Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

A Massachusetts district court judge has ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it "strains credulity" and "irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest". The lawsuit was filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley because it requires the state to keep two sets of books-one for state benefits (because same-sex couples are legally married under Massachusetts law) and another for federally-funded programs, because the Defense of Marriage Act requires all states to ignore these marriages for all federally-funded programs. The video is available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/ns/msnbc_tv#38158827

The judge ruled that the DOMA violates the couple's rights to equal protection under the law, as stated in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. He also ruled it violates the Tenth Amendment by forcing the State of Massachusetts to discriminate. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment".

This also raises an important question concerning Article IV of the Constitution. "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". In other words, Each state is required to recognize the laws and records (such as licenses) of other states and to enforce rights in its own courts that would be enforced in other state courts.

The Defense of Marriage Act was obviously written to override this provision and allow other states to ignore the Massachusetts status of same-sex couples. If DOMA is unconstitutional, does that mean that all states must recognize the marital status of any couple legally married in another state? How about those states which have passed their own version of DOMA?

Tune in tomorrow for the next exciting episode.

Best always
Brother Ron

The Protection Game

In case you haven't figured it out yet, Congress has taken a page from the Mafia playbook. For years, one of the main sources of income for the Mafia has been the protection racket. They come in to a business and offer to provide protection from unforseen accidents like a burglary or fire. If the business owner refuses, he has a burglary or fire. The Mafia comes back and asks whether the business owner is ready to do business. This process repeats until the business owner capitulates.

The way this works in Congress is a senator or representative proposes a bill which will be detrimental to certain people. Sure enough, lobbyists come running with briefcases full of cash to persuade the sponsor to withdraw his legislation or to persuade others to vote and campaign against it. This is the point of this exercise. The sponsor never intended for the proposal to become law. He merely wanted to scare those who would be harmed by it into coughing up protection money. Judging from the amount of money raised by this tactic, it seems to work pretty well.

The opposite of this is to find a controversial cause that people are passionate about. You then propose amendments to unrelated legislation which these people will support. Again, those favoring your proposal will come running with briefcases full of cash to support their champion. Opponents of your proposal will also come running to persuade you to drop your proposal. They will also bring plenty of money to enhance their argument. Your fellow legislators might also offer you influential appointments if you will see the logic of their arguments.

Our government has now devolved into nothing more than a legalized protection racket. The point is not to serve the electorate. The point is to generate money and the power to generate more money. The only time the electorate gets any attention is when the legislator tells them his actions were driven by his concern for them. In reality, the last thing a legislator cares about is the voters. Unless they bring cash, of course.

Do you know who has bought your legislator? Do you care? You should.

Sociophobia

A recent presentation from the Republican National Committee's fundraising organization states that the RNC plans to raise funds by using fear of socialism to scare donors into opening their wallets. I will believe the Republicans are serious about combatting socialism when I see bills introduced in Congress to repeal the following programs:

Medicaid-This single payer system provides health care for about 100 million people, according to a recent USA Today article. Since these people did not contribute to the program and are too poor to contribute, this is a classic example of "spreading the wealth". Many, if not most, of these people do not work because of their health conditions. Since they can not provide labor for our corporations, their death and discomfort would not worsen economic conditions. Republicans should advocate getting these deadbeats off the public dole.

CHIP-The Childrens' Health Insurance Program (another single payer system) provides health care services for children from low-income families. Since Children can not vote, removing their services would pose no political danger to the Republicans. Why have they not taken action against this "socialist" menace?

Earned Income Tax Credit-Every year, the Internal Revenue Service sends out billions of dollars in tax refunds to the working poor. For many of these people, these checks represent a significant part of their annual income. Many recipients paid nothing in income tax withholdings but get thousands of dollars to help them provide food, housing and other necessities for their families. This is another classic example of "spreading the wealth". If Republicans are serious about fighting socialism, they should demand an immediate end to this program by presenting legislation.

Social Security Disability-People get this money because they are permanently and totally disabled. Since they can not contribute to the economy, why are we wasting money on them? Let's see legislation to get rid of this wasteful spending on those who are unable to keep the wheels of commerce turning.

Of course there is one minor little problem to presenting such legislation. The working poor, the disabled and low-income parents all vote. Presenting such legislation would produce a flood of recall petitions resulting in the Republicans joining the ranks of the Whigs, the Bull Moose Party and other defunct political organizations. In fact, the voters probably would not wait for a legal recourse. They would march on Washington by the millions with torches and pitchforks like the villagers in "Frankenstein".

I have proposed a package of initiatives known as the Campaign to Restore American Prominence (http://barnes4prez.com/crap.html), commonly known as the CRAP. It seems the Republicans are better at spreading the CRAP than I am.

Courtophobia

Why are we so afraid of the courts? The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

This amendment has served us well for over two hundred years. Now all of a sudden, it's not good enough. The Obama administration is on the verge of backing down from its commitment to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four co-defendents in civilian court. The reasons given are the cost of security and the threat of terrorist reprisals. The real reason is the political pressure caused by fear-mongering from self-serving politicians. If the Obama administration caves on this, it will be a public relations victory for the terrorists.

