DISTRIBUTING THE CONSTITUTION

For many years, the American Civil Liberties Union has been distributing free copies of the Construction of the United States, believing that, if more people are familiar with it, they will recognize its for them and their communities and strive to enforce it. But, more recently, Hillsdale College, a right-wing think tank in Michigan, has been doing the same thing, suggesting that they too believe familiarity will enlist supporters for their right-wing causes. What that polarization suggests is that there are different interpretations of Constitutional rights and that each side believes that its interpretation is the correct one. That wide gap is demonstrated as well by the Justices of the Supreme Court who are divided in how they interpret the Constitution.   

Since the time when Antony Scalia was on the Court, the divide has been known as the Liberals vs. the Originalists. The Liberals want to read the Constitution, particularly the twenty-seven Amendments, in light of the realities of the contemporary world, whereas the Originalists want to interpret the Constitution is the literal way in which it was written. The most pointed instance in which this argument takes shape is over the understanding of the Second Amendment: the right to bear Arms. Should this right be tied to the prelude which states “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State….” – or should the right be universalized and provide for no restrictions whatsoever on the right? The Originalists demand the latter interpretation.

On the other hand, the “Liberals” turn the argument back upon the Originalists and contend that what the authors  referred to as “Arms” were weapons as they understood them at the end of the 18^th century but that, given the developments of firearms since that time and the terrible events that have more recently occurred, their definition doesn’t include modern weaponry and that appropriate restrictions should be allowed. In fact, certain kinds of weapons, e.g. tommy guns, certain explosives and nuclear weapons, have been restricted or outlawed for use by citizens.

There are different ways to interpret the Constitution – meaning that one can make the Constitution mean what you want it to mean, whether you are a Liberal or a Conservative, a Progressive or an Originalist. Does the Constitution need to be interpreted in the light of a changing world or as it was thought to mean by the people who wrote it and voted to implement it? Th authors understood that it would need to be revised to accommodate for changing conditions – so they provided for Amendments – but they didn’t make it easy.

WHEN THE NIGHT WAS DARK

A recent issues of the National Wildlife Federation’s quarterly magazine WILDLIFE contained an article titled “Needing the Night”. It wasn’t to long ago that when the sun dropped below the horizon, and except for the light reflected from the moon and the twinkles of the stars, the night was black. And, when the skies were clouded, it could be blacker still, so black that you might not be able to see your arm waving across your face. That was fine with the owls and the nighthawks – and the skunks, the bats and other creatures of the night – because they could use echolocation to move about and circle in on their prey.

But, when humans introduced electric light about a hundred and fifty years ago, they began to light up the night skies from the urban illuminations that confused the night creatures who had accommodated to dark skies for millennia or even eons ago. From cougars and bats to birds, butterflies and sea turtles, wildlife are increasingly threatened by light pollution. Light has displaced nesting birds from areas once utilized. Light pollution disorients countless animals, exposing many to dangers such as predators, exhaustion and starvation. . Like roads and fences, artificial light can create barriers that fragment habitat.  Light shining on or close to the roosts of light-sensitive animals such as bats, delays their emergence at dusk, when the insects they ear are most abundant. Scientists say light pollution ais among many factors driving a potentially catastrophic decline in the world’s insect population. Light’ powerful allure may stem from animals’ instinctual tendency to orient themselves by moonlight.

Fortunately, although light pollution is still increasing in the northern hemisphere by about 2% annually, measures hare being taken to reduce the light being emitted into the skies. Beyond dimming, focusing and adjusting the wavelength of light, timers and motion detectors can limit how long light disrupts the darkness…Adopting that approach in a large scale, seasonal restrictions mandate lowering or extinguishing lights during crucial migratory or mating seasons, In2022, for example, New York City became the largest U.S. urban area to adopt a migratory bird-friendly Lights Out policy, requiring all city-owned and leased buildings to turn off outdoor lights between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. during spring and fall migrations. Morth than two dozen U.S. cities have similar programs. Maybe your city should do something to reduce light pollution. Check it out.

