I wasn't surprised by your post, though. Let's see if I understood it completely...
Andrew Jackson did do "bad" things, but the "good" he accomplished and represented as a general, Senator and President of the United States outweigh them in their impact on American history.
You also state that Jackson can't be held to the same moral standard as someone living today, nor can anyone not living today. Isn't this the very definition of "moral relativism"? Jackson's moral standard during his life was determined by the society he lived in and the experiences he lived through... not by a universal understanding of absolutes. That is a text book explanation of relativism.
I'm not saying you are wrong. Rather than struggle to find family members that can act as examples, let's look to other revered members of our Presidential past. Thomas Jefferson wrote the words that will last forever as a defining notion of equality and liberty: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." He wrote these words while owning slaves, perhaps as many as 200 over the course of his life. To the modern eye, this must seem the height of contradiction and hypocrisy, but if I were to say that Jefferson had borrowed the money to buy and keep the slaves and never managed to relieve the debt and thus couldn't "free" them legally, even though his conscience told him it was the "only moral course of action" available to him, does that mitigate the wrong? Does it remove the contradiction and explain the hypocrisy? Jefferson was the first President to work towards the abolition of slavery, and ended the slave trade in America in 1807... but "owned" slaves until his death in 1826.
Jefferson owned slaves because to do so in the late 18th Century in Virginia was the status quo, and to argue otherwise is revisionism at its worst, but he had the moral fiber to raise his voice against the practice from as early as 1767 when he took his seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses. This tells me that, regardless of circumstances and financial concerns, Jefferson knew that slavery was immoral and that he wasn't the lone voice in the wilderness when he spoke out against it. Had this not been the case, he never would have penned the words quoted above in the manner he did, which was a point of contention with many of the Southern delegates to the Continental Congress reviewing the initial drafts of the Declaration.
Isn't it true that to argue that "the norms of society dictate the moral standard" is to justify such patently immoral actions as the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott vs Sanford? Doesn't this relative interpretation of ethical and moral understanding negate the argument that there is a "universal" understanding of right and wrong, and that our society has developed to the point it has because we learned from our "mistakes" rather than dooming ourselves to endlessly repeat them?
Andrew Jackson was an accomplished military leader, a statesman, and a politician. He was a devoted husband and father (as Ryan pointed out, he adopted an Indian boy orphaned by one of his own Indian War battles). He paid off the national debt, something no other President has ever managed to do... ever. He preserved the Union when South Carolina threatened to secede over the question of nullification. He fought the corrupt system behind the Bank of the United States with every fiber of his being, and won.
He also signed into law an act that removed the individual and minority freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution to 47,000 US citizens based solely on the fact that they were living under the authority granted them by ratified treaty as sovereign governments within the United States of America. He ordered the forced removal of these US citizens from their homes, farms and plantations and had them relocated to a barren, undeveloped territory as far as 1,000 miles away. He authorized the US Army to use force in the removal of these people, with no regard for the means by which adequate supplies, transportation or care could be assured, which resulted in nearly 12,000 deaths between 1830 and 1837. He then seized the millions of acres of Indian reservations in the east and sold them to generate revenue for the Federal Government.
Among those removed were judges, doctors, wealthy plantation owners, lawyers, and two Representatives to the Georgia House... all of whom had fought the passage of the Removal Act from their homes all the way to Washington DC. These weren't illiterate savages living as nomads in teepees, these were the Five Civilized Tribes, with organized central governments, schools, hospitals, roads and postal services living on land that was promised to them exclusively by the Federal Government.
Isn't this exactly the same kind of infringement on individual liberty that so terrifies conservatives today? If we can dismiss the evil and immoral nature of this sort of tyranny then as "relative to the era" then where is the defense against it today? How are we supposed to revere the people responsible for this past injustice, which is far greater than anything we face now, if we are to fight against government infringement on rights and freedoms that may occur tomorrow?
Now, I'm not trying to make this a defense or argument for compensation or restitution. We cannot give back that which was lost in 1830, because what we lost was something we can never get back, no matter how much money we spend or effort we make: we lost a portion of our national honor. We get that lost honor back by acting as a nation that recognizes the difference between right and wrong, even when it is our own actions we are judging, and working to ensure that such a travesty never happens again.
That is my opinion. We cannot change what has already occurred, but we can recognize our past for what it is, and we can recognize our leaders for what they were... human... and not for what we want them to have been... ideal. I'm simply not sure that there is a defense for what occurred after Jackson signed that act into law, even if we assume that some kind of mitigation need be assigned due to the standards of society at the time. If there is no defense, then perhaps we do need to review which five Presidents grave the face of our national currency. After all, we have 43 faces we can choose from, and there are far better candidates than Andrew Jackson, I am sure, among them.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Old Hickory
Sometime after the first bra was burned but before M.C. Hammer, Americans became familiar with the phrase "politically correct." Aaah the baby boomers. It occurs to me their entire generation (save the Vietnam Vets & Civil Rights) is one big Woody Allen self conscious monologue. Birthed in the shadow of the Greatest Generation it was almost as if they were born to not measure up. And like the children of many successful parents they sought to impress those who gave them life. But how do you top saving the world? ... by changing it. Or at least redefining it. Universities whom once fostered captains of industry and presidents of America were suddenly offering courses in Lesbian Orgasm Rituals (gives a whole new meaning to phrase "lab partner", ay?). Bananas were under sexual assault by misguided Jr. High counselors with more prophylactics then college credits. The word "American" was hyphenated by creed, color and even gender to the point where hearing an activist describe his or her self sounded like one was reading from a wedding invitation to an all Cuban wedding ... "the parents of Martina Raoul Fernando El Cortez are pleased to announce ..." Castro humanized, communes legitimized, and the founders ... demonized.
I'm not sure when I first heard the Founders described as "white, slave owning ethnocentrists", but it was well before I knew the definition of "ethnocentrism", I assure you. This is perhaps a useful philosophical exercise, but its like plutonium ... you must handle it with care, for if one pulls too hard on the thread of pride woven into our history, the entire tapestry could be undone.
Technically, its an accurate description. The Founders were white. They owned slaves. They did think, as I do, that the culture of liberty which they helped create and preserve, which spurned our Constitution and released Man's potential in way never before seen, was superior. Superior to what they had known under the monarchs of Europe, and as it turns out superior to any form of government formed since 1776. And before anyone feels the need to jump to the comment section with the idea that I think Andrew Jackson was a founding Father, please park yourself. I'm well aware he wasn't ... but neither was my grandfather.
My grandfather served in the Pacific during WWII, a Navy man. I never heard him use the dreaded racial "N" word, never. But I am aware that he served in segregated quarters, and thought that the norm. Is he a racist? Should I not teach my sons of his accomplishments nor hang his picture on the wall in no less than two spaces?
I have read mission documents of another grandfather. Things that would make James Bond's tea stained teeth chatter. As a member of the OSS he actually did things that most people only come in contact with today if they are avid video gamers. Undoubtedly he served in a segregated unit. In fact as a member of the OSS, I know he did. He probably thought that only right and normal. Is he any less a war hero?
I say this not to pick a fight. An honest question was asked and I am giving my honest response. But this is a game played in the modern era that has no definite end, and it can become maddening for sometimes great men of our history, like Jackson, do bad things and to acknowledge that without tearing down the legend can be a tricky thing.
I work at an establishment named for a brutal, anti-democratic, war mongering imperialist (and that's when the phrase really meant something). Does this mean to revel in the history of the period through commercial sales & gaming that I am advocating such a form of government or the man's actions? PC games are played in the Empire's honor, with glee. Is this "wrong?" In Las Vegas one can dine on a prized steak, succulent lobster, and wine whose price requires a second mortgage - "Neros." A restaurant named for a man whom gutted his pregnant wife ... that inscription doesn't appear on the cutlery, I assure you.
Now I am doing my best not to fall into the trap of "the victors write the history", I really am. But the point is that plucking a revered figure from history and putting him on trial by modern rules of evidence is a fool's errand. Are diseased blankets given to Indians a travesty? Without question. Is centuries of slavery a blight we can never remove? Of course. Were Andrew Jackson's actions towards Indians less than honorable, and in some cases a flat out atrocity? To be sure. But did you know he also adopted an Indian orphan boy? He did. Raised him as his own, the child never wanted for anything. The phrase "Jacksonian Democracy", born of the man and his governance, gave a distinctive definition to classical and Renaissance notions of republicanism which were struggling to be maintained in the first "post founders" era. In the election of 1824 he set the standard reaction for all future presidential candidates whom felt "cheated" out of the big seat. He didn't raise an army and march on the capitol. He raised political capital and in 4 years was voted commander-in-chief of the army. And in 1828 the national ideological debate between he and John Quincy Adams of a limited versus pro active government set the tone for discussions still being had today.
The point is human beings are complicated, and our revered figures are no exception. I am all for academic freedom and the exploration of travesties committed by our historical figures, in an AP class at university, and on sites like this one. But to "commonize" it. To make it part of our national identity, taught to school children, to make the phrase "war criminal" common place isn't just tearing down a man or tarnishing a single reputation, it's attacking an ideal that is America. For us to allow our historical figures to be judged by standards unfathomable to the accused and their time period is to do a disservice to all the good our nation has fostered in her short history.
To those whom would disagree I say add your dark footnotes and caveats regarding our fabled American figures at the bottom of the page if you must, but that is where they must stay. Leave in bold, large type the glory, the sacrifice, the contributions to the human condition these men have made. Their flaws are worth noting, but not at the expense their accomplishments, nor their place in history.
I'm not sure when I first heard the Founders described as "white, slave owning ethnocentrists", but it was well before I knew the definition of "ethnocentrism", I assure you. This is perhaps a useful philosophical exercise, but its like plutonium ... you must handle it with care, for if one pulls too hard on the thread of pride woven into our history, the entire tapestry could be undone.
Technically, its an accurate description. The Founders were white. They owned slaves. They did think, as I do, that the culture of liberty which they helped create and preserve, which spurned our Constitution and released Man's potential in way never before seen, was superior. Superior to what they had known under the monarchs of Europe, and as it turns out superior to any form of government formed since 1776. And before anyone feels the need to jump to the comment section with the idea that I think Andrew Jackson was a founding Father, please park yourself. I'm well aware he wasn't ... but neither was my grandfather.
My grandfather served in the Pacific during WWII, a Navy man. I never heard him use the dreaded racial "N" word, never. But I am aware that he served in segregated quarters, and thought that the norm. Is he a racist? Should I not teach my sons of his accomplishments nor hang his picture on the wall in no less than two spaces?
I have read mission documents of another grandfather. Things that would make James Bond's tea stained teeth chatter. As a member of the OSS he actually did things that most people only come in contact with today if they are avid video gamers. Undoubtedly he served in a segregated unit. In fact as a member of the OSS, I know he did. He probably thought that only right and normal. Is he any less a war hero?
I say this not to pick a fight. An honest question was asked and I am giving my honest response. But this is a game played in the modern era that has no definite end, and it can become maddening for sometimes great men of our history, like Jackson, do bad things and to acknowledge that without tearing down the legend can be a tricky thing.
I work at an establishment named for a brutal, anti-democratic, war mongering imperialist (and that's when the phrase really meant something). Does this mean to revel in the history of the period through commercial sales & gaming that I am advocating such a form of government or the man's actions? PC games are played in the Empire's honor, with glee. Is this "wrong?" In Las Vegas one can dine on a prized steak, succulent lobster, and wine whose price requires a second mortgage - "Neros." A restaurant named for a man whom gutted his pregnant wife ... that inscription doesn't appear on the cutlery, I assure you.
Now I am doing my best not to fall into the trap of "the victors write the history", I really am. But the point is that plucking a revered figure from history and putting him on trial by modern rules of evidence is a fool's errand. Are diseased blankets given to Indians a travesty? Without question. Is centuries of slavery a blight we can never remove? Of course. Were Andrew Jackson's actions towards Indians less than honorable, and in some cases a flat out atrocity? To be sure. But did you know he also adopted an Indian orphan boy? He did. Raised him as his own, the child never wanted for anything. The phrase "Jacksonian Democracy", born of the man and his governance, gave a distinctive definition to classical and Renaissance notions of republicanism which were struggling to be maintained in the first "post founders" era. In the election of 1824 he set the standard reaction for all future presidential candidates whom felt "cheated" out of the big seat. He didn't raise an army and march on the capitol. He raised political capital and in 4 years was voted commander-in-chief of the army. And in 1828 the national ideological debate between he and John Quincy Adams of a limited versus pro active government set the tone for discussions still being had today.
The point is human beings are complicated, and our revered figures are no exception. I am all for academic freedom and the exploration of travesties committed by our historical figures, in an AP class at university, and on sites like this one. But to "commonize" it. To make it part of our national identity, taught to school children, to make the phrase "war criminal" common place isn't just tearing down a man or tarnishing a single reputation, it's attacking an ideal that is America. For us to allow our historical figures to be judged by standards unfathomable to the accused and their time period is to do a disservice to all the good our nation has fostered in her short history.
To those whom would disagree I say add your dark footnotes and caveats regarding our fabled American figures at the bottom of the page if you must, but that is where they must stay. Leave in bold, large type the glory, the sacrifice, the contributions to the human condition these men have made. Their flaws are worth noting, but not at the expense their accomplishments, nor their place in history.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
One more thing...
I want to clarify something I didn't make clear in my last post...
