You're wondering, aren't you, how the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision will affect abortions. If companies do not have to provide insurance paying for contraceptives, then they should no longer have to provide insurance paying for abortions. One equals the other.
Well, surprise: Companies don't have to insure abortions right now, anyway. They can opt out of any financial involvement in abortions. It was made that way way back in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision. (But, states have been given the right to strike down that provision, and indeed require companies to insure abortions, if I understand correctly.)
One of the dangers of the Hobby Lobby case was that if the court had ruled against Hobby Lobby, then the door would have been open to require companies to insure abortions.
Thankfully, that didn't happen.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Friday, July 4, 2014
Michele Bachmann Provides Dramatic Picture of Lady Liberty
Michele Bachmann (yes, she of political fame) provided this photo. Found it on Facebook. I'm awed by it, for Lady Liberty points to a hole in the dark clouds where the sun is shining through. I post it here because I wonder if it is God's doing, to position the light through the dark clouds in such a way. Perhaps just the way the clouds lined up that day, coincidence, and no message from God. Still, I do wonder.
The (Im)Perfectness of the Constitution
Could we dare say the Constitution isn't a perfect document?
Was it closer to being perfect before amendments started changing it, shifting it from what the Founding Fathers gave us?
Or, was it actually even more imperfect then than it is now, what with the original document counting slaves each as only three-fifths of a person, and not giving women the right to vote at all.
"Defective" is the word Supreme Court Justice John Marshall had for the original Constitution. That may seem a little strong, but read his whole quote. Marshall believed in the Constitution as a living document, one that needed to be and was improved on.
"I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever 'fixed' at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound," Marshall said. "To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights we hold as fundamental today."
If we could ask George Washington if the document was perfect, what would he say? Actually, he did leave us his thought on the matter. "The warmest friends and the best supports the constitution has," he wrote, "do not contend that is is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable, and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise therefrom, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment it is not to be obtained; and, as there is a constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge), can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary, as ourselves."
(NOTE ADDED 8/6/17: The Constitution does not prohibit women from voting, it just doesn't specify that they can. While this old blog's headline suggests the Constitution is imperfect, I am wondering now if it is, indeed, perfect, or close to it.)
Was it closer to being perfect before amendments started changing it, shifting it from what the Founding Fathers gave us?
Or, was it actually even more imperfect then than it is now, what with the original document counting slaves each as only three-fifths of a person, and not giving women the right to vote at all.
"Defective" is the word Supreme Court Justice John Marshall had for the original Constitution. That may seem a little strong, but read his whole quote. Marshall believed in the Constitution as a living document, one that needed to be and was improved on.
"I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever 'fixed' at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound," Marshall said. "To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights we hold as fundamental today."
If we could ask George Washington if the document was perfect, what would he say? Actually, he did leave us his thought on the matter. "The warmest friends and the best supports the constitution has," he wrote, "do not contend that is is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable, and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise therefrom, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment it is not to be obtained; and, as there is a constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge), can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary, as ourselves."
(NOTE ADDED 8/6/17: The Constitution does not prohibit women from voting, it just doesn't specify that they can. While this old blog's headline suggests the Constitution is imperfect, I am wondering now if it is, indeed, perfect, or close to it.)
Have a Holiday Such as This, Even a Candidates' Day
I'm not buying. No, I just don't know that having a high voter turnout turns the trick, if it is the measurement of a successful election. And, as it is the 4th of July and we are considering what a great country we live in, perhaps we should consider this and wonder if it could make us even better.
See, even if you have a high voter turnout, if those who turn out know nothing about the issues or candidates, if they just randomly poke their pens on one candidate or the other, you have achieved little by having them come out to vote. (And, I would say it is still much a random vote if they just pick someone on no more basis than that it says "Republican" or "Democrat" next to their name, for that candidate might not endorse the stands you think he or she does.) No, I think it is time to realize we need an upgrade in our elections. If we are to be a government of the people, we need to do better than this. True, some races we do spend close attention to, but many of them, we flounder at.
So, what can be done?
I propose a new holiday. Candidates' Day, we will call it, and it will be the day you get off work to study the issues and candidates. It will be the day you attend convention. You are free to skip the convention of course, but it will be there for you and you are off work, and it is what the holiday is all about, so be a good little citizen and run down to your convention.
Here you will find everything under one roof, watch the candidates spar, catch videos and computer downloads, read literature and watch rallies, all in the name of learning about the issues and the candidates.
I do want to point out, I have said it should be about the issues as much as about the candidates, themselves. Knowing the candidates doesn't mean as much if you don't study the issues, for you vote according to the candidates' stands, so it becomes important to know the issues in order to know if the candidate is taking the right stand. At our grand conventions, you will be able to hear debates on each of the magnificent issues of the day, even joining in the debates, if you wish.
If you want to involve your electorate, involve it. Have a convention such as this.
