Constitutional Arbiter

The other day I came across a Facebook post that reminded me how crazy, supposedly responsible people can be. It was a post of a letter sent to Vice President Biden by an Oregon Sheriff named Tim Mueller. In this letter, Sheriff Mueller details his love of the Constitution and the oaths he has given for his current position, as well as a short stint in the Army and concludes by declaring that he won't enforce any laws he or his citizens consider unconstitutional. Here's the part of the letter that I find just incredible to read, coming as it does from a law enforcement officer, emphasis mine:

"Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County Oregon."

Here we see a prime example of why we can't have a reasonable conversation about guns, not to mention many other subjects. It's because so many people, who seem intelligent, some of whom hold positions of responsibility are, at least on certain subjects, idiots. Sincerely determined ones at that. Let me put it this way, if I may paraphrase what Mueller is saying in this letter:

"Vice President Biden, I, Sheriff Tim Mueller, love the Constitution. I have sworn oaths to protect and defend it as a law enforcement officer and as an MP in the Army. As such, I am an expert on what is and is not Constitutional and not the Courts, as the Constitution would have you believe. Therefore, I am telling you, the Constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States of America, that I refuse to enforce any federal law I don't agree with and will even attempt to thwart enforcement by federal authorities. 

It's irrelevant that any such law was proposed and passed into law under a Congressional framework that is explicitly laid out under the US Constitution. That very same document about which I expressed my undying love at the beginning of this letter. In fact, my adoration for the Constitution is so deep and unyielding that I am willing to violate my own oaths, to that very same document! God bless America and the Constitution!."

I wish this guy was unique, but you might be surprised how many people subscribe to this tortured line of reasoning, either personally or in support of those shrubs who do. It always breaks down to the idea that individual citizens can make a determination about what is and is not Constitutional. Despite the fact that these laws were passed under Constitutional authority. Sure, some laws have been passed and then later ruled un-Constitutional, but that was done through the Court system, as the Constitution explicitly specifies. In fact, laws are treated much like a person's innocence; we assume they are Constitutional, because they were passed Constitutionally, until such time as they are challenged and subsequently ruled to violate the Constitution. You see, that's how this whole 'America' thingy is supposed to work. 

The bottom line is that, as a citizen, you have the right to disagree with a law, call for its repeal, speak out publicly, challenge it in court and demand your representatives work to repeal it. But just because you don't like it, doesn't make it un-Constitutional! It may be unwise, stupid or even corrupt, but you do not have the right to choose what laws apply to you, based on your own, skewed interpretation of the Constitution. And if you're in a position of power and authority, such as Mueller, you sure as hell don't have the right to declare your own personal insurrection against the Constitutional authority of the United States simply because you disagree with something! And to do it under the guise of patriotism is enough to have me reaching for an Excedrin and/or a bottle of Captain Morgan. I've had enough of blowhards who think they can pick and choose what laws apply to them. If we start down that road we stop being the United States and instead become the Confederate Counties of America, where every locality has its own random, illogical laws based not on a governmental framework, but rather the simple minded prejudices of the local authorities. We all know how that works; segregation, discrimination and restrictions on the very liberties that schmucks like Mueller are so hot and bothered about. You see once you start letting individuals choose what laws should be followed, you're setting up every 'Mueller' as their own petty dictator. Put simply, Mueller is actually undermining the very Constitution he is supposedly so devoted to. Is that ironic or just pathetic? No, wait, I think it's both.

Dictator for a Day: Campaign Finance

As we drift into the election season I'm feeling that same old, sinking feeling I get every time the talking head parade begins. The feeling got worse after the Supreme Court's inexplicable 'Citizens United' decision a few years ago that all but wiped away any meaningful campaign finance restrictions.

Particularly over the last 30 years, our election system has become increasingly corrupted by money. Money in the hundreds of Millions of dollars floods into groups associated with candidates and political parties. Until recently there were a hodgepodge of campaign finance laws that made at least a valiant attempt to stem the tide of cash that surged into every election. But with one ruling, the now infamous 'Citizens United' decision, the Supreme Court swept most of them away. There are now only a few threadbare restrictions on the Who and How Much of campaign finance. Kind of like patching a dyke with a screen door. There are more than a few avenues and sleights of hand in place to allow anyone or any organization in America to donate without limit.

A great example is Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS. It's a so called 501(C)(4) group that not only can accept unlimited sums of money, but doesn't have to tell anyone where the money comes from. The only ghost of a restriction is that they are not allowed to coordinate with individual candidates, as if that's any functional impediment. GPS and its sister group, which does divulge its donors, spent roughly $71 Million in support of Republicans during the 2010 midterm. About 90% of GPS' total collections for that cycle, according to some sources, came from just a few Billionaires. For the 2012 elections they are setting a goal of $240 Million! That's just for two, supposedly independent, groups. If this kind of money, for the Right or Left, doesn't scare you, then you are not thinking it through to its logical conclusion.

