They Did What !

The insistence by some of our Supreme Court Justices on interpreting the Constitution based on the intent of our founding fathers when they wrote it is something we might want to question. The decisions these Justices make, about what is and is not constitutional, affect all of us, now and in the future.

An article by Mark Kurlansky* made an interesting point about this modern day emphasis on the intent of the founding fathers. Kurlansky said, “…the founding fathers, unlike the Americans of today, understood their own shortcomings. Thomas Jefferson warned against a slavish worship of their work which he referred to as ‘sanctimonious reverence’ for the Constitution. Jefferson believed in the ability of humans to grow wiser, of humankind to make progress and he believed that the Constitution should be rewritten in every generation."

Jefferson’s own words, carved in the stone of a wall of the Jefferson Memorial, make this point and contradict those who claim the founding father’s intent should be the sole basis for deciding constitutionality. In 1816 Jefferson said,

“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Perhaps there should be a plaque of this quote hung in the office of each of the Supreme Court Justices. Perhaps then when they consider the intent of the founding fathers, they will realize that at least one thought of it as a living document that should grow and change with the times.

That is not to suggest that the Constitution should be changed willy nilly. It does, however, suggest that we should remember this document was written in a time when slavery and chauvinism were the order of the day. It was written by men who condoned and participated in these now illegal practices. And it further suggests that for those who think intent is so important, then statements like the above quote from Jefferson should carry quite a bit of weight.

* Mark Kurlansky is the author of many books, including, most recently, “The Big Oyster: History on a Half Shell" His article was written for the Los Angeles Times and reprinted in the San Jose Mercury News, July 9, 2006

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It is interesting to note that al Quadea interpreted our upset election as a sign of weakness. In reality it is a tremendous victory for democracy, a sign of the strength of our system of government. It is the voice of the people, loud and clear, telling government “we don’t like what you are doing.� We do not use that voice often enough or loudly enough but this time we did.

We had 6 years of one party controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches of our government and hopefully, it taught us something we already knew but apparently forgot: A concentration of power in one party is a danger to the checks and balances built into our government to preserve our democratic way of life.

The 2004 election might have changed things. Despite the lingering fear from 9/11 fed by the frequent raising of the terror levels, there was growing dissent about what was happening here at home and in our relations abroad. People wanted change but unfortunately the Democrats gave them a poor choice in Kerry. In spite of that, the closeness of the election was proof of the growing unease with the status quo. Many cast votes, not for Kerry, but against the incumbent administration. Still, fear prevailed and the incumbents retained power.

Interestingly, the Republicans didn’t get the message of the closeness of that election. If they had, they might have recognized the need for change. Instead they read it as a “mandate� and just continued on with more of the same proving the axiom that power corrupts. The 2006 mid-term election sent the message again, this time with a loud roar the people said, “Out damn spot!�

Let us hope that the Democrats got the real message of this election and recognize that it was as much, if not more, a vote against the Republicans as it was for the Democrats. The Democratic Party doesn’t have a great track record for making the most of opportunities. Perhaps this time they will put the good of our country and the return of balance to our democracy before anything else. If they can do that, they will have a grateful nation that actually votes for them next time around.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thinking about the recent frenzy of political calls, I wonder which comes first – their right to free speech or my right to privacy. During the last few weeks before the election, at all hours of the day and into the evening, I hung up on computerized versions of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Bruce McPherson, and other notables. I also opted out of calls from various real people who wanted me to take a survey, or tell them how I was going to vote or sundry other questions all of which I found invasive of my privacy and intrusive on my time.

Why doesn’t the telemarketing no-call list cover these political calls? They are after all trying to sell us something – a candidate, a pro or con stance on a proposition, or a values issue that they are pushing.

First and foremost, the calls are not a good tool for voting decisions. They do not educate, they simply offer an opinion -- one they hope will carry weight because of the caller’s position or celebrity. If they don’t persuade, they can become so annoying that they may actually influence a voter in the opposite direction. Either way, it is a poor method for deciding how to vote. There must be a process that would actually give voters information about the important issues of the day and how the candidates stand on these issues.

What a concept! Helping people to become informed voters! If we become knowledgeable and start paying attention to what our elected officials are doing it would be a whole different ball game. They would actually have to be accountable to us or risk losing their jobs.

And what about us -- are we ready to start taking the governing of our country seriously? Are we willing to spend a little time, pay a little attention, to what is going on outside the confines of our little lives? Sometimes it seems like too much. Just one more “have to do� in a long list of others. We are already too busy and too tired.

But then… what about some of the things going on out there: Our so called thriving economy that has yet to trickle down to the middle class; our young men and women dying in Iraq; the number of people, especially the very young and the elderly who have little or no health insurance and can’t afford needed medications; our education system, inadequate to prepare our children and grandchildren for the global world our government is helping to create; and last but not least, the horrendous federal deficit that just keeps on growing.

Maybe we can’t afford to be too busy and too tired to pay attention. It is clear that somebody needs to do something and after all, we are somebody. So, as the saying goes, if not us, then who, and if not now, then when?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 06:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

President Bush and Republican congressmen seem to be talking a lot about the Democrats not having a plan for Iraq. It seems a strange issue for them to bring up because if what is going on in Iraq is the Republican idea of a plan, then just having a plan doesn’t seem to be much of an advantage.

The President keeps saying that we have to “win the war�, or “finish the job� in Iraq, but when asked to define what that means, he starts talking about the terrorists coming to America if we don’t defeat them in Iraq. That is not an answer; that is a distraction.

It seems as if the idea is to side track us into fear of the consequences of not “staying until the job is done� so we will forget that no one seems to have a clear idea of what it means to have the job done. And if we don’t know what “job done� means, then how do we know when we’ve achieved it? Puts me in mind of the President’s idea of “Mission Accomplished� and how different it was from mine.

Perhaps the Democrats don’t have a plan but the Republicans have been in charge for 5 years and so far things have gone from bad to worse so if they are an example of having a plan then maybe not having a plan is a good thing.

It is amazing to hear so many people - the President, congressmen from both parties, news commentators, and just ordinary people - speak so authoritatively about what should or should not be done in Iraq. The situation is so chaotic, the factions involved so divided, the culture so different from ours, that it seems the height of arrogance for anyone to think he has the answer. Surely such overconfidence in one’s own wisdom stands in the way of finding the real solutions.

The President claims he is guided by God but I see little that is God-like in the results of his decisions: so many men, women, and children killed and maimed in our military and the civilian population of Iraq; a destroyed country that has lost most of its infrastructure, and is unable to offer its people even the basics of a civilized, safe life. This does not look like God’s work to me.

Perhaps we need to borrow a page from the medical field and require that, when they take office, all elected officials take an oath to “first do no harm.�

Posted by Trish Purcell at 08:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)