See, even if you have a high voter turnout, if those who turn out know nothing about the issues or candidates, if they just randomly poke their pens on one candidate or the other, you have achieved little by having them come out to vote. (And, I would say it is still much a random vote if they just pick someone on no more basis than that it says "Republican" or "Democrat" next to their name, for that candidate might not endorse the stands you think he or she does.) No, I think it is time to realize we need an upgrade in our elections. If we are to be a government of the people, we need to do better than this. True, some races we do spend close attention to, but many of them, we flounder at.
So, what can be done?
I propose a new holiday. Candidates' Day, we will call it, and it will be the day you get off work to study the issues and candidates. It will be the day you attend convention. You are free to skip the convention of course, but it will be there for you and you are off work, and it is what the holiday is all about, so be a good little citizen and run down to your convention.
Here you will find everything under one roof, watch the candidates spar, catch videos and computer downloads, read literature and watch rallies, all in the name of learning about the issues and the candidates.
I do want to point out, I have said it should be about the issues as much as about the candidates, themselves. Knowing the candidates doesn't mean as much if you don't study the issues, for you vote according to the candidates' stands, so it becomes important to know the issues in order to know if the candidate is taking the right stand. At our grand conventions, you will be able to hear debates on each of the magnificent issues of the day, even joining in the debates, if you wish.
If you want to involve your electorate, involve it. Have a convention such as this.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
If the Poor Came to My Town, I'd Welcome Them
Someone posted the below meme on Facebook (the meme was from NumbersUSA). After a string of replies, all siding against allowing the immigrants into their town, I replied:
"Yes. Yes. And yes. Consider: These are most likely good people, though you judge them for evil for daring to set foot on American soil without your permission. More to the point: These are probably people in need. Why, if someone were in need, would we turn our backs on them? Why, instead of helping them, would we heap hatred on them, calling them criminals for even coming our way in search of help? Heartless? Yes, sometimes we are. I would that we would see how wrong it is that we treat people this way."
"Yes. Yes. And yes. Consider: These are most likely good people, though you judge them for evil for daring to set foot on American soil without your permission. More to the point: These are probably people in need. Why, if someone were in need, would we turn our backs on them? Why, instead of helping them, would we heap hatred on them, calling them criminals for even coming our way in search of help? Heartless? Yes, sometimes we are. I would that we would see how wrong it is that we treat people this way."
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Let Them Come if They Come to Work
Just wondering if this would work: Allow to come to America every immigrant who pledges to work. Deport them if they don't work. Grant them citizenship if they work for four straight years.
Off top, one of the problems I see is that it might create a bureaucracy to track them. Another problem, is that it would force them to take the lowest paying jobs, as they would have no choice but to take some job lest they be deported for having no job at all. Is that bad or is it good?
It would reduce the number of immigrants working off the books, though. Since they would have to report their jobs, they couldn't get away with doing under-the-table work. Thus, they would be tax-paying folks like the rest of us.
As for creating a bureaucracy to keep track of them, that might be reduced by assigning the task of keeping track of them to an existing agency.
Off top, one of the problems I see is that it might create a bureaucracy to track them. Another problem, is that it would force them to take the lowest paying jobs, as they would have no choice but to take some job lest they be deported for having no job at all. Is that bad or is it good?
It would reduce the number of immigrants working off the books, though. Since they would have to report their jobs, they couldn't get away with doing under-the-table work. Thus, they would be tax-paying folks like the rest of us.
As for creating a bureaucracy to keep track of them, that might be reduced by assigning the task of keeping track of them to an existing agency.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
At What Point do We See that Our Policy is Wrong?
At what point do we see that our policy is wrong if that policy is to reject the needy from coming to America? Will it be when children come alone, without their parents, and we mourn at the thought of not welcoming them, of turning our backs on the care of children?
Ridiculously, to me, the efforts for immigration reform I have seen reach out more to those who would benefit us than to those who need help, as if Lady Liberty had changed her tune to say, "Give me your educated, your talented, your people who are yearning to be upwardly mobile."
Why not make the poor who seek simple work the people we invite here first? Put them at the head of the line. Why not make those who will work, without going on welfare, the ones who we invite first? America is a nation that seeks to help others. If a person is begging not for welfare, but for work, should we not say, "By all means. If you are so humble as just to want a humble job, let us not throw a road block in front of you. You are of the kind we would be proud to have as Americans."
Ridiculously, to me, the efforts for immigration reform I have seen reach out more to those who would benefit us than to those who need help, as if Lady Liberty had changed her tune to say, "Give me your educated, your talented, your people who are yearning to be upwardly mobile."
Why not make the poor who seek simple work the people we invite here first? Put them at the head of the line. Why not make those who will work, without going on welfare, the ones who we invite first? America is a nation that seeks to help others. If a person is begging not for welfare, but for work, should we not say, "By all means. If you are so humble as just to want a humble job, let us not throw a road block in front of you. You are of the kind we would be proud to have as Americans."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)