The Bill of Fights: Constitution Day inspires reflection

The United States Constitution is one of the most influential documents in the history of the world.
It’s been used as a template that has led to better lives for millions all over the globe.
This Friday, Sept. 17, celebrates the day 223 years ago that the document was signed by a bunch of radicals we now call by the more noble and austere appellation: The Founding Fathers.
These fellows put together a pretty neat little package. Liberty is the concept that was most important to them, even if it did take a few centuries for all humans on this soil to achieve the rights called for in revolutionary times.
The articles of the Constitution outline a method of government we all live by, the stuff we learned in high school civics class.
These are not oft debated. If they are, it’s usually by lawmakers with minds for minutia.
But if you wanna see a fight, start talking about the Bill of Rights.
Or the Bill of Fights, if you will.
Debate is healthy for the republic. It’s how we reshape those ideas for our own good and prosperity every generation. The fact that the founding radicals isolated topics we’re still arguing about 200 plus years later proves its relevance.
The Bill of Fights has stood up remarkably well over time. There are only a few rooms that need to be shut off from the rest of the house because of mold. And maybe a couple cracked windows.
Let’s take a look:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This amendment is number one for a reason. The only way to be free is if people aren’t messing with you for your beliefs, or what you want to say or write in the newspaper. Give government too much power, the people are miserable. Giving people the power keeps them on their toes.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well. Hmm. Do we really need citizen militias anymore? Not really. Our way of life has certainly changed since America was a wilderness in the 1770s. I’m going with the logic that if it’s OK for the government to have nuclear missiles, it’s OK for the average citizen to own a shotgun to go grouse hunting with. Or, a handgun to protect themselves. But, it’s when the right is abused by folks who think regular life is a warzone that it becomes frightening. This ain’t the Wild West anymore.
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I’m thankful that we haven’t had a major war on American soil in a long, long time. If we ever do, this could apply. Until then, if anyone comes knocking on my door in military dress, it better be Halloween.
4. 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.
This whole “probable cause” thing has most likely caused police and attorneys countless headaches. Good. No one should have the power to arbitrarily go through your junk, even if the junk is against the law. If we don’t follow along with stuff like this, then we’re liable to start goose-stepping our way down the path of history.
5. 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.
There’s always a moment in gangster movies when the criminals “plead the Fifth.” It’s so they don’t have to talk smack about themselves. Just one more protection for liberty.
6. 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.
Without this amendment, the State could theoretically keep you imprisoned for long periods of time without a judgment ever being passed, which is, of course, a judgment of its own.
7. 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.
Twenty bucks, eh. That was probably what someone made in a whole year back then ... or a newspaperman’s salary now.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Death isn’t unusual -- it happens to us all -- but it is pretty cruel. The death penalty is just one of those things that will be argued until the end of time.
And here are your last two amendments:
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Debate them, ponder them, just try to keep the fights clean.
And have a Happy Constitution Day!

OMG, Granholm: Texting ban sends the right message

When I was a teenager in the early 1990s, socializing was mostly done through parents’ telephones or, if you were desperate, pay phones.
The term “landline” was still reserved for the military.
Getting directions somewhere meant pulling out a slip of paper and writing down the various roads and turns, or having someone draw you a map.
Then along came pagers, which more or less directed you to the nearest phone.
None of these things affected the way we drove as teens, because they all took place out of the car.
But then Al Gore, armed with a pickaxe and a miner’s helmet, went underground and dug the tunnels for the interconnected World Wide Web (thanks, Al).
“Just give me the address,” you now requested, usually over a cell phone, and then punched it into the Internet, printed out the directions and off you went.
Until, of course, GPS navigational units appeared in cars and directed you where to go with robot voices.
The state government has now deemed the biggest pain brought on by all this new technology is text messaging while driving. Amid much fanfare (it was broadcast on Oprah!) Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed into law a ban on texting while driving.
Starting July 1, texting while operating a vehicle will become a primary offense, which means police can pull you over if they see your busy thumbs typing away. The first offense is $100. The second offense can cast $200.
The thing Democrats aren’t even taking into consideration is that even without the distraction of cell phones and texting, teens aren’t always the greatest drivers.
When I was fifteen, a friend of mine was seriously injured in a car accident. He broke both arms and several bones in his legs. He was in a wheelchair for months afterward. Scars still trace down both forearms and his knees.
How did the accident happen?
He was reaching for a slice of pizza.
So, do we ban pizzas in our cars while we drive because the savory smell might be so distracting we lose control?
Do we ban putting on make-up, smoking and talking to other passengers?
More and more, the government is passing laws on how an individual chooses to live their day to day life.
It’s mostly coming the liberal “control-everything” camp, the same good folks who brought you political correctness in the 1990s. Liberals like this always haughtily take the moral high ground on such issues.
“You should live the morally ‘right’ way, and we’re going to show you how,” they seem to say.
With that said, I’m actually leaning toward being in favor of the texting ban, despite the voice on the other side of my brain saying that it’s an infringement on personal liberties.
I confess that I’m an occasional driver/texter. Not only is it distracting your thoughts, which are having a silent conversation with whoever is typing away messages on the other end, but it diverts your gaze away from the road and onto the tiny little screen.
I couldn’t count how many times I’ve been behind or beside an erratic driving vehicle only to see that they’ve got one hand on the wheel, and the other holding their phone up to their nose as they type really important missives to their fellow texters.
So, I’ll reluctantly go along with the law and keep my phone in my pocket where it belongs when I’m on the road.
Ttyl, Manistee.