This trend is toxic for a functioning democracy. The more money the wealthy and big corporations spend the more control they gain over the system. Sure we all still get a vote, but big money is gaining more and more control over who the candidates are, what we hear about them and what their policy positions are. Money determines what messages are broadcast into our family rooms and how often we hear it. Even a stupid idea, repeated loudly enough and often enough will start to take hold. There are just too many Americans who are either too naive or too lazy to look past the bullet points. They just let ads, pundits and party loyalty guide them blindly along the path without ever asking themselves if what they are being told even makes sense.

Just look at the 2008 financial debacle, if you don't believe me. Various parts of the United States financial industry destroyed the nation's economy and kicked the legs out from under much of the industrialized world. There isn't really even any debate over this fact anymore, aside from the question of whether it was a case of apathy or ignorance. But having done that, and then being rescued because we were all terrified of what might happen if the big banks actually failed all at once, they used every bit of pressure they could bring to bear to kill or weaken any attempt at true, meaningful reform. Even the financial reform bill that did finally emerge has been beaten and bloodied ceaselessly by Wall Street lobbyists to protect their astoundingly profitable casino. Actually, I should apologize as that's an insult to casinos who, unlike our banks, are required to actually have enough money on hand to cover all their bets. So even a blatantly obvious need to reform the banking system can't stand up to the massed checkbooks of that same industry.

If I was Dictator for a Day, the first thing on my list would be a Constitutional Amendment completely revamping campaign finance. Put simply, the days of big money control of US elections would be over.

First, no group, PAC, union or corporation of any kind could donate to political campaigns. Period. This would include these supposedly independent groups like Crossroads GPS. The only legal way to donate would be from individual citizen contributions.

Second, there would be a cap on individual donations, similar to current standards, with a $2500 per election cycle and $5000 per calendar year limit, adjusted for inflation in odd calendar years. Anyone found in violation of these limits would be guilty of voter fraud, face heavy fines and would be barred from donating to any candidate for at least one election cycle.

Third, each candidate would be allowed to create or hire ONE company/organization to manage the collection and disbursement of donations. They would all be licensed & renewed yearly. Their donation records would be available under normal Freedom of Information act rules. Anonymous donations would be illegal. Each group would face at least two random audits per election cycle. The audits would check general fiscal operations as well as take random samplings of donation records to confirm they are indeed real adult, US Citizens. Groups in violation of these rules, beyond a tiny margin for legitimate errors, would face draconian financial penalties, immediate cessation of campaign finance operations, a freeze on all funds and lose their license for a minimum of 2 years.

Fourth, candidates could not use their own personal funds for their campaigns. They would only be able to donate as individuals with the same limits.

Fifth, 'gifts' to candidates would be heavily restricted and fully public under Freedom of Information like rules.

I'm sure there are many details that would have to be ironed out or added, but you get the idea. This would go a long way towards leveling the playing field for voters. The wealthiest individuals and companies would no longer be able to simply buy elections. Sure there's no way to completely bolt the door shut, not considering how devious some of these people are. But it would make it much more difficult and if they were caught they would face more than a slap on the wrist. This amendment would also have the added benefit of preventing the waste of hundreds of Millions of dollars that could be put to far better use. Look, we have a big problem with our election system, but it's not yet too corrupt to reform. Unless of course we continue to ignore the problem till election day becomes nothing but a technicality to placate the masses.

Oath to CSPAN Ruled Non-Binding

In an astounding moment in the GOP's first day on the job after taking control of the House of Representatives, two Congressmen somehow managed to skip the official swearing in. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), a returning member, and Mike Fitzpatrick (R- Pennsylvania) a new arrival apparently decided that it was more important to be down the hall at a Fitzpatrick fundraiser/gathering than attending to the most basic of Constitutional duties, being sworn into office. In a leap of illogic that is particularly astounding for a veteran House member like Sessions, they 'took their oath' to CSPAN. Literally standing in front of a TV running the televised swearing in ceremony! No, really! Then proceeded to go about their business casting votes that, since they were not officially sworn in, were no legal. This of course caused a problem when it all came out and both geniuses had cast a number of votes that were meaningless. Oh, and did I mention that Sessions is on the House Rules Committee? Or that if the gathering actually met the definition of a 'fundraiser' than Fitzpatrick violated House rules again for hosting it in the Capital building?

In my opinion they should both have been barred from voting for 30 days, then have to go through a formal swearing in on the floor in front of the entire House of Representatives. A little public humiliation might do them both a world of good.

You MAY Have the Right

If there's one thing Americans are all very proud of it's our Constitution. Liberal, Conservative, Dallas fan, Libertarian  or Glenn Beck, they will tell you that the Constitution is what makes America the great nation it is. I too think this 200+ year old piece of parchment is one of the most important government documents ever written. It has all sorts of great ideas, such as having three equal branches of government. Integral checks and balances to keep any of the three from becoming too powerful. Unquestioned rights to freedom of Speech, assembly and religion. And another that we Americans are rightfully proud of, assumption of innocence. In other words, no matter how much anger we feel or how much proof we are told exists, those arrested are still the 'accused' or the 'alleged' criminal. They are a 'suspect' until they are proven to be guilty in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty.

Yet somehow in recent years, with the threat of terrorism more and more a part of our lives, it has become acceptable to start overlooking these Constitutional protections when they are inconvenient. The same politician who will thump his chest and vow that the Second Amendment is sacred will turn to the camera another day and proclaim that we should be able to take an American citizen and strip him of his Constitutional rights simply because he is "accused" of being a terrorist. In fact Senator Lieberman, with several co-sponsors, is introducing a bill that would give the State Department the power to revoke the citizenship of Americans abroad if they are believed to be associating with the wrong people. Never mind that this makes the individual, an American citizen mind you, guilty without arrest or trial. Guilty based on what? A sliver of hearsay intelligence? A picture of you standing near or talking to a person 'of interest'? The whole idea is not only un-American, but sounds blatantly un-Constitutional. Just as bad though is that the bill would prevent nothing, would provide no actual protection at all. Look at the most recent terrorist suspect arrested, Faisal Shahzad who is alleged to have planned the unsuccessful NY Time Square bombing and also an American citizen. Sure he was out of the country for something like 5 months in Pakistan, but we didn't know about any of his contacts there until after the fact. We still don't know very much for sure even now. So the bill inspired by Shahzad's case would have done nothing to prevent it. And on top of that, the bill will waste time in Congress better spent on any of a dozen other serious items, including changes that would actually matter and not tear a hole in the Constitution in the process. Perhaps time would be better served in confirming the current nominee to head the Transportation Safety Administration, an appointment held up for the better part of a year with no end in sight.

It's the same thing with the idea of reading a terrorist suspect his Miranda rights. You know, "you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you" speech we see regularly on every cop show. Miranda warnings have their roots in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision that, to put it simply, said that before interrogation a suspect must be informed of their rights within the Justice system. See here for more info on Miranda Rights. It's just a requirement to ensure the person under arrest is aware of their rights, nothing more. Nobody seems to have a problem with Miranda for serial killers, rapists, pedophiles and the like. But read them to a terrorist suspect and suddenly half the country goes up in hysteria. I know we all hate terrorists. 9/11 has scarred us all to some degree or another. But this is America, and as we are so very proud, we have a justice system that is based on innocent until proven guilty. Yet as soon as we hear someone use the 'T' word we all start frothing at the mouth. Suddenly we are trying to come up with any possible way to circumvent our own justice system so we can rush them to the electric chair as soon as possible. Forgetting, of course, that they haven't actually been convicted of anything yet. I'm sure someone will say, "yeah, but so-and-so confessed!" So? Many criminals do confess, yet we still have a trial or at least go through the prescribed legal steps for judgment and sentencing. Some will point out that terrorists are evil monsters who don't deserve the rights of our legal system, citizen or not. To tell you the truth,  while I do hate terrorists, I'm actually more scared of serial killers. Yet I still support their rights to due process. And if it's good enough for the twisted sociopathic likes of Jeffrey Daumer and Charles Manson then I say it's good enough for Faisal Shahzad, the failed Yuppy bomber.

Some of this is political posturing, but that doesn't excuse it. Pandering to the 'hang 'em high' crowd in direct opposition to our legal system is pathetic.  We have laws and we have procedures for those who break them. The most important thing is that we follow the law. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary decision by whoever is in power that moment. America's justice system is based on strict codes and procedures to ensure it is as impartial as possible. Are we really ready to take these decisions away from the courts and hand them over to politicians and bureaucrats who are more interested in polls and campaigning than justice? It's easy, and darkly satisfying to take someone like Shahzad and dispose of him violently like a Bond villain. But this would require us to willingly sacrifice what it is to be an American. To say to our fellow Americans and the rest of the world that our laws are not impartial, that the law only applies to certain people, under certain circumstances who shall be determined at a later date and based upon criteria to be decided later. That would be a change in the very fabric of our society and way of life due to continued threats of violence, wouldn't it? Sounds kinda familiar to me . . .

Definition: Terrorism
"The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda."