As you can guess, I have been chomping at the bit to get to this week's blog!  Clearly, the Supreme Court of the United States has been quite busy this session and their recent decisions will forever change the course of America as a result.   While most Americans either love or hate the decisions of the Court, I am a but disturbed. Not because of the decisions, but by the political fallout from the decisions.  You see, I am worried that under the current partisan political climate, we may take a very, very dangerous turn - one that if not managed properly now, may lead to a forceful and final breakdown of our democratic-republic.  
        As a supporter of the Constitution and the liberties it protects, I am always on alert to challenges made by politicians and their supporting media that attack the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  We all know the GOP-led efforts to delegitimize presidents (Clinton impeachment, Obama-birther movements,  Clinton as the front-runner for 2016, et al), and we now have a full frontal assault on the High Court.  If you think I am exaggerating, just read some responses to the Court's decisions from some of the current crop of GOP presidential contenders. Can you match the following statements with their speakers?  Give it a try!  
         a).  "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than the Founders acquiesced to an imperial British Monarch!" "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat!"  Is the Supreme Court "imperial" and on a par with the British monarchy we rebelled against?  Really?  That's like comparing a cold to stage four cancer. The differences between the two are so vast, only a simpleton would see merit in such a statement.  But it plays well in the Ideologically-Oriented For-Profit Media!
         b). "The Court's decision is "the very definition of lawlessness!"  The Court engaging in "lawlessness" is equally absurd.  Since Marbury v. Madison (1803) the law IS what the Supreme Court says it is.  But the uneducated love leaving their thinking to others.  Judicial tyranny - that alone makes me cringe at how ignorant such a statement is. 
         c). "This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree!"  Once again, the mere thought that same-sex marriage is a direct assault on religion and the freedoms we have is both laughable and disturbing.  The 14th Amendment guarantees each State abides by our fundamental rights - not just for those self-ordained "holier than thou's."  Equal Protection and Due Process protect all of our rights.  So where is the real problem?  There is none, but it sure stirs up the emotions of the ignorant.  Although I am religious, I fear those pushing their religion onto me more than I fear homosexuals pushing their sexual preferences upon society.  Why is it so difficult for devout "Christians" to appreciate the fine-line between expression and oppression?  Why can't some of these folks recognize that they would have  a serious problem protecting against an "all-out assault against the freedom rights of all Muslims?"  
         d). "As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood!" Demanding future justices comply with the original meaning of the Constitution is also ridiculous. Originally, men owned other men, women had no rights and society was totally different than what we have today.  I suspect gun owners would not appreciate having their gun rights limited to a single shot musket.  The inherent problem with this idea is upon whose interpretation of the Constitution would you then rely upon if you disagree with the duly appointed and confirmed Supreme Court?  If you wish to toss out the Constitution, then you will also be tossing out all of your other protected rights (Speech, Religion, Press, Petition, Due Process, Bear Arms, etc.).  
         e). "I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision."  Using the Tenth Amendment argument is lame.  Folks think it reserves all the powers to the States when in fact, very little is left to the States.  It doesn't say anything about the Federal Government in the 10th Amendment - it says United States. And if these folks are so bent out of shape about the erosion of the 10th Amendment, where were they to protest the Supreme Court when it interfered with Florida's 2000 presidential election?  Partisanship is a bitch, right?
         f).  "Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society.  Now it's the people's turn to speak!"  If someone firmly believes the voice of the "People" must be heard in response to the High Court's ruling on Same-Sex Marriage, then get in line.  I can think of a number of Americans that would start instead with reversing the Court's rulings in Citizens United, McCutcheon, and Hobby Lobby (to name a few).
         g). "Once again, a Bush appointed Supreme Court Justice Roberts has let us down!"  It's all Bush's fault. Nice comment, conveniently tying angst with the Supreme Court to a Bush (when another Bush is also running in 2016).  Nice overt politicalization for the moment!
         h). "I'm a firm believer in traditional marriage and the 10th Amendment leaves it to the States to decide this issue."  Same as e.  Ever hear of Separation of Church and State?  Claim there is no such thing?  See Lemon v. Kurtzman, http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/first-amendment-religion/lemon-v-kurtzman/ (1972).
          i). "The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made, and as we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas."  Same as 'e', but not every American is a Conservative.  I guess all laws must be determined by less than half of the population in order to be legitimate (except see the argument in g).
          j). "This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be. I believe that responsibility should have remained with states and voters where this conversation has continued in churches, town halls, and living rooms around the country."   See 'e' again (beginning to see a "talking point" - soon to be a GOP narrative?).
          k). "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, those changes should be done by a vote of the people."  See 'e' again.  The Framers distrusted the "people" so much they created institutions to protect us from ourselves - like the Supreme Court! 
           l). "Unelected judges have once again become legislators and bad ones at that.  They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalise.  Our government was designed to be one of laws, not men.  The court has thrown its very legitimacy into question." "Prevaricate with legalese."  What a strange statement from a lawyer, right? And using it to question the legitimacy of the Court because they "lie" when issuing legal statements? What are court rulings if they are not filled with "legalese?"  
        There are more, but you get what I mean.  Somehow, after more than 200 years, politicians concluded only just now that the Supreme Court's very existence should be questioned?  While they cynically portray the High Court as "unelected", "delegitimate" and outside their Authority, they know themselves are the ones distorting and twisting the powers of the Court.  Not to lead a way towards improving our nation, but by pandering to an uneducated and hyper-partisan audience.  Not to build support for a united country, but one that takes advantage of a severely divided one - all based upon a false narrative.  How can one claim a religious right under the Constitution while ignoring the legitimacy of the Court found in Article III of that very same Constitution (or the centuries of stare decisis promulgated by this Court)?
          Okay, the speakers of these terrific notions?  a). Mike Huckabee, b). Ted Cruz,  c). Bobby Jindel,  d). Marco Rubio, e). Jeb Bush, f). Rick Santorum, g). Donald Trump, h). Rick Perry, i). Scott Walker, j). Carly Fiorina, k). Chris Christie, and  l). Ted Cruz.
           Of course when the Court rules in a way that satisfies these folks, the praise is overwhelming (see NLRB v. Canning (June 26, 2014)), but it is totally "lawless" when it rules against their ideology (based more on partisan political leanings than objective legal reasoning).  This is the height of hypocrisy.  Want to know how the Framers really felt about role of the High Court? 
             "...The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body... Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78 , (1788).  I couldn't put it any better!  Can't we get real candidates for the presidency instead of pandering wannabes more interested in partisan fame and money? Have a great week!

         Happy Father's Day to you and yours!  I am blessed to have both my father and my father-in-law! Being a father myself, I typically view this day as nothing more than an opportunity to speak with my adult children and wish them a great day.  One things is for sure, Father's Day has a different meaning when we stay in touch with our dads on a regular basis.  I cannot fathom what it would be like not being in touch with my family.   So to those who get to experience the joy of a visit, a meal, a phone call and a card from children, Happy Father's Day.  To those like me that are in regular contact with parents and children, it's still nice to be appreciated.  Now that my children are adults, I do enjoy an occasional Father's Day gift, so that is nice too (my wife routinely purchases undershirts and underwear during "Father's Day" sales.  So to those merchants that provide necessary items for dads, I thank you as well).
          As many of you know, I was unable to post a blog last week due to the fact I was working for the Educational Testing Services scoring College Board Advanced Placement United States Government examinations in Salt Lake City, Utah.  During this week (when not scoring away in the massive Salt Palace, aka Salt Mines), participants at the Reading routinely discuss the state of politics in America and the World.  Although this is a daily occurrence with colleagues, I particularly enjoyed a casual sit-down with two colleagues.  Throughout this two and a half hour discussion, topics discussed ranged from campaign finance to student loans to vocational education to presidential politics.  What made it particularly interesting was the fact that none of us shared the same political ideology.  Got that?  None shared the same political ideology!  I emphasize this fact because although we do not agree on political ideology, we maintained a thoughtful dialogue about the problems facing our country and potential solutions necessary to move us collectively forward.  Unlike politicians and their supporting media, we were able to discuss virtually any topic without rancor or name calling.  In other words, although we might have ideological biases, we did not interject partisanship.  You see, partisanship is what is harming our nation, not ideology.  Partisanship, fomented by political parties and their supporting media forces Americans to be pitted against each other rather  than uniting us.  These negative forces ignore discussing solutions and instead pursue a narrative of speculative blame.  Although our group may not be able to solve all of the problems we face as a nation, the first step towards resolution is the ability to sit down and at least recognize we indeed have problems that need discussing- not partisan wrangling and argument. 
           Another aspect of the Reading was the obvious dedication shown by over 740 government educators who worked diligently to score over 1.2 million student essays, or Free Response Questions ("FRQ's").  Working from 8 am to 5pm daily for a week scoring thousands of FRQ's is a thankless task, except each Reader learns more and more about how to teach the subject so that their future students may excel - and isn't that the goal of every American - to educate the future electorate without partisan bias?  