I do not equate policy for "equal rights" and "civil rights" as progressive. Coolidge can be called many things, but he understood (at least while he was President) that "justice" dictated that all Americans, black and white, should be equal under to eyes of the law. His efforts, along with Truman's, Ike's and Kennedy's to integrate the Federal branch was in the interest of ensuring the individual freedoms that the Constitution promised to protect for ALL men (and women)... not to expand the welfare state or increase governmental control of our lives.
I think there is a fundamental difference between "changing" what the Constitution means (which I equate with the "progressive" movement as it is defined today) and "enforcing" what the Constitution says, even when the Government has failed to do so in the past.
I do not equate policy for "equal rights" and "civil rights" as progressive. Coolidge can be called many things, but he understood (at least while he was President) that "justice" dictated that all Americans, black and white, should be equal under to eyes of the law. His efforts, along with Truman's, Ike's and Kennedy's to integrate the Federal branch was in the interest of ensuring the individual freedoms that the Constitution promised to protect for ALL men (and women)... not to expand the welfare state or increase governmental control of our lives.
I think there is a fundamental difference between "changing" what the Constitution means (which I equate with the "progressive" movement as it is defined today) and "enforcing" what the Constitution says, even when the Government has failed to do so in the past.
I think you meant "pursue"...
See how I feel when you and Jambo beat me up for typos?
Your post, and countless others like it in the past, have often made me wonder what it was that caused Americans to allow themselves as a society to expect Government to fix all that ails them in their lives (and when, exactly, it happened), when for a very long period of time it was understood to be the individual that controlled his or her destiny/happiness.
The naive view would be to point at FDR and his "New Deal" and say THERE, that is when it happened... but I don't think that is entirely true or fair. I think a real and measurable appreciation for individual merit and ability existed well into the 1960's, with millions of children growing up with the sure and certain knowledge that they could be or do anything that they wanted in America, given the right determination and commitment.
I also feel that the "progressive" efforts Ryan details in his last post can be seen as far back as Teddy Roosevelt's Administration (even though he was President while still a Republican). He saw the Federal Government as a means to "fix" what was wrong with the country (his anti-monopoly efforts are a very good example of this) and the world (his "Big Stick" policy was more than simply beefing up the Navy).
We've had a few non-Progressive Presidents over the last 110 years... but only a very few. In my opinion, the only "real" conservatives to hold the office in the last 110 years were Coolidge, Hoover and Reagan. Now, before I hear Ryan start yelling, I know that most didn't call themselves "progressives"... but their actions and policies were. Ike, Nixon, Ford and Bush Jr. all make the grade here as "progressive" in their spending and expanded programs/government, in my opinion.
Is this drive to build and grow the "welfare" state a reaction to public demand (as FDR and Ike claimed) or is it an effort to "evolve" the government into a more caring and compassionate body (as LBJ, Carter and Clinton claimed) regardless of public opinion? If the former is true, then when did the call for more governmental control of the individual's life become the "norm"? If the latter is true, why is it still allowed to continue?
Your post, and countless others like it in the past, have often made me wonder what it was that caused Americans to allow themselves as a society to expect Government to fix all that ails them in their lives (and when, exactly, it happened), when for a very long period of time it was understood to be the individual that controlled his or her destiny/happiness.
The naive view would be to point at FDR and his "New Deal" and say THERE, that is when it happened... but I don't think that is entirely true or fair. I think a real and measurable appreciation for individual merit and ability existed well into the 1960's, with millions of children growing up with the sure and certain knowledge that they could be or do anything that they wanted in America, given the right determination and commitment.
I also feel that the "progressive" efforts Ryan details in his last post can be seen as far back as Teddy Roosevelt's Administration (even though he was President while still a Republican). He saw the Federal Government as a means to "fix" what was wrong with the country (his anti-monopoly efforts are a very good example of this) and the world (his "Big Stick" policy was more than simply beefing up the Navy).
We've had a few non-Progressive Presidents over the last 110 years... but only a very few. In my opinion, the only "real" conservatives to hold the office in the last 110 years were Coolidge, Hoover and Reagan. Now, before I hear Ryan start yelling, I know that most didn't call themselves "progressives"... but their actions and policies were. Ike, Nixon, Ford and Bush Jr. all make the grade here as "progressive" in their spending and expanded programs/government, in my opinion.
Is this drive to build and grow the "welfare" state a reaction to public demand (as FDR and Ike claimed) or is it an effort to "evolve" the government into a more caring and compassionate body (as LBJ, Carter and Clinton claimed) regardless of public opinion? If the former is true, then when did the call for more governmental control of the individual's life become the "norm"? If the latter is true, why is it still allowed to continue?
Monday, March 1, 2010
The wicked flee where none persue ...
I sense real trouble here ...
Did anyone view the "health care summit?" It was an astounding (and terrifying) insight into the mind of our president. The entire operation was a political tool, in this sense - Pelosi, Reid & Obama are now "retooling" their bill yet again, post summit, and plan to supplant all previous versions offered thus far with a "really, really, REALLY" good one now. In other words they put in some GOP requests/issues around the margins so as to set up a show down for the "nuclear option", reconciliation. Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure meant to allow a simple majority, rather than 2/3rds, vote to pass budgets & keep the government operating. It was even stretched by George W. Bush to include tax cuts as part of the overall budget (again, that was a stretch). It was never meant to be used to pass fundamental legislation, for it circumvents both the 2/3rds Constitutional requirement and the filibuster. Now their plan, best as I can see, is to this coming Wednesday offer this "new" bill, which is the same trillion dollar fiasco with some marginal reforms on the periphery, and when the Republicans still oppose it, which they will, the Democrat leadership will claim, "Well we tried, we offered a bipartisan bill, they're obstructionists, we have no choice but reconciliation for the American people." Those same American people whom oppose this bill 2 to 1, I might add.
Now the "terrifying" aspect I wrote of was a small exchange between the President and John McCain at this summit. McCain sought reassurance from the President that such an unprecedented , patently unconstitutional maneuver (reconciliation) wasn't going to be employed by the Democrat majority to pass health care reform. To McCain's (and my) astonishment the president answered with the following: (the "dot, dot, dots" are noticeable pauses as the PoTUS searched to phrase this very carefully, you could see that clearly on his face), "John ... I think ... I think the American people ... would find it fair that a majority vote passed this."
Dear Lord. Does anyone understand what an insight this is into his mind set? We have long been treated to the Chicago NPR interview, circa 2000, in which he described the US Constitution as "fundamentally flawed", and the Bill of Rights as "insufficient." He is the chief defender of that very Constitution. He is sworn to faithfully execute it. Fair? Fair? I can't decide if this is more Jr. High debate club or Machiavellian taunt, though I lean towards the latter. The Czars, auto industry, CEO pay caps, and it goes on and on ... how long before he signs a Treaty without submitting it to the Senate at all? I have long said that his desire to "fundamentally transform America" as he put it, was all we needed to know about the man, for one must first believe there is something fundamentally wrong with the manner in which the nation was constituted, and he clearly does. This is the aim of the progressive - to "progress" past the Constitution. Marxism does it by revolution. The Progressive by evolution. Even Chris Dodd, and I'm certainly not in the habit of praising Chris Dodd, went on the floor of the Senate and gave a very impassioned speech opposing the nuclear option today: "Why even have a bicameral legislature? Why have 2 chambers? Why have a 2/3rds majority requirement? What were the founders thinking if not to protect against the tyranny of the majority?!" And I mean to tell you, he was yelling. Clearly he is finding an impending retirement liberating.
Fortunately the American people are on to Obama's disdain for the Constitution, and the fallacy of budget neutral trillion dollar programs. My concern is since the president has no problem acting unconstitutionally - bringing the proverbial gun to a knife fight - then he may very well get his bill. And while that will be a road map to a Democrat minority, perhaps for a generation, the GOP's record on having enough spine to actually overturn legislation is less then inspiring. However messy the process, however devastating electorally, I think the president willing to pay that price. Our only hope is that the Democrats up for reelection in Congress, aren't.
****
Guns ... yes I'm aware of this case. DC vs Heller has opened a plethora of new challenges to get firm case law established so as to guard the 2nd Amendment from future unconstitutional legislation. One that caught my interest is a case soon to be heard (brought by the Heller lawyer) in Montana, regarding a challenge to the commerce clause. ... from the Washington Times: According to the act's supporters, if guns bearing a "Made in Montana" stamp remain in Montana, then federal rules such as background checks, registration and dealer licensing no longer apply. But court cases have interpreted the U.S. Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause as covering anything that might affect interstate commerce - which in practice means just about anything.
Those of us on this side of the 2nd Amendment aisle have the good fortune of clear Constitutionality in this matter (in my opinion), and a Supreme Court affected by 8 years of a Republican Administration. Things look hopeful in each of these cases.
****
I will get to the Andrew Jackson question soon ... it is a fantastic philosophical exercise.
