The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #16: Releationships Among the States

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Thanks!

Today's lesson on the Constitution will focus on the fourth Article.  This article specifically looks at the states  and what protections the federal government provides for them in the Constitution.  In this article I will also deal with the contentious topic of homosexual marriage as it relates to this Article.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This section of the article is to provide that each of the states honor the legal agreements made in other states such as their laws, record  and court rulings.  Congress is also given the authority to establish standards to validate these acts.  The biggest example I most often provide is that my marriage certificate and birth certificate are still valid forms of identification if I move to another state.  This is where the issue of same sex marriage becomes tricky and while I may not support the idea or practice of same sex marriage, my view of it light of the Constitution is different.  First some history about same sex marriages in federal law.

In the 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  This law defined marriage under federal law, as that between a man and woman.  It also gave the states the authority to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.  So far this law has not been challenged and is still the law of the land.  Their are several ways though this law is unconstitutional.

First, their is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to define marriage or any other relationship.  This would mean that this authority belongs to the states via the 10th Amendment.  The states therefore can define marriage any way they see fit.  Some states have elected to validate same-sex marriages.  Others, like my present state of Nevada, have chosen to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.  This is the joy of federalism.  Each state can do as it sees fit within the bounds of its authority and sovereignty.  But there is another part to this law that must be dealt with and discussed.

The second part of this law defends the principle that the states may refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states.  This also is a clear violation of this part of the Constitution and allows the states to ignore this first part of the Constitution.  If the states can ignore these marriages, why can't they ignore the others?  This law must be struck down as unconstitutional since it clearly violates the Constitution.  In a perfect world, this is how I would see it working in the Supreme Court.

The court would reaffirm the ideas of federalism, that each state may allow or disallow same-sex marriages as they see fit.  The crux of the argument would be that if a state does not allow gay marriages they still have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states as valid.  Meaning they have to be granted the same, rights, responsibilities and privileges granted to other married couples in that state.

There is one way this law could be seen as valid and constitutional.  The clause states that Congress can prescribe by law the manner in which the acts shall be proved.  Under this language a good lawyer could argue that Congress has the authority to set limitations or restrictions, like the ones in DOMA, on the states.  The only problem with that argument is that it does not provide equal justice under the law as required by the 14th Amendment since how other states treat same-sex married couples would be different depending in which state they live.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This clause does not allow the state to unfairly discriminate against citizens of other states.  Though state can make reasonable distinction between citizens and visitors.  We mostly see this in place as differences between in-state and out-of-state tuition costs of public universities.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

This clause deals with the the power of extradition that is generally granted to the state executives (governors).  The Supreme Court held, in 1861, that it could not compel a governor to extradite a prisoner, but that was reversed by a Supreme Court case in 1987 (Monk 107).

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

This clause is no longer valid due to the ratification of the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.  This clause was inserted at the behest of the southern states during the Constitutional Convention.  It is known as the Fugitive Slave clause.  Several states tried to get around this clause by enacting laws meant to protect free blacks from slave catches; most of them were unsuccessful.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

This clause provides for the creation of new states and protects those already formed under the Constitution.  Though as a matter of history, the creation of West Virginia was a clear violation of this clause.  In 1863 the citizen of the western counties formed a legislature that approved of the split and Congress gave its seal of approval too.  After the Civil War Virginia gave its support to, though the acceptance of that split was probably a condition of its re-admittance into the Union. 

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This is a repeat of the authority given to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.  The Congress has all authority over disposing the territory of the U.S. If you read the history of how Nevada was created you would see this in action.  Nevada was part of the Utah territory for a long time.  Eventually, the Congress split it into two territories for the purpose of making a unique states.  The influence of the Mormons was the largest reason for the split.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The first guarantee in this clause provides each state with a Republican form of government.  This has been read by most scholars and by the founding fathers as meaning a representative government where the power is derived from the people.

The second guarantee is the protection of invasion.  This was written in the Constitution as a direct result of Shay's Rebellion which had just occurred months before the Convention.  What most people don't realize is that the slow movement of the federal government after Hurricane Katrina was because of this clause.  President Bush could not just send in the Coast Guard and other parts of the government, like FEMA.  He had to wait until he had authorization from the state governor or its legislature.  This was meant to protect the states from a military take over by the federal government. So Kayne, Bush does not hate black people, he just choose to follow the Constitution, for once.

That is all we have for today.  Next week I will address the Article V of the Constitution that deals with the amendment process in the United States.  Until then enjoy my other postings.  If you have not noticed I am scheduling my posts for Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Once they are posted on the site, usually around midnight of those days, they will be posted to Facebook as soon as that site decides to check my feed and update it.  To stay up to date on my postings it is safer to just go to my site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  When you do that you will emailed any time I post.  I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

Questions? Comments?  Concerns?  In that case, class dismissed!