            As witnessed once again in Charleston, the lack of positive influences leads directly to negative effects. Where were adults to teach tolerance to Dylann Roof?  Where is the positive influence of fathers to those caught in cycles of violence throughout America?  We worry constantly about terrorism, but what about the neglect shown by fathers to their children which leave a vacuum of common sense and well-being with so many Americans?  My colleagues in Salt Lake City understand the need to fill the void left from inattentive moms and dads.  My colleagues understand the need to follow the words used by John Locke urging the natural law of mankind seeking "Life, Liberty and Property" with minimal interference.  Except, who is to teach these basic tenets of "America" if not our fathers and mothers?  Life would certainly be a lot better if our children had solid guidance from parents, filled with loyal ideologies but absent the corrosive aspects of partisanship.  We face many problems in the World - and one of them is the lack of leadership we have in our very own families. Politicians talk about family values, yet are typically exemplars of hypocritical adultery, divorce and abuse of our trust.  Isn't it high time to stop looking at them for guidance and instead look to our parents, family, educators and communities instead? 
        As George Herbert once wrote; "One Father is more than a hundred schoolmasters!"  So dads everywhere, let's remember that our jobs as fathers never ends.  We lead by example, teach our children - young and old what real leadership means and pray they pass it on to their children.  That's the real cycle of life we are all riding upon! So to all Fathers everywhere, Happy Father's Day!  Have a great week!

         It was another interesting week as additional presidential hopefuls continued to pop up.  How many GOP candidates are now "officially" running for the White House?  Hmm.  Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Rick Santorum...deep breath, and now Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham and soon Jeb Bush and Scott Walker.  That makes twelve declared candidates for the GOP nomination. Still on the outside looking in?  Bobby Jindel, Donald Trump and Chris Christie. On the Democratic side, we have Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders and Lincoln Chaffee.  But who will win the nomination from their respective party?  Right now, that's anybody's guess.  
         On the Democrat's side you have Clinton and the massive fundraising and organizing machine (and all the baggage of self-inflicted mistakes).  I do not include Benghazi because this is truly a "made for Media" scandal that has no real substance (sorry to my Right Wing friends).  Clinton does have credibility issues, but so do all of the other candidates - from either side of the aisle.  O'Malley?  One of the main things a national candidate must have is name recognition and O'Malley has none.  Sanders?  Can a self-proclaimed Left-Wing Socialist win the presidency?  Do you know a bridge for sale?  Could there be anyone else to appear on the horizon for the Democrats to win the White House?  Please?  
        On the Republican side you have the same problems.  Although Rubio, Paul, Perry, Cruz and Bush have name recognition,  their recognition is overwhelmingly negative.  Rubio, Paul and Cruz all have "Flip-Flop" pandering issues that will not go away.  Carson is not a viable candidate (as he has never run for public office) and Fiorina, Santorum, Huckabee and Perry have losing records when it comes to national campaigns.  So that leaves Pataki (who could not win in his home state) and Walker who is tied at the hip with the Koch Brothers.  I know, I forgot to mention Trump and Jindel, but why bother - they poll so low they most likely will not even be invited by the GOP to participate in the party's own debates.  Could there be anyone else on the GOP horizon to win the White House? Please?
       I guess that leaves us with no real credible candidates from either party to occupy the White House and lead our great nation.  But why is this?  Why can't there be viable candidates for the most important position in the World?  Could it be because only candidates that can muster the support of Billionaires have a shot at their party's nomination?  Has the overwhelming influence of campaign cash rendered "citizen-candidates" helpless in efforts to gain the name recognition and support necessary to become a viable national candidate?   I know many pundits support the unlimited use of campaign cash (including from corporations and unions), but haven't they ignored the reality that campaign cash can preclude and foreclose opportunities for potentially better yet less "recognized" candidates to have  even a remote chance of winning their party's nomination?  In 2016, it is predicted each candidate for the presidency will have to raise and spend $2 Billion apiece to win.  Isn't this disgusting enough to have folks begin to consider the damage it has caused to both our electoral politics but also to our legislative processes as well?  
         We know our government operates within a well concealed sub-government known as Issue Networks and Iron Triangles.  When will the public come to realize the monied interests control the actions of both political parties and that by separating Americans by party they have successfully neutralized any ability of the electorate to unite against the abuses in our electoral and legislative systems?  Will Americans ever wake up to this reality without holding fast to the talking points and narratives designed by the Parties to keep us divided and clueless as to the real "dark side" of our political processes?
         Although I have used this quote before from President George Washington, I find it more and more relevant; "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism."  When will Americans begin to recognize that we need to fight together against "frightful despotism?"   Have a great week!


* I will be attending the Educational Testing Service's College Board A.P. United States Government and American Politics Reading in Salt Lake City, Utah, so next week's blog may be delayed a week.  I appreciate your continued interest in my blog.  Be well!