DOMINOES

Now that Sidney Powell has pleaded “guilty” in the Georgia case situation, wherein she attempted to overturn the 2020 election result, she has promised to testify in future court proceedings  against her colleagues, which include Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Jena Ellis, John Easton and Donald Trump. In doing so, she will apparently be spared jail time in the Georgia State Penitentiary but must pay a modest fine and will be put on six years’ probation. Had she gone to trial and been convicted, Powell would not only have risked going to prison but would also have had her law license suspended. Apparently, she determined that the evidence against her was too strong to overcome – but she was determined she did not want to serve time in prison.

So, what happens next? No doubt, Powell’s testimony will provide further damage to the defense of the other people who have been indicted – and whose convictions could draw even more severe penalties than those threatening Powell. So now, everyone is watching who will be the next to plead “guilty” and whether there will be a rush among those indicted to recognize they have no viable defense. As others defect and plead guilty, those remaining will have diminished leverage to made deals. It’s a prosecutor’s dream. At the end of this line, Trump awaits his own denoument..

SUPREME COURT CODE OF ETHICS?

It is interesting to see Justice Amy Coney Barrett conclude that an ethics code for the Supreme Court Justices would be a good idea. In so saying, she departs from other Conservative colleagues, particularly Thomas and Alito, in suggesting Justices should be subject to a Code. If Gorsuch or Kavanaugh should come down on the same side of the issue as Barrett, perhaps we will see a code developed in the next few months, causing some pain for Clarence and Sam. What is most likely to happen is that there will be more transparency in their reporting of the free gifts they are receiving. Perhaps we will also see more recusals in the future where potential conflicts of interest arise. It’s likely, however, that these situations of possible favoritism will still occur.  The problem is that the Justices hold secure positions from which they are confident they cannot be fired. They can do what they want with impunity and no one will call them to task. In theory, I suppose they could be impeached. In reality, that’s unlikely to happen.

WAR IS UGLY

What Hamas unleashed a weeks ago in its attack on Israel was just the beginning of a period of horrendous carnage that will never be forgotten. While we have been awaiting Israel’s response to the attack with an invasion of Gaza, a bomb explosion in a Gazan hospital has killed more than 200 innocent civilians – and aroused the anger of people all around the world. While it is not known who was the source of the bomb (and Israel has denied it is the culprit), the size of the bomb is larger than anything known to be had by the Hamas or Palestinian operatives – but consistent with Israel’s known munitions bank. If it turns out to be an Israeli source, whether deliberate or accidental, the repercussions are enormous. Already, Israeli embassies around the world are being targeted for protests. The meeting of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas with President Biden has been cancelled – and Biden’s trip to Israel is up in the air. There will undoubtedly be more acts of violence that ensue in many places and diplomatic arrangements will suffer everywhere. The hostility of Muslims toward Israel will be magnified – and Israel will undoubtedly harden its stance toward Palestinians, including a takeover of the Gaza strip itself. The Middle East becomes a powder keg, threatening peace throughout the world. Will the U.N survive. Will Iran decide to take on Israel? Will Russia get into the melee? What does this mean for the survival of Ukraine?

At no time since the end of World War II have we seen such an upheaval among the nations of the world, not even during the Viet Nam war. On the scale of things, the hospital attack is only a blurp diversion. But it could be enough to trigger a world war. Remember how World War I began with the assassination of only one man, Archduke Ferdinand.  Matters escalated from there until they were impossible to stop.

This puts the U.S and President Biden in a terrible place. While the U.S. defends Israel’s right to exist, It cannot be perceived as siding with Israel against the Palestinians – certainly not in   

the wake of the hospital tragedy. His best position to take is to call for a cease fire and a limited search for the Hamas terrorists. But he must also call for a humanitarian effort that will be aimed at both the Israelis and the Palestinians (in particular, the people of Gaza). He must come up with some way for the people of Gaza to live on, either there or elsewhere – and for the Israeli blockade to end.  And, domestically, he needs to be seen as an effective, reconciling diplomat who has the ability to resolve this turmoil, contrasted with Trump’s inept mischievousness.

WILL TRUMP ESCAPE JAIL?

It’s about as bizarre as it could possibly get. Prosecutors and judges are attempting to conduct orderly judicial proceedings while Donald Trump does his best to induce chaos by denigrating them in every which way he can and uttering threats of violence and chaos. And, he continues to enjoy the support of 40% of he American people and rakes in the money which he can use for his defense – and in any other way he wishes.

Today, it was revealed that he not only took classified documents down to Mar-A-Lago in Florida, he shared classified information about U.S. Navy submarines with an Australian billionaire who then shared that information with more than eighty other people. If that’s not called treasonous activity, what’s left to be called treason? Any other person sharing classified secrets would be subject to execution – but that will obviously not be imposed on Trump.

With ninety-one counts against him, with at least some being found as guilty, Trump should be jailed for the remainder of this life. It’s not likely that he will be. Trump will do whatever he can to escape incarceration, whether by state or federal authorities. With the legal requirement of Secret Service protection, it is hard to conceive of hm bien incarcerated in any existing prison facility. Maybe he will find himself under house arrest – which would not allow him to venture out onto a golf course. Even that he would find intolerable.

What is to restrain Trump from boarding one of his jet planes and flying off to a safe haven – such as his golf club in Bali? He still has his passport. He is not wearing a leg brace monitor. As long as he times it right, could he escape the clutches of the law here in the U.S.?

THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR

It is difficult to see just how the Israel-Hamas War will end, given its complexities. The brutality and desperation of the Hamas fighters, the holding of hostages in Gaza and the handicaps binding the Israeli forces make it problematic to see how this scenario can end. The lives of hostages are further endangered should Israeli forces manage to find out where they are being held and decide to storm one of those locations. And, while Hamas has no constraints against executing their prisoners, Israelis cannot do that to their captives – and Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas. The Israeli Cabinet has vowed to wipe out Hamas – but the Hamas ideology will persist – and once again will likely gain appeal at least as long as Israel discriminates against Palestinians. There is no road to peace, or resolution of the conflict, appearing on the horizon.

There have been – and continue to be – efforts to bridge the gap between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims. But, the predominant mood has been hostility. And that feeling will no doubt be exacerbated by this recent attack on Israel by this latest violence.  The people of Gaza are now being deprived of food, clean water and power – and this augurs poorly for the days ahead.  U.S. policy at present is to secure the release of those hostages who are Americans. In the longer run, it is to prevent other countries (e.g. Iran & Saudi Arabia) from getting involved in a greater war in the Middle East.

It is fortunate that Russia is preoccupied with its invasive war in Ukraine – or it would surely be taking sides in this conflict and perhaps becoming inmoved with munitions and personnel – which would involve the NATO countries and perhaps the United States in response. As it is, it is only a conflict between Israel and Hamas. Hezbollah forces in Lebanon are threatening to get involved and there have apparently been a few rocket exchanges. Syria is unlikely to intervene since is already has its own problems and can’t really afford to engage with Israel.

Still, the outcome of this situation with Hamas in Gaza remains a tinder box. The reality is that the Palestinian people in Gaza cannot be indefinitely contained in their prison strip without coalescing in resistance – and Israel needs to find some accommodating solution to resolve an intractable problem. The Palestinians are helpless to do it on their own. The answer lies with an enlightened Israel.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

Republicans have had bad luck with their Speakers of the House of Representatives. When New Gingrich was Speaker, beginning in 1997 during the Clinton Administration, he alienated the Republican members of the House because of his ethics violations and his failure in the 1998 election when Republicans lost seats in the House. When Republicans again secured a majority in the House, they elected John Boehner, they created such a chaotic mess during his leadership that he finally was so frustrated that he not only resigned the Speakership in 2015, he quit Congress altogether. Paul Ryan was persuaded to take the job and he agreed. But Ryan found the same chaotic mess with his own Republican members that he followed Boehner’s path out of the House  after serving for just two years, quitting in disgust in 2017 and retiring to a less troubled life in Ohio.

Republicans, whether in Congress or in the general public, have made it clear that what they crave is chaos in government. They elect mischievous scoundrels like Lauren Boebert, Matt Gates and Marjorie Taylor Greene who not only fight among themselves, they do what they can to gum up the workings of government and make life miserable for whoever is Speaker of the House. There are enough additional members of their party in the House that they can cause real damage. Other more moderate House Republicans lack the courage and will to contain the excesses of their far-right boisterous colleagues so the necessary business of the House to provide for governmental progress is stymied.

Now that McCarthy is removed from the Speakership, the interim Speaker’s first priority is to kick Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer out of their offices while the Republicans take a week’s vacation before trying to find agreement on the next Speaker. With the party divided into a variety of cliques and factions, it will be a miracle if some agreement can be found soon, if ever. A major crisis will occur if the House cannot pass a spending bill by the deadline of November 17 before the government shuts down. Thanks to the Republicans, the year ahead will be pure chaos. Out in the Boonies, will the grassroots Republicans come to their senses and see what their elected representatives have done and shut them down? We can only hope.

CRITERIA FOR HOUSE CANDIDATE SELECTION

In my state, and in all the states in which have lived, the voters’ pamphlet arrives several weeks before the actual election, allowing us would-be voters to scrutinize the issues and candidates who are up for a vote. There are candidates for local and state offices as well as for Congressional Representative and U.S. Senate. So, on what basis should I decide for whom I want to vote for my Representative in Congress?

It’s not – or shouldn’t be – just a matter of whether that candidate is a “nice guy’ or an attractive woman. This person is going to represent, and presumably vote for, the interests of you and your district – which may even be distinct from each other. So, what are the reasons or the criteria you would apply to make your choice? Here below is a list of those criteria you might consider, listed  in order of what I consider of importance. You may want to rearrange the list to suit your priorities – but, what is important is that you have a list after thinking about your criteria and determining what is most important in your scheme of things. I suspect that most people don’t do that – and they get the representation they deserve. So, here is my list: Comments below.

• Consistency with My Values
• Voting Record – Consistency
• Public Ethics – Ethical concerns
• Competence to exercise duties
• Concern for the Poor and Distressed
• Educational Level & Experience
• Intelligence of Candidate
• Personal Ethics & Moral Behavior
• Attentive to Constituency
• Responsive to Constituents
• Conversational Ability
• Speaking Ability
• Leadership

• Physical Appearance

What is of greatest importance to me is that my candidate be consistent with my values. If he/she is not representing the matters in which I believe, that candidate is not doing what I regard as best for me and my country. That’s more important that anything else. And because I regard ethics as important, that falls in line with my candidate’s consistency. The candidate must be competent to serve. What that means is that he/she must have the ability to understand the voices of others and to respond meaningfully and intelligently. The candidate must be competent to do so. Though I regard these characteristics as important, the education and experience of the candidate do not are not always mean his/her political positions are compatible with my values. Ditto for the intelligence of the candidate. The bottom four characteristics are not particularly important for a Congressional candidate when compared with the other features I regard as most important. I want my candidate to exhibit personal moral behavior and to be attentive to and responsive to constituents – but I would be willing to overlook those matters if his/her voting activity was consistent with my perspective.

WILD HORSES ROAM

According to archeological evidence, several species that were ancestors of the modern horse were present in North America as long ago as 2.5 million years ago. Genetically similar species of the horse died out in America about twelve thousand years ago. Spaniards reintroduced the horse in the 16^th century; some escaped as feral animals and are the ancestors of the wild horses that still roam the wild lands of the west today.  The Bureau of Land Management currently protects and manages wild horses and burros in balance with other public resource values on 177 herd management areas across 26.9 million acres of public lands. Feral horses run free but populations of horses are controlled by the BLM with a capture-adoption program at stations ranging from Illinois to California and Texas to Oregon.

Whether feral horses should be allowed to run on public lands is a continuing matter of controversy. Horses on open range compete for grass and forage with cattle who are allowed to graze under government contract – so ranchers are frequently opposed to wild horses having free range. Some environmentalists oppose allowing horses to roam freely because of the riparian damage they do, arguing that, because horses have been absent from the landscape for ten thousand years, they are not consistent with the ecosystems that have more recently evolved. Others argue that, since horses were present until they were killed off, presumably by natives, that they belong to the landscape. Others constitute a lobby that simply loves the idea of horses roaming the landscape since that was what the early pioneers found in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The argument continues. Meanwhile, under the BLM program, prisoners in some states are charged  with the taming of the captured wild horses which are then put up for adoption.