The original idea was to use the trial to show that we are a nation under law. Trying these people in a military court would send the opposite message. It would show the world that we do not trust our legal system to prosecute offenders. It would also show that we do not trust those entrusted with protecting us to do their job. And the terrorists would use this decision to proclaim that Muslims can not get a fair trial in America. This is not true but when did a silly little thing like the truth ever stop politicians?

I repeat my call to our President, which I make with the deepest respect to the man and his office-GROW A PAIR! Show the world that we respect our Constitution. Show the world that we practice equal treatment for all, no matter how heinous their crimes. Show the world that we have faith in our police and military to keep us safe. Show the world we are still the home of the brave, not the home of snivelling cowards who buckle under pressure. Otherwise, the people who want us to live in fear have won.

Systemocracy

According to a recent story from the Columbus Dispatch, "An Ohio minister accused of driving a teenage runaway to a bus station last year has retained a lawyer as police say they're investigating whether anyone broke the law in helping the Christian convert leave home for Florida". And why did she flee to Florida? Because, she says, when her devout Muslim father found out she had become a Christian, he said to her, 'I will kill you'. And with Islam's death penalty for apostates, she had to take that seriously."

This story only reinforces my belief that we have been taken over by a nameless, faceless dictator known simply as The System. The police and courts acted as they did because The System required it. The lawyer for the girl's father was able to prevail because he was more adept at manipulating The System. How many of us have been victimized by actions which made no sense but were required by The System? The explanation? "I can't violate procedure."

Recent surveys indicate that most citizens are unhappy about the lack of action in Congress. The reason? Congress has been gridlocked by The System. Politicians love this because they are able to tell people, "I'd love to help you but I can't overcome The System". This gives them an excuse to draw their large compensations while doing diddly-squat.

Many people, when asked about their opinion on current affairs, reply "more information is needed before making a decision". This is one of the main tactics of servants to The System. The System is so complex and confusing that those who supposedly enforce its dictates don't understand it. The System speaks its own
language which is impossible for the average person to interpret. We must depend on the interpretations of those supposedly familiar with its workings. In many cases, they are just as much in the dark as we are.

So if you are angry with the government, don't blame Congress. Don't blame the President. We are all just slaves to The System. Here is my suggestion for a new Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to The System of the United States of America and to the bureaucracy for which it stands. One System, which recognizes no God but Itself, with policies and procedures for all.

Just Say No

I just finished watching one of the Sunday morning political interview shows. They had representatives of both parties talking about the gridlock in Congress. As usual, each side blamed the other. They both spent all of their time trading talking points without any discussion about how to solve the problem. I seriously doubt that either one was interested in solving the problem.

It is obvious that the current political system has broken down to two sides pointing fingers at each other instead of working to make this a better country. Enough! My solution to ending the gridlock, unlike those usually put forth by the government, is very simple. I propose a Constitutional amendment requiring that every election, from President to dogcatcher, list the names of those running for office. At the end of the list would be a space marked "None of the Above". If "None of the above" gets the most votes, you throw the current bunch of losers out and start over.

This would put an end to the current tide of petty bickering. Any time you had two candidates calling each other names, they would both be campaigning for "None of the above". Think of it this way. Let's say you are a prosecuting attorney. You have two defendents. Defendent A is saying Defendent B did it. Defendent B is saying Defendent A did it. Who should the jury believe? As the prosecutor, I would tell the jury to believe both of them and lock them both up. My proposal would have a similar effect.

Hopefully, this would force political candidates to address the issues and offer constructive solutions instead of telling us how horrible their opponent is. The voters could then weigh the opposing views and vote for the candidate who best reflected their views. The winners could then work together to solve our problems rather than stirring up distrust and hatred. The result would be a government working for the good of the voters so they would have positive results to announce in the next election. I believe that's how the system is supposed to work.

All too often, we are faced on election day with choosing between the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil. We deserve better.

He Still Doesn't Get It

In his weekly address, President Obama talked about the soaring cost of health insurance. He talked about the upcoming health care summit with members of Congress and asked them to come to the meeting in a spirit of good faith. He said he doesn't want the meeting to turn into political fear with each side reciting talking points and trying to score political points. Maybe he also wants them to bring cookies and ice cream.

If we have learned anything from the debate on health care, it's that the Republicans are not acting in good faith. They are like schoolyard bullies who want to beat up the President and take his lunch money. At the recent Tea Party convention, I did not hear anybody talking about good faith. The Republicans are in a race to see who can get farther to the extreme right of the political spectrum in order to win the favor of those who are disgruntled by the current administration. Showing good faith to the President would be political suicide for them. The only common ground they are interested in is the ground they want to shovel over Obama's grave.

If you want to see my ideas about health care, you can go to http://barnes4prez.com/health.html. By creating a Federal Insurance Commission (similar to the Federal Communications Commission), enacting tort reform and other actions, we can control costs and make health insurance available to almost all Americans. But the upcoming health summit will accomplish little if anything toward this purpose.

Obama wants politicians to focus on the next generation, not the next election. He still doesn't get it. Our elected officials are the most short-sighted people on the planet. All they can see is money and power. If opposing the President will bring them more money and power today, the next generation can take a hike. We have already seen how much the government cares about the next generation by their deficit increases and the way they looted the Social Security Trust Fund.

So if you are waiting for the government to bring you quality, affordable health care, don't hold your breath. Maybe you should ask Santa Claus to bring it next Christmas. You'd probably have more success.