Public Policy: Foreign Aid & Policy

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Thanks!

After farming out a few topics for today's posts I decided on a derivative of one of those ideas.  The situation in Egypt this week is enough to give the U.S. pause to consider the way we handle our foreign policy.  Why do we support a dictator like Mubarak in Egypt and other parts of the world?  Why do we choose the lesser of two evils?  What should be the principles behind our foreign policy?

Support of Classical Liberal & Republican Democratic Ideals
The U.S. promise support and defend any nation that shows, by its actions, to be a committed to the ideas of classical liberalism that protects the natural rights of humans.  Also countries that are truly republican governments with democratic ideals.  Republican governments are those with a charter that acts as fundamental and higher law.  It also means that the country has a form of representative government with democratic principles where they people's vote counts.  Any country does not support those ideals by repressing the natural rights of the individuals or of groups will not be supported by the United States in anyway, shape or form.  All ambassadors and embassies will be closed in such nations, available to be reopened when positive changes have been made.  We will not actively undermine or bring down these regimes but will not openly support them either.  It time to stop supporting the lesser of two evils.

Avoid Entangling Alliances
The U.S. has stood the test of time as being a lone wolf in the world for the vast majority of its history.  But since the end of World War II we have been a large member in NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).  This has brought us close to war with Soviet Russia several times.  The policy of an attack on one is an attack on all is not a good principle for any country to follow and is dangerous to American sovereignty; much like the Americans worried about the ideal of collective security in the Treaty of Versailles after World War I.  If a country that fits the country above is invaded or threatened by its neighbors we will stand with that nation and help defend it.

Foreign Monetary Aide
I know am not the only American citizen that gets pissed off when we spend billions of dollars on helping other nations.  Money that is given to the government from American taxpayer should be used to protect, defend and assist Americans, not help prop out dictators halfway across the world.  I would insist on eliminating all monetary foreign aide given to any nation.  This would also help bring down our deficit, but eliminating billions from the federal budget every year.  The only money that should be given to the department of state is to support our ambassadors and embassies, a limited staff for each.

Military Reductions
The cold war is over.  Japan is no longer a threat.  North and South Korea are still at each other throats despite our military presence in the region.  Germany is reunited.  Why do we have so many military bases around the world?  Its time to pull our military back and remove them from places where they are no longer needed.  It's time to draw down the professional military machine.  The navy should patrol our waters from incursions of other countries and protect our commercial vessels around the world.  The Air Force can protect our friendly skies.

I will end this article with my view on the situation in Egypt.  Honestly I have not followed the situation as closely as some.  I am scanning the headlines mostly.  What worries me most about this popular uprising is the other groups that maybe co-opting the movement for their own benefit.  Chief among them, the Muslim Brotherhood.  The group wants to establish a single Islamic caliphate of all Arab countries, with the basis on sharia law.  This could be dangerous to the Christians and other people in the region who are not Muslims.  It would also be very dangerous of Israel, one of the true liberal republican democracies in the middle east.  If these uprisings succeed in bring republican democratic values along with the protection of natural rights, then this could be a very good thing.

I am sure their are other topics and aspects of foreign policy that I have forgotten.  If you feel I have left something out please let me know.  Other than that if their are no questions, comments or concerns?  Class dismissed.

Football = Socialism

FACEBOOK READERS:   Please go to my blog site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up to be a follower.  You will receive an email in your inbox when I update.  Thanks!
 
Today a friend of mine posted an excerpt from an article on the Huffington Post written by comedian Bill Maher.  In this article, the comedian and TV personality makes a comparison between the NFL and socialism.  I hope to answer most of the flaws in the article in my blog today.  Please excuse the bad language.  As a fearsome defender of the first amendment I felt it was inappropriate to censor the speaker.  Enjoy and as always I welcome you comments.

New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams... just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets - who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.

First major flaw in this whole op–ed piece is the glossing over Maher makes about ACORN.  Eleven states have filed charges against the organization due to fraudulent voter registration practices.  Also, on several occasions, as shown by the video investigations of a few college students, they actively encourage people to break the law.

Now, me personally, I haven't watched a Super Bowl since 2004, when Janet Jackson's nipple popped out during half time, and that split-second glimpse of an unrestrained black titty burned my eyes and offended me as a Christian. But I get it - who doesn't love the spectacle of juiced-up millionaires giving each other brain damage on a giant flat-screen TV with a picture so realistic it feels like Ben Roethlisberger is in your living room, grabbing your sister?

