Posts Tagged ‘USSC’

You should have your own copy of the Constitution of the United States of America.

You should read it periodically and hold your elected officials to it.

Recently, POTUS 46 has made some declarations, mandating vaccinations of employees in companies with more than 100 employees. That is outside the scope of the role of the President of the United States of America.

Recently, the world lived through (some still are) “mask mandates”. This was also outside the scope of the role of the US President to edict or mandate or require outside of the government offices the POTUS oversees.

In the United States of America, the elected or appointed or employed people in government work for We the People of the United States of America. Not the other way around.

There are many immigrants who have come to this country who have grown up under another system of government. In other parts of the world, in those other countries the People are subservient to the government or peerage. They are accustomed to the government directing them. In the United States of America, the citizens are self-directing, individually sovereign persons. Those coming to the United States of America do not necessarily get that, understand that. US citizens are required, have the responsibility of directing their government. Not just in the vote, but in the monitoring of performance and adherence to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the United States.

Now, what has happened over time is multifold.

Those who have tasted power and control want to stay in power and have control; so much so that they convince the People they have no power nor control and must put these people in power back in power to control “things”. They become the “perpetually elected”; aka., elected for life.

Those raised as vassals of the State come to the United States and quickly acclimate to those in power and control to become vassals of the new State. They are the voiceless chattal of the elite; the huddled masses in a new State; aka., victims of a new disorder, different from the last one from which they ran.

Then there are the academians who have theorized from their lofty perches of intellectualism what should be right and just for the individual and the masses; without actually doing any studies to verify their hypotheses. However, if you disagree with them your grades and degree and esteem will suffer. It is a vile power of the emotionally weak subjecting themselves upon the naive and situationally powerless.

Let us add to these groups those nations and political ideologues who do not care for and actively work for the destruction of the “American way of life”. [Which is individual sovereignty, self determination, and no subservience to those in power.] They will use military, espionage, economics, ideology, and academic subversion to destroy what they see as the “uncontrollable” ideological, economic, and military force stopping them from controlling the world. They are the “Brain” from the cartoon “Pinkie and the Brain”, always planning how they can take over the world. Currently, it is a psy-ops operation via social media, televised media, and academic programing to accept their planned version of “status quo” where they have the villas and the masses have the factory floors.

But back to the scope of the role of the US President.

The framers of the United States of America Constitution were pretty smart about it and gave considerable thought to the process. It took a number of years to come up with the right solution for the posterity and immediately upon introduction required 10 amendments to make it a viable solution of government for the States to ratify.

So, we come to the US President.

The idea was to not have a monarch, nor an oligarchy (group of rulers), nor a caste system, nor a peerage of nobles over commoners nor vassals. Enslavement of humans as property was also discussed but not removed until 1863. The idea was to have one of their own, from among We the People, to represent the People. In doing so, limitations were placed on this President (or first among the People) to ensure the President would not become a new style or kind of monarch (solo ruler).

Let us look at some of those roles and limitations.

The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise. [source: whitehouse.gov]

The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. [source: wikipedia.com, Powers of the President of the Unites Sates]

While living and working in the White House, the president performs many roles. These include the following eight: Chief of State, Chief Executive, Chief Administrator, Chief Diplomat, Commander-in-Chief, Chief Legislator, Chief of Party, and Chief Citizen. [source: wikipedia.com, Roles of the President of the Unites Sates]

The US Constitution, in Article 2 and Amendment 12, cover what the scope and role of the US President are. Hint: not a dictator. [source: US Constitution]

Executive power is vested (given to in trust) to the US President.

Must be born in the USA or a citizen when the Constitution was ratified (approved by the States).

Faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his/her Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Call both Houses of Congress into session or adjourn them.

I keep going over these roles and requirements. In no where do I see a US President can mandate anything other than direct the operation of the United States federal government. Amendment 9 & 10 and the other two US branches of government can shut down a President’s desire to dictate.

Let us review the Executive powers portion of the role of POTUS.

Oxford Dictionary has this to say:
-having the power to put plans, actions, or laws into effect.
-a person with senior managerial responsibility in a business organization
-the person or branch of a government responsible for putting policies or laws into effect

Webster’s Dictionary, 1828, has this to say:
The act of administering; direction; management; government of public affairs; the conducting of any office or employment.
-The executive part of government, consisting in the exercise of the constitutional and legal powers, the general superintendence of national affairs, and the enforcement of laws.
-The officer, whether king, president or other chief magistrate, who superintends the execution of the laws; the person who administers the government; executive power or authority in government.

I am still not seeing where the US President has dictatorial powers.

The US President is not prelate, prince, monarch, arkon, nor king. The US President is not a Cromwell of English history. Nor is the US President a Napoleon, crowning himself king and emperor.

No, the US President is the CEO of the federal government [manages the business of government], chief of State [#1 ambassador to the States and the Earth], commander-in-chief of the military, national guards, and militia [top civilian to which the military report], approver of legislation coming from the US Congress, and ensures the US Constitution and laws are executed faithfully.

Again, I am not seeing anywhere where the US President can dictate or regulate with impunity. If the Congress does not hold the POTUS accountable, and the USSC/SCOTUS do not hold the POTUS accountable, it remains to the People and the States to hold their national government and Executive accountable.

Every two years, there is the opportunity to recycle the US, state, and local governments. This should be done regularly.

Someone once observed: governments should be changed like diapers, and for the same reasons.

’nuff said.

Read Full Post »

A famous and landmark case that came to the bench of the United States Supreme Court was decided out of political expediency rather than constitutionality or due process of law. Simply put, Roe v Wade was political expediency.

Now, before you label me and this essay, please hear me out!

For those not familiar with the case, Jane Roe was represented in a case that started in Dallas Texas and traveled to the US Supreme Court. At the time of the initial filing, Ms. Roe purported that her unwanted pregnancy was the product of rape; a point she later recanted. Doe v Bolton was a similar case started in Georgia; the actual plaintiff later tried to have the case reheard to be over turned. That did not happen. Both were initially heard by the USSC at the same time with similar rulings.

Initially, both arguments were against the abortion laws of the states of Georgia and Texas. The political twistings converted the cases into cases arguing women’s rights and rights to privacy. These were “hot button” issues in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. Actually, they are still “hot button” issues for the political processes of the major political parties. To really understand why these two court cases were commandeered into women’s rights and privacy rights issues, you have to get a good understanding as to what lead up to those decisions.

First, it was… some argue well it still is… a male centric world.

From the time there were more than two people on the planet, there have been arguments as to the position of the human female in society. And, there are several differing historical views on this very subject. Therefore, the Rogers’ Slant.

There are 6.5+ billion people on the planet we call home and Earth. There are 6.5+ billion opinions, too. Historians have argued their cases over the millennia. Historians, mostly males, have recorded history and events from their perspectives and from the perspectives of their benefactors: kings, princes, papals, et cetera… notably, mostly males, again. So, it should not come as a shock to anyone that history has been mostly written from the perspective of mostly males. That’s a little one sided, don’t you think? In all of these views, and there are many, only one stands out in argument for equality for women with men, the female human having equality with the male human. Believe it or not, that would be the Judeo-Christian Bible. Yeah, I know… go ahead and sigh.

The problem is not the writings in the Judeo-Christian Bible. The problem lies in the execution of what is written in the Judeo-Christian Bible. But, before I get into that, let us look elsewhere.

Atheists, agnostics, gnostics, evolutionists, and religionists have one thing in common. It still required that there be an ideal human male and an ideal human female to create / procreate / propagate the human genus-species known as homo sapiens… humans as we know us today. Let us not get into the arguments of proto-humans or pig jawed human constructs passing as legitimate archeological-anthropological research. With that commonality of there being a human male and a human female, our ancient ancestors, we have the advent of “modern” humanity. Right? Right. We can therefore assume… it’s math… if this, then that… We can therefore assume there was commonality or compatibility of species; they could have sex, produce offspring, the offspring would be viable, the offspring would be duplicates of but slightly different than the two source gene pools. Now, if there is a commonality of species, would it not also follow that there would be some rudimentary forms of communication? Without which, man A would never get to first base with woman A, wot?

Man A and woman A are compatible. They speak a common language. They share common experiences. They share in the roles of survival of their kind. They are pretty much equal. Except in one area. Man in recorded history has had the tendency to be taller and stronger than woman in recorded history; fossil records, grave records, written records, et cetera. Knowing what I know of humans, from life and from study, there is this “gang” or “pack” mentality that occurs when there are more than one in a group. I come from a large family. I lived it. I have observed it in other environments as well. It happens in such regularity that one must accept it as a given. The Alphas will be in charge. The Betas will be second to the Alphas. The Gammas and so on. It depends on the structure of the society. In early history, it is the male that wins out for the humans due to size and strength. Observe, this is not so in all animal/insect cultures. Get enough males of like mind and you have control of all of the weaker humans: women, children, and weaker adult males. The stronger males begin to dominate their society. The physically weaker in the society take subservient roles.