Did anyone view the "health care summit?" It was an astounding (and terrifying) insight into the mind of our president. The entire operation was a political tool, in this sense - Pelosi, Reid & Obama are now "retooling" their bill yet again, post summit, and plan to supplant all previous versions offered thus far with a "really, really, REALLY" good one now. In other words they put in some GOP requests/issues around the margins so as to set up a show down for the "nuclear option", reconciliation. Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure meant to allow a simple majority, rather than 2/3rds, vote to pass budgets & keep the government operating. It was even stretched by George W. Bush to include tax cuts as part of the overall budget (again, that was a stretch). It was never meant to be used to pass fundamental legislation, for it circumvents both the 2/3rds Constitutional requirement and the filibuster. Now their plan, best as I can see, is to this coming Wednesday offer this "new" bill, which is the same trillion dollar fiasco with some marginal reforms on the periphery, and when the Republicans still oppose it, which they will, the Democrat leadership will claim, "Well we tried, we offered a bipartisan bill, they're obstructionists, we have no choice but reconciliation for the American people." Those same American people whom oppose this bill 2 to 1, I might add.
Now the "terrifying" aspect I wrote of was a small exchange between the President and John McCain at this summit. McCain sought reassurance from the President that such an unprecedented , patently unconstitutional maneuver (reconciliation) wasn't going to be employed by the Democrat majority to pass health care reform. To McCain's (and my) astonishment the president answered with the following: (the "dot, dot, dots" are noticeable pauses as the PoTUS searched to phrase this very carefully, you could see that clearly on his face), "John ... I think ... I think the American people ... would find it fair that a majority vote passed this."
Dear Lord. Does anyone understand what an insight this is into his mind set? We have long been treated to the Chicago NPR interview, circa 2000, in which he described the US Constitution as "fundamentally flawed", and the Bill of Rights as "insufficient." He is the chief defender of that very Constitution. He is sworn to faithfully execute it. Fair? Fair? I can't decide if this is more Jr. High debate club or Machiavellian taunt, though I lean towards the latter. The Czars, auto industry, CEO pay caps, and it goes on and on ... how long before he signs a Treaty without submitting it to the Senate at all? I have long said that his desire to "fundamentally transform America" as he put it, was all we needed to know about the man, for one must first believe there is something fundamentally wrong with the manner in which the nation was constituted, and he clearly does. This is the aim of the progressive - to "progress" past the Constitution. Marxism does it by revolution. The Progressive by evolution. Even Chris Dodd, and I'm certainly not in the habit of praising Chris Dodd, went on the floor of the Senate and gave a very impassioned speech opposing the nuclear option today: "Why even have a bicameral legislature? Why have 2 chambers? Why have a 2/3rds majority requirement? What were the founders thinking if not to protect against the tyranny of the majority?!" And I mean to tell you, he was yelling. Clearly he is finding an impending retirement liberating.
Fortunately the American people are on to Obama's disdain for the Constitution, and the fallacy of budget neutral trillion dollar programs. My concern is since the president has no problem acting unconstitutionally - bringing the proverbial gun to a knife fight - then he may very well get his bill. And while that will be a road map to a Democrat minority, perhaps for a generation, the GOP's record on having enough spine to actually overturn legislation is less then inspiring. However messy the process, however devastating electorally, I think the president willing to pay that price. Our only hope is that the Democrats up for reelection in Congress, aren't.
****
Guns ... yes I'm aware of this case. DC vs Heller has opened a plethora of new challenges to get firm case law established so as to guard the 2nd Amendment from future unconstitutional legislation. One that caught my interest is a case soon to be heard (brought by the Heller lawyer) in Montana, regarding a challenge to the commerce clause. ... from the Washington Times: According to the act's supporters, if guns bearing a "Made in Montana" stamp remain in Montana, then federal rules such as background checks, registration and dealer licensing no longer apply. But court cases have interpreted the U.S. Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause as covering anything that might affect interstate commerce - which in practice means just about anything.
Those of us on this side of the 2nd Amendment aisle have the good fortune of clear Constitutionality in this matter (in my opinion), and a Supreme Court affected by 8 years of a Republican Administration. Things look hopeful in each of these cases.
****
I will get to the Andrew Jackson question soon ... it is a fantastic philosophical exercise.
Let's talk moral relativism...
I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately, especially since watching a documentary about the Nuremberg Trials in '45 and the recent headlines detailing Radovan Karadzic's trial for crimes against humanity.
The important part of this is that it is a DISCUSSION... I pass no judgement either way. I have a fundamental revulsion of moral relativism, in any form, and I want to see if I am mistaken in thinking that it is often employed by America as a society.
Within this very Bund, and even in its current blog form, we can scroll back and find posts concerning such issues such as how modern Americans view things like the "hammer and sickle" symbol of the former USSR, or images of Che emblazoned on childern's t-shirts and backpacks. Things like the swastika of Nazi Germany, the white robes of the KKK, the burning cross, gross stereotypical images degrading specific races or ethnic groups... all are recognized now as "wrong". I conceded the argument that the CCCP and hammer-and-sickle images carried the same stigma that the previously mentioned ones did, because of the tyranny they represent.
Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have condemned the alleged actions of former Serbian leader Karadzic and his policy of ethnic cleansing during the early '90s after the collapse of the Yugoslavian states. The UN and it's ICTY have drawn up indictments for both personal responsibility and his responsibility as a commander and political official, which both Administrations have supported... and both have offered a US$5 million reward for his capture and conviction.
Karadzic is accused of:
Five counts of crimes against humanity, specifically: extermination, murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, persecutions, inhumane acts of forcible transfer and-or detention.
Three counts of violations of the laws of war, specifically: murder, unlawfully inflicting terror upon civilians, taking hostages for use as human shields.
One count of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, specifically: willful killing of civilians by uniformed officers/soldiers without justification.
Unlawful transfer of civilians because of religious or national identity, specifically: forced removal of up to 17,000 Muslim and ethnic Croatian innocents without cause or justification.
I wouldn't for a moment deny that these are serious charges, and that the man/men responsible should be brought to justice. My question is this:
If you took all those charges and compared them to the actions of past Americans like former President Andrew Jackson, who signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that forced 46,000 Indians and free blacks from their homes and caused an estimated 11,900 deaths over the next 7 years, can't you make the argument that Jackson was as culpible as Karadzic?
Of course, Karadzic is alive and able to answer the charges... Jackson isn't. I understand this completely. However, if the culpibility is there even though justice can't be served, should he have an honored place in the American lexicon of Presidents and adorne our $20 bill? Should his name grace universities, cities and capitols across the nation? Do the "good things" he did as President outweigh the "bad things"?
Honestly, I'm curious as to what you guys think...
The important part of this is that it is a DISCUSSION... I pass no judgement either way. I have a fundamental revulsion of moral relativism, in any form, and I want to see if I am mistaken in thinking that it is often employed by America as a society.
Within this very Bund, and even in its current blog form, we can scroll back and find posts concerning such issues such as how modern Americans view things like the "hammer and sickle" symbol of the former USSR, or images of Che emblazoned on childern's t-shirts and backpacks. Things like the swastika of Nazi Germany, the white robes of the KKK, the burning cross, gross stereotypical images degrading specific races or ethnic groups... all are recognized now as "wrong". I conceded the argument that the CCCP and hammer-and-sickle images carried the same stigma that the previously mentioned ones did, because of the tyranny they represent.
Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have condemned the alleged actions of former Serbian leader Karadzic and his policy of ethnic cleansing during the early '90s after the collapse of the Yugoslavian states. The UN and it's ICTY have drawn up indictments for both personal responsibility and his responsibility as a commander and political official, which both Administrations have supported... and both have offered a US$5 million reward for his capture and conviction.
Karadzic is accused of:
Five counts of crimes against humanity, specifically: extermination, murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, persecutions, inhumane acts of forcible transfer and-or detention.
Three counts of violations of the laws of war, specifically: murder, unlawfully inflicting terror upon civilians, taking hostages for use as human shields.
One count of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, specifically: willful killing of civilians by uniformed officers/soldiers without justification.
Unlawful transfer of civilians because of religious or national identity, specifically: forced removal of up to 17,000 Muslim and ethnic Croatian innocents without cause or justification.
I wouldn't for a moment deny that these are serious charges, and that the man/men responsible should be brought to justice. My question is this:
If you took all those charges and compared them to the actions of past Americans like former President Andrew Jackson, who signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that forced 46,000 Indians and free blacks from their homes and caused an estimated 11,900 deaths over the next 7 years, can't you make the argument that Jackson was as culpible as Karadzic?
Of course, Karadzic is alive and able to answer the charges... Jackson isn't. I understand this completely. However, if the culpibility is there even though justice can't be served, should he have an honored place in the American lexicon of Presidents and adorne our $20 bill? Should his name grace universities, cities and capitols across the nation? Do the "good things" he did as President outweigh the "bad things"?
Honestly, I'm curious as to what you guys think...
Another "red letter" day tomorrow...
Tuesday, March 2, the US Supreme Court will hear McDonald vs City of Chicago as a follow-up to the DC vs Heller case in 2008. The decision in the latter case affirmed protection afforded all citizens by the Second Amendment... and many pundits out there would have you believe the former case is doing the same, but it isn't. McDonald vs Chicago isn't a Second Amendment case, it is a Fourteenth Amendment case... but it is a HUGE case, none the less. One that even people who don't care about gun rights should watch carefully.
Here's why...
Following the Civil War, the city of New Orleans was plagued (literally) by outbreaks of cholera that sprang from the waste of hundreds of cattle slaughterhouses up-river from the city. Anytime the water level dropped even a few inches, the city's fresh water supplies became choked with intestines and offal in all manner of decay and rot. To combat this problem, the State of Louisiana tried to force the slaughterhouses to move to new locations (provided by the State) down-river from the city. The butchers felt this violated both their XIII and XIV Amendment Rights. The State felt they were acting in the best interest of the people of New Orleans.
The Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment protected the Rights of United States citizenship, but not the rights of citizenship of the individual States. More importantly, the majority opinion handed down by Justice Samuel Miller said that the Fourteenth Amendment did not infringe upon the government's ability to exercise police powers... in other words, to regulate and control an industry (the butchering of animals, in this case) at the expense of individual citizens or private corporations for the greater public good. The opinion further relegates the Fourteenth Amendment to apply ONLY to the rights and privileges of freed slaves in the various Southern States (although there is language that expressly denies this within Miller's opinion, the basic premise remains).
The dissenting opinions do an excellent job of showing how the State of Louisiana had taken the butcher's livelihood away and placed it in the hands of a State-run monopoly that would exercise complete control of the slaughter industry for at least 25 years (in reality, the monopoly existed until 1962).
Now, I admit that this whole thing seems to have very little to do with gun control laws... but bear with me.
The question arising from McDonald vs Chicago is whether or not the Second Amendment can limit regulation at a State, county or municipal level. If the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to the Rights and Privileges of United States citizenship, then the Second Amendment must also only apply to areas regulated and governed by the Federal government (the District of Columbia, for example... or Federal military reservations and installations). California is the focus of this case, because it is one of only six States that does not have a "right to bear arms" clause in its constitution... and thus, should not be limited in the manner in which it chooses to regulate the ownership and possession of a firearm by the Second Amendment. Cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and New York will do the same thing by showing how successful their gun control laws have been at curbing gun-related crimes and violence (insert sarcasm here) and that the Second Amendment doesn't have the reach to curb their laws and ordinances.
In short, this case will reflect whether or not the "powers that be" have the right to marginalize individual liberties and freedoms in the name of the "greater good", and I for one hope they decide that they DO NOT have that power.
Here's why...
Following the Civil War, the city of New Orleans was plagued (literally) by outbreaks of cholera that sprang from the waste of hundreds of cattle slaughterhouses up-river from the city. Anytime the water level dropped even a few inches, the city's fresh water supplies became choked with intestines and offal in all manner of decay and rot. To combat this problem, the State of Louisiana tried to force the slaughterhouses to move to new locations (provided by the State) down-river from the city. The butchers felt this violated both their XIII and XIV Amendment Rights. The State felt they were acting in the best interest of the people of New Orleans.
The Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment protected the Rights of United States citizenship, but not the rights of citizenship of the individual States. More importantly, the majority opinion handed down by Justice Samuel Miller said that the Fourteenth Amendment did not infringe upon the government's ability to exercise police powers... in other words, to regulate and control an industry (the butchering of animals, in this case) at the expense of individual citizens or private corporations for the greater public good. The opinion further relegates the Fourteenth Amendment to apply ONLY to the rights and privileges of freed slaves in the various Southern States (although there is language that expressly denies this within Miller's opinion, the basic premise remains).
The dissenting opinions do an excellent job of showing how the State of Louisiana had taken the butcher's livelihood away and placed it in the hands of a State-run monopoly that would exercise complete control of the slaughter industry for at least 25 years (in reality, the monopoly existed until 1962).
Now, I admit that this whole thing seems to have very little to do with gun control laws... but bear with me.
The question arising from McDonald vs Chicago is whether or not the Second Amendment can limit regulation at a State, county or municipal level. If the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to the Rights and Privileges of United States citizenship, then the Second Amendment must also only apply to areas regulated and governed by the Federal government (the District of Columbia, for example... or Federal military reservations and installations). California is the focus of this case, because it is one of only six States that does not have a "right to bear arms" clause in its constitution... and thus, should not be limited in the manner in which it chooses to regulate the ownership and possession of a firearm by the Second Amendment. Cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and New York will do the same thing by showing how successful their gun control laws have been at curbing gun-related crimes and violence (insert sarcasm here) and that the Second Amendment doesn't have the reach to curb their laws and ordinances.
In short, this case will reflect whether or not the "powers that be" have the right to marginalize individual liberties and freedoms in the name of the "greater good", and I for one hope they decide that they DO NOT have that power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