If any conservative pundit had made comments like this one they would be deemed a racists by Jesse Jackson or the Reverand Al Sharpton.  Why does Bill Maher get away with it?  But I am getting off topic. Moving on...

It's no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week - that's 40 million more than go to church on Christmas - suck on that, Jesus! It's also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.

This argument is more about the policies of a government than that of the economic system.  The economy works by its own natural rules that the government thinks that they can control.  Whenever they try and control the economy they usually fail and create a bubble that eventually burst.  Also to say that the total viewers of on major sporting event against another is any indication of preferences of their governance is dishonest.

Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.

What is stopping a kid from taking the education provided for him at the taxpayers expense and doing well by it?  Nothing!  There are plenty of good students in bad schools, that go to good colleges and good careers in the future.  There are plenty of bad students in good schools too.  A bad school or neighborhood is not the fate of a child.  If they work hard, even in a bad school they can succeed.  People like W.E.B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver all came out of a system of extreme segregation and still succeed better than some of their white counterparts.  Why?  Because they worked for it and wanted it.  Every child has an opportunity for an education.  What you do with that opportunity is up to the individual.  That is what our system is built on, individual initiative and work.  Its not the job of the government to provide equal opportunities or things.

The American Dream has never been easy.  Ask the millions of immigrants who have come to this county.  The American Dream is not about equal opportunity but about equal rights, equality before the law, and working hard to make your life today better than it was yesterday.

That's why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck's chalkboard - they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing - TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don't want anyone to fall too far behind. That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call "punishing success."

If no team falls behind, then why were the Detroit Lions 0-16 a few seasons ago?  If any team can make it why do I always see the Patriots in the playoffs?

In a capitalistic society wealth is shared and to a much higher and greater degree.  It is called charity.  The U.S. citizens give more money to charity than any other nation on the earth.  Even the “evil empire” of  Wal–mart gives a large portion of their profits to charity.  In fact, they are the largest charitable organization in the world.  The rich give more money to charity than you make them out to be even after they are forced to give a large portion of the wealth to the government to be given give out to others as forced charity.  The Founding Fathers believed in thrift, saving, and frugality so that you as a citizen could help out those who need it, but its your choice.

Also the members of the NFL choose to run their league in such a manner, it is their choice.  I think we would all agree that for the owners of the NFL to go to Major League Baseball or any other professional sport and tell them how to run their league would be wrong and immoral.  It’s the same with governance.  I am a sovereign individual with all powers inherent to myself.  And I am allowed to give them up to a government as I see fit.  I pay taxes for the government to protect me and my rights, which is the proper role of government as described by the Founding Fathers and political philosophers during the age of Enlightenment.  For another person or the government to tell me what I do with the money I worked for and earned is wrong, unless I can do the same to them.  That is what Progressive policies do.  They take from the productive and give to the unproductive. 

Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don't just mean it's incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody - but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That's why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you're not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter - that's what's happening to the middle class in America. It's also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.

Just because more people watch the Super Bowl does not mean that there is an economic lesson in the way the Major League Baseball and the NFL are managed.  Honestly, I think baseball is boring.  Obviously a lot of people do because few people watch it.  This is does not mean its an endorsement of a governmental or economic system.  I doubt people don’t watch baseball because of the governance system.  If you can prove to me otherwise I will recant such a statement.  Also this does not include the factors for why Cubs fans watch every year.  The main argument is flawed because it fails to account for those underdog stories, like the Red Sox or other teams.

Competitive sports is built on the premise that the best teams with the best players and coaches win.  What makes it exciting is when the worst team on its best day beats the best team on its worst day.  Americans love a underdog story, which is why we are so compelled by the stories of those poor black students from Newark who work their butts off to be successful against all odds.  Kind of like the Detroit Pistons when they beat the L.A. Lakers in 2004.  I loved when that happened.

Look at the people we celebrate.  Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others who came from nothing and made something that literally changed the world.  And then most of them took their wealth and gave it back to the betterment of society.  It was Carnegie who said it is dangerous for so much wealth to be concentrated in so few hands.  Which is why he gave away all of his fortune and encouraged other “robber barons” to do the same.  They did not need government to tell them to do this.

So, you kind of have to laugh - the same angry white males who hate Obama because he's "redistributing wealth" just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie. But then again, they think they're macho because their sport is football, when honestly - is there anything gayer than wearing another man's shirt?

Another gay joke and no one will bat an eye.

I will end this article with a few quotes from Thomas Jefferson that the problem with Progressive government social welfare/safety net programs.  These are all part of the Progressive/socialist mantra of redistribution of wealth:

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

 Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.