The dominant males that have any sense realize that the females have typically equal mental capacities, some even better mental capacities than the males. The smartest of the males tend to place or allow there to be (sometimes no choice in the matter) a Beta female. Then there are the Alpha males that forget there are females of equal or better mental capacity and they fall victim to the smart / more capable female. Some Beta females have found it to be more successful to allow the Alpha males the false impression that he is in control only to later find that he has been the Beta male to an Alpha female all along. This is funny to me. Vainly puffed up self-ideals that have that bubble burst always seem funny to me. I don’t know why. It just does. But, for the most part, the female human takes a subservient role to the male human due to size, strength, and pack.

So, how do you control someone who is not quite as strong as you and has all the same mental capabilities? You keep them uneducated. And, that is what male dominated societies began to do. The educational opportunity for most human females over the human history has been limited mainly to domestic upkeep. There have been societies that garnered greater respect for the human female. And, in those societies, the human female excelled. Some have even become the Alpha human over great societies. This act alone should have discredited any notion that a human female was incapable of advanced thought. That was real propaganda at one point. The male dominated society sold everyone on the idea that the female human was a lesser being. “Christian” Europe even used the Judeo-Christian Bible to purport such lunacy stating that “women as the weaker vessel.”

This ideology and forced societal norms are carried through into near modern times by the Europeans. Those ideologies and societal norms are carried in their doctrines as Europe colonizes the world. Unfortunately for the human males, human males want to take their pack mentality to the entire world, or at least neighboring countries or continents. The weaker or hoped-to-be-weaker other societies fought back. Therefore… war. And, who went… mostly the males. This left the females back at the homestead to do everything the male used to do except he went off to war. Too many Beta females were forced by the politics of societal Alpha males to become Alpha females of their homesteads. Their Alpha male never returned from war. And still, the mostly male dominated society did not recognize positively the abilities of these homestead Alpha females. No, instead, they found ways to suppress them, to “relieve them of their burden of being head of the house.”

Now we come to the 20th Century. It is the age of enlightenment. Susan B Anthony and others successfully drive the voting males left in the US to vote for women’s suffrage or the right to vote. Suffrage looks like “sufferage” which kind of leads to “suffering” the women the right to vote. It is not surprising to me that one of the things women in the USA did with their vote. They got rid of alcohol, which made their men spend money where they should not or kept them from home or whatever the reason. Women discovered they had power and could wield it. That is until the guys came back from war, the ones who did. Once the US was populated with all the Alpha males again, the packs reformed. Then, there was World War II. That changed everything in the US for women.

As millions of men signed up to fight the Nazi-Fascist-Imperial menace taking over Europe, Africa, and Asia, millions of women took over their jobs to produce all of the goods those men could not from the battle fields around the globe. Women slowly discovered they were not the lesser species. Women and the 4F men discovered they could supply the world with whatever they needed if they just worked hard and worked together. Fancy that!

Eventually, the effects of short sighted (some completely insane) political societal Alpha males became apparent. Economics and readily available resources are required and required in sufficient supply to defeat an enemy. Oddly enough, it was the generals and admirals of the losing sides that tried to point that out to the other Alpha males in their societies. This seemed to have no effect and dutifully, theses military Alpha males followed their courses to bitter ends. The women, on the other hand, flourished in the few countries that were not directly effected by the warring. By directly effected I mean, the bombs were not blowing up their neighborhoods. The women became educated in all the things the men used to do and did them well. Well enough that it was very difficult for a strong majority of these women to go back to the life they once had prior to the war. Not all women, mind you. Some women detested the idea of having to do “men’s work.”

The war was over. The men came home. The men wanted the baseball / apple pie / Mom / the girl they left behind dream they held while they went to war. Some found it. Most did not. That world, that dream, no longer existed. What they did find was a country full of women who knew they were capable, had proved it, and now wanted to prove it still after the war. The war of the sexes in the USA commenced. Some men lost their jobs to women who were more capable. Some women could not get hired, because they were women. Which is odd. They just did those jobs. “But, it was wartime, son. Everyone did what they ‘had’ to do.” That did not hold water with some of the men who came back and it did not hold water with many of the women who knew better.