Don’t tread on us: New roar from the right is disturbing

The hysteria and histrionics started soon after Obama was elected president.
“The government is going to take my money and spend it on other people!”
“The government is going to take away my guns!”
“The government is the enemy!”
But it’s getting even more serious than those tired old complaints.
A few months ago in Texas, a guy killed himself and two others when he crashed his plane into an IRS building because he didn’t want to pay his taxes. He left behind a long letter, which was basically an anti-government screed.
The recent passage of the health care bill that forces people to get insurance through private companies (a real Bolshevik plot if I’ve ever heard one) has resulted in politicians receiving death threats.
In Columbus, Ohio a few weeks ago, a Tea Party protester berated a man with Parkinson’s disease who was calmly sitting on the ground holding up a sign espousing his own pro-reform beliefs. The Tea Party protester mockingly threw money at him and said, “Here’s your handout.” You Tube it and see for yourself. The Tea Partier eventually apologized and said he’d never attend another rally.
Throughout the incident, the Tea Party crowd chanted, “Kill the bill!”
When the bill did pass, the moronic bimbo queen of the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, said it was time to “reload.”
The most disturbing event happened earlier this week right here in Michigan with the arrest of the Hutaree, the Christian militia that plotted to kill law enforcement officers downstate. I cover the police beat here at the News Advocate, and spend a fair amount of time with the good men and woman who put their lives on the line to keep Manistee safe. These people should never be a target.
But they are because they wear a badge, which makes them part of that evil regime: The Government.
This new roar from the right is imbued with a violent rhetoric that is downright disturbing.
Many of them come from a “fringe” element. It’s not fair to group them in with all conservatives and Republicans in the same way that it’s not fair to say every Democrat is a drug-toking, whale-saving, bearded Trotskyite. Or, a baby-killer, which is what Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, yelled at the anti-abortion Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak after the health care bill vote.
Still, limited government to downright anti-government is what the right wing’s always talking about.
They want to exist on an island, which we know from John Donne, no man can. They see themselves as pioneers/patriots who just need their plot of land to live, which they will do peacefully as long as the government stays out of their way.
Just don’t expect any services like schools, water or protection from theft, fire or your personal well-being.
What anti-government people want isn’t so much a lack of a government, they just want a government that allows them to stay separated from doing any kind of business with people they don’t want to: the poor, the tired, the huddled masses.
The truth is, you are the government and the government is you.
We’re all in this world together.
If you don’t want government, move to Mars. But, if more than a few people join you, some sort of organized government would form because it is a natural human enterprise.
Because if there is no common good, no social contract between us, we’re nothing more than animals.

Polytainment? Entertics? What’s the difference between entertainment and politics?

Thousands waited in line last week in Grand Rapids to catch a glimpse of Sarah Palin signing her book, “Going Rogue.”
Some even waited overnight, camping out like they were buying tickets to a teeny bopper band’s concert.
The problem is, the teeny bopper band could probably rival Palin’s knowledge on many domestic and foreign issues.
This begs the question: Is Palin even a politician anymore?
Or, conversely, is the handsome, smooth-talking Obama?
The line between politics and entertainment has blurred so much that we should have a new word for it. Polytainment? Entertics?
Take your pick.
Ever since those first cameras clicked on the young, tan Kennedy and the sweaty Nixon with a five o’clock shadow at the 1960 presidential debate, style made significant leaps on substance. Politics have been mingling with entertainment.
Would the portly Howard Taft ever be elected again, or would too many argue that he was sending the wrong message to obese children?
How would the tall, depressive, forlorn-looking Abraham Lincoln deal with the flashing bulbs and television interviews?
Wouldn’t FDR still be hiding the effects of his polio from the public?
These fellows, two of whom are our most notable presidents, would no doubt be scrutinized under the media’s microscope. He’s too fat, he’s too depressed, he’s crippled.
More and more, we’re expecting our leaders to be scrubbed, brushed -- on the outside and inside -- and flawless for the cameras. We expect them to have movie star looks and charming families.
What if we could see in the future and we knew a candidate who, if elected, would solve all of our major problems effortlessly. Conflicts in the Middle East would end because we found a new source of renewable energy, which would also help with global warming. People would have affordable health care. This fictitious president would also help find a balance with capitalism and greed, thus stabilizing our economy.
But what if this fictitious president was homely, shy, had a stutter, was overweight and sported a large wart on their nose?
What if the fictitious president drank, smoked, wasn’t married, had no children and cursed when they appeared on television.
Even if we knew this person was going to solve all of our problems, would he or she get elected?
I think not.
Because it’s not just leadership abilities that we seek in our elected officials anymore, it’s an idealistic image of ourselves, the same sort of thing that we look for in entertainment. Politicians and their support staffs create characters for themselves to portray in the ongoing narrative of American politics. They know you’re watching this stuff like a soap opera, and if that’s the game to play to get power, then they’ll play it.
Which brings us to Palin, who represents the worst of this long-building trend. A lot of people in Michigan are drawn in to Palin’s folksy hockey-mom, huntin’ and fishin’ rhetoric.
She’s got former beauty queen looks and a family that resembles many of our own. Like George Bush was regarded before people finally caught on to the sham, she’s someone you could sit down and shoot the bull with.
In short, she’s entertaining. But she’s no serious leader.
Michiko Kakutani, the legendary New York Times book reviewer, wrote in her assessment of “Going Rogue” that McCain’s decision to bring her on to the 2008 election “underscores just how alarmingly expertise is discounted -- or equated with elitism -- in our increasingly democratized era, and just how thoroughly colorful personal narratives overshadow policy arguments and actual knowledge.”
By resigning from her only serious post as governor of Alaska, Palin seems to know this herself.
Instead, she’ll write books, go on television talk shows (unless she gets one for herself) and tour the country in a bus for speaking engagements.
Frankly, I’d rather catch a Jonas Brothers concert.