridiculous commentary by a blogger on "BloggerBase.com" I would normally just leave a comment there but the idiot who wrote the piece didn't want anonymous comments (which is OK by me, I sign my work) and the site won't let you use your name unless you join. I do not see the reason to join, at least for now. So here Mr.J Malmberg is my response to your drivel. Your sad and embarrassing post on what is "wrong" with the DREAM ACT.
Sadly this is a ridiculous response to a real problem. Your arguments are no more than a dismissal of the Dream Act proponent's position. You offer nothing.
You misstate the facts. A kid can't just "come here at 15" & stay. He must be here for years before he qualifies. He must arrive before he is 15.
1. Kids do not come on their own. You suggest the reason this argument doesn't hold water is that it "rewards the parent who broke the law." WRONG. This law doesn't punish the child who is here through no fault of their own. The parent's wish is of no consequence. We do not punish children for the sins of their parents.
Which leads us to straw dog argument number 2:
"When people commit crimes the family is often hurt as much as their direct victims."
There is no US law that punishes a child for a parent's crime. What we do have is a situation where a kid may be the only one punished. That's right, mom and dad may be citizens but the kid might not be & will be sent back to a country where he knows no one & may not speak the language. The child will have no home or any way to survive there.
Your cavalier attitude shows a complete lack of understanding of law or compassion. In America, when we act in child cases, even juvenile crime cases, courts must always consider the best interest of the child. The DREAM act codifies that theory for immigration law as well.
3. Your final argument is a tautology. DREAM ACT kids will be offered in-state tuition in the states in which they reside. It is no different than it is for everyone else. Thousands are not being turned away. Nearly no one who wants to go to college is being kept out because of money. Cite a reputable study for gosh sakes.
Your xenophobic attitude towards these kids is an embarrassment. Your lack of candor is worse. We gave you your stupid fence. It isn't working. Now give us a workable immigration policy that secures our borders, guarantees our security & our economy too. PASS THE DREAM ACT.
A twitter tweet lead me to this ridiculous commentary by a blogger on "BloggerBase.com" I would normally just leave a comment there but the idiot who wrote the piece didn't want anonymous comments (which is OK by me, I sign my work) and the site won't let you use your name unless you join. I do not see the reason to join, at least for now. So here Mr.J Malmberg is my response to your drivel. Your sad and embarrassing post on what is "wrong" with the DREAM ACT.
Sadly this is a ridiculous response to a real problem. Your arguments are no more than a dismissal of the Dream Act proponent's position. You offer nothing.
You misstate the facts. A kid can't just "come here at 15" & stay. He must be here for years before he qualifies. He must arrive before he is 15.
1. Kids do not come on their own. You suggest the reason this argument doesn't hold water is that it "rewards the parent who broke the law." WRONG. This law doesn't punish the child who is here through no fault of their own. The parent's wish is of no consequence. We do not punish children for the sins of their parents.
Which leads us to straw dog argument number 2:
"When people commit crimes the family is often hurt as much as their direct victims."
There is no US law that punishes a child for a parent's crime. What we do have is a situation where a kid may be the only one punished. That's right, mom and dad may be citizens but the kid might not be & will be sent back to a country where he knows no one & may not speak the language. The child will have no home or any way to survive there.
Your cavalier attitude shows a complete lack of understanding of law or compassion. In America, when we act in child cases, even juvenile crime cases, courts must always consider the best interest of the child. The DREAM act codifies that theory for immigration law as well.
3. Your final argument is a tautology. DREAM ACT kids will be offered in-state tuition in the states in which they reside. It is no different than it is for everyone else. Thousands are not being turned away. Nearly no one who wants to go to college is being kept out because of money. Cite a reputable study for gosh sakes.
Your xenophobic attitude towards these kids is an embarrassment. Your lack of candor is worse. We gave you your stupid fence. It isn't working. Now give us a workable immigration policy that secures our borders, guarantees our security & our economy too. PASS THE DREAM ACT.
Friday, September 26, 2008
A Couple of Cartoons Explain the Tough Stuff: Understanding the SubPrime Mess and the Immigration issue.
Try explaining why asking an alien to wait in line back home is bad for business and bad for America is well illustrated in this cartoon using a flow chart to show that a path to citizenship is nearly impossible for most people even if they have relatives here.
Then stick figures illustrate how America got into the Fiscal Crisis we are in now. This PowerPoint style cartoon will explain how greed and lack of oversight caused what we now know to be the "Sub prime Mortgage financial crisis" and why we unfortunately may have to bail it out if we want to avoid a world wide financial collapse.
Sometimes you have to worry about easy answers, but explanations should be understandable to the people you are asking to pay for the solutions to today's problems.
Then stick figures illustrate how America got into the Fiscal Crisis we are in now. This PowerPoint style cartoon will explain how greed and lack of oversight caused what we now know to be the "Sub prime Mortgage financial crisis" and why we unfortunately may have to bail it out if we want to avoid a world wide financial collapse.
Sometimes you have to worry about easy answers, but explanations should be understandable to the people you are asking to pay for the solutions to today's problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)