The war was over. Ike was President. Prosperity was everywhere for the US. The world was the US market since it was the only country with true industrial capacity post war. TV shows covered the airwaves showing the idyllic life of the US citizen. The scars of war were mostly set aside or hidden. An up and coming voice for workers and democracy was sounding out of Massachusetts. Working women and their “right” to vote was acknowledged, more accepted, and they were in the work force or in colleges by larger and larger numbers. It is 1959 and a two-term Senator from Massachusetts announces his candidacy for President of the United States. Vice President Nixon is looked upon as the old regime, which he was. Senator Kennedy spoke of hope and possibility, a war hero too! The election went to the Democrats. Women and young adults voted in droves. At inauguration, Mr. Kennedy speaks of hope, possibility, a compelling future. Mr. King and others begin to speak of hope and compelling futures. Political theorists and philosophers speak of wonderful possibilities. Communism and Fascism are defeat-able foes. Man can go to space! Man in space! A US man in space! Then…

The day everyone old enough to know remembered the day hope was lost in the US. President Kennedy was shot by a lone assassin on November 22, 1963.

To say that President Kennedy’s assassination did not effect the mind of women is the US would be very short sighted. They had just gone through World War II and all of the losses there. They began to rebuild hope during the years of prosperity under the Eisenhower administration. They had sure promises of hope and legacy in the form of this young brilliant politician named Kennedy. Then, all of that hope vanished for a generation. Followed by the deaths of Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin L King Jr. The society in the US did not know which way was up. Riots, sit ins, political assassinations, Viet Nam, school prayer, military drafts, draft dodging in fear or protest, dropping out, drugs, organized crime, syndicates, equal rights, whites only, colored only, busing, you can’t sit there Miss Parks, Central High School, University of Alabama, women’s libbers, bra burnings, draft card burnings, Watergate… the list goes on.

So, in 1973 two cases involving the rights of women to choose, there was no choice for the jurists. 7 to 2 they decided the laws of Georgia and Texas were unconstitutional. It was the politically expedient thing to do. Maybe, by deciding this way, the USSC would quiet down some of these extremely vocal minorities by stating their opinions that it was the woman’s right to choice and privacy with her own body. It did not work. The Right-to-Lifers kicked in.

Second, there is the Judeo-Christian Bible.

You may or may not follow the tenets of the Judeo-Christian Bible. I wish it that you did, but that is not something I can force on anyone. However, it is part of my argument, so I am going there.

God (The I Am, In Whom All Powers Exist… it is what His name means in Hebrew) created Man (Ish / the male) and Woman (Ishah / the female) in His own likeness and image. God observed Man looking after everything. Man noted there was not one after his own kind. God created from Man’s rib (DNA/RNA… people, in the marrow of bone, good source for stem cells; there is science behind this now) a suitable help-meet or help-mate. In other words, here was a female to his male that would be with him to help him meet the task that God had given the Man. If God had the science and forethought to place all the atoms and sub-atomics in their proper places to allow life to exist on Earth and the stars and Moon, He would not have been so shorted sighted as to create a lesser being than the task at hand for the Man. Now, would He? So, she was equal to the job that was given to the Man. God called the Man Adam. Adam called the woman Eve. They were partners, equals. That was the pattern that was set. That was the pattern that was to be followed. Then, the “pack” and Alpha/Beta thing started happening. Cain kills Abel. Lamech, grandson of Cain, marries two wives. Pattern broken. Well, not kept. It pretty much degenerates as you go from there.

According to the Judeo-Christian Bible, there is supposed to be a pairing of one Man and one Woman, and they are supposed to be equal partners. Every variation to that set pattern has created problems. Those problems will not be delineated here. Suffice it to say, women were designed and were supposed to be equal partners with the men. History has shown whenever men have varied from that pattern there is trouble.

Third, no one really likes the idea of the cessation of human life

This is a most controversial point. I know that. But, most people on this planet recognize that the cessation of human life is a bad thing. That is why there were so many state-run limitations or rules to allow for abortion. Medically, it is the removal of human tissue that left unhindered would have produced another exo-uterine human. Morally, it is accepted by most that pregnancy equates human life in-utero. Eight to nine months later, there is a baby human. Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs, it is a life, a child, a gift from God.

