Month: May 2009

It’s About Us

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

While posting about Cheney’s Worldview, Tim Lynch captures the perspective that drives my thinking on subjects such as torture and indefinite detention:

So we shouldn’t let the terrorists see us get “caught up in arguments” about the wisdom of our foreign policy, about whether our country should go to war, about our country’s treaty obligations, about the parameters of government power under our Constitution? What is this former vice president thinking?

Does it matter if Charles Manson appreciates the fact that he got a trial instead of a summary execution? No. It does not matter what’s in that twisted head of his. Same thing with bin Laden. The American military should make every effort to avoid civilian casualties even if bin Laden targets civilians. Similarly, it does not matter if bin Laden scoffs at the Geneva Convention as a sign of ”weakness.” The former VP does not get it. It is about us, not the terrorists.

An obsession with the mentality of the enemy (what they see; what they hope for, etc.) can distort our military and counterterrorism strategy as well. (bold emphasis added, italics original)

If we are to act and not simply react it must always be about us. We must make our decisions based on what is right, not based simply on what others are doing or how they might interpret what we choose to do. I think it is important to have discussions about these issues and I appreciate that mine is not the only perspective.

At times I will learn that I was wrong, and that there are things I had not considered. More often than that I am likely to learn that I have not been clear in stating my position. But I am confident that we will go wrong every time if we decide that the discussion itself is dangerous or without merit. If we stop discussing the issues we stop deciding what to do and begin following blindly wherever we are lead. No matter how honorable our intentions, blindly following will always ultimately lead to actions that are destructive not only to others, but more importantly to ourselves and our standing in the world.

Tags connections, discourse, Elevated, principles

National

Constitutional Amendment VIII

Post author By David
Post date May 28, 2009
8 Comments on Constitutional Amendment VIII

Like the second amendment, the eighth Amendment leaves no room for exceptions.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

There are those who would argue that not all the rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to non-citizens. Depending on your definition of “rights” there may be room to make such an argument, but no definition of rights could be used to argue that this right does not apply to every person on earth and that our government should honor this right in all its actions.

This brings up the question of torture as a tool employed by our government. The amendment does not allow any room for any form of torture regardless of the existence of any Geneva convention or rules of war because torture is, by definition, cruel. The only argument that could be made is that, although cruel, torture is not used as punishment because it is administered not in retribution for crimes, but in search of information. I think it is obvious how flimsy such an argument would be.

On a related note, our current administration claims to forbid the use of torture (no way to verify those claims) but proclaims their intention to use indefinite detention on those they deem as threats but who cannot be convicted of any crime. This absolutely violates the fifth amendment right that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” While the relevant laws may vary between citizens and non-citizens, indefinite detention does not allow for that due process. If a person cannot be charged and convicted of a crime they should be released. If they are not a citizen they should be released to their country of citizenship.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, Elevated, history, torture

General

Constitutional Amendment VII

Post author By David
Post date May 27, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment VII

The seventh Amendment really intrigues me:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In criminal cases the right to a trial by jury is absolute for civilians regardless of the crime in question. In civil cases the founders obviously felt that citizens might not want to trust a judge to decide cases involving large sums of money. I don’t know exactly how much $20 was in 1787 but it’s very little today. I think this amendment would be burdensome if it required rather than allowing trial by jury for any amount of money not indexed to inflation.

The intent of the amendment seems to be to preserve the citizens rights tot heir own property by making it impossible to simply get a judge to enter a judgment against them in civil court cases and thus strip them of their property. Is there some other reason that I am overlooking?

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, questions

National

U.S. and CA Supreme Court News

Post author By David
Post date May 26, 2009
No Comments on U.S. and CA Supreme Court News

The news came last week that the California Supreme Court would issue their ruling related to Proposition 8 so I expected to have a reaction to that news today. I saw news this morning that President Obama would make his nomination for a new judge to replace Justice Souter – that news surprised me. Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor. So far all I really know about her is that she is a Catholic, Hispanic female. I am not at all confident that we will ever have hearings in the Senate about a supreme court nominee that are more about qualifications than about politics, but if that day ever comes I am convinced that the founders were right to assign the task of confirmation to the Senate rather than the House or the people.

In California, the Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8. From what I had heard this ruling was not a foregone conclusion nor was it unexpected. The ruling provided answers to two related questions. One question was whether Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the vote to define marriage in California as being between a man and a woman, was too far reaching to be added to the Constitution without the participation of the state legislature. As previously stated, the court denied that claim. The second question was whether the same-sex marriages performed before the passage of Prop. 8 would retain their legal recognition. On this the court unanimously agreed that they would still be recognized.

Regardless of my personal opinion on the legitimacy of same-sex marriage (just like the justices are supposed to make their rulings based on the law rather than their own personal feelings) I believe that the court ruled correctly on both questions. I believe that the question embodies in Prop. 8 is perfectly within the right and ability of the people to decide. I also believe that because the same-sex marriages performed before the passage of Prop. 8 were legal based on a previous ruling at the time they were performed the state must feel obligated to recognize those existing marriages (its the principles of ex post facto laws). The only way they could have annulled those existing marriages were if they were to rule that their ruling from last year was in error – which I expect they never will.

Tags California, gay marriage, New York Times, Obama, Prop 8, Supreme Court

culture

Use the Proper Tool

I have written before about our national propensity to use government when it is not the proper tool for the job. Scott summed my point up very succinctly in a recent post:

There is a proper tool for every job. Use of the wrong tool often produces substandard results. Sometimes it is necessary to make do with what you have. That’s called innovation. But regularly using the wrong tool when the right tool is available is just plain stupid.

One of the basic tenets of classical liberalism is to regard government as a tool to be used only where it is most appropriate; the chief role of government being to safeguard and expand liberty. Many people (from all over the political spectrum) view government as a big stick to be employed in forcing others to conform to their particular view of good.

Government is not the only tool that we often use inappropriately, and sometimes the wrong tool is employed not because it is the tool of choice, but because we refuse to use the proper tool. Such is the often the case with regard to schools disciplining children.

A large number of schools use potentially dangerous methods to discipline children, particularly those with disabilities in special education classes, a report from Congress’ investigative arm finds.

In some cases, the Government Accountability Office report notes, children have died or been injured when they have been tied, taped, handcuffed or pinned down by adults or locked in secluded rooms, often to be left for hours at a time.

Some people would be quick to blame the authoritarian, impersonal schools for their outrageous methods of discipline and while I am far from a believer in the infallibility of schools I think that such blame is misplaced in the vast majority of cases.

The real blame lies in the fact that many parents fail to enforce discipline in their homes and even among those who do enforce discipline in their homes all too many make themselves unavailable to take on that responsibility when their children require more discipline than can reasonably be applied by a teacher in charge of more than a dozen students. What’s worse, is that we cannot even safely place the blame fully on the shoulders of the individual parents. Too many of them are forced into situations where they cannot devote themselves to parenting full-time. (Sometimes they just feel forced into those situations.)

As a society we have set too low a value on the role of parenting – placing it completely secondary to economic productivity. We have set expectations too high for our material and economic standard of living – where the luxuries of yesterday must necessarily be necessities today. Consider cell phones for every family member over the age of 10, cars for everyone over 16, cable TV, computers, game consoles, television sets in every room, dance-lessons, sports, and hobbies for each day of the week.

None of these things is intrinsically bad, but together they form unreasonable and unsustainable expectations and they destroy the possibility for most stable families to keep at least one parent available to take care of their children when needs arise.

Not only that, but we expect the schools to provide many of those hobbies through requiring gym, art, and music classes as well as extracurricular sports. The result is that even where there are parents at home and available the children often spend too many hours under the care of their teachers and not enough under the influence of their parents. This serves to lessen the parental influence and offers incentive for parents who would otherwise be available to commit themselves to other activities lest they feel they are wasting their time.

The problems are complex and interwoven so that any hope of identifying the solutions is dependent on our recognition of how and when any given tool can be used and insisting on using each tool in its proper place rather than finding favorite tools and trying to make this reduced tool set suitable for all our needs.

Tags children, connections, Education, Elevated, family, government, ideal, NPR

General

Constitutional Amendment VI

Post author By David
Post date May 21, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment VI

In our information age sometimes the right to a public trial guaranteed by Amendment VI interferes with the opportunity for an impartial jury also guaranteed there (especially in the district wherein the crime was committed).

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The principles are sound though that a person deserves to be confronted with the accusations against them and those making the accusations, and that they should have the power to present a defense against the charges.

Tags Bill of Rights, Constitution, crime, documents, history, rights

General

Constitutional Amendment V

Post author By David
Post date May 20, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment V

We’ve all heard the concept of taking or pleading “the fifth {Amendment}” in court but there is more to that amendment than simply not testifying against yourself.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Grand Jury which must indict for capital crimes in in addition to, not in place of, a jury of peers that all other criminal cases receive. The only exception in this grand jury is military courts in time of actual service. This amendment also contains the provision against double jeopardy (I wonder if that ever worried the game show hosts) although that protection only extends to criminal cases – civil cases may be brought multiple times for the same offense. (I guess that would also cover the game show. 😉 ) It also appears that a person might be compelled to witness against themselves in a civil case. The statement that we cannot be deprived of life liberty or property nor have property taken for public use without compensation seem to stand as a second bulwark against unreasonable seizure as protected in the fourth amendment.

Tags Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, laws, liberty

General

Constitutional Amendment IV

Post author By David
Post date May 19, 2009
6 Comments on Constitutional Amendment IV

Aside from any room for interpretation of the word “unreasonable” Amendment IV is pretty simple:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Our government and its officers have no right or authority to seize our persons, houses, papers, or effects without cause supported by a claim of the particulars of who or what may be seized and where the seizure may occur.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, liberty

State

The Huntsman News

By Monday afternoon this is, of course, old news but if you visited here you must have been at least marginally interested in my opinion on the fallout from Huntsman being tapped to become the ambassador to China. First of all, I think that Bob Bernick captured the essence of the Big Utah Political Picture especially in the following sections:

Now 2010 in Utah is wide open.

Now there is an open governor’s race with a one-year incumbent . . .

There is also U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, facing an intra-party challenger {or two}.

Adding to the mix will be the off-cycle governor’s race in 2010. Because Huntsman is leaving so early in his second term, Herbert must run again in 2010, the eventual winner serving only two years before he or she must run again in 2012.

That puts next year’s governor’s race off schedule — and incumbents like Attorney General Mark Shurtleff can seek the higher office without having to give up his current post. That’s also the case for Democrats Corroon and Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker — all who can run for governor without risking their current seats.

And there’s a few state senators who just won re-election to their four-year seats in 2008 and so can run for governor or U.S. Senate next year without risking their current offices, as well.

. . .

2010 is suddenly a once-in-a-generation opportunity for many current and wanna-be Utah politicians.

So there’s the big picture. We’ll be holding two elections for Governor by 2012 and that Governor’s seat in 2010 added to Bennett’s seat in the Senate makes for a lot of opportunities for those (especially senators) who are not facing re-election in 2010 to take a shot at moving up in Utah politics.

Now for my opinion on the Huntsman move in particular.

In my very first political blog post I said of Huntsman:

I have spent months looking at everything I could find on the candidates and so far as I can tell the least promising republican candidate just won the republican primary

In all fairness I have to say that Huntsman exceeded my expectations as a Governor (which is why I suggested that he would be an improvement over Hatch in 2012). I like him better for some of the reasons that others dislike him, and dislike him for some of the reasons that others dislike him. Plus I still dislike him for most of the reasons I didn’t like him to begin with. So you can safely guess that I’m not sad to see him leaving. In fact, I believe that he is very well qualified to be our ambassador to China and I have high hopes that he will fill that post well.

Beyond being not sad to see Huntsman leaving I am very happy that he will be vacating the Governors seat officially because it’s been months since he left me with the impression that he was doing any more there than keeping the seat warm. If there is any way to leverage this political confusion to oust Bennett from his seat in 2010 so much the better but simply based on the fact that Huntsman had already moved on mentally from his position as governor I happily wish him well in his future endeavors and hope that Herbert and our future governors spend the bulk of their time in office proving that they are working for Utah more than for their personal political futures.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, candidates, Jon Huntsman, Utah

life meta State

A Huge (but Pleasant) Surprise

Post author By David
Post date May 18, 2009
2 Comments on A Huge (but Pleasant) Surprise

Every once in a while I check where this blog might be ranked in the BlogNetNews Weekly Influence Index of Utah political blogs. The list has been published weekly for the last 20 months and I used to watch it every week to see where I was ranked. I always felt good whenever I was in the top 10 for the state. I was even more excited on half a dozen occasions when I was in the top 5 (I was #4 once) which used to be displayed on the front page of BNN/Utah. As BNN/Utah began to expand and after I changed domains late last year my rankings became less consistent (meaning sometimes I was not in the top 20 anymore) and I stopped checking my ranking as regularly as I used to. When I looked today I was amazed to discover:
BNN/Utah #1

I was so surprised that I had to go look at the full list. I don’t think it was an error because the top 5 is still some select company.

May 17, 2009 Top 5 for BNN/Utah

Now I will return to more valuable content.

Tags blogging, site