There is not enough paper in the world or time to type it to cover all of the arguments pro or con to the sanctity of life questions brought about by legalized abortion. That the USSC really did not have the authority to make the ruling they did is also in question. Specifically, the two dissenting jurists on both cases argued the unconstitutionality of the USSC to make its ruling. As an advent of their majority ruling, many millions around the US have not been born. And, there are arguments on the quality of life, quality and type of persons these embryos might have been. Simple statistical analysis could be applied to the volume of recorded abortions to show by percentages what kinds of people would have been brought forth. But, the politicians of the day were not thinking of millions of abortions, thousands of businesses to support the demand, the hundreds of thousands of hours of counseling of post-abortion women, the act of abortion as convenience birth control, the assassinations, the bombings, the arrests for acts of civil disobedience, the additional costs in security, police forces, attorneys, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

No, it is my opinion that the USSC in 1973 thought mostly on how to shut up the women of their day by caving in to their “politically vocal” might. It was what men did to “nagging” women to get them to leave them alone, if only for a little while. They failed.

What should have happened?

The politicians should have listened to their own speeches. The politicians and the jurists should have reread the US Constitution and all its articles and amendments. The people of the US should have reread their US Constitution and the documents of our founders and leaders. The people should have remembered Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address “… a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton rulings by the USSC did not go far enough. And, they could not from the USSC. Essentially, the USSC legislated from the bench. They should have declined to hear these cases.

From Justices White and Rehnquist’s opinion of Roe v Wade:

“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

What should have happened is uproar in both Houses of Congress at the uproar of the people of the United States over such vital and key issues of the “right to privacy” and equality to any US citizen. But, that did not happen then. It was then a “good ole boys” club of the elite few who knew far better than their citizenry what was best for them. It was a trading of the British aristocracy of the 1700’s for the American aristocracy since 1776. And, we are at fault.

Roe v Wade / Doe v Bolton are wrong. They should have been thrown out. They were political expediency of the times. Now, in 2007, the original intents of the arguments are lost. The National Organization of Women actively campaigns to maintain Roe v Wade; not because they are really so much pro-abortion; but because they are pro-women’s rights. To lose Roe v Wade, in the minds of a lot of women activists, would be to lose their rights as equal citizens in the US. The impact would be felt around the world. And, I agree with them on that point. If Roe v Wade is recanted without serious legislation in the Houses of Congress followed by a Presidential signature, then women’s rights and equality in the USA would degrade to pre-1960’s conditions.

I grew up in a house full of women; a mom and three sisters. I grew up around some very strong women with really good minds and very vocal opinions. I did not always appreciate their opinions, especially if I was on the receiving end of one of their “man hate” speeches. I could not convince them I was not my dad’s generation or my uncles. Ehhh. I grew up in the 1960’s, school through the 1970’s, and heard / saw nearly all of the arguments. I can appreciate a strong willed, vocal woman. My mom and her sisters spoiled me against a docile, quiet, soft spoken woman. I really cannot abide a woman who is not willing to clearly, logically, intelligently speak her mind. The blond-haired bimbo stereotype hurts my brain. And, I have met them in real life.

I have worked with many outstanding women while I was in the US Navy. I recall a discussion with one petty officer. She was one stripe lower in rank, but that did not matter for this discussion. I am not sure how the conversation was steered in this direction, but I answered honestly and abruptly. This was in the 1980’s and whatever changes happened in the real world did not reach the military for at least a decade or two later. So, there was still a lot of questions regarding a woman’s place in the military. I posed the question: What is the difference between you and me? She just looked at me. I answered, I am taller and stronger. That’s it.

We were in the same technical school. We shared the same rating. We shared the same education. I was taller and physically stronger. Those were the only two things I could see, was willing to accept that made us different. If she and I worked in the same shop, I would have expected her to meet or exceed my output. In that regard, I am old school blue-collar. It is all about getting the job done. That is what mattered most. If she could do that, I had no problems with her. I did give her one caveat. She was really into aerobics. She had better endurance that I did. So, she could more than likely out distance me in a run.

Is there a solution?

Yes and no.

Yes. It is called realistic legislation with realistic enforcement.

No. The politicians that could effect change are more than likely more interested in remaining in office. Which means, they will follow the dictates of those that yell the loudest and write the biggest checks. And, guys like me will not be given credence because I say Roe v Wade / Doe v Bolton should be over turned. Since I hold to that, I am “labeled” one of “them” and therefore persona non grata.

So, in closing this, nothing will happen because I said my piece. I sit easier because the burr under my saddle is gone.  I have tossed the pebble into the pond and watch the ripples go where they go. Where those ripples go, I do not know. Where will they reflect, I do not know. Will they reflect? I hope so.

©2008 Dave Doc